Best Canon ISO performers?

[modchild]

I've just swapped a 60D for a 7D, mainly for the improved AF system, but the ISO ability isn't anywhere near as impressive as the 60D. I took some shots with the 7D at ISO1600 yesterday and they were very noisy compared to the 60D but I'm not complaining as I knew what it was like before I got it and the positives outweigh the bad.

With my 5D3 I can take shots at 12,800 and they are far less noisy than the 7D's at 1600 though, so your best bet for ISO performance is the 5D3 or the 1Dx. The wife has a 650D and the ISO on that is great, even better than the 60D I had, and you can get good shots up to 3200 and reasonable at 6400.

 

[POAH]

sorry mate disagree with you there I have both cameras
I would say they are both excellent to ISO 800 but the 7D is slightly better at 1600 but to be honest theres not much in it

can you post a couple of unedited RAW conversions in low light - from the images I've seen the 7D has more noise and noise reduction compared to the 40D.


I used to do a lot of nightclub photography and there is no way I'd have used a 7D over a 40D for it.

 

[ajax_andy]

But you are complaining about noise so I wonder if you are getting the results that others get. It's not meant as an insult to your ability, I'm just being honest and saying that whenever I think that kit is limiting me I Google my way to what others are doing with the same kit.

No problem mate... I like the 7D and I do get good results with it even at fairly high ISO's... I just want better and although I could buy another 7D to replace the 40D I just feel it wouldn't be a step up and that's what I really need. I know others who use the 7D and get good results too... A lot of that IMO is post processing to remove it though rather than it being naturaly a good low light performer.

Also I'm looking for an excuse to buy a 5d Mark 3... literally any excuse lol!

Although saying that if there were a better option I'd go for that instead as I still want the best tool for the job at the end of the day

 

[ajax_andy]

I agree

I have used both cameras, having upgraded one for the other.

At 100% there is not much in it, the 40D just having the edge and lower ISO. However there is a whole bunch more MP on the 7D, and downsizing the 7D images to a similar size as the 40D changes the game somewhat - the 7D smokes the 40D then.

Hmmm see I disagree as I really don't like the 40d at all... with every pic taken at all ISO's my 7D absolutely blows the 40D out of the water.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Well I can speak up for the defence of the original 5D Chris!




I ended up browsing this forum last night (following a link while searching for neoprene lens covers) and stumbled across this thread and your post in particular.

Would you believe I registered just to get the chance to reply? I couldn't let this go by unchallenged!

So...let me get this right. According to your experience the 5D MKII (and by default the 5D which I own) has an autofocus system that is barely adequate for landscapes or other static subjects?

That's where I must have been going wrong since 2005 then! None of my pictures could possibly have been in focus then whether they were landscapes taken with a stopped-down 17-40mm f/4L on a tripod with a remote release, still life with 100mm f/2.8 Macro, handheld with a 24-105mm f/4L or panning fast moving aircraft with 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L

What an unbelievable statement to make. I am guessing profanity filters would prevent me from saying it how I feel like saying it and I wouldn't want to get banned...not on my first post anyway!

According to your (flawed) logic hundreds of thousands of 5D users who between them must have taken millions of photographs were lucky to even get static landscapes in focus then?

Hmmm...while I concede that certain models of camera may be more suited to taking certain types of pictures than others you most certainly can take great photos of any subject with any camera. Put a professional behind a P&S and I'm betting he/she could take a better picture than someone who may not have the experience with a high-end body/lens combo.

To say that the 5D MKII is barely adequate for landscapes or other static subjects is misleading at best and total BS at worst.

A biased, blinkered & wholly incorrect & misleading statement such as this could put prospective buyers off what is a great camera.

I take it you have owned 5D series cameras and were unable to get any correctly focussed pictures from them?

Seriously though you have some stunning pictures on your website Daugirdas...some even taken with the 40D which we all know is barely adequate for landscapes or other static subjects!

Hah...way to go Glyn. First post and here I am butting heads with one of the locals already. :nuts:

That won't endear me to the natives and doesn't bode well for my future in here does it?

