Canon 500 f4 IS (mki) - Grainy images

jonathan_ed

jonathan_ed

Messages
1,110
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

A few months ago I purchased a used (pretty heavily) 500 f4 is from mpb.

I have used it quite a bit in the last few months and I'm finding the images to be quite grainy. Has anyone else found this?

I've used on both my 7dii and 5diii.
The shots I've used in 5diii are generally wildlife and at varying ISO' from 400-1600 and they do t seem too bad.
But on the 7dii (aviation shots) they seem to be pretty damn grainy when I zoom in on the monitor. These are are shot at ISO 400 or below.

Has anyone got any experience or comments?

Thanks in advance
Jonathan
 
I think you should post some examples to illustrate what you are describing. A picture can speak a 1000 words ;)
 
From my own bitter experience, I find images off my 7D (albeit a MK1) very grainy at times. It can be helped with good use of exposure but even then, my own copy can be noisy and grainy.

The 7DMkii is supposed to be much better but it's still a crop sensor and will be more difficult, if that's the right word to get a decent, clean exposure, than on a full frame body. I am switching to full frame now.

It may be something with your lens, or something else with your set up but this is my experience of the 7 series.
 
Your description of the 7D2 showing I more is interesting makes me wonder if you are seeing noise, hence 'post pictures'.

I have the 7D and was never happy with the grain/noise, my 5D3 by comparison is smooth and handles high iso noise IMO very well...........the 7D is now unused!

I look forward to seeing what you describe.
 
A lens shouldn't cause grainy results, that's normally a result of high ISO. Have you shot in manual at a particular ISO/aperture/shutter speed and used different lenses to compare the result?
 
stevelmx5 said:
A lens shouldn't cause grainy results, that's normally a result of high ISO. Have you shot in manual at a particular ISO/aperture/shutter speed and used different lenses to compare the result?
Click to expand...

I've shot in various, from manual to av to tv. With the 7dii they are lower iso's.

Also worth noting the 7dii shots tend to be subjects further away, such as the aviation mentioned
 
jonathan_ed said:
I've shot in various, from manual to av to tv. With the 7dii they are lower iso's.

Also worth noting the 7dii shots tend to be subjects further away, such as the aviation mentioned
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant have you done a direct comparison between the 500 and any other lens on the same camera using the exact same settings?

The focal length shouldn't have any bearing on the grain, unless you're cropping heavily which will highlight grain a lot more.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Sorry, I meant have you done a direct comparison between the 500 and any other lens on the same camera using the exact same settings?

The focal length shouldn't have any bearing on the grain, unless you're cropping heavily which will highlight grain a lot more.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh ok

Yes pretty much. I've had the cameras for ages and used various lenses (300 f4 with an extender and Sigma 150-600 c&s) and not had the issue.

Not really cropping too much. I have hired a mkii of the same lens previously with the same body and never had the issue, so I'm a bit stumped

Until I can get an actual image on here you can see some on my Flickr.
The aviation shots at on the 7dii and the badgers are on the 5diii at much higher isos
As I said I will get some on later
 
Your flickr doesn't seem to show any exif, which isn't very helpful for trying to diagnose any potential problems :)
 
jonathan_ed said:
Ahhhh ok

Yes pretty much. I've had the cameras for ages and used various lenses (300 f4 with an extender and Sigma 150-600 c&s) and not had the issue.

Not really cropping too much. I have hired a mkii of the same lens previously with the same body and never had the issue, so I'm a bit stumped

Until I can get an actual image on here you can see some on my Flickr.
The aviation shots at on the 7dii and the badgers are on the 5diii at much higher isos
As I said I will get some on later
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of is that the aperture blades are sticking so the camera is boosting ISO (assuming you're using auto ISO) to compensate. However, blades would normally stick open rather than closed!

Do the exposures look correct from camera or are you having to boost them in post?
 
stevelmx5 said:
The only thing I can think of is that the aperture blades are sticking so the camera is boosting ISO (assuming you're using auto ISO) to compensate. However, blades would normally stick open rather than closed!

Do the exposures look correct from camera or are you having to boost them in post?
Click to expand...

Generally correct. Some of the aviation stuff is often backlit due to shooting into the sun (out of my hands....)
 
jonathan_ed said:
Generally correct. Some of the aviation stuff is often backlit due to shooting into the sun (out of my hands....)
Click to expand...

In those shots are you saying the aircraft is silhouetted and the 'shaded' area shows the grain you mention???

