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 General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 26 Mar 2017 (Sunday) 13:34
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

7D II grain

 
neophyte52
Senior Member
neophyte52's Avatar
Joined Feb 2009
Chanhassen, MN
Mar 26, 2017 13:34 |  #1

I recently purchased a used 7DII here for a FL wildlife shooting trip (my go-to body is a 6D). I was delighted w/ all the auto-focusing capabilities & burst rate (I shoot my 6D entirely on manual exposure & focus). BUT: I was really disappointed w/ grain on even moderate (~4000 or higher) ISO. I recognize that grain will be more evident on close-ups like I was shooting vs. landscapes, but really expected better. While I prefer to shoot at 100, the 6D will handle relatively high (10,000) ISO w/ fairly limited grain.

Is this a known problem? Any suggestions? Given the stated ISO range, I'd thought I could push it a lot further than I did...


Mark
Trying to compensate for lack of talent with lots of gear :lol:
My Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
medd63
Senior Member
Joined Feb 2014
Michigan
Post has been last edited 8 months ago by medd63. 2 edits done in total.
Mar 26, 2017 16:06 |  #2

I don't think it is a known problem with the 7D as much as the 6D's high ISO capabilities have spoiled you. I have a 6D and have rented the 7D several times. The ISO to noise/grain ratio is much better on the 6D.

BTW most people don't think 4000 ISO is "moderate". More like 400-800. Again, the 6D is spoiling you. :-)


6D, T4i, 16-35mm f/4L, 100mm Macro f/2.8L, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, 50mm f/1.4, EF-S 55-250, 1.4 II TC, MeFoto Globetrotter & Roadtrip tripods, Lightroom CC, Photoshop CC

LOG IN TO REPLY
mickeyb105
Goldmember
mickeyb105's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Vero Beach, FL
Mar 26, 2017 22:55 |  #3

medd63 wrote in post #18311601 (external link)
I don't think it is a known problem with the 7D as much as the 6D's high ISO capabilities have spoiled you. I have a 6D and have rented the 7D several times. The ISO to noise/grain ratio is much better on the 6D.

BTW most people don't think 4000 ISO is "moderate". More like 400-800. Again, the 6D is spoiling you. :-)

This was exactly what I was thinking, too. It really is a night and day difference at that ISO threshold.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Zeiss 24/2 ZA, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
Joined May 2012
Riverside,California
Mar 26, 2017 23:26 |  #4

The mid-high range ISO on the 7DM2 was the biggest letdown ever.
I too struggle with it, night and day difference compared to my A7.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
FarmerTed1971's Avatar
Joined Sep 2013
Portland, OR
Mar 26, 2017 23:47 |  #5

Yes, the 7D2 requires good light unfortunately. I'm spoiled with my 6D as well.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 35 f2 WR - 50-140 - 6D - 135L - 70-200 f4L IS - 600EX-RT x2 - ST-E3-RT - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,229 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed. 2 edits done in total.
Mar 27, 2017 11:13 |  #6

Correction, it needs good exposure, not good light. However, also what raw converter is being used and has it been upgraded to handle the 7D2? I strongly suggest you try DPP that came with the 7D2 and see if you like those results better. Raw converters make a HUGE difference in ISO characteristics.

Here is a side by side at ISO 6400 with the 5D3 vs 7D2 just to show those differences, using DPP that was upgraded for both bodies.
https://photos.smugmug​.com ...W/1/O/7d5d6400_befo​re.gif (external link)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Portland OR USA
Mar 27, 2017 11:31 |  #7

I've got to load DPP and play with it. TS, do you find DPP to be superior to the built-in LR raw converter?


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,229 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed. 2 edits done in total.
Mar 27, 2017 11:41 as a reply to Scrumhalf's post |  #8

I stopped using LR back at version 3. I updated cameras so many times that I didn't like having to pony up money over and over each time I picked up a new body, nor could I get into the full feature set of LR. The cataloging was its biggest strength for me, but now I just do that myself manually, and use DPP with CS5.

However, I have heard others talk about the better DPP JPG results from a raw file that have used LR. Most likely these are attributed to the fact that DPP doesn't apply some default suite of settings to each raw, but instead honors your in-camera settings, which is another big advantage for what I do as well, IMO. I try to get the shots right in camera, and I don't have to worry about raw conversion factors per file.

