Canon 7D ISO Handling

C

c_robinson

Messages
953
Name
charlie robinson
Edit My Images
No
I've been looking at a lot of 'in the field' images from the 7d, and to be entirely honest i'm horrified by how BADLY it handles high ISO speeds! :razz:

I've seen shot's @ ISO 400, and back to back compared them to my 40D at 1000 ISO and the 40d is less grainy, straight out of the camera un-processed!

How do you 7D owners find the ISO Handling?
I know (seeing the images i have) i would be sending the camera back if i had a 7d!

i've seen images from 15-20 separate people, and all are overly noisy IMO!

Charlie
 
I've had one for about 7 weeks and it would seem to fit your observations pretty well but I'm still trying to understand why and where from.

At Iso 400 it's certainly not acceptable to me although at Iso 3200 I'd class it as pretty good for a crop sensor. The noise on mine at the lower Iso's is primarily on the red channel....that's to say that if the red matched the others then it would be within expectations.
The strange one for me is what initiates the noise. Normally it's simply a case of higher Iso, more noise. On my 7D it seems that the noise at the lower Iso's (3200 and below) is related to exposure time and I'm talking 1/500th v 1/1000th, not long exposures.
Tests have shown me that Iso 400 f/4 at 1/500th is noisier than Iso 800 f/4 at 1/1000th. This seems to reach an equilibrium between Iso 1600 and 3200 before the normally expected inducement of Iso related noise takes over.
The body will certainly head back to Canon at some stage but I'm waiting for a day of consistent and good light before getting a repeatable set of figures and images to prove the case.

Bob
 
:)
Canon Bob said:
I've had one for about 7 weeks and it would seem to fit your observations pretty well but I'm still trying to understand why and where from.

At Iso 400 it's certainly not acceptable to me although at Iso 3200 I'd class it as pretty good for a crop sensor. The noise on mine at the lower Iso's is primarily on the red channel....that's to say that if the red matched the others then it would be within expectations.
The strange one for me is what initiates the noise. Normally it's simply a case of higher Iso, more noise. On my 7D it seems that the noise at the lower Iso's (3200 and below) is related to exposure time and I'm talking 1/500th v 1/1000th, not long exposures.
Tests have shown me that Iso 400 f/4 at 1/500th is noisier than Iso 800 f/4 at 1/1000th. This seems to reach an equilibrium between Iso 1600 and 3200 before the normally expected inducement of Iso related noise takes over.
The body will certainly head back to Canon at some stage but I'm waiting for a day of consistent and good light before getting a repeatable set of figures and images to prove the case.

Bob
Click to expand...

hi Bob are you using the canon DPP software for raw conversion?
I'm only guessing as I dont own a 7D, mines a 40D, but I find that for example with highlight tone priority mode it is better with the canon software:)
pete
 
I have a 7D but its my first DSLR so cant really comment.

However i did read on here that TP user wasnt happy with the iso, they sent it back to Canon were they admitted it ws indeed faulty.

Ive also read that photshop and others cause problems when converting from RAW, DPP handles it much better.

Might be worth stating what firmware your camera is running to??
 
LCPete said:
:)

hi Bob are you using the canon DPP software for raw conversion?
I'm only guessing as I dont own a 7D, mines a 40D, but I find that for example with highlight tone priority mode it is better with the canon software:)
pete
Click to expand...

Pete,

Yes, initial PP and conversion is done using the latest rev of DPP.

Bob
 
what settings do you have enabled in camera?
 
matty said:
what settings do you have enabled in camera?
Click to expand...
The ones likely to have some relevence to the output (but not the noise)are;

Long exposure noise reduction...On
High Iso speed noise reduction...Standard
HTP...Disabled

ALO...Disabled
Colour space...sRGB
Picture style...Faithful

Bob
 
What conditions and speeds (shutter ) you seeing it at Bob, one thing I have noticed with mine is in dull/overcast conditions with a slowwer shