is the 7d really that bad?

chilliz said:
Yeah I know but it does show there have been problems, in fact in the early days many got returned "en mass" due to poor noise at low ISOs. Those who have good camera are always going to say that there is no issue, it`s down to user error.
Click to expand...

This feels a bit argumentative - but you experienced a camera that definitely had a fault re noise, so you're assuming that everyone else that has a question over 7d noise could have a camera that's substandard.

But in your own words there's nothing wrong with the 7d's AF.

So we agree that the AF issues are largely user error - but you believe that all the ISO issues are QC:thinking:

I'm not saying that all Canon cameras or lenses are perfect - but when hundreds of inexperienced users find an 'issue' that hundreds of experienced photographers don't have, I have to take a pragmatic approach.
 
chilliz said:
Where did I say that?
Click to expand...
Here?
chilliz said:
Yeah I know but it does show there have been problems, in fact in the early days many got returned "en mass" due to poor noise at low ISOs. Those who have good camera are always going to say that there is no issue, it`s down to user error.
Click to expand...

Well.... You asked;)

You might not really believe that all the 'noise' problems are down to faulty cameras, but your posts certainly read that way.
 
Never had a problem with mine, very pleased with all aspects of it and no noise or focus problems.

Nearest thing I have found to an all round camera and would happily buy another one especially since the last firmware upgrade

Great value for money too, some if it's so called faults are compared to cameras two or three times the price, just shows what a good buy it was and still is
 
Last edited:
Loved my 7D to bits and gutted i had to sell it but will pic another one up as soon as i have some spare cash just for the 1.6 crop.
 
niko said:
cheers mate much appreciated ,can you remember what setting(iso) where used on the puffin pics ?i cant seem to find the data on there
Click to expand...

The details will be on Flickr, just click on the name of the camera in the top right.
 
From what I have heard off owners its not a bad camera it just needs working at but the noise is not as good as would be expected,one reason i went for the 60D
 
I don't think the question is whether the 7D is good or bad regarding high-ISO handling, but rather whether it is good enough for individual requirements/expectations. For every person who says the 7D is great for handling noise there is another who argues the opposite. I do not believe there to be such tolerance/difference between bodies, so deviation must be down to user perception.

If you pixel peep for noise on ANY DSLR at high ISO's you will see it, no matter the price. My personal opinion is that the 7D is generally much better than I need it to be in order to obtain very good shots. So what if I can make out noise when printing A3 at ISO 1600?

..but maybe I just spent too many years using film, hence my expectations have a lower starting point.

For me, the 7D is great. I prefer it to the 5DII it replaced and I do not yet feel the desire to replace it. I don't need more than 18MP, the AF is excellent, it is very well built, and ISO performance is good enough for me. My skill is the limiting factor, not the camera. A better camera would be wasted on me.

edited to say this is the first non-film camera I have owned/kept for 3 years and been completely happy with. The 20D was good but soon bettered, the 40 better but soon bettered, the 7D awaiting substantial bettering (build/features/IQ for the money).
 
Last edited:
I approached my 7D with the same attitude I was taught when learning computer programming (in 1978, yeah, on punch cards!). The lecturer drummed into us "the computer is a moron, it will only do what you tell it to do. If your program fails it's because YOU told it to fail".

So yes, I can easily get rubbish out of my 7D but my first question is always "what did I really tell it to do that caused it to produce that?". It's a good lesson to learn and with the 7D it's an excellent lesson to learn because it is very unforgiving. Learn to use it correctly and it is wonderful, use it casually and it's one evil SOB!

I love it, it's awesome. It can certainly take better pictures than I'm able to tell it to.
 
I had a 7D loved the body disliked the ISO noise, i like to do a few prints maybe 13 *19 inch they just looked wrong. Real shame as you will have noticed folk like the camera just not the noise. Mine was with L glass.
 
I must be doing something wrong. This is ISO6400 and I seem to have lost all the noise that others are getting.

