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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 19 Jan 2012 (Thursday) 20:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7D poor high ISO performance

 
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,413 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 1458
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jan 23, 2012 12:38 |  #61

gotak wrote in post #13748653 (external link)
I have seen many people brandish their own shot on XXD XD at whatever ISO and say it looks fine. People shouldn't do that because shot to shot there are always variations due to lighting conditions etc. What looks great in 1 shot at ISO 6400 does not mean the next shot in a different setting will look just as great....

[TL/DR version] That is sort of the point those posters are trying to make ;) and why they're asking for examples from the OP so that those types of variables are able to be evaluated.

[Longer version, if you're bored at work, like me] :p

This is true for ANY body...just because one person can't get a shot that they are happy with out of it doesn't mean that the model line is bad. Those pic posts you refer to get made as proof that a statement such as "The xD/xxD/xxxD/xD/XYZPDQ has bad/poor/faulty high ISO performance" are false, as stated, without more qualifying info that normally gets left out. Many people get perfectly good results with any of the bodies, at any of the available ISO settings for that body; regardless of manufacture

The individual photographer may find it easier to get the types of results they are looking for, under the conditions that they shoot in, using a specific body or set of bodies; but that in no way means that another body is bad.

Just because a Corolla doesn't hit 180mp, whereas a Porsche can, doesn't make the Corolla a bad car. It has a different use/purpose.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,753 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5125
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
     
Jan 23, 2012 12:57 |  #62

ducatiwv wrote in post #13753778 (external link)
Nice , looks good to me , do you remember what Iso these were shot with?
I also use LR3 noise reduction and to me it works great, I dont sharpen my raw images in LR, just get rid of the noise and then Tweak the final image in CS5

All 3 were ISO 6400.

These were the better ones, there are many others in this gallery:
http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …Djgm#!i=8318894​84&k=rG9Q4 (external link)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,605 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jan 23, 2012 15:19 |  #63

bohdank wrote in post #13752508 (external link)
I do not give credit nor make excuses because of price point. Not disagreeing with you but, ultimately, nobody cares, other than maybe another photographer, what camera was used.

Pictures do not have a space where you can say "excuse me but I only have a fill-in-the-blank camera".

I agree, nobody (and the client) cares what camera the image was made with as long as you captured the moment. But when photographers are making comparisons between two bodies, one thing we have to take into account is the price point of each.

bohdank wrote in post #13752559 (external link)
I get confused easily so having 2 different sensor sizes means I have to spend more time thinking about mixing/matching lenses on 2 bodies to get the most complete range, when shooting with 2 bodies. The 1D is also different enough in its control layout that quickly switching cameras would slow me down, to some degree.

When I bought a 7D, I thought that having 2 different sensors would give me more options when shooting with 2 cameras but, in use, it turned out to be the exact opposite.

As far as lenses, I would like to find something better than the 17-40 but there really isn't anything out there, for a Canon. The reason I bought the 24L. Maybe if they come out with a 16-35MKIII. I am happy with the rest of my lenses.

I agree, I find two sensor formats more limiting than beneficial.

bohdank wrote in post #13752721 (external link)
True but... the control layout is not and the price.

The button layout of the 1D series compared to a x/xxD series is significantly different. I too find it difficult to switch quickly.

AJSJones wrote in post #13753463 (external link)
Nice pictures. Perhaps your experience with noise reduction is in the past? There are several excellent noise reduction packages that do a great job but lose no detail. The packages can read exif and do the reduction based on the camera and ISO as part of an action so it takes you no time to do it. How would you like to get another stop or two leeway in f or shutter by upping the ISO. Similarly there are alternatives to USM that do not sharpen noise, only detail. These can also be automated. You could be getting more out of your hardware - but if you never feel limited by it and get all the shots you want, then more power to you:D

To be honest, I never gave noise reduction a chance in my workflow. I am a freelance photojournalist, so the end media for my work typically is newspaper. Most of the noise in my images disappear once printed. Also you have to keep in mind that the average reader does not know the difference between noise, grain, ISO 100, ISO 6400, nor do they care.

I have a similar ideology for my other clients. My workflow remains simple and quick. I'm not a photographer to spend lots of time in Photoshop removing wrinkles, plumping lips, etc. Clients know this when they hire me.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Jan 23, 2012 15:24 |  #64

Staszek wrote in post #13754995 (external link)
To be honest, I never gave noise reduction a chance in my workflow. I am a freelance photojournalist, so the end media for my work typically is newspaper. Most of the noise in my images disappear once printed. Also you have to keep in mind that the average reader does not know the difference between noise, grain, ISO 100, ISO 6400, nor do they care.

I can see why you don't feel limited and why you have the workflow you have. If there's always enough light to get the desired shutterspeed without being ISO-limited, there's no reason at all to consider my suggestion.


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AngryCorgi
-Bouncing Boy- a POTN peion
Avatar
11,543 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Surrounded by bunnies, squirrels and a couple of crazy corgis in NoVA...
     
Jan 23, 2012 15:27 |  #65

bohdank wrote in post #13747551 (external link)
I'm not sure what IR is showing but this is ISO6400 with 0 NR from a 5DII.. plenty of red in these and they have been cropped.

QUOTED IMAGE

Oh my...holy horizontal banding, batman!!! :eek:


AngryCorgi (external link) (aka Tom) ...Tools...

...Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, Wisdom is knowing not to include it in a fruit salad...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
axl_kollar
Senior Member
436 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Slovakia
     
Jan 23, 2012 15:44 |  #66

I won't post 100% crop but ISO6400 on my 7D looks OK to me ;)

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

this is only lit by one 70watt (or so) energy saving light bulb. EF100/2 shot wide open at 1/80s

new to Canon
1D MkIII + EF24-70/2.8 L USM + EF70-200/2.8 L USM + EF40/2.8 STM + 430EXII|ST-E2
my PBase (external link) --- Grandpa's adventures (external link) --- Living London (external link) --- my Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jan 23, 2012 18:05 |  #67

AngryCorgi wrote in post #13755071 (external link)
Oh my...holy horizontal banding, batman!!! :eek:

It seems to vary depending on the color etc. I'm looking at other shots from the show in ACR and some show a bit, others absolutely nothing. Also the original also shows less banding. I wonder if the downsizing process also has issues.

The shot, above, in ACR

Exposure +.65
Fill 27
Blacks +8
Brightness +50
Contrast + 25

Everything else = 0

It appears cranking up the Fill Light accentuates the banding that you see. For example, I lowered the Fill and Raised the Brightness and what banding is there is pretty much gone. I could probably reprocess this so it doesn't show any banding, yet still have the image look good, overall but I am not going to bother. I like it the way it is :-)


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,753 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5125
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
     
Jan 23, 2012 18:10 |  #68

Perhaps try running the raw through DPP and see if it produces the same effect. It could be ACR, it just could be the raw and settings that affect the final output. This is why I believe software is just as responsible for the quality of images we get these days vs sensor. Just an opinion though, probably due to my career choice. ;)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jan 23, 2012 18:19 |  #69

Ah, crap... I forgot to turn off sharpening for the Gallery.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sun5150
Member
160 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2007
     
Jan 23, 2012 22:56 as a reply to  @ bohdank's post |  #70

I think my 7D might be one of those that has the high ISO poor performance.
I take basketball pictures and have used my 7D and MKIII at the same game and the 7D has much more noise then the MKIII.
I might send the camera in to Canon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smorter
Goldmember
Avatar
4,506 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 24, 2012 02:45 |  #71

axl_kollar wrote in post #13755193 (external link)
I won't post 100% crop but ISO6400 on my 7D looks OK to me ;)

Even ISO 25600 looks ok for a black and white :D

It's a common technique to turn an image into black and white if it is unusable in color due to high ISO noise


Wedding Photography Melbourneexternal link
Reviews: 85LII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,605 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jan 24, 2012 05:58 |  #72

I can't dig up a larger file but this is ISO 128,000 from the 7D at 125mm, f/2.8, and 1/50 sec. No noise reduction (in either post production or in camera). Sure there is plenty of noise in the background but this is a useable file IMO.

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5173/5531151827_7c9b176092_z.jpg

SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
talbot_sunbeam
Senior Member
Avatar
848 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: UK
     
Jan 24, 2012 05:59 as a reply to  @ Staszek's post |  #73

That's a nice Hobby...



7D, 450D | 17-55, 10-22, 55-250, 50 1.8, 580EXII | YN568II | YN622 x3 | Magic Lantern | (Still) Jonesing for a 70-200 2.8...
Turns out a gripped 7D + 622 + 580exII + 70-200 2.8 IS MK2 is BLOODY HEAVY! Who knew?!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
palmor
Senior Member
Avatar
959 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 49
Joined Feb 2009
Location: North of Boston, MA
     
Jan 24, 2012 08:57 |  #74

Staszek wrote in post #13758759 (external link)
I can't dig up a larger file but this is ISO 128,000 from the 7D at 125mm, f/2.8, and 1/50 sec. No noise reduction (in either post production or in camera). Sure there is plenty of noise in the background but this is a useable file IMO.

I find ISO 12800 usable (in the right conditions) for my needs as well. If you don't plan on printing very large ISO12800 can be great on the 7d (with some good NR techniques).

To the OP, unless I missed a post (entirely possible :) ) post some examples of your shots and I'm sure we'll be able to help you determine if it is your camera or not.. or at least give you some more suggestions to help you determine.

Sorry if you've seen these before.. only ones I have handy to post. Yes there is noise in the dog's fur in these, but I choose to go very light on the NR on the dogs themselves. I'd rather have the texture of the noise then the strange look of smooth fur. Both of these printed great @5x7.

Canon EOS 7D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1/800s f/2.8 at 130.0mm iso12800

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/palmor/image/139758559/original.jpg

(Yes I know I have some blown highlights here :p )
Canon EOS 7D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1/1000s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso12800
IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/palmor/image/139758561/original.jpg

John
http://pbase.com/palmo​r (external link)
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/johnw_trishw[/​URL (external link)
http://johnwoolleyphot​ography.com (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BobOh
Goldmember
Avatar
1,157 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Central Wisconsin
     
Jan 24, 2012 11:18 |  #75

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13735552 (external link)
Hmmmm....?

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]


LOL, that is funny. Even the contestants are laughing.

Regards,
Bob
Gear: 40D, 7D, EF 100-400L, EF 28-135, Speedlight 580EX and other stuff.
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/bobbolew/ (external link)

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

11,239 views & 0 likes for this thread
7D poor high ISO performance
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Martin Leitch
690 guests, 302 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.