Have a 7d, should I upgrade to 7d2?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17641286
I don't think it'd worth the effort folks, we have seen the same attitude before, and given the signature quotes, it is clear that he/she must then be from the US. No matter how much we argue and show how to get better results, they will continue to be difficult. Remember mike55?

Agreed. I also thought about picking his film comments, too. I shot some ISO 800 stuff (Fujifilm, I think) about 3 years ago. It looked really good compared to the first rolls of ISO 200/400 I shot in the '70s/80s.

I think some folks just get an idea in their heads (7D sucks above 800, ISO 6400 is horrendous) and won't even look at evidence to the contrary right in front of their eyes.

Love you high-ISO stuff, BTW. You must have spent a lot of time developing those processes. I just use LR.

Talking about high ISO, then comparing to film black and white seems silly to me, especially since the #1 way to salvage a poor high ISO shot is to convert it to black and white. I didn't get the comment.

Also, when people show their pendulums are swung that far left with their comments, I always ask them to share a raw file where they had an issue. We can pretty quickly tell if they are underexposing, setting the wrong camera settings, etc, and whether they have a bad 7D or not. The raw will speak volumes louder than their individual opinion. They might be right, they might not be, the raw will almost always tell the story better.

The result of your final JPG is greatly dependent on the tools you use and settings you select. I always like to challenge someone to take their poor quality image and have them send me the raw. Many times I can produce a better JPG than they can, and I am then happy to help them through the same steps so they can reproduce it on their own.

Case in point (100% 7D ISO 6400 sample)...
The bottom is straight out of camera, the middle is the raw converted straight to JPG after correcting WB and saturation, and the top is post processed, all the same file, 3 completely different results.

This is what I am doing now with ISO 25600 on the 5D3. Haven't picked up a 7D2 yet.

I agree completely. For ISO 6400 (on crop) to be useful, the shooter has to first get it right in-camera. At this level, raw is essential. My key to success with high-ISO work has been viewing size. I work at 100% to get the best results I can. I judge the final product at expected viewing size. Web stuff is easy; I have no qualms about shooting that at my camera's max ISO, if need be. If I intend to print 8"x10", I judge the results by viewing at full-screen on a 22" monitor. If it looks good there, it will look good printed. Viewing at 100% and shooting at extreme ISO do not mix. I have framed 8"x10"s that were shot at 6400 on a 60D. They look good. Period. Full disclosure: I get shots at 6400 that don't come out so good, too.

I gave up this struggle about 18 months ago. A 6D and a bag of consumer primes (28 1.8, 50 1.4, etc.) has solved most of my ISO problem. I rarely, almost never, take the 6D past 3200.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17640090
That is my point. The results obtained by a user who knows how to work those ISO levels are not horrendous. I am struggling to not be rude here. If you search some of the "7D high-ISO" threads, you will see shots at ISO 6400 that will blow you away. POTN member TeamSpeed has tutorials on getting the most out of high-ISO work. He gets much better results than I do out of my 60D, and I can post (have posted) ISO 6400 shots from a 60D that have no visible noise in them. The camera (any modern Canon) is quite capable of producing low/no noise results at ISO settings considered extreme 5 years ago. Any ISO limitations are coming from the user, not the camera. ISO is, to lots of folks, simply not a factor any more. Of course, tastes and tolerances vary, but that has nothing to do with the native abilities the camera brings to the table.

EDIT:
https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1079​217&page=5
Look at post #73 in this thread to see the 7D at ISO 12,800. The 60D uses the same sensor and processor. I can get results almost this good out of the 60D at ISO 6400. This guy is a master. You just can't make the claim that the 7D, or any modern Canon body, is 'horrendous' at ISO xxxx. If that were true, those of us using them at those levels would not be getting such good results. The limitation is self-, not camera-imposed.

EDIT-2:
I've posted these before. Both from 60D @ ISO 6400. Horrendous? Not in my book. EXIF intact. ISO 6400 and f/2.8. 1/30 & 1/50 respectively. I am looking at full-res shots on a 22" monitor. I struggle to find anything that looks like noise. The camera is capable of better. I am not. Lots of folks are.

Hosted photo: posted by GeoKras1989 in
./showthread.php?p=176​40090&i=i110220581
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Hosted photo: posted by GeoKras1989 in
./showthread.php?p=176​40090&i=i126306529
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Yes, you are right, with training in substantial PP you can get a usable image from a 7D at high ISO's, but...

That IS a bit like saying you can do a 6sec quarter in a ford Pinto...provided you fit a nito-methane burning top fuel engine, a new chassis and know how to tune it...