ISO6400_20120810_002.jpg
 
hollis_f said:
I must be doing something wrong. This is ISO6400 and I seem to have lost all the noise that others are getting.

ISO6400_20120810_002.jpg
Click to expand...

It's in a well lit controlled environment though so its not a valid test. Try shooting in a dark church with several poor light sources casting shadows all over and compare that to your pic. You'd see a huge difference as the pixels hide in the shadows... No shadows? No noise.
 
ajax_andy said:
It's in a well lit controlled environment though so its not a valid test.
Click to expand...

You've got to love the new Google Translate options, especially the Ballcocks to English option.

Output:
It's a properly exposed image, so it's not a valid test.
 
hollis_f said:
You've got to love the new Google Translate options, especially the Ballcocks to English option.

Output:
It's a properly exposed image, so it's not a valid test.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. The image has plenty of shadows or dark areas so that should show up. On the other hand can we have the pixel peeping 100% goodness?
 
im no way a pro, i have had my 7d for a good few months now and i love everything about it, i dont find it complicated one bit tbh and i love how you can configure so many things to your own liking :) ive not had noise issues so to speak, ive shot in a very dark church with ISO5000 while there was noise it was acceptable to me and i was not shooting with a fast lens only f4 :)

since i upgraded to my 7d from my 1000d i love pretty much every aspect of the 7d! the build quality is superb from the plastic finish my 1000d had, just feels like a tank in your hand, if i had to nit pick and find things i didnt really like about the 7d i would probably have to say....

- the crappy built in flash (but thats the same with any canon dslr tbh)
- wish you could name the custom modes ( C1,C2,C3 :( )
- and ermmmmmm.......cant really think of much else tbh, i dont regret buying my 7d 1 bit and could not be happier :)

HTH's :)
 
I've been using a pair of 5D2s for my event photography, which is mainly kid's football and some other sports, but due to but a) missing the odd shot due to slow focussing and b) being told that the 5D2 AF was slow and that the 7D was better and not forgetting the higher fps of the 7D
 
... continued (hit the return on my iPad while trying to correct an error in the top right of the screen!). Anyway, I bought a 7D but not completely happy with it. The pictures look a little softer compared to the 5D2 using the same lenses (24-70 & 70-200 f2.8Ls, the latter with IS) and when in HMulti exposure it gives a couple of out of focus shots almost every time I shoot a multi-exposure. I should add that I mostly shoot in AIServo mode.
A friend who has been using a 7D for ages told me to switch the HMulti off as he found his camera also gave some OOF shots per sequence; he suggested just using standard Multi but then the fps is slower than the 5D2. I also haven't noticed the AF being that much faster although that's probably because I've not yet set the 7D up properly (AF points) or I've got used to the 5D2s (90k shots between them)!
Anybody else experience 'missed' shots when using HMulti exposure? For sports which AF setting do you generally use?
Thanks
 
hollis_f said:
You've got to love the new Google Translate options, especially the Ballcocks to English option.

Output:
It's a properly exposed image, so it's not a valid test.
Click to expand...

Utter *******s... can you inform me how someone would 'properly expose' all areas of a church lit by only natural light and the artificial ceiling lights? There will ALWAYS be areas that are deep shadow regardless of how well you balance the exposure.

If you think taking a shot of some ininimate objects evenly lit in a controlled environment is a replica of a real world situation like I've described then you clearly have a poor grasp / understanding of the topic we are discussing. :cuckoo:
 
If the 7D is so bad, why is it likely to become Canon's longest running DSLR, exceeding even the original 5D's three and a half year shelf life? Sure, there are much newer crop sensors that can match and maybe slightly exceed i#the 7D's high-ISO performance, but you need to go FF to really notice an improvement.