Kind regards,
-=Glyn=-

To that I could only respond:

1) I skipped any 5D (<3) as it was pointless camera to me given alternatives
2) 17-40 really doesn't need AF for landscape use, and in fact behaves better in MF. At f/11+ your DOF is so wide that you need to make an effort to get OOF shot, yet many somehow do
3) same for macro
4) 40D was really entertaining to use in Live View mode to get those sharp shots. What a joy it was to see it go
5) Oddly, my in-focus hit rate went to 95% from 30% the day I got 1Ds. Strange, innit?
6) I personally know pros that got rid of their 5DII for III and claim major improvement in AF
7) there are millions on this planet that are totally happy with obviously out of focus and noisy shots, but for some reason call those 'pin sharp'.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Hmmm see I disagree as I really don't like the 40d at all... with every pic taken at all ISO's my 7D absolutely blows the 40D out of the water.

Then your 7D is not all bad Feel free to post some examples so we have a true reference what you consider noisy or acceptable

 

[drexyl]

I did own a 40D a while back & thought it was a great camera, as an upgrade i opted for a 5D MKii & was blown away with my new bit of kit.
As my interest in bird photography grew I got a couple of long prime lenses which also blew me away,
In the search of more reach I thought the 7D was an obvious next step.
After spending a lot of time with this body I have to say I've been nothing but disappointed. ISO being my biggest gripe, I find mine unusable over 800 ISO & after speaking at a couple of meetings about it to my astonishment everyone that owned a 7D agreed.
Just got myself a 1D 1v so hopefully ill get on better with this one.

 

[seriousrikk]

I guess what this thread proves is different folk have different opinions on what is usable and what is not.

I'm pulling usable wildlife shots out of my 7D at ISO 3200. By usable I mean they would print out at 12x18.

 

[Ricky]

I had seen several 7Ds and founf that iso noise issues can vary from cameras, I stick to my 5Dii which are good at 3200 and ok at 6400.

 

[petersmart]

I have never been bothered by noise enough to buy noise removal software.

On my older Canons I typically over exposed and pulled back in ACR, did the trick.

How do you post or what do you use to get rid of noise?

If you over exposed then, apart from possibly losing the highlights, you are, in effect, using a LOWER ISO.

If you over expose by 2x you are, in effect, cutting the ISO in half, so obviously getting lower noise.

.

 

[antonroland]

To that I could only respond:

1) I skipped any 5D (<3) as it was pointless camera to me given alternatives

This may have been true for YOUR situation at the time...the 5D Mk I was such a landmark camera at it's time though...please note I never said perfect, admittedly the AF could and should have been better but this was the time when the 1D range was still a vastly superior market.

2) 17-40 really doesn't need AF for landscape use, and in fact behaves better in MF. At f/11+ your DOF is so wide that you need to make an effort to get OOF shot, yet many somehow do

Without a basic understanding of hyper focal distance it is actually quite easy to get OOF shots at f/16...well, it was with my 16-35 at least...

3) same for macro
4) 40D was really entertaining to use in Live View mode to get those sharp shots. What a joy it was to see it go

I never owned a 40D, went straight to FF from the 20D...did hear of MANY 40D bodies that threw shutters very early to practically new so that didn't cause me to want to own one


5) Oddly, my in-focus hit rate went to 95% from 30% the day I got 1Ds. Strange, innit?

Agreed, my 1Ds II had blistering AF at the time which also worked similar wonders for my keepers rate but my 5D I was never THAT far behind

6) I personally know pros that got rid of their 5DII for III and claim major improvement in AF

Agreed, quite rightly so but this is rather obvious...


7) there are millions on this planet that are totally happy with obviously out of focus and noisy shots, but for some reason call those 'pin sharp'.

Very true, sadly...

 

[Moos3h]

Sorry but as long as your example is functioning correctly, there are absolutely no inherent issues with focussing on the 5dmk1 or 2 in my experience.

The high ISO performance is stunning on mk2. It's where my money would go.

 

[antonroland]

If you over exposed then, apart from possibly losing the highlights, you are, in effect, using a LOWER ISO.

If you over expose by 2x you are, in effect, cutting the ISO in half, so obviously getting lower noise.

.

Not sure I follow you there completely but, hey, I got the shots...

I recall an evening at oval track racing where I shot with my 50mm at f/1.4, 3200ISO + anywhere from 2/3 to 1.3 stops overexposed (AV), worked a treat.

Didn't worry too much about highlights at the time, there were none:bonk:

 

[ajax_andy]

Then your 7D is not all bad Feel free to post some examples so we have a true reference what you consider noisy or acceptable

Oh no don't get me wrong I absolutely love the 7D... up to ISO 1600. Anything under that and it's a fantastic performer IMO and even when I upgrade the 40D to a FF camera I'll still keep the 7D and use the 70-200mm zoom for candid shots at weddings.

