7D how to reduce noise

Only by reducing the ISO, but to be honest a sharper noisy image is much better than a blurred one. Just use noise reducing software in PP.
 
iron maiden said:
hi,

is there anyway i can reduce noise when shooting football at 6400 iso,


thank you
Click to expand...


Its in the settings Custom/ C.Fn 11-2 page 208 of your manual set it to Standard low or strong bear in mind if you shooting high speed continuous it will slow it down

Or if you mean High ISO long exposure Custom/ C.Fn 11-1 options On Off or Auto

HTHs

Dave
 
Last edited:
But if you overexpose, you need longer shutter speeds or smaller aperture, if available light allows does this not make sense to drop ISO instead and have less noise anyway.
 
Although I'm from a slightly different school of thought to Vince, exposure is still key. Rather than exposing to the right (which depending on background, kit colour etc might or might not be where you need to be) expose spot on for the skin tones then you won't be trying to pull up the images in post. If you are shooting Av then you are likely to get a range of exposures so getting into manual will help keep the correct settings..... assuming there are not major hot spots on the pitch which be a real pain.
 
Get a faster lens would help, depending on what you're using now. But that might end up costing you a lot of money. Or just reduce it in PP, unless you're like me and dont like using PP, I prefer looking at my shots SOOC and so far I've been happy more often than not.
 
Last edited:
Convert via DPP and not LR/PS.
 
Google ETTR
 
scottthehat said:
can you explain why.
Click to expand...

It's taylor made for Canon's CR2 files.

High ISO raw conversions are not only cleaner, but more detailed than via LR/PS.
 
odd jim said:
No I'm not.

Not even gonna bother looking at your silly link - unless years of experience have been deluding me...
Click to expand...
Oooh... <holds handbag at chest position>. Go on.. Look at the link. Rollovers of DPP vs LR on ISO 3200 images and everything...

Really - seriously.. if you think DPP is better, look at the link. You may be surprised.

I'll do the experiments again if you can say just where I've gone wrong ;)
 
scottthehat said:
thats an interesting read and proves what i have been told cheers andy.
Click to expand...

Just do one thing.

Convert the same 3200iso image, without editing, one in DPP and one in whatever you think is better.

See which one looks best!
 
odd jim said:
Just do one thing.

Convert the same 3200iso image, without editing, one in DPP and one in whatever you think is better.

See which one looks best!
Click to expand...
That's EXACTLY what I did on my link. The LR one is significantly better.

They did improve LR3 over LR2. Perhaps your experience which is leading you to suggest DPP is with LR2.

The images on my site are unedited RAWs with JUST the noise reduction changed.
 
Andy makes me smile :D
 
odd jim said:
It's taylor made for Canon's CR2 files.

High ISO raw conversions are not only cleaner, but more detailed than via LR/PS.
Click to expand...

No, not in my experience. LR3 is about 3 light years ahead of DPP in terms of image details and noise reduction. It also has a good workflow solution.
 
daugirdas said:
No, not in my experience. LR3 is about 3 light years ahead of DPP in terms of image details and noise reduction. It also has a good workflow solution.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
Guess I'm the only one then! (and my eyes must be deceiving me!)

That said I've not used LR3 but iirc it's the same as CS5 in that regard?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Guess I'm the only one then! (and my eyes must be deceiving me!)
Click to expand...
Did you look at the link? Is it what you get out of DPP? I can provide a link to the raw file if you'd like to see how good you can get it.

I'd be perfectly happy to move to DPP if I could see a significant difference.
 
I did yes, but I do seem to get cleaner results from DPP. I'm not sure which version I'm running but its dated 2010?
 
odd jim said:
I did yes, but I do seem to get cleaner results from DPP. I'm not sure which version I'm running but its dated 2010?
Click to expand...
Do you want me to upload the RAW file for you to play with?
 
arad85 said:
Do you want me to upload the RAW file for you to play with?
Click to expand...

Can do if you want.
 
Whilst PP/NR software does help, I think you just have to accept that with current sensor/camera technology, ISO3200+ (for most cameras) aren't going to be perfect but give you the oppotunity to get some shots as opposed to a load of useless blurry images ;)

OK a nice full-frame 1DX may do a better job than a 7D at ISO6400 but you're going to pay for the privilege and it's all relative as they will both perform better at lower ISOs.

Whilst ISO3200+ is useful to have on my 7D, I see them as a compromise is certain situations i.e. 15:00+ in December at a rugby match.
 
DPP proves massively better for me too, both in detail and noise seperately and also managing to be sharper than lightroom 3 while at the same time having less noise in photos where i bump up the sharpness.

I have a lot of post processing experience and still continue to use Lightroom occasionally for certain situations. I have NEVER used it in a situation where i need to minimise noise though.
Lightroom/ACR noise pattern is also like an imposed grain on the photo which 3rd party noise reduction plugins don't recognise as noise as readily as DPP's output. It's a double whammy for me as i use noise reduction selectively with masks.

I really don't care about tests online either as i've been using DPP and ACR engine for years also and experimented massively with them both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top