7D ISO Performace

If you take care not to underexpose and use RAW I found mine ok up to 1600

Some people have complained of noise at 100, but have to think their cameras were faulty, wouldn't expect that with any modern DSLR

I owned two 40D's and the 7D was definitely at least a stop better
 
tijuana taxi said:
If you take care not to underexpose and use RAW I found mine ok up to 1600

Some people have complained of noise at 100, but have to think their cameras were faulty, wouldn't expect that with any modern DSLR

I owned two 40D's and the 7D was definitely at least a stop better
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. The main reason I asked is because I read quite a few user reviews moaning about noticeable noise at really low ISOs. But on the other hand there were just as many expert reviews confirming exactly what you said.

Picking it up tonight so looking forward to having a play :)
 
grotty said:
Really? I didn't think it was bad until 1600 from memory
Click to expand...

different users, different needs, different views.

I'd say 200 for landscapes, 800 for action were the limits on 40D. Full frames give a lot more than this. I accidentally shot a few sunrise frames in the forest at 2000 ISO at 5DIII and they are perfectly usable
 
grotty said:
Really? I didn't think it was bad until 1600 from memory
Click to expand...

Might have been a bit OTT with 'abysmal' but it certainly wasn't a great performer in the noise stakes. Not really surprising considering how many years ago it was introduced though.

Loathed to criticise it tbh because it's been an absolute pleasure to use otherwise.
 
daugirdas said:
different users, different needs, different views.

I'd say 200 for landscapes, 800 for action were the limits on 40D. Full frames give a lot more than this. I accidentally shot a few sunrise frames in the forest at 2000 ISO at 5DIII and they are perfectly usable
Click to expand...

I'd say that's an accurate assessment in respect of the 40D.

Would like to think I'll progress to FF one day but for now I was pushing my luck with the Mrs and the 7D :)
 
daugirdas said:
different users, different needs, different views.

I'd say 200 for landscapes, 800 for action were the limits on 40D. Full frames give a lot more than this. I accidentally shot a few sunrise frames in the forest at 2000 ISO at 5DIII and they are perfectly usable
Click to expand...

Obviously, but as the OP agrees, abysmal was a bit OTT.
 
I went from a 40D to 7D. Noise on the 7D is pretty similar / slightly better at a pixel to pixel level, but with it's 8MP sensor advantage it gains a solid one stop (perhaps even one and a third stops) advantage.
 
I was never that impressed with the noise on the 7d it's as good as the 40d but you have to remember your looking at 10mp vs 18mp on the same size chip.
 
Orville said:
I went from a 40D to 7D. Noise on the 7D is pretty similar / slightly better at a pixel to pixel level, but with it's 8MP sensor advantage it gains a solid one stop (perhaps even one and a third stops) advantage.
Click to expand...

Icee said:
I was never that impressed with the noise on the 7d it's as good as the 40d but you have to remember your looking at 10mp vs 18mp on the same size chip.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input guys.

I'm very rarely going to push it up past 400 tbh as I'm more into landscapes/long exposures so the lower the better.

Just out of interest, for anyone who's moved from the 40D or similar to the 7D....what's was the biggest improvement? I'm hoping the extra 8mp's will improve the look of larger prints.
 
danny_bhoy said:
Thanks for the input guys.

I'm very rarely going to push it up past 400 tbh as I'm more into landscapes/long exposures so the lower the better.

Just out of interest, for anyone who's moved from the 40D or similar to the 7D....what's was the biggest improvement? I'm hoping the extra 8mp's will improve the look of larger prints.
Click to expand...
For me, the biggest improvements were build quality and handling. IQ is better but you do need good glass to get the best out of those 18MP. Not all lenses can handle the higher pixel density.

Other benefits are, the 7D is properly water sealed, much better AF, micro-adjustment for lenses that are not spot on, higher fps, off camera flash control, and probably a dozen things I cannot think of at the moment.
 
My views only.

AF is superb
ISO is a disaster over 800
So much so I bought the 1D mkiv

On a fine day it's a great camera
 
At the PIXEL level the 7D is as noisy as f..k, but if you can fill the frame and expose well then you should be able to get a reasonable PICTURE out of the 7D. This was shot raw at 6400 ISO and converted to JPEG in Lightroom 4.4 without edits.

20130417_092129_8394_LR-2.jpg


Larger version here - https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-...jnLxgZ3is/s5184/20130417_092129_8394_LR-2.jpg

Watch out for browser resizing and make sure you expand the larger image. I doubt you'd have much to complain about in print. Just don't expect to make big crops at high ISO and get anything too impressive.

I know EXIF has been stripped, so here's the original raw file in Lightroom, with no edits, as you'll see.

Screenshot%25252520%2525252835%25252529.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've owned 2x 7ds (don't ask!) just under a year apart and they both exhibited more noise than expected at low iso's - maybe I never got the exposure spot on, maybe it was the camera but there was definitely noise I didn't expect to see and never saw in my 40d before it or the d3100 and d5100 after it (amongst several other bodies) at such low iso.