People who shoot unlit Churches for a living should really go FF. It is funny how few people complain about the 5DII's low light performance when it is only around one stop better than the 7D (as it should be for a sensor twice the size using same gen tech). Perhaps that one stop makes all of the difference?
 
ajax_andy said:
Utter *******s... can you inform me how someone would 'properly expose' all areas of a church lit by only natural light and the artificial ceiling lights? There will ALWAYS be areas that are deep shadow regardless of how well you balance the exposure.
Click to expand...

OK. What you have described is a problem with dynamic range. It don't matter what ISO one uses there will ALWAYS be areas in deep shadow. WTF has this got to do with an argument about the 7D producing noisy high-ISO images.

ajax_andy said:
If you think taking a shot of some ininimate objects evenly lit in a controlled environment is a replica of a real world situation like I've described then you clearly have a poor grasp / understanding of the topic we are discussing.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think I have a perfect grasp.

Some people claim that the 7D produces very noisy images at high ISO. I present a high-ISO image with a wide dynamic range (hence the choice of deep blacks in the subject) and very little noise.

Now you claim it's not a valid test. What you want to see is an image where the dynamic range is totally beyond that of any camera. What you really mean is that you're going to ignore anything that goes against what you already know - that the 7D is noisy.
 
The static test shot was only 1/90s, a church shot is likely to be a lot longer.
So pre-empting the 'exposure time affects noise' argument.

We discussed that in a recent thread, and the key difference in the example images was that cameras seem to underexpose slightly in dark conditions, hence the shadows look noisier comparing the 100% crops.
But it is not comparing like with like.
I did a more controlled test with the 5DIII at ISO 12800 (spot metering on the cropped area) where the only variable in the test was shutter speed over a 9 stop range; and the results confirmed there is no change in noise with shutter speed.
The 5DIII is a recent camera, whether the same results would be had from a 'vintage' 7D is up for debate, but I'd be astonished if there was a difference.
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
OK. What you have described is a problem with dynamic range. It don't matter what ISO one uses there will ALWAYS be areas in deep shadow. WTF has this got to do with an argument about the 7D producing noisy high-ISO images.



Oh, I think I have a perfect grasp.

Some people claim that the 7D produces very noisy images at high ISO. I present a high-ISO image with a wide dynamic range (hence the choice of deep blacks in the subject) and very little noise.

Now you claim it's not a valid test. What you want to see is an image where the dynamic range is totally beyond that of any camera. What you really mean is that you're going to ignore anything that goes against what you already know - that the 7D is noisy.
Click to expand...

The point is regardless of whether it's the dynamic range or not the 7D still produces excessive noise in dark areas at high ISO's.

Your test IMO isn't a valid comparison to a real world shot... it's the same as the high iso thread in the general talk section, where the shots are taken in such a controlled environment that it makes no real sense to compare them to a shot in an uncontrolled one.
 
Orville said:
If the 7D is so bad, why is it likely to become Canon's longest running DSLR, exceeding even the original 5D's three and a half year shelf life? Sure, there are much newer crop sensors that can match and maybe slightly exceed i#the 7D's high-ISO performance, but you need to go FF to really notice an improvement.

People who shoot unlit Churches for a living should really go FF. It is funny how few people complain about the 5DII's low light performance when it is only around one stop better than the 7D (as it should be for a sensor twice the size using same gen tech). Perhaps that one stop makes all of the difference?
Click to expand...

It's not bad... in fact it's an outstanding camera IMO... up to ISO 1600. Anything under that and it's a hell of a piece of kit.
 
ajax_andy said:
The point is regardless of whether it's the dynamic range or not the 7D still produces excessive noise in dark areas at high ISO's.
Click to expand...

Are you looking at the image? There are loads of dark areas in that image - I deliberately included dark areas because I know that's where noise is most likely. As for it not being a 'real-world' shot. What a load of poppycock.

Still, I'll try and take some shots of 'real-world' shadows. Might not be easy as it's ******ing down outside. But obviously interior shots aren't any good because they're somehow not 'real-world'
 
hollis_f said:
Are you looking at the image? There are loads of dark areas in that image - I deliberately included dark areas because I know that's where noise is most likely. As for it not being a 'real-world' shot. What a load of poppycock.

