For those of you that think the 7D is good with noise...

pknight wrote in post #12609893
Thanks. Nothing like evidence!

Some folks seem to have a thing about the 7D, but that's OK. They are concerned about certain aspects of its performance that are just not evident in the vast majority of images. To each their own. I just worry when blanket statements are made about the quality of any product based on performance defined by very narrow criteria.

What else is left? IQ-wise, what the 7D does well is what it does so just because it has a sensor of a certain size and number of pixels. There is no major magic involved. In the finer areas of interest, Canon (not just the 7D) is behind the competition in the areas in which cameras can actually improve. The 7D has more flaws than most similar products offered by other manufacturers. We need to be honest, instead of defending our psychological and financial investments.

In the long run, the best thing that can happen to camera users is for Canon to get the bad reputation it deserves. Public opinion is that Canon DSLRs are state-of-the-art, but they aren't. Canon isn't going to wake up and come top their senses if the public keeps drooling over their products, in ignorance. They need to have a reputation which reflects their design, quality control, and firmware innovation, which are all lacking. Pretending that Canons are just as good as other cameras, because they perform acceptably in non-demanding situations, helps no one, except the fat cats at the top of Canon.

John Sheehy wrote in post #12613200
What else is left? IQ-wise, what the 7D does well is what it does so just because it has a sensor of a certain size and number of pixels. There is no major magic involved. In the finer areas of interest, Canon (not just the 7D) is behind the competition in the areas in which cameras can actually improve. The 7D has more flaws than most similar products offered by other manufacturers. We need to be honest, instead of defending our psychological and financial investments.

In the long run, the best thing that can happen to camera users is for Canon to get the bad reputation it deserves. Public opinion is that Canon DSLRs are state-of-the-art, but they aren't. Canon isn't going to wake up and come top their senses if the public keeps drooling over their products, in ignorance. They need to have a reputation which reflects their design, quality control, and firmware innovation, which are all lacking. Pretending that Canons are just as good as other cameras, because they perform acceptably in non-demanding situations, helps no one, except the fat cats at the top of Canon.

A ford focus and a BMW 7 series both get you from point A to point B which is the ultimate objective with both vehicles. Why should ford focus users conspire to give ford a bad reputation because it isn't a 7 series? Obviously many Ford Focus owners are quite satisfied as are many Canon owners. Those that aren't switch to Nikon. However, I see Nikon users switching to Canon all the time so those so apparently the grass isn't necessarily greener on the other side. Just buy what makes you happy (which isn't necessarily what makes others satisfied).

Also, when I watch NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB games I see many more Canon bodies than I do others. To me that is validation enough that Canon is doing something right.

idsurfer wrote in post #12609927
I'm not going to read this entire post (so I prob shouldn't even chime in) but I am going to have to say my 60D is pretty poor above 400 ISO. The idea of shooting at high (800, 1600) is absolutely ridiculous if you have any desire for clean images. I'm kinda new and have never used a FF, but after an outing with friends in a low light bar/restaurant two nights ago I won't be leaving the house without a flash again.

The 60D is as good or better than any previous APS-C Canon at all ISOs, noise-wise.

The only cameras better at high ISOs that are APS-C are the new ones with Sony 16.3MP sensors, and they are only a hair better than the 60D at high ISOs (although much better at low ISOs).

Perhaps you just have very unrealistic expectations, or you do things to your files that you shouldn't be. Full-res images can only be sharpened a tiny bit, anything beyond that will dramatically increase noise. Are you magnifying the images more on the screen because they have 18M pixels? Are you using an image to view the full images on-screen that drops pixels to reduce the pixel size? Such a method increases visible noise more, the more MP an image has, because it drops a higher percentage of them. On a window capable of showing 1MP, an 18MP image loses 17MP. A 6MP image only loses 5MP. The more pixels that are simply dropped, the noisier the result.

So many people are making huge misjudgments of equipment, because they don't know the basics of imaging science, and fall for illusion.

John Sheehy wrote in post #12613200
What else is left? IQ-wise, what the 7D does well is what it does so just because it has a sensor of a certain size and number of pixels. There is no major magic involved. In the finer areas of interest, Canon (not just the 7D) is behind the competition in the areas in which cameras can actually improve.

I don't think of myself as a hardcore Canon fan by any means, in fact I'm not brand-loyal in any products as it makes no sense. But the sensor in the 7D is, what, 2 years old now? And in reality the fundamental design is probably older, from the lower resolution sensors, and they've simply increased resolution.

Is that good enough? Well I dunno, new sensor tech will be introduced in waves. We're not on a peak at the moment, sure, but selling all my lenses and speedlights for a few years of static sensor performance isn't ideal either. Besides I'm not convinced I could get the same or better performance from a competitor for the same money given what I shoot, otherwise I probably would have changed by now.

I think that's a bit extreme. They develop a product and sell it. Bad reputation IMO is justified for unethical behaviour. In fact I'm more unhappy at the Canon approach to not being open about stuff like the EF protocol etc. What you probably mean to say is "they get too much praise", and that's a fair comment.

phreeky wrote in post #12608775
20D doesn't have an ISO6400 setting,

No, it doesn't, but that has never stopped anyone from shooting at any arbitrarily high ISO in RAW. Any RAW "3200" shot pushed a stop in post-processing is ISO 6400, and has the same noise and a stop more DR (in the form of highlights) than if the same camera actually had an ISO 6400 setting.

The 7d is good with noise if you know how to correct it in your PP program and know how to deal with the main settings at the start.

If you want straight out of the camera no issues then go 5dm2

Or use a flash most noise will always be where the user never used a flash when needed ? This thread is useless

John Sheehy wrote in post #12613484
No, it doesn't, but that has never stopped anyone from shooting at any arbitrarily high ISO in RAW. Any RAW "3200" shot pushed a stop in post-processing is ISO 6400, and has the same noise and a stop more DR (in the form of highlights) than if the same camera actually had an ISO 6400 setting.

Ahhh, but is the ISO3200 on the 20D already a pushed ISO1600 shot?

phreeky wrote in post #12613782
Ahhh, but is the ISO3200 on the 20D already a pushed ISO1600 shot?

Yes, in the sense that they both use the same analog gain, but an analog 3200 would only be marginally better than a pushed one, noise-wise.

John Sheehy wrote in post #12613898
Yes, in the sense that they both use the same analog gain, but an analog 3200 would only be marginally better than a pushed one, noise-wise.

I was simply pointing out that ISO6400 on it is not true ISO3200 pushed a stop, it's ISO1600 pushed two stops.

Poe wrote in post #12613031
It is not stupid when you require a particular dynamic range to be captured.

Yeh, but dynamic range decreases as you up the ISO also...

Poe wrote in post #12612850
Yes, it is. You use a slower shutter or faster aperture. Or if you have hardware support, use ISO 6400.

The you end up with a blurry picture or you raise the ISO, the only option under my scenario.

The bottom line is, under conditions where you don't have any options, and where noise is going to be an issue, ETTR is not always an option. We somehow seem to be giving the impression that ETTR is only available with the 7D as if it is some secret that is specific to the 7D. It is in one way. You have to shoot that way with the 7D if you want acceptable results at higher ISO but it is not always an option for the reasons I have previously stated.

So, if you have to "overexpose" by 1 stop for every shot (not really true but to make a point), regardless of the ISO, then it is actually worse than how it is being presented. Slow your shutter speed and face subject blur, use a faster lens, not always available or the best option for the shooting conditions, or raise the ISO, when you are already are at the top end are not solutions, they are unreasonable excuses to compensate for a cameras poor performance, relative to others, if you HAVE to do that.

I am not defending MY camera since I had both a 7D and a 5DII. After a lot of opportunity for the 7D to prove itself; for my use, I sold it, for reasons including IQ, and have another 5DII on order.

The 7D is a capable camera under certain conditions. Unfortunately not the conditions I normally shoot under. But to address the title of this topic, the 7D is not good with noise control, imo. I truly hope that Canon concentrates on improving image quality with the next generation of 5D/7D's and not pixels or "features". A Yugo with power seats, power windows and a GPS is still a Yugo

bohdank wrote in post #12614529
The you end up with a blurry picture or you raise the ISO, the only option under my scenario.

The bottom line is, under conditions where you don't have any options, and where noise is going to be an issue, ETTR is not always an option. We somehow seem to be giving the impression that ETTR is only available with the 7D as if it is some secret that is specific to the 7D. It is in one way. You have to shoot that way with the 7D if you want acceptable results at higher ISO but it is not always an option for the reasons I have previously stated.

So, if you have to "overexpose" by 1 stop for every shot (not really true but to make a point), regardless of the ISO, then it is actually worse than how it is being presented. Slow your shutter speed and face subject blur, use a faster lens, not always available or the best option for the shooting conditions, or raise the ISO, when you are already are at the top end are not solutions, they are unreasonable excuses to compensate for a cameras poor performance, relative to others, if you HAVE to do that.

I am not defending MY camera since I had both a 7D and a 5DII. After a lot of opportunity for the 7D to prove itself; for my use, I sold it, for reasons including IQ, and have another 5DII on order.

The 7D is a capable camera under certain conditions. Unfortunately not the conditions I normally shoot under. But to address the title of this topic, the 7D is not good with noise control, imo. I truly hope that Canon concentrates on improving image quality with the next generation of 5D/7D's and not pixels or "features". A Yugo with power seats, power windows and a GPS is still a Yugo

I had to do the same thing with my 5d2 at higher ISO's. ETTR to minimize noise isn't exclusive to one model of camera. We all know you don't have to do it at ISO 3200 on a 5d2 - as expected since most tests show it is about a stop better noise wise. However, put your 5d2 at 6400 and you will have to do the same to minimize noise. Again this isn't specific to the 7D. I can choose to shoot ISO 3200 with proper exposure at ISO 3200 and get acceptable (to me) results just like the 5d2 at 6400. However, both will benefit with noise reduction if I do ETTR. I could make the argument the 5d2 ISO capabilities suck because I can get better results with a Nikon D3S.

John Sheehy wrote in post #12613239
The 60D is as good or better than any previous APS-C Canon at all ISOs, noise-wise.

The only cameras better at high ISOs that are APS-C are the new ones with Sony 16.3MP sensors, and they are only a hair better than the 60D at high ISOs (although much better at low ISOs).

Perhaps you just have very unrealistic expectations, or you do things to your files that you shouldn't be. Full-res images can only be sharpened a tiny bit, anything beyond that will dramatically increase noise. Are you magnifying the images more on the screen because they have 18M pixels? Are you using an image to view the full images on-screen that drops pixels to reduce the pixel size? Such a method increases visible noise more, the more MP an image has, because it drops a higher percentage of them. On a window capable of showing 1MP, an 18MP image loses 17MP. A 6MP image only loses 5MP. The more pixels that are simply dropped, the noisier the result.

So many people are making huge misjudgments of equipment, because they don't know the basics of imaging science, and fall for illusion.

I'll be the first to admit I do not understand imaging science. Are you suggesting that I shoot at a lower res RAW setting during times that I want to use higher ISO's?

bohdank wrote in post #12614529
But to address the title of this topic, the 7D is not good with noise control, imo.

It's similar, maybe a touch better, than all the xxD cameras that were released prior to the 7D. Is that "not good"? I think that's about what any sane person expected, as it's not like Canon were making remarkable promises about the 7Ds noise handling capabilities.

If you expected more then that's your fault. Learn to do more thorough research and buy the camera body appropriate to your line of work next time.