I don't want this thread to come across as a 7D bashing thread as it's definitely not that... more what is my next step to get better high ISO performance

 

[ajax_andy]

Getting the thread back on track a little here it seems the suggestions so far are:

1dx - £5k approx
5D Mark III - £2k approx
5D Mark II - £1200 approx

Am I missing any from the list?

 

[Phil V]

Getting the thread back on track a little here it seems the suggestions so far are:

1dx - £5k approx
5D Mark III - £2k approx
5D Mark II - £1200 approx

Am I missing any from the list?

Yes, you've missed 'print some pictures' - and from a business perspective 'what do your customers want'.

Because what you're getting hung up on is irrelevant. See my post from this morning regarding ISO and noise in response to this thread amongst recent others Andy.

the simple truth is; you can buy a camera that'll give you marginal improvements in noise when pixel peeping - but if your customers see noise rather than great pictures - you're doing something wrong. BTW, I don't think you're doing something that wrong - that's my point.

Someone the other day pointed out what many pro's would see as a distraction in the background of a couple of your images - you decided it was irrelevant - but you think a bit of chrominance noise is important?

Ask your customers about your images - way before you ask some photographers about cameras.

 

[ajax_andy]

Yes, you've missed 'print some pictures' - and from a business perspective 'what do your customers want'.

Because what you're getting hung up on is irrelevant. See my post from this morning regarding ISO and noise in response to this thread amongst recent others Andy.

the simple truth is; you can buy a camera that'll give you marginal improvements in noise when pixel peeping - but if your customers see noise rather than great pictures - you're doing something wrong. BTW, I don't think you're doing something that wrong - that's my point.

Someone the other day pointed out what many pro's would see as a distraction in the background of a couple of your images - you decided it was irrelevant - but you think a bit of chrominance noise is important?

Ask your customers about your images - way before you ask some photographers about cameras.

Haha ok stop talking sense Phil as you're ruining my excuse to by a new camera ok?!

Fair points though you are of course completely correct with everything you've put there... the noise certainly isn't an issue in any final product given to clients so it's just me that's got the issue with it.

Good post!

 

[Phil V]

..

Good post!

I try.

I was going to say I don't want to stop you buying a new camera - but there's a small part of me that does. Would the money be better spent on marketing materials? wedding fayres? backup gear? a holiday?

 

[ajax_andy]

I try.

I was going to say I don't want to stop you buying a new camera - but there's a small part of me that does. Would the money be better spent on marketing materials? wedding fayres? backup gear? a holiday?

I think I still need a new camera to replace the 40d tbh... whether that's another 7d or a 5d mk 3 is something I'll think about over the next few months. If business is good I can maybe stretch to the 5d, but if not another 7d wouldn't be the end of the world.

Saying that I still have a fair bit to pay back to Jessops for my lenses so might be a good idea to wait for that to clear before thinking about my next purchases!

 

[Orville]

From my experience of owning a 20D, 40D, 7D, 5DII and playing with a 5DIII for a few days, I judge them as follows.

*7D - Noise is clearly visible above ISO 400, but good results can be had up until ISO 3200. I set max ISO to 800 with latest firmware because I cannot be bothered messing with NR during PP. the 7D is a big improvement of previous models (40/50D).
*5DII - Generally one-stop better than the 7D. Noise is clearly visible above ISO 800. ISO 3200-6400 on the 5DII looks similar to 1600-3200 on the 7D. MASSIVE improvement over the original 5D.
*5DIII - Perhaps half a stop better than the 5DII. I wouldn't be able to tell 5DII vs 5DIII images apart unless I directly compared them side by side. The 5DIII's sensor is only slightly improved over the 5DII.

My only Nikon reference is my daughter's D3000, where I would esitimate that the 7D is as good at ISO 3200 as the D3000 is at ISO 800. The D3000 is quite old now, but still great for an 11 year old to learn the basics.

For >90% of my shots I use ISO 400 or lower. Infact, it is very rare that I use greater than ISO 800, a level at which all of the above cameras can provide decent results. For darker than 800 I tend to use speedlight.

 

[dalegt4]

so what kind of noise do the 7d get at for example 1600?? And what does everyone class as "bad" noise?