Still, I'll try and take some shots of 'real-world' shadows. Might not be easy as it's ******ing down outside. But obviously interior shots aren't any good because they're somehow not 'real-world'
Click to expand...

I don't mean to come across as belittling your efforts, I just find these type of tests to be misleading. I know you've done your best to include dark areas and I applaud you for your efforts in trying to create a decent example... but I know full well I could set up a shot at home and the results be completely different to those experienced in a non controlled environment.

I always have and always will find these controlled tests subjective at best
 
You might like to post the 100% crop hollis_f. The noise (and lack of dynamic range you get at high ISOs) is visible when you view at 100% crop (I know as you have posted that photo before ;)).

Taking an 18MPix image and sizing it to web size is going to totally obliterate any noise in the image anyway.

Is the 7D that bad? No, but it is only pretty average when you compare it to other APS-C sensors out there. Everything is relative....
 
Well, here's a 'real-world' image (whatever that means) at ISO6400.

ISO6400%20Real%20World.jpg


Are those shadows dark enough for you? I'm sure you'll explain exactly why this is not a valid 'real-world' shot. I tell you what, why don't you show me an image that contains 'excessive' noise (with full exif intact) and I'll try and explain why the noise is excessive (because the exposure was pushed to try to bring out detail in the underexposed shadows - see I'm psychic).
 
I have the 7D after upgrading from the 40D
frankly going back feels really clunky but the noise handling is not the 7Ds biggest selling point which is a shame, but that's what FF sensors are for.
I would have preferred a few less MP on the sensor and less noise but if you're shooting at 18MP and get an image at all at 6400ISO, that's a win for me as you can process and shrink that afterwards to a respectable 8MP (40D size).
sharpness with the right glass and good exposure (sometimes with flash) makes the whole process stunning for me. 18MP on a screen without cropping...you don't even notice the noise imho
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
What's your workflow?
That's had some noise reduction applied.
I'm guessing in-camera JPEG?
Click to expand...

No, it's not an in-camera jpeg, it's a raw image. And yes, it's had some NR applied - because it's a real-world image and in the real-world only a moron would not use NR. Proper post-processing is as much a part of digital image creation as is proper exposure. The former can be a cause of poor high-ISO noise just as much as the latter.

The workflow is - ETTR, get exposure right in LR, change NR parameters to reduce noise whilst retaining detail (LR4 is particularly good at doing this) export as jpeg.

People complain that the 7D cannot create images at high ISO without acceptable noise. When somebody tries to prove them wrong with real evidence (TeamSpeed has posted loads of good examples - like this) then it gets ignored. It must be wrong because everybody 'knows' that the 7D is very noisy at high ISO.
 
hollis_f said:
Well, here's a 'real-world' image (whatever that means) at ISO6400.

ISO6400%20Real%20World.jpg


Are those shadows dark enough for you? I'm sure you'll explain exactly why this is not a valid 'real-world' shot. I tell you what, why don't you show me an image that contains 'excessive' noise (with full exif intact) and I'll try and explain why the noise is excessive (because the exposure was pushed to try to bring out detail in the underexposed shadows - see I'm psychic).
Click to expand...

I won't deny that looks good... If I were shooting images of plants I'd be overjoyed with the performance at that ISO.

With regards pushing the exposure, actually when you have a dark church and light streaming through some of the windows hitting one side of the dress, and you try and balance the exposure so the dress doesn't blow too much but the rest of the image is exposed ok, then you get a completely different scenario to shooting some nice plants.

Again like I said it's very subjective... yes in the pic you posted the 7D handled the noise very well... in fact i'd say excellently (i'm on my work pc with crap resolution but it looks ok to me on here) however is it a fair comparison to the situation I described above?

Maybe my comments on the 7D should be "handles noise well in some cases, and not in others... really depends on what you're shooting" ?

