50D - 640 ISO not acceptable at all (sample images provided)

Want me to show you RAW ISO800/1600 with no noise reduction, daylit photos with the D800?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15582796
...
Sometimes, it's acceptable to say, "There's really nothing you could have done in that exact situation with the gear you had. A different body would have given you better, more acceptable results, but your 50D just wasn't up to the task". In some situations, that is the simple truth.

I do see what you're getting at with this, Tom; but, at the same time, it really looks like something else may be going on, too. You really SHOULD be getting a much cleaner file at ISO 640 than that. Here's an example of 1600 (from my 7D, but I don't find it to be much different than my 40D), straight RAW exported to jpg via LR3.6; no adjustments made to the file:

Full shot:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8453​927210/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8453​926802/

Snydremark wrote in post #15583183
I do see what you're getting at with this, Tom; but, at the same time, it really looks like something else may be going on, too. You really SHOULD be getting a much cleaner file at ISO 640 than that. Here's an example of 1600 (from my 7D, but I don't find it to be much different than my 40D), straight RAW exported to jpg via LR3.6; no adjustments made to the file:


Full crop of eyes:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8453​926802/
goose sample crop-1343 by Guideon72, on Flickr

While there's certainly some noise visible there, it isn't anywhere NEAR as bad as what I see in your original post.

That image has color noise reduction, which lightroom always defaults at 25 with every image. The 7d also had about 1 stop better noise control than the 50d. The shadows always have a specific kind of grit when color NR is applied.

Looks like a nice, clean file, considering it was shot at 1600.

I do want a body that I can underexpose by a full stop, and still get excellent fine detail at 1600 - with no noise reduction at all. I have seen demos done on the 1Dx that showed this was possible. Unfortunately, I will never be able to afford a 1Dx . . . well, at least not until they come down to about $2,000 on the used market. That's probably a decade away

All I'll be able to afford is a 1D4. I'm not sure if the 1D4 is capable of the kind of performance I really crave, but it will certainly be better than any of Canon's 1.6 crops.

So it does...I can pull a crop out when I get home tonight with that default removed. I still think that there's something else wrong with the OP photo for things to be that bad.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15583253
... I'm not sure if the 1D4 is capable of the kind of performance I really crave, but it will certainly be better than any of Canon's 1.6 crops.

Certainly can't argue there. That's the body I'd love to land on, too.

Here's a wild animal for reference:

form wrote in post #15583215
That image has color noise reduction, which lightroom always defaults at 25 with every image. The 7d also had about 1 stop better noise control than the 50d. The shadows always have a specific kind of grit when color NR is applied.

Ok, let's try this one now that I'm back at home.

40D, 50 1.8 @ 1.8, RAW, imported/cropped/expor​ted with default NR in LR6.3 set to all zeroes and all export sharpening disabled.

ISO 640:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8455​285444/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/snydremark/8455​285290/

Not to sound harsh, but it seems like you've simply got the wrong tool for the job. You are using a somewhat dated, middle of the road, consumer dSLR camera for income you depend on in a cutthroat market. If the tool you are using is losing you income, then you simply need to invest in a tool that can perform the job you need it to. Right?

Aside from that, your picture, as others have stated, is certainly in a suboptimal environment and underexposed to exacerbate the noise that becomes present in these situations, no matter what the crop body. You can see others' examples here from similar and lesser (40D) crop bodies with better lighting and higher ISO's with less noise than your photo. These crop bodies just really need great light. I remember how disappointed I was with my 7D's noise in a lot of photos when I first got it, until I learned how to shoot to the right and find the balance of PP tweaks.

It really is unfortunate that you can't touch the photos before sending them off. I own both bodies and the 50D and 7D are prime examples of crop bodies that really benefit (and often require) from sharpness and NR adjustments in PP.

Allan.L wrote in post #15578903
It looks like you tried to pull the shadows too much? I always try to expose to the right by ~+2/3 stop which reduces noise greatly.

If you don't nail exposure there is going to be noise even on a 1dx.

+1 on this. I habitually ettr. This allows me to absorb more detail and seriously assists in eliminating noise.

Also, as elite stated, I have disabled the increment ISO settings so I only have the options of the standards. I've heard the incremental ISO's have produced less than attractive images.

I have followed this with interest but cannot help be a little confused by the requirement for an "untouched" image.

If you shoot in RAW there is always a requirement for a degree of noise reduction, sharpening and colour balancing, if you shoot in JPEG the camera does it for you, so to what level are you permitted to "play" for magazine submission?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15579330
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to pull the exposure, if I plan on submitting the images. Many publisher's submission guidelines clearly state that they will only accept unedited files. That means no photoshop, no exposure adjustments, no noise reduction . . . no fixing. It's got to be excellent right out of the camera, and for me, the 50D is really struggling in this department when it comes to low-light work.

Then you need to education your publishers, who probably don't know much about photography. Photography has always been about "finishing" the image after it's been recorded whether on film or digital. Finishing mainly being exposure and contrast.

Plus a RAW file is not an image file, so there's nothing to make adjustments to. You choose settings to use during RAW conversion into an image.

the 50D, imo, is just a bad camera... Canon really let the quality slip on this one... Thankfully the 7D makes up for it..

dannequin wrote in post #15593408
the 50D, imo, is just a bad camera... Canon really let the quality slip on this one... Thankfully the 7D makes up for it..

I think it was great for it's time. The 7D was released about a year later and is roughly 1 stop better in noise. It also cost almost double what the 50D did. The 7D seemed to have it's own issues with focusing and ghosting, which were minimal but seemed to be discussed extensively when the camera was released.

OP, both of your sample shots of the deer/deer (that second one is plural!) look either out of focus or just plain soft to me anyway. I don't think noise is doing any real damage to details. Also, those are some seriously stringent publishing requirements if they won't even let you push/pull exposure. Even most photo contests will at east let you do that!

Also, are you not even allowed to do color NR? Because even a tiny touch of that will get rid of most of your noise problem.