Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 05 Mar 2017 (Sunday) 14:17
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

ISO Noise on Canon 7D Mark II

 
kerryN
Member
126 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Post has been edited 5 months ago by kerryN.
Mar 05, 2017 14:17 |  #1

I keep seeing videos and write ups that say there is little to no noise on a 7D Mark II at speeds of 2000 ISO, but I find with mine I have a lot of noise even at 1600 ISO. What are others finding that have this camera and why might mine have more noise? I shoot in RAW by the way.

Thanks for your input.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
5,704 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Mar 05, 2017 16:16 |  #2

The best way to get appropriate comments is to post a raw file. "... a lot of noise..." is very subjective. How are you viewing the file? Full-screen? 100%? How are you processing it (program, parameters)? How much did you get right in camera (exposure, WB, etc.)?

ISO 2000 should not be a problem for any Canon SLR made in the last 7 or 8 years.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
38,784 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Mar 05, 2017 16:52 |  #3

Look at dpreview.com for a direct comparison, in this case vs. the newest 80D

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/7D2_zpsm4lk39b9.jpg

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
5,704 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Post has been last edited 5 months ago by Bassat. 3 edits done in total.
Mar 05, 2017 17:39 |  #4

Wilt, I've seen those types of comparisons. IMHO, they are for the most part, pointless. They are shot with a centered meter, under ideal conditions, no NR, and viewed at 100%. Nobody looks at photos in that manner. I can shoot my 80D JPG at 6400 and produce nice looking, properly exposed shots, producing near noise-free 11"x17" prints, if I do my part with the camera. I can also shoot my 6D raw at ISO 400 and get shots so noisy nobody would use them. Your post only shows the relative difference between the 7D2 and 80D under completely unrealistic conditions. It offers no information about what properly exposed and processed real results from either camera look like at a 'normal' viewing size/distance.

The oldest 'modern' bodies I've used are the 7D and T1i. I could get useful files out of either of them at ISO 6400, if I did everything right. Noise at 6400? You betcha! Controllable and useful for some applications? Most certainly. My current 6D and 80D are significantly better, and easier to work with at those levels. The 7D2 should have no problems with ISO 1600, or 2000.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
52,630 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Mar 05, 2017 17:49 |  #5

Yes, may be pointless compared to a processed pic, but they do set the bar as to what the camera is capable of. Once processed an image is worthless in assessing noise.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
5,704 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Mar 05, 2017 18:24 as a reply to gjl711's post |  #6

Where I come from the final image IS the point of releasing the shutter.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
38,784 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 5 months ago by Wilt. 4 edits done in total.
Mar 05, 2017 21:59 |  #7

Bassat wrote in post #18292780 (external link)
Wilt, I've seen those types of comparisons. IMHO, they are for the most part, pointless. They are shot with a centered meter, under ideal conditions, no NR, and viewed at 100%. Nobody looks at photos in that manner. I can shoot my 80D JPG at 6400 and produce nice looking, properly exposed shots, producing near noise-free 11"x17" prints, if I do my part with the camera. I can also shoot my 6D raw at ISO 400 and get shots so noisy nobody would use them. Your post only shows the relative difference between the 7D2 and 80D under completely unrealistic conditions. It offers no information about what properly exposed and processed real results from either camera look like at a 'normal' viewing size/distance.

The oldest 'modern' bodies I've used are the 7D and T1i. I could get useful files out of either of them at ISO 6400, if I did everything right. Noise at 6400? You betcha! Controllable and useful for some applications? Most certainly. My current 6D and 80D are significantly better, and easier to work with at those levels. The 7D2 should have no problems with ISO 1600, or 2000.

I look at it from a different point of view:
Yes, it may fail to show what happens at ISO 6400 or ISO 12800, but that is like saying that 'a GRAPH which compares the two cameras is no good because both are not graphed at ISO 12800 (although they are both graphed at ISO 6400)!"

The two comparisons show ISO 3200 exposed properly, and ISO 1600 pushed 1EV...both ARE valid comparisons, although the comparison discloses no information about a variety of other tests like higher ISO, nor including pushing both cameras by 3EV, like some tests do show.
We do graph cars' acceleration from 30-50mph, even though both cars might be able to accelerate from 60-100mph as well. It is NOT that graphing only 30-50 is 'not valid'...merely not a 'complete comparison' of acceleration of both cars. The fact that some can accelerate to 135 or 155mph does not render the graph from 0-100mph as 'not valid'.