Maybe I should have said that the camera gives very poor images at high ISO before pp...I still maintain though, that the 7D's high ISO images are not on par with high ISO film...

STIC wrote in post #17641934
Yes, you are right, with training in substantial PP you can get a usable image from a 7D at high ISO's, but...

That IS a bit like saying you can do a 6sec quarter in a ford Pinto...provided you fit a nito-methane burning top fuel engine, a new chassis and know how to tune it...

Maybe I should have said that the camera gives very poor images at high ISO before pp...I still maintain though, that the 7D's high ISO images are not on par with high ISO film...

Wrong. Way wrong. On all three counts. Sorry, but you have hugely over-played your hand on this issue. The fact that you don't get good results out of your 7D is most certainly not a reflection on the camera. Take that as you will, good sir.

My training in PP consists of buying LR 5.7 and playing with it. My entire process of noise reduction takes less than a minute per photograph, or batch of similar shots. I am a chemist and computer programmer by trade. When I bought LR, I knew nothing of image processing. No training required.

The camera most certainly does NOT give poor images; it gives you raw material with which to work. If you choose not to expend the effort to get the most out of your camera, and put a few seconds into processing those images, it is misguided to blame the camera for your lack of effort.

I've been shooting film since the '60s. Digital surpassed film in image quality years (10? 15?) ago. Film has come a long way in the last 50 years, but it can't touch digital anymore. My ISO 6400 shots are cleaner than any 800 film in existence, and I am only mediocre at processing noise. Someone with some training could do a lot better than I do. Folks right here on POTN do a lot better than I do.

Lastly, if the 7D produces the poor results you claim, how are so many people shooting it at 6400, and higher, and getting good results? The camera is quite capable. It is not the weak link in your high-ISO images.

I never tire of going back and studying Teamspeed's seminal 7D high ISO thread.

TS (or anyone else).... Do you guys have a nest known for high ISO processing using LR?

Scrumhalf wrote in post #17642018
I never tire of going back and studying Teamspeed's seminal 7D high ISO thread.

TS (or anyone else).... Do you guys have a nest known for high ISO processing using LR?

I refer to that posting frequently. His results are inspiring, aren't they?

I don't know what you mean by 'nest'. I process all of my photos with Lightroom v5.7.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17642028
I refer to that posting frequently. His results are inspiring, aren't they?

I don't know what you mean by 'nest'. I process all of my photos with Lightroom v5.7.

Sorry, typo. I meant "best."

What's your flow? So you have any NR plugins or just the native LR NR?

I shoot raw, ETTR to put highlights I want to keep in the top 20% of the histogram. Import in LR, go to Develop module and go right down the list, doing what that shot (or group) needs. On the DETAILS tab, I find high-ISO NR a delicate balance between SHARPENING and NR. I usually sharpen to 20-40. I also keep the radius at 0.5. That seems important. Apply masking as appropriate so as not to sharpen areas that don't need it, like blank walls and other smooth surfaces. Sharpening increases noise. Then I apply luma NR while zoomed in on a critical area.

Good results are a delicate balance between sharpening and NR. Sharpening creates/enhances noise. NR kills detail. Most importantly: DO NOT JUDGE THE RESULTS AT 100%. Judge at output size. I have a 22" monitor which roughly equates to 8"x10". If it looks good full screen, I am done.

Go easy with NR. It is way too easy to get too aggressive. That will kill your fine detail. To start with, you may spend a few minutes per photo. Once you get comfortable, you can whiz through a photo, or group of similar shots in - literally - seconds. If I have a difficult (poor execution on my part) shot, I may spend several minutes with it. You get faster, fast. This ain't brain surgery!

My shots posted in #26 were just snaps of my kitties. I processed them in less than a minute. The shots in #27 were set up intentionally to show how good NR can be in the shadows at ISO 6400. I may have spent two minutes on those. I did a similar shot with my 6D at ISO 102,400. As you may expect, the 60D 6400 shot looks a bit better. But not much.

Yep, mine is pretty similar. I haven't played with the radius as much, and I tend to push the sharpening a bit more, although this depends on the lens. My 24-70 II shots, for example, seem to need a lot less tweaking. I always ETTR as much as possible.

On my 7D, l seem to need VERY little NR at 1600 ISO or lower, certainly no more than 10 or so. I have shared a whole lot of shots in the last 2 weeks on the 7D photos thread of birds I have photographed in Costa Rica. Almost all of them are at 1600 ISO and didn't touch the NR slider on most of them, and certainly no more than 10 on the few that I did.

I needed to re-evaluate my 7ds abilities.