I dunno... I don't really see what we are gaining by this discussion really, as you seem to have one view and me another... I can only speak from my personal experiences which have always been fine due to correcting excessive noise in PP, but have felt that I should upgrade to a 5d Mark II or III to make life easier (whilst keeping the 7D for candid's with the 70-200m).

Edit to say that you've posted a picture that's had noise reduction applied as an example of how well the 7D handles noise... when in fact the noise has actually been removed in PP?!!! That doesn't even make sense!
 
Last edited:
getting a touch heathed in here :(

i like happy places lol

i will post up my church pics @ ISO5000 later on, there is a lot of noise but its better then no pic at all and is acceptable to me :) each to there own i guess...
 
I have been watching this thread with some interest, the reason being I'm looking at maybe getting a 7d and the iso is a concern. I would like to see some cropped wildlife shots, to convince me..
 
hollis_f said:
No, it's not an in-camera jpeg, it's a raw image. And yes, it's had some NR applied - because it's a real-world image and in the real-world only a moron would not use NR. Proper post-processing is as much a part of digital image creation as is proper exposure. The former can be a cause of poor high-ISO noise just as much as the latter.

The workflow is - ETTR, get exposure right in LR, change NR parameters to reduce noise whilst retaining detail (LR4 is particularly good at doing this) export as jpeg.

People complain that the 7D cannot create images at high ISO without acceptable noise. When somebody tries to prove them wrong with real evidence (TeamSpeed has posted loads of good examples - like this) then it gets ignored. It must be wrong because everybody 'knows' that the 7D is very noisy at high ISO.
Click to expand...

Yup - but it was a guess, and we are still left guessing what you did to that image. :)
Was it just LR4.2?
Which sliders and how much?

Oh - I guess I'm a moron, thanks! :D
"in the real-world only a moron would not use NR"
I rarely use NR.
I've printed ISO 6400 from the 60D (same sensor as 7D) to A3 without NR and the prints looked fine, just a hint of noise that in no way detracted from the image.
But when printing (as opposed to pixel peeping) you can get away with a lot!
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
The workflow is - ETTR, get exposure right in LR, change NR parameters to reduce noise whilst retaining detail (LR4 is particularly good at doing this) export as jpeg.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is that if you are at ISO6400, ETTR is very difficult as you are struggling for light. You are probably better off shooting at a lower ISO and just exposing correctly.

Here: http://chromasoft.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html is an interesting article discussing it (the blog, although infrequent, is very good for those blog readers amongst us).
 
arad85 said:
Part of the problem is that if you are at ISO6400, ETTR is very difficult as you are struggling for light. You are probably better off shooting at a lower ISO and just exposing correctly.

Here: http://chromasoft.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html is an interesting article discussing it (the blog, although infrequent, is very good for those blog readers amongst us).
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting link.
I hadn't realised ETTR also applied to deliberately UNDER exposing the image to cope with high contrast situations.
Make sense :)

The church shot is typically high contrast, so this would imply needing to underexpose or shoot correctly exposed instead of ETTR classic over exposure.
interesting.....
And yes - I'm looking forward to seeing that church shot posted later...
 
arad85 said:
Part of the problem is that if you are at ISO6400, ETTR is very difficult as you are struggling for light. You are probably better off shooting at a lower ISO and just exposing correctly.
Click to expand...

Well, when I say ETTR I really mean 'don't blindly follow the camera's metering suggestions'. For this shot I knew that I wanted detail in the shadows and that the best way of getting that without boosting the noise was to add some EC. In this case I overexposed by 1/2 a stop then dropped exposure by 1/4 stop in LR. Looking at the histogram I could have easily gone another 1/2 stop, but I really couldn't be bothered to do anything apart from quick and dirty.
 
hollis_f said:
And, for Andy, a 100% crop...

ISO6400%20Real%20World%20crop.jpg
Click to expand...

This needs to be resized down to about 33% on each dimension to look sharp. That leaves us with effective 2MP resolution. Ouch, that's a very strong NR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top