If so and stating the obvious........ are you dialing in about +2 ec (exposure compensation)? This in effect overexposes the sky but gives correct exposure on the aircraft ~ teaching you how to suck eggs ;)

PS I also us Centre Weighed metering :)
 
Last edited:
We really need some pictures with EXIF data. As others have said, the lens itself won't be causing the 'grain'. It's most likely a consequence of you using that lens in a different way, or with different settings, compared to how you use other lenses.
 
StewartR said:
We really need some pictures with EXIF data. As others have said, the lens itself won't be causing the 'grain'. It's most likely a consequence of you using that lens in a different way, or with different settings, compared to how you use other lenses.
Click to expand...

Like I've said, I've used the mkii without issue and got some of the best shots I've had, and with this (on the same camera body) there's been massive differences. I.e. The grain
 
Hmmmmm! subject and exposure differences aside the one setting that stands out if wide open on the brock and smaller apertures on the aircraft.

I see one is f9 but I wonder at f10 and smaller there is a sensor diffraction aspect creeping? I think I read someone making mention (not in this combo) of 'the sensor out resolving the lens'.

I'll await Stewarts insight on such matters bearing in mind you say this is the Mk1 version of the lens!

PS FWIW on these forum sized images I can see a difference between the two body combo examples....................that does IMO point to it being a combo question and the settings involved.
 
Just to add to the EXIF info, Jonathan. How much, if any, have these images been cropped from the original capture?

Bob
 
I've got to admit I'm struggling here. I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at, but at web resolution these all look fine to me.

jonathan_ed said:
Like I've said, I've used the mkii without issue and got some of the best shots I've had, and with this (on the same camera body) there's been massive differences. I.e. The grain
Click to expand...

Let's see the differences then. Comparing <suspect lens with camera A> versus <suspect lens with camera B> isn't helping to highlight the issue. What we - or at least I - need to see is <suspect lens with camera A> versus <good lens with camera A>. Preferably similar subjects, with similar settings, and no cropping or post processing. There are too many variables at present.
 
StewartR said:
I've got to admit I'm struggling here. I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at, but at web resolution these all look fine to me.



Let's see the differences then. Comparing <suspect lens with camera A> versus <suspect lens with camera B> isn't helping to highlight the issue. What we - or at least I - need to see is <suspect lens with camera A> versus <good lens with camera A>. Preferably similar subjects, with similar settings, and no cropping or post processing. There are too many variables at present.
Click to expand...

If your happy to supply with another mki lens I'll gladly give it a try.... all joking aside, I maybe being over critical as I do tend to zoom in to between and 80 and 100 percent when I'm working on them and checking them over which does highlight grain.

I suppose he only other way I could try and demonstrate it would be to reupload the raw image (as a jpg) into Flickr and put on here.

From the opinions so far it may be the lens and body combo, as there is less or no issue on the full frame body.
 
My son has a 7D2, I have a 5D3, I tried a few snaps couple of weeks ago with his camera and mine with my lens (100-400 mk 1) and when zoomed 100% in DPP I noticed his were noisier, not particularly scientic appraisal but I think the 7 is by definition noisier and if you are looking at 100% you'll notice the difference.
I tried to ensure same Iso, shutter speed, aperture and subject matter to minimize differences.
Matt
 
jonathan_ed said:
From the opinions so far it may be the lens and body combo, as there is less or no issue on the full frame body.
Click to expand...
It's not the lens.

Grain is caused by the sensor, and can be exacerbated by the camera settings and the processing. If you're looking at processed 7D Mk II images at 100%, at standard desktop resolution (~100ppi) that corresponds to an image which is approximately 150cm by 100cm. Of course there's a chance it may look grainy.

Until I see a meaningful comparison between this lens and a different lens (same camera, similar subject type, similar camera settings, no processing), I have nothing more to say. Sorry.
 
StewartR said:
It's not the lens.

Grain is caused by the sensor, and can be exacerbated by the camera settings and the processing. If you're looking at processed 7D Mk II images at 100%, at standard desktop resolution (~100ppi) that corresponds to an image which is approximately 150cm by 100cm. Of course there's a chance it may look grainy.

Until I see a meaningful comparison between this lens and a different lens (same camera, similar subject type, similar camera settings, no processing), I have nothing more to say. Sorry.
Click to expand...