I shot for so long in auto ISO but manual everywhere else that I thought the noise characteristics were bad. In actuality my photo method was bad for noise.
Lately I have been shooting full manual and have gotten better results. ISO 800 is no longer my stopping point. ETTR is essential. Heck I think the canon metering underexposes.

Either way, I'll keep shooting the 7d Classic for a while.

jhayesvw wrote in post #17642209
I needed to re-evaluate my 7ds abilities.

I shot for so long in auto ISO but manual everywhere else that I thought the noise characteristics were bad. In actuality my photo method was bad for noise.
Lately I have been shooting full manual and have gotten better results. ISO 800 is no longer my stopping point. ETTR is essential. Heck I think the canon metering underexposes.

Either way, I'll keep shooting the 7d Classic for a while.

And that was my point for jumping into this discussion. Upgrading bodies, just to get improved high-ISO performance is going to leave most folks disappointed. Granted, some users are already pushing the limits. If you are shooting your camera at max ISO, and wanting more, upgrading may benefit you. If you refer to the 7D, or any body since, as inadequate at any ISO value less than its max native, upgrading will net you next to nothing.

I include the jump from apsc to full-frame in that assessment. Going from one apsc camera to the next may get you one stop. Going from apsc to full-frame may get you two. If you are stuck at ISO 800 or 1600, you can get two or three stops out of your current camera, FREE.

Of course, some folks - both hobbyists and professionals - demand the very best. High-ISO shooting cuts into dynamic range, saturation, contrast, and produces some noise. For 97.3% (lighten up, its a guess) of us, those things are irrelevant. Blanket claims about new(er) cameras being unable to shoot high ISO say more about the claimant than the camera, usually.

jhayesvw wrote in post #17642209
I needed to re-evaluate my 7ds abilities.

I shot for so long in auto ISO but manual everywhere else that I thought the noise characteristics were bad. In actuality my photo method was bad for noise.
Lately I have been shooting full manual and have gotten better results. ISO 800 is no longer my stopping point. ETTR is essential. Heck I think the canon metering underexposes.

Either way, I'll keep shooting the 7d Classic for a while.

I think this is an important factor that May have had an influence with my 7d when i was using it any of the auto zones TV AV etc, with under exposure.


P.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17642072
I shoot raw, ETTR to put highlights I want to keep in the top 20% of the histogram. Import in LR, go to Develop module and go right down the list, doing what that shot (or group) needs. On the DETAILS tab, I find high-ISO NR a delicate balance between SHARPENING and NR. I usually sharpen to 20-40. I also keep the radius at 0.5. That seems important. Apply masking as appropriate so as not to sharpen areas that don't need it, like blank walls and other smooth surfaces. Sharpening increases noise. Then I apply luma NR while zoomed in on a critical area.

Good results are a delicate balance between sharpening and NR. Sharpening creates/enhances noise. NR kills detail. Most importantly: DO NOT JUDGE THE RESULTS AT 100%. Judge at output size. I have a 22" monitor which roughly equates to 8"x10". If it looks good full screen, I am done.

Go easy with NR. It is way too easy to get too aggressive. That will kill your fine detail. To start with, you may spend a few minutes per photo. Once you get comfortable, you can whiz through a photo, or group of similar shots in - literally - seconds. If I have a difficult (poor execution on my part) shot, I may spend several minutes with it. You get faster, fast. This ain't brain surgery!

My shots posted in #26 were just snaps of my kitties. I processed them in less than a minute. The shots in #27 were set up intentionally to show how good NR can be in the shadows at ISO 6400. I may have spent two minutes on those. I did a similar shot with my 6D at ISO 102,400. As you may expect, the 60D 6400 shot looks a bit better. But not much.

Overall, this pretty much covers my workflow with the 7D files as well; the one change that I made to the "follow LR's flow down the Develop panel is that I go and do both color and standard NR BEFORE I do the sharpening step. I have found that doing sharpening first enhances existing noise so much that I run into the killing of the fine detail as mentioned above; whereas, by doing NR first I can apply a bit more aggressive sharpening to get the edge detail back out of fine bits (like feathers and hair). I normally base my sharpening strength on the ISO that I'm working with. 100 - 400, I will keep it right in the 20-40 range, but as I go up I'll go stronger. 640-1600 I'll usually get into the 50-70 range and above 1600 may get as high as 75.

Also, early on in the flow, be very VERY judicious in the use of the Clarity slider, as being too aggressive with it (15+ in most instances; I try to keep between 0 and 12 in nearly all cases) will further accentuate noise/add additional artifacts that can further kill detail and such when doing your NR/Sharpening routine later on.

An additional note on the color NR stage; only adjust this until the color patches you're noticing go away; anything beyond that is simply destroying detail and isn't helping anything.