For those that don't use the most recent versions of LR, you may be able to produce JPG from raw files, however until Adobe updates the engine for the camera model in question, you could be getting subpar conversions. Many times it has been shown that upgraded versions of LR that coincide with a new model produce better files than prior versions of LR. I stopped worrying about that by just using DPP. My results work for me, and I have stopped paying attention to Adobe LR.:)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ksbal
Goldmember
ksbal's Avatar
Joined Sep 2010
N.E. Kansas
Post has been last edited 7 months ago by ksbal. 2 edits done in total.
Mar 27, 2017 16:56 |  #9

Here is a 7DII image pp'd in LR 5.7

Yes, there is a ton of grain at 100%. BUT even the image below can be printed at 8x10 and be pretty acceptable to the general public

However, it isn't full frame, and won't ever be. But I think correct exposure and good PP do make it acceptable.

In this particular arena, I set the shutter speed and f-stop and let auto ISO take care of the variations in lighting.

I'm fine with the iso in general up to 6400, and then the grain bothers me, but it is still better than no picture or blurry picture.

JMHO YMMV.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from ksbal's gallery.

YN622 English User Guide/Manual by Clive
https://drive.google.c​om ...Ig0gMMzZFaDVlZ1VNTE​0/view (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Chiefy
Goldmember
Chiefy's Avatar
Joined Feb 2012
Ontario, Canada
Mar 27, 2017 17:06 |  #10

All crop sensor camera's will give more grain at high ISO compared to full frame. That is just the nature of having two sensors of a different size. I have not heard of anyone referring to ISO 4,000 as moderate before.


S110/7D Mk II/5D Mk IV - 16-35L f4 IS - 135L - 24-70L f2.8 IS II - 70-200L f2.8 IS II- 100-400L IS - 100 Macro f2.8L IS -Σ 35 1.4 Art - Σ 50 1.4 Art - Σ 18-250 - TC 1.4 II - EF 12/25 II - 430 EX II/600 EX-RT X 2 - ST-E3-RT - Manfrotto 055CXPRO3/Acratech GP + 390 & 680B w/234RC
Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
neophyte52
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
neophyte52's Avatar
Joined Feb 2009
Chanhassen, MN
Mar 31, 2017 18:51 as a reply to Chiefy's post |  #11

I certainly agree that iso 4000 isn't "moderate". Everything is relative, and, relative to what the claimed native iso on that body is, 4000 could be called "moderate". As several have pointed out, I'm spoiled by my 6D :-(


Mark
Trying to compensate for lack of talent with lots of gear :lol:
My Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,229 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Mar 31, 2017 21:06 |  #12

iso 4000 is now a low iso, isn't it? :D


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

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
Apr 04, 2017 02:05 |  #13

medd63 wrote in post #18311601 (external link)
BTW most people don't think 4000 ISO is "moderate". More like 400-800.

That's for sure. Shooting at 4000 on a 1.6 crop sensor is unthinkable to me. I don't think one could ever get such images past a review panel at a stock agency. In fact, for professional work where the licensee is inspecting every submission at 100%, I don't think ISO 4000 images from any 1.6 sensor would ever get through QC.

.


"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
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,229 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed. 8 edits done in total.
Apr 04, 2017 05:04 |  #14

I didn't know that was the litmus test for an acceptable image? Today's crop bodies provide better ISO 4000 shots than lower ISO from yesterday's FF bodies. I also know of some sports illustrated shooters that work for getty images that routinely use high iso on crop bodies for professional sporting events having shot on the floor next to them. My own results have been used by news outlets and the NBA lower league offices. ISO in itself isn't the issue, vs quality of optics, type of lighting and WB, and exposure.

In the near future, people aren't even going to know about iso speeds, as cameras become more and more iso invariant. We already have some cameras that are almost there. For now however, a FF is going to be better at landscapes due to the ability to capture detail over the AA filters that are still on the APS-C bodies. The 7D2 AA filter is less aggressive than the 7D was, but still, it affects your imgaes.

Here are 2 images from a 7D2 at an indeterminate ISO. The first image is directly from the raw file via DPP, no photoshop/LR post processing. The 2nd is a 100% crop from this direct image (left), and then a processed image from the raw (right). I am currently in the process of getting an Alamy account, and these fit the requirements called out by their submission process.

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

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

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,574 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Apr 04, 2017 07:28 |  #15

I don't sell any images. As a hobby user, I have no fear of using my 1DIV at 6400, 80D at 12,800, and 6D at 25,600. Admittedly, I don't shoot at these levels very often. High ISO and f/5.6 consumer zooms made me invest in a collection of f/1.8-f/2.8 primes. These days, I rarely go above ISO 1600.


Tom

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

3,998 views & 33 likes for this thread
7D II grain
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


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 0.00139 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.19s
Latest registered member is KiwiSean
787 guests, 315 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016