I mean i know the camera is different but this is a shot i took friday and saturday night when i was asked to take photos for Sleaford Oktoberfest, 1600iso on a 1100d

Now at 100% there is no noise that i can see on my monitor,now i know the 1100d is pretty good with noise but surely with how much the 7d is to buy, it surely is far superior in the noise dept?

 

[Byker28i]

Reading some of this makes me wonder why anyone would bother getting anything apart from a 40D

Mine broke its shutter at 40k images as well.

The answer to the original question is always, the newest and most expensive

 

[Pookeyhead]

Oh, and anyone who can't take a decent landscape or static subject with a 5DII needs to take-up golf instead.:shake:

Or indeed any camera. Camera's don't take photographs, people do. One may have slightly less noise than another.. or one lens may be slightly sharper than another.. so what.. would a great photograph still not be a great photograph is it had slightly more noise, or was slightly less sharp? Of course it would.

 

[LCPete]

can you post a couple of unedited RAW conversions in low light - from the images I've seen the 7D has more noise and noise reduction compared to the 40D.


I used to do a lot of nightclub and there is no way I'd have used a 7D over a 40D for it.

Sorry for delay replying am at work at the mo
I thought you meant that generally the 40d had better IQ
at normal ISO up to 800 I can't tell much difference maybe the 7d has moredetail

at the1600 7 d seems to be better but agree with you the 40d is better ISO 3200 not sure why

 

[dalegt4]

Or indeed any camera. Camera's don't take photographs, people do. One may have slightly less noise than another.. or one lens may be slightly sharper than another.. so what.. would a great photograph still not be a great photograph is it had slightly more noise, or was slightly less sharp? Of course it would.

+1 to that!

people tick me off claiming that you can't take a good photo unless you have a 2k camera and a 2k canon lens.

some fool with all the gear and no idea came over to me when i had the big sigma out and had a jab , so i said lets just see who takes the better pictures shall we?

and mine got chosen so goes to show you don't "need" the most expensive

 

[Phil V]

Or indeed any camera. Camera's don't take photographs, people do. One may have slightly less noise than another.. or one lens may be slightly sharper than another.. so what.. would a great photograph still not be a great photograph is it had slightly more noise, or was slightly less sharp? Of course it would.

You can't just come into a hardware thread and talk about photography. :rules:

Everyone knows that it's all about the gear - and maybe a bit of PP.

Knowledge, skill or any amount of photographic talent isn't to be discussed where people are obsessed with MTF charts, ugly noise and banding. The fact that people have been taking and selling great pictures for decades with fairly rudimentary gear is just mythology. If you haven't got the latest gigapixel camera on order you're a charlatan.:shrug:

 

[Phil Young]

You can't just come into a hardware thread and talk about photography. :rules:

Everyone knows that it's all about the gear - and maybe a bit of PP.

Knowledge, skill or any amount of photographic talent isn't to be discussed where people are obsessed with MTF charts, ugly noise and banding. The fact that people have been taking and selling great pictures for decades with fairly rudimentary gear is just mythology. If you haven't got the latest gigapixel camera on order you're a charlatan.:shrug:

Lol Phil! You remind me of an old man in his chair being negative about children playing!!!

Come on, we all have the latest phones, nice tv&rsquo;s etc.

I'm sure you have a reasonably fast PC? could you edit with a 1ghz processor and 1gb RAM? Absolutely. Does it make your job harder? Absolutely.

 

[hollis_f]

If you believe forum postings then the 20D is the best APS-C.

Well, it's not hard to find people claiming, at the time of release of the relevant model, that the 7D was worse than the 50D, which was worse than the 40D, which was worse than the 30D, which was worse then the 20D.

 

[alix]

Im using the 60d for motorsports and as i use the 70-200mm f/4 lens and most the rally's are in wales (wet and over cast lol) i often shoot between 800 to 1600 iso and have no noise i love the 60d its the main reason i picked it over the 7d

 

[arad85]

You will never get definitive answers from folk around here, you need something more objective

I know DxO gets dissed for various reasons, but the full frame cameras have it there, with the 5D3 leading the 5D2 leading the 1Ds3 - which is exactly what you'd expect. The 1Dx has not been tested, but I'd expect it to be better again than the 5D3.

None are as good as the latest Nikons though.....

 

[arad85]

and have no noise i love the 60d its the main reason i picked it over the 7d

It is the same sensor. The noise will be the same....

