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 General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 26 Mar 2017 (Sunday) 13:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7D II grain

 
neophyte52
Senior Member
Avatar
603 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 80
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Chanhassen, MN
     
Mar 26, 2017 13:34 |  #1

I recently purchased a used 7DII here for a FL wildlife shooting trip (my go-to body is a 6D). I was delighted w/ all the auto-focusing capabilities & burst rate (I shoot my 6D entirely on manual exposure & focus). BUT: I was really disappointed w/ grain on even moderate (~4000 or higher) ISO. I recognize that grain will be more evident on close-ups like I was shooting vs. landscapes, but really expected better. While I prefer to shoot at 100, the 6D will handle relatively high (10,000) ISO w/ fairly limited grain.

Is this a known problem? Any suggestions? Given the stated ISO range, I'd thought I could push it a lot further than I did...


Mark
Trying to compensate for lack of talent with lots of gear :lol:
My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
medd63
Senior Member
340 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 242
Joined Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Post edited over 1 year ago by medd63. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 26, 2017 16:06 |  #2

I don't think it is a known problem with the 7D as much as the 6D's high ISO capabilities have spoiled you. I have a 6D and have rented the 7D several times. The ISO to noise/grain ratio is much better on the 6D.

BTW most people don't think 4000 ISO is "moderate". More like 400-800. Again, the 6D is spoiling you. :-)


6D, 7D2, T4i, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, 50mm f/1.4 IS, EF-S 55-250, 1.4 II TC, Kenko Extension Tubes, MeFoto Globetrotter & Roadtrip Tripods, Lightroom CC, Photoshop CC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mickeyb105
Goldmember
Avatar
2,444 posts
Gallery: 346 photos
Likes: 1304
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Vero Beach, FL
     
Mar 26, 2017 22:55 |  #3

medd63 wrote in post #18311601 (external link)
I don't think it is a known problem with the 7D as much as the 6D's high ISO capabilities have spoiled you. I have a 6D and have rented the 7D several times. The ISO to noise/grain ratio is much better on the 6D.

BTW most people don't think 4000 ISO is "moderate". More like 400-800. Again, the 6D is spoiling you. :-)

This was exactly what I was thinking, too. It really is a night and day difference at that ISO threshold.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f/1.8 ZA, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Zeiss 24/2 ZA, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick75
Cream of the Crop
5,700 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 607
Joined May 2012
Location: Riverside,California
     
Mar 26, 2017 23:26 |  #4

The mid-high range ISO on the 7DM2 was the biggest letdown ever.
I too struggle with it, night and day difference compared to my A7.


- Alex Corona Sony A7, Canon 7DM2/EOS M, Mamiya 645/67
Flickr (external link) - 500px (external link) - Website (external link)- Feedback -Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
5,760 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 2681
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Mar 26, 2017 23:47 |  #5

Yes, the 7D2 requires good light unfortunately. I'm spoiled with my 6D as well.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 23/35/50 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,273 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3539
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 27, 2017 11:13 |  #6

Correction, it needs good exposure, not good light. However, also what raw converter is being used and has it been upgraded to handle the 7D2? I strongly suggest you try DPP that came with the 7D2 and see if you like those results better. Raw converters make a HUGE difference in ISO characteristics.

Here is a side by side at ISO 6400 with the 5D3 vs 7D2 just to show those differences, using DPP that was upgraded for both bodies.
https://photos.smugmug​.com …W/1/O/7d5d6400_​before.gif (external link)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,203 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3271
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Mar 27, 2017 11:31 |  #7

I've got to load DPP and play with it. TS, do you find DPP to be superior to the built-in LR raw converter?


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,273 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3539
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 27, 2017 11:41 as a reply to  @ Scrumhalf's post |  #8

I stopped using LR back at version 3. I updated cameras so many times that I didn't like having to pony up money over and over each time I picked up a new body, nor could I get into the full feature set of LR. The cataloging was its biggest strength for me, but now I just do that myself manually, and use DPP with CS5.

However, I have heard others talk about the better DPP JPG results from a raw file that have used LR. Most likely these are attributed to the fact that DPP doesn't apply some default suite of settings to each raw, but instead honors your in-camera settings, which is another big advantage for what I do as well, IMO. I try to get the shots right in camera, and I don't have to worry about raw conversion factors per file.