So the comparison may not matter 'to you' but it certain does matter to some! In the case of the OP, the complaint was about noise at ISO 1600...so why is posting examples at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 not of interest to the OP?!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
kerryN
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
126 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Mar 06, 2017 05:18 |  #8

Thanks everyone for your responses. I have tried to upload a raw file but it won't let me do it so I have uploaded a jpeg that has had no alteration whatsoever, other than conversion to a jpeg obviously! The image settings are as follows:

ISO 1600
F8
1/1600 shutter
0 EV comp


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,471 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 5 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Mar 06, 2017 05:51 |  #9

What raw converter? I suggest trying DPP if you used another tool. You could try to use Dropbox or other online files share to provide a raw.


Past Equipment | My Galleryexternal link
Resources For Sale: High ISO Denoiser Actionexternal link | Focus Genie

LOG IN TO REPLY
kerryN
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
126 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Mar 06, 2017 05:56 as a reply to TeamSpeed's post |  #10

I used Canon's own raw converter: DPP 4. I shall have a look at dropbox - thanks for the suggestion.




LOG IN TO REPLY
kerryN
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
126 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Post has been edited 5 months ago by kerryN.
Mar 06, 2017 06:40 |  #11

The following link should lead to the raw image. The preview option won't work so I can't check until it is posted. Just checked and it leads to a download link.

IMG_4926.CR2 (external link)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Goldmember
Dan Marchant's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
Mar 06, 2017 08:28 |  #12

1. The above JPG looks fine to me (more than fine actually). There is some "texture" to the background but that enhances the image in my eyes.

2. What if any noise reduction have to applied? Obviously NR isn't a magic bullet. It can't make an image perfect but a sensible application of NR will clean up most images - at least to some degree.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: http://www.danmarchant​.com (external link)
Facebook: http://www.facebook.co​m/danmarchantphotograp​hy (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + lenses + plastic widget I found in the camera box.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Mar 06, 2017 10:30 |  #13

.

kerryN wrote in post #18293164 (external link)
0 EV comp

That there is a problem that will lead to unnecessary noise in most images. Shooting as far as you can to the right will help to keep the noise down.

In this particular instance, it looks as though the central part of the bird's white cheek patch is going to be your limiting factor - it appears as though you could have only given this about one third stop of additional exposure before you would lose the feather detail in that area. .But even that one third of a stop would help to reduce the fine graininess that you have in your background.

Now that I look more closely, it looks like the bird's crown would also be a limiting factor, inasmuch as additional exposure compensation is concerned.

When shooting bird set-ups such as this, I try to select as light of a background as possible, while still keeping the desired aesthetic. .A lighter background will generally show less noise grain. .When the background is completely out-of-focus, mid-tones such as what you have here will generally show the most noise grain, particularly when they are slightly toward the dark end of "mid-tones".

I am curious about something:

It looks as though you had plenty of light for this shot. .Why, then, use such an unnecessarily high ISO in this situation? .You don't need anywhere near that much shutter speed for perched birds. .I don't see any valid reason as to why you couldn't have shot this at ISO 800 and 1/640th of a second, and still at f8 . - . or even ISO 800 and 1/500th of a second. Both of those settings would have given you a markedly cleaner image and not sacrificed anything, as 1/500th or 1/640th are still way faster than you need for a static image.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
CyberDyneSystems's Avatar
47,350 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Joined Apr 2003
Rhode Island USA
Mar 06, 2017 10:52 |  #14

kerryN wrote in post #18293164 (external link)
Thanks everyone for your responses. I have tried to upload a raw file but it won't let me do it so I have uploaded a jpeg that has had no alteration whatsoever, other than conversion to a jpeg obviously! The image settings are as follows:

ISO 1600
F8
1/1600 shutter
0 EV comp


thumbnailHosted photo: posted by kerryN in
./showthread.php?p=182​93164&i=i46170448
forum: General Photography Talk



What noise?


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
5,704 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Mar 06, 2017 11:08 |  #15

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18293399 (external link)
What noise?

+1. I will look at raw later. Agree with ISO/ SHUTTER point.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

4,138 views & 19 likes for this thread
ISO Noise on Canon 7D Mark II
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00126 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is Sm00thM0nkey
479 guests, 287 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016