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

 
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Apr 05, 2017 09:44 |  #31

ksbal wrote in post #18319981 (external link)
Hmm... so the above photos are outside your grain/noise tolerance?

I do not really know - it is not possible for me to make accurate evaluations based on jPeg files shared over the internet. Plus, there may have been some type of processing applied, such as jPeg in-camera defaults.

The only way for me to know if an image is within my grain/noise tolerance is if I can see a RAW-based file that has not had any noise reduction applied.

Pretty much anything can be made to look good if we're only viewing little 1200 pixel long jPeg versions of the 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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,225 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Apr 05, 2017 10:22 |  #32

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18320078 (external link)
I do not really know - it is not possible for me to make accurate evaluations based on jPeg files shared over the internet. Plus, there may have been some type of processing applied, such as jPeg in-camera defaults.

The only way for me to know if an image is within my grain/noise tolerance is if I can see a RAW-based file that has not had any noise reduction applied.

Pretty much anything can be made to look good if we're only viewing little 1200 pixel long jPeg versions of the image.

.

There is no such thing as a raw only viewable file though. Any software you use to view the raw file is showing you a rendered graphical representation with some basic filters/rules already applied. Also, I have provided larger than 1200px views on POTN, along with 100% crops.

I also go with the same mindset others have about lenses where they may not like 3rd party and only use Canon glass. Canon wrote DPP, and I use DPP instead of 3rd party tools for raw conversions. Why would I have a view about Canon glass, and not have the same view about the processing of their raw files? :)


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 05, 2017 10:30 |  #33

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18320119 (external link)
There is no such thing as a raw only viewable file though.

Your POTN title makes that quite clear.

That is why I used the term 'RAW-based', and not just RAW.

.


"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
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,150 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 7 months ago by Wilt. 2 edits done in total.
Apr 05, 2017 10:42 |  #34

ksbal wrote in post #18319981 (external link)
But I'm also thrilled to get anything not blurry/decent at higher iso.. I still remember when all we had was 1600 speed film for the masses...

And some of us remember when the top B&W film was ASA 1250 (Royal-X pan, but not in 135 format where ASA 400 was the top unless you push processed Tri-X in the darkroom), and the top color film was ASA 160. You guys are spoiled! :-P


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
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,225 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 7 months ago by TeamSpeed.
Apr 05, 2017 11:01 |  #35

Okay, here is a JPG directly from the raw via DPP, no Photoshop/Adobe post processing.

https://www.dropbox.co​m ...4wwqx39/216A3445.JP​G?dl=0 (external link)

With just 2 steps of post processing, a lum. NR action and then some USM, the image is quite clean. It just depends on your tolerance of noise, but I can state that if you print these types of images, noise will disappear when the noise is that small.

ISO 4000 is cleaner than this yet obviously.

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

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ksbal
Goldmember
ksbal's Avatar
Joined Sep 2010
N.E. Kansas
Apr 05, 2017 11:09 |  #36

Wilt wrote in post #18320146 (external link)
You guys are spoiled! :-P

I totally agree, sometimes all the gritching that happens about noise, and shadow lifting, DR and crop vs ff and I remember how limited it was and think of how spoiled we are now.. so many good photographers did so much more with all the limitations of so much less!


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
wysiwyg59
Senior Member
wysiwyg59's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
Southern MN
Apr 05, 2017 20:56 |  #37

I remember shooting with my Canon A1 ( I still have it - haven't used it in years) but we could only shoot in 100,200,400 & 800 in the day. So, now we are shooting over 6400. To me you will get noise.


Rick
Canon A1, 7D2, 40D, Canon G12, Sony NEX-5N
Canon 70-200 IS F2.8 L, Canon 35mm f1.4 L, EF-S 18-200mm, EF-S 10-22mm
wysiwyg@hickorytech.ne​t

LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Apr 06, 2017 13:24 |  #38

wysiwyg59 wrote in post #18320680 (external link)
I remember shooting with my Canon A1 ( I still have it - haven't used it in years) but we could only shoot in 100,200,400 & 800 in the day. So, now we are shooting over 6400. To me you will get noise.


3M under the Scotch brand did release an ASA 1000 slide film in about 86 I think it was. I remember getting a couple of rolls to use alongside the Kodachrome 25 I usually used when I went on honeymoon to Tunisia in March 87. I got it for the evening "traditional entertainment" show with a meal that are so common in such touristy places. The film was OK as long as you didn't mind grain the size of golf balls. It made Ektachrome 400 look really good. What was worse was IIRC it was a daylight balanced film only, so you ended up losing a stop for the colour correction filter when shooting indoors under tungsten light.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
aladyforty
Goldmember
aladyforty's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
Albany: Western Australia
Oct 11, 2017 10:06 |  #39

Ive been using lightroom 5.7 for ages with both the 7DII and 5DIII and never really found it hard to sort out noise issues. The difference I see in the two camera is mainly the colours seem better from 5DIII and of course when wanting that lovely blur from shallow DOF the full frame is great. However the 7DII seems sharper a lot of the time using the same lens . Not sure why. I find 7DII the more versatile camera


5DIII 7DII Fuji X100 Fuji X10 17-40L 135L 70-200F4ISL Tamron 150-600
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com​/photos/25426422@N00/ (external link)
Birding page (archives cant add to them, lost password) https://www.flickr.com​/photos/59111660@N08/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,555 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Oct 11, 2017 11:31 |  #40

aladyforty wrote in post #18470440 (external link)
Ive been using lightroom 5.7 for ages with both the 7DII and 5DIII and never really found it hard to sort out noise issues. The difference I see in the two camera is mainly the colours seem better from 5DIII and of course when wanting that lovely blur from shallow DOF the full frame is great. However the 7DII seems sharper a lot of the time using the same lens . Not sure why. I find 7DII the more versatile camera

I use a 6D, and purchased an 80D several months ago. With the exception of using my fast(er) primes, I am starting to use the 80D for almost everything. Versatile. Good word. I just picked up an 18-135 USM, for my 80D. My 24-105 is now for sale. My 6D is now a prime-shooter.


Tom

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

3,964 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 0.00205 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.07s
Latest registered member is comayjo
902 guests, 456 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016