Loved the AF, fps, viewfinder, build, battery life though
 
drexyl said:
My views only.

AF is superb
ISO is a disaster over 800
So much so I bought the 1D mkiv

On a fine day it's a great camera
Click to expand...

:agree:
If your doing wildlife and start cropping then it just doesn't have the performance or price tag of a 1dmk4.
I found that if you had a good exposure it was possible to get acceptable images.
 
Unless you have a lot of EF-S lenses have you considered a 5D, bought the 7D mainly for wildlife, but couldn't really afford lenses like the 500mm IS L

Sold my 7D with grand ideas of changing brands altogether, but I now take mostly landcape/static stuff and very glad I didn't sell the 5D too

Uses the same memory cards and batteries as the 40D, near enough same layout and is just great at low iso's

Might buy a MKII one day or perhaps a 6D, but have to say for now it's just about perfect

This bit might be total rubbish, but seem to get better hand held shots than I did with my 7D using similar shutter speeds. Perhaps the extra pixels made it appear worse because don't remember having that much grief with the 40D's
 
Last edited:
Truth is, if you want noticeably better high-ISO performance over a 7D you need to look at FF. Even the most recently released competitor crop DSLR's offer just half a stop improvement. The 60D/7D's 18MP sensor cannot be beaten for it's price/
 
Thanks for all the responses guys.

I really tried to convince myself I could justify going full frame but the budget just wasn't there for the 5d and lenses.

Would have meant getting rid of my Tamron 17-50 2.8 which I love too.

Just managed to get a 7D tonight with under 2000 clicks and full warranty for £550 so I'm really pleased with that. Just having a play with the settings now.....of which there are many :)

Thanks again for the input everyone. Pretty sure I made the right choice.
 
Icee said:
I was never that impressed with the noise on the 7d it's as good as the 40d but you have to remember your looking at 10mp vs 18mp on the same size chip.
Click to expand...

This.

As said elsewhere, fill the frame and expose to the right. Shoot RAW and there is quite a lot you can do in post to remove the effects of the noise.

And if you want to save yourself a whole lot of grief stay away from the 100% and 200% buttons :D

The point above about going form 10MP ->18MP is well made, even if the noise was the same you now have almost twice as many pixels.

I am quite amazed at what modern cameras do, squishing whatever you want to photograph down on to an image area about 15*22mm (I think - how small is that!) and then resolving such fine detail that you can zoom in and see things that would probably never be visible in a print at normal (say A4) size.

I really enjoy using this camera, if only my 50mm F1.4 had a proper USM ring focusing system I would be a very happy bunny*.

David

*Focus is a bit hit and miss.
 
To be honest i dont think you have anything to worry about, I have the 60D and use it for my work and although I don't usually shoot at crazy iso like 6400 I will happily use 3200 on it.

Just for seeing what 6400 would be like I took a shot of the washer with the 1.8 and focussed on the A+A section, iso 6400 @ 1.8 cropped in



I dont think the sensor is really that bad at all to be honest, I love the 60D so i imagine the 7 is exactly the same
 
Willid1 said:
This.



And if you want to save yourself a whole lot of grief stay away from the 100% and 200% buttons :D

.
Click to expand...

David,

This may be another thread but I'm so used to getting beautiful clean images at 100% with my 5d2 that those from the 7d are worrying. What I don't understand is how the murkiness that you get from the 7d will show up in real life situations - eg printing, repro, etc....

Do you have any thoughts on this, (or anyone?)
 
jerry12953 said:
David,
What I don't understand is how the murkiness that you get from the 7d will show up in real life situations - eg printing, repro, etc....

Do you have any thoughts on this, (or anyone?)
Click to expand...

My question would be how big do you want to go?.

I have several A2 prints from my 7D, and framed on the wall they look fantastic.

Put your nose to one shot at 800ISO and you can see the noise, but that's not really what they're on the wall for.

Up to about A4 I would think that you could use any ISO you like, given proper exposure and not too much cropping.

HTH

David

PS Having been a fan of DPP I was a bit put out recently to discover that Adobe (PSE 11 and Lightroom) seem to handle the Canon RAW file noise much better than DPP - when pixel peeping. BUT not compared any prints yet.
 
I found the 7D to be much of a muchness with the 40D in terms of noise.

If I used high ISO settings in good light for the purpose of having a very fast shutter speed then all was well.

If I used the same high ISO settings in low light for the purpose of having to maintain a respectable shutter speed then the noise was evident.

I ended up going with a used 1D3
 
From my experience going from 40d to 7d i would say the 7d is definitely better to my eyes. I regularly shoot indoor show jumping and have to use high iso all the time to keep the shutter up.... 3200 on my 40d was a last resort, where as i feel much happier with the results at 3200 on the 7d. 6400 is now a last resort. i'd say there was 1/2 a stop to 1stop improvement. it's no 5dmkiii but i'm happy with the improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top