So then it is the lens and body combo, i.e. that lens with that body, because I don't get it with my other body...

anyway these are other shots with the 7dii. The first being on the sigma 150-600C, f7.1, iso500, 1/1600

Untitled by Jonathan Wintle, on Flickr

This one was with 300 f4 + 1.4mkiii (f7.1 / iso400 / 1/800)
Untitled by Jonathan Wintle, on Flickr

This one with a sigma 150-600S (f7.1 / iso100 / 1/200)
Untitled by Jonathan Wintle, on Flickr
 
More the sensor (read body), the lens can make a difference depending on its ability to resolve fine detail, so a poor lens may not look as "bad".
As I said earlier a 5D3 will produce a "nicer" image than a 7D2 partly because it's full frame.
 
Last edited:
jonathan_ed said:
Hi all

A few months ago I purchased a used (pretty heavily) 500 f4 is from mpb.

I have used it quite a bit in the last few months and I'm finding the images to be quite grainy. Has anyone else found this?

I've used on both my 7dii and 5diii.
The shots I've used in 5diii are generally wildlife and at varying ISO' from 400-1600 and they do t seem too bad.
But on the 7dii (aviation shots) they seem to be pretty damn grainy when I zoom in on the monitor. These are are shot at ISO 400 or below.

Has anyone got any experience or comments?

Thanks in advance
Jonathan
Click to expand...

It's very simple - the 7D has much smaller photodiodes compared to the 5D III which need more amplification to raise their voltage levels to that needed for the menory cards so increasing the noise levels over the 5D III.

Lenses make no difference to the noise levels.
 
petersmart said:
It's very simple - the 7D has much smaller photodiodes compared to the 5D III which need more amplification to raise their voltage levels to that needed for the menory cards so increasing the noise levels over the 5D III.

Lenses make no difference to the noise levels.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. Obviously I expect some noise given the smaller sensor, my worry was that I've used lots of other lenses on that body in the same situations etc without that level of grain
 
Its simple - a lens cannot introduce grain to an image, even if you sandblasted the front element.

Its entirely down to the sensor.
 
MatBin said:
No but they can make an image look grainy or poorly resolved if the sensor cant keep up.
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3393.0
interesting reading.
Click to expand...
That's not grain though, that's simply a lens resolving at a lower level than the sensor, that can sometimes result in loss of sharpness?

In reality its not noticeable and I've not seen a good example (other than someone taking the micky and putting an old Sigma 70-300 on a 5DSR - that lens looks awful on anything!) of how an image is actually affected at a normal level.
 
Last edited:
A lens cannot normally introduce noise, although noise can become more visible if the lens is underexposing slightly and you have to compensate for it in post processing. There may be several reasons for this: the lens may be faulty, or slightly under spec, or you might be focussing at the short end of its range. The latter is more common with macro lenses, but the camera should compensate if you are using any autoexposure method. Alternatively if the lens is less sharp than those you are comparing it with and you sharpen more during post processing then that will also accentuate noise.
Your aircraft shots involve lots of sky, which is notorious for showing noise in many crop cameras, not only the 7D. I suspect this may be due to the way bayer sensors work as opposed to actual shot noise. It can usually be got rid of quite easily during post processing with very little detriment to the final image. Do a quick lasso around the subject and apply NR to everything outside of it and you won't notice the remaining noise.
Super badger shots BTW.
 
Last edited:
eccles said:
A lens cannot normally introduce noise, although noise can become more visible if the lens is underexposing slightly and you have to compensate for it in post processing. There may be several reasons for this: the lens may be faulty, or slightly under spec, or you might be focussing at the short end of its range. The latter is more common with macro lenses, but the camera should compensate if you are using any autoexposure method. Alternatively if the lens is less sharp than those you are comparing it with and you sharpen more during post processing then that will also accentuate noise.
Your aircraft shots involve lots of sky, which is notorious for showing noise in many crop cameras, not only the 7D. I suspect this may be due to the way bayer sensors work as opposed to actual shot noise. It can usually be got rid of quite easily during post processing with very little detriment to the final image. Do a quick lasso around the subject and apply NR to everything outside of it and you won't notice the remaining noise.
Super badger shots BTW.
Click to expand...

Thank you

I use various stuff not noise reduction, most often noiseaware and then mask it to apply where I want
 
jonathan_ed said:
What do you mean by pixel peep?
Click to expand...

Means if you zoom over 100% of the original RAW files and examine the noise... the photos you posted seems to be processed (maybe not) but would be useful to see the RAW file. Another best way to determine is have 2 cameras on same settings and same lens with same subject and do the tests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top