 

[alix]

It is the same sensor. The noise will be the same....

yep but for some reason most prob in the firmware there is a dif talked to a lot of people some have dropped the 7d and moved to 60d because of it dont ask me why :shrug:

 

[Mad Badger]

Can you run your last statement by me again........with some punctuation maybe, I'd love to know what you mean

 

[arad85]

yep but for some reason most prob in the firmware there is a dif talked to a lot of people some have dropped the 7d and moved to 60d because of it dont ask me why :shrug:

If you believe that, then that's all that matters

 

[dalegt4]

i suppose the fact of the matter plain and simple though is like anything in life..

The proof is always in the pudding, if a picture doesnt show noise then happy days.

If a picture is a superb picture then does a small amount of noise barely noticable to the normal person make it bad?

But all in all the only way to see something is to literally line cameras up at the same place with the same lens in the same scenario and take exactly the same picture.

 

[Canon Bob]

It is the same sensor. The noise will be the same....

Having the same sensor only means that they have the potential to be the same, Andy. If the analogue gain versus digital gain is different then there's every likelihood that the noise levels will be different. I suspect that the noise level of the 60D may have been reduced slightly by sacrificing a little of the dynamic range (at some Iso settings).

Bob

 

[arad85]

Having the same sensor only means that they have the potential to be the same, Andy. If the analogue gain versus digital gain is different then there's every likelihood that the noise levels will be different. I suspect that the noise level of the 60D may have been reduced slightly by sacrificing a little of the dynamic range (at some Iso settings).

Bob

I'd agree with you Bob, but I can't find any reviews where the measurements show that. In fact, the opposite appears true. Certainly all the sites that put these things into numbers, the differences are small enough to be within the limits of experimental error and to be below what you'd reliably be able to tell apart (assuming raw files and not in-camera processed JPEGs where different processing may well be done)

 

[Phil V]

Lol Phil! You remind me of an old man in his chair being negative about children playing!!!

Come on, we all have the latest phones, nice tv&rsquo;s etc.

I'm sure you have a reasonably fast PC? could you edit with a 1ghz processor and 1gb RAM? Absolutely. Does it make your job harder? Absolutely.

You're right and I am grumpy about it

I don't care if someone wants to justify buying the latest thing - or justifying their purchases most ways.

BUT when forum gearheads start dismissing other kit to justify their willy waggling it gets ridiculous - and I'm likely to call bull-*!7.

There are people al over the world with treasured photo's shot on 20d's using Sigma lenses - but people who've never taken a picture that impressed anyone (including themselves) will argue that the camera and lens are simply not capable of good results. And lots of inexperienced folk believe them and pass on the misinformation.

Don't get me wrong, a lottery win would see me with a brace of 5d IIIs and a 1d? But I don't pretend it's not having one that stops me being a great photographer. In the same way my forum posts wouldn't be better written on a 27" IMAC

 

[Phil Young]

You're right and I am grumpy about it

I don't care if someone wants to justify buying the latest thing - or justifying their purchases most ways.

BUT when forum gearheads start dismissing other kit to justify their willy waggling it gets ridiculous - and I'm likely to call bull-*!7.

There are people al over the world with treasured photo's shot on 20d's using Sigma lenses - but people who've never taken a picture that impressed anyone (including themselves) will argue that the camera and lens are simply not capable of good results. And lots of inexperienced folk believe them and pass on the misinformation.

Don't get me wrong, a lottery win would see me with a brace of 5d IIIs and a 1d? But I don't pretend it's not having one that stops me being a great photographer. In the same way my forum posts wouldn't be better written on a 27" IMAC

I agree that the fundementals are about skill. I've said it before and will say it again; there isn't a shot I can get on my D7000 that I couldn't get on a D40, I can just do it quicker and would spend less time in PP...bit with either camera I would make the image.

In contrast using a D4 won't give me better images but I'm sure my keeper rate would increase due to better technology.

I think there are way too many people out for the cleanest, noise free image and forget that a clean image doesn't = a good image (hence my reason for starting recent threads on improving images taken at high ISO). The people afraid of shooting high ISO need to stop blaming equipment and learn how to use it, along with PP better IMO so I do technically agree with you.

Does a better camera make a better photographer? No. Will it help a good photographer to do a better job under challenging circumstances? Yes.

 

[Phil V]

Does a better camera make a better photographer? No. Will it help a good photographer to do a better job under challenging circumstances? Yes.

So we're in agreement then.

The only difference is I let the gear heads wind me up sometimes