ISO Noise on Canon 7D Mark II

I agree with the point made above. You didn't have to go outside of POTN to find great high-ISO examples. There are plenty right here. To me, noise hasn't been a problem since the release of the 7D (original). If the shooter of a 7D, or any Canon body released since, is having problems with noise, it is usually for one or both of these reasons: not exposing properly, or evaluating noise at 100% view. Neither of those can be blamed on the camera.

Bassat wrote in post #18297989
I agree with the point made above. You didn't have to go outside of POTN to find great high-ISO examples.

if this is directed at me... I didn't.. I was searching Case settings and to readup.... I just saw that and thought of this thread and thought I would share some info....

all good...

TeleFragger wrote in post #18298005
if this is directed at me... I didn't.. I was searching Case settings and to readup.... I just saw that and thought of this thread and thought I would share some info....

all good...

And good info it is. No offense intended. Mr. Cable states and re-iterates what most shooters who use high(er) ISO settings already know: do what you need to get the shot. Noise doesn't matter - mostly.

My comment merely meant that there are plenty of really good high-ISO images right here. I am sure they are abundant in every other photo-related forum, too. We are getting up to 8 years or so where ISO/noise is, for the most part, a non-issue.

TeleFragger wrote in post #18297960
i was just googling some things (7dm2 case settings to be exact) and i found this guys post. the highlighted word case so wrong use of it as he said.. In case you..blah blah blah...but..

i suggest looking at what this guy produced in 2014 and he did some iso 16000 shots.. (member here???)

http://blog.jeffcable.​com …rld-test-of-canon-7d.html

he says something that I have always told people and they argue with me. Some people just dont get it. Id rather have noise in a clearer pic than a less noisy motion blur pic...

but

I will always choose noise over a blurry image. At least you can do something about noise and even if some remains big deal. Of course this is from a hobby perspective. I don't have high end clients that demand clean images. If I did I'd be shooting with different equipment particularly faster glass.

yeah fyi I wasn't offended I'm in IT and have thick skin.. hah..

ive got a tamron 2.8 coming and cant wait to see how things turn out with this body and high iso!!!!

ISO 12,800 with my 7D original. It will never make a good poster but the parents loved the 8 by 10's. I was maxed out at a night time game. F4 lens and even at 12,800 I could only get as high as 1/500. Still had motion blur in the feet and hands. That night I learned the definition of fast glass

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zps3c7cf2c9.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpsd4e3af68.jp​g~original

12,800 with my 7D2

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zps17r0ftgz.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpstale0odk.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpscrljtvxx.jp​g~original

What NR approach did you guys take for the 12800 photos?

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18298060
What NR approach did you guys take for the 12800 photos?

In good, natural, daylight, I shoot my 6D JPG at 12800. It is that good. For the 1DIV and 80D, at those levels I shoot raw, CWB, N(0,0,0,0) and as much ETTR as I can get. Processing (LR5.7) starts with appropriate -EC, then Contrast, CLarity, Saturation, Vibrance to taste. After that I go to the NR panel. I do chroma (color) noise first to get it out of the way. Then I look at a dark area and take noise to still visible, but barely.

I just started doing the following, but it seems to pay off in better prints. I crop for export and downsize to 300ppi, THEN I do my sharpening. I got that tip from another POTN member. It is working well for me.

All noise deduction turned off.

LR/CR defaults to 25 for colour noise which is usually pretty good. I set it to 0 for this demonstration.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpsd4e3af68.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zpsf65d9e7d.jp​g~original

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i33.photobucket​.com …_zps0fc9d39e.jp​g~original

digital paradise wrote in post #18296312
1. No. I just did some searches for suggested generic NR setting and found this. It is circled at the top and jus built from this which included some visual confirmation. I l know it is not perfect.

2. Yes this is what I use all of the time

digital paradise wrote in post #18296322
Here are my results. As known DPP has great colour and skin tones are to the red side. The complaints about Adobe I have read is skin is too yellowish. Those colour adjustments took the yellow out but it has less red than DPP. I prefer a cleaner look somewhere between Adobe and DPP.

Adobe on the left

Hey, gang!

I'd like to chime in here, and that is to say:

the values that Digital Paradise shows here are, I believe "default" values or "basic" values for things like sharpening and Noise Reduction as well as Clarity and Vibrance (using LR or ACR). As such I think it's very valuable for people to recognize that fact and that folks should be very careful if they feel the urge to "tweak" things. I myself have been pretty satisfied with the Lr default values. One thing of note is that the Color NR "tool" is actually quite effective if working with things like dark tones, especially with higher ISOs...

One thing in particular I'd like to point out is the info DP brings out about SKIN TONES when it comes to color channel "tweaking".

this to me is very, very important when it comes to People shots. Although I'm not a portrait "specialist/expert", but I do see a lot of shots, whether in People/Portraiture or in our G&N photos, a lot where skin tones can be "off", maybe lighting can be different, but still, I've seen ones where the variation is quite noticeable. In these cases, I'd like to see some real help where the tweaks that Digital Paradise have an effect. Also, an area of adjustment could and possibly should be in using the Local Adjustment brush(es for things such as the HSL values, a careful touching up of those skin tones using a brush could be very useful!