For those that don't use the most recent versions of LR, you may be able to produce JPG from raw files, however until Adobe updates the engine for the camera model in question, you could be getting subpar conversions. Many times it has been shown that upgraded versions of LR that coincide with a new model produce better files than prior versions of LR. I stopped worrying about that by just using DPP. My results work for me, and I have stopped paying attention to Adobe LR.:)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ksbal
Goldmember
Avatar
2,269 posts
Gallery: 258 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 1467
Joined Sep 2010
Location: N.E. Kansas
Post edited over 1 year ago by ksbal. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 27, 2017 16:56 |  #9

Here is a 7DII image pp'd in LR 5.7

Yes, there is a ton of grain at 100%. BUT even the image below can be printed at 8x10 and be pretty acceptable to the general public

However, it isn't full frame, and won't ever be. But I think correct exposure and good PP do make it acceptable.

In this particular arena, I set the shutter speed and f-stop and let auto ISO take care of the variations in lighting.

I'm fine with the iso in general up to 6400, and then the grain bothers me, but it is still better than no picture or blurry picture.

JMHO YMMV.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from ksbal's gallery.


YN622 English User Guide/Manual by Clive
https://drive.google.c​om …Ig0gMMzZFaDVlZ1​VNTE0/view (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chiefy
Goldmember
Avatar
2,434 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 114
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
     
Mar 27, 2017 17:06 |  #10

All crop sensor camera's will give more grain at high ISO compared to full frame. That is just the nature of having two sensors of a different size. I have not heard of anyone referring to ISO 4,000 as moderate before.


S110/7D Mk II/5D Mk IV - 16-35L f4 IS - 135L - 24-70L f2.8 IS II - 70-200L f2.8 IS II- 100-400 IIL IS - 100 Macro f2.8L IS - 85mm 1.4 IS L - Σ 35 1.4 Art - Σ 50 1.4 Art - Σ 18-250 - TC 1.4 II - EF 12/25 II - 430 EX II/600 EX-RT X 2 - ST-E3-RT - Manfrotto 055CXPRO3/Acratech GP + 390 & 680B w/234RC
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
neophyte52
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
603 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 80
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Chanhassen, MN
     
Mar 31, 2017 18:51 as a reply to  @ Chiefy's post |  #11

I certainly agree that iso 4000 isn't "moderate". Everything is relative, and, relative to what the claimed native iso on that body is, 4000 could be called "moderate". As several have pointed out, I'm spoiled by my 6D :-(


Mark
Trying to compensate for lack of talent with lots of gear :lol:
My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,273 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3539
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Mar 31, 2017 21:06 |  #12

iso 4000 is now a low iso, isn't it? :D


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
11,948 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2754
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Apr 04, 2017 02:05 |  #13

medd63 wrote in post #18311601 (external link)
BTW most people don't think 4000 ISO is "moderate". More like 400-800.

That's for sure. Shooting at 4000 on a 1.6 crop sensor is unthinkable to me. I don't think one could ever get such images past a review panel at a stock agency. In fact, for professional work where the licensee is inspecting every submission at 100%, I don't think ISO 4000 images from any 1.6 sensor would ever get through QC.

.


"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 "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,273 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3539
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed. (8 edits in all)
     
Apr 04, 2017 05:04 |  #14

I didn't know that was the litmus test for an acceptable image? Today's crop bodies provide better ISO 4000 shots than lower ISO from yesterday's FF bodies. I also know of some sports illustrated shooters that work for getty images that routinely use high iso on crop bodies for professional sporting events having shot on the floor next to them. My own results have been used by news outlets and the NBA lower league offices. ISO in itself isn't the issue, vs quality of optics, type of lighting and WB, and exposure.

In the near future, people aren't even going to know about iso speeds, as cameras become more and more iso invariant. We already have some cameras that are almost there. For now however, a FF is going to be better at landscapes due to the ability to capture detail over the AA filters that are still on the APS-C bodies. The 7D2 AA filter is less aggressive than the 7D was, but still, it affects your imgaes.

Here are 2 images from a 7D2 at an indeterminate ISO. The first image is directly from the raw file via DPP, no photoshop/LR post processing. The 2nd is a 100% crop from this direct image (left), and then a processed image from the raw (right). I am currently in the process of getting an Alamy account, and these fit the requirements called out by their submission process.


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



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


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,604 posts
Likes: 2560
Joined Oct 2015
     
Apr 04, 2017 07:28 |  #15

I don't sell any images. As a hobby user, I have no fear of using my 1DIV at 6400, 80D at 12,800, and 6D at 25,600. Admittedly, I don't shoot at these levels very often. High ISO and f/5.6 consumer zooms made me invest in a collection of f/1.8-f/2.8 primes. These days, I rarely go above ISO 1600.


Tom

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

5,274 views & 33 likes for this thread
7D II grain
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
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 julianribinik
841 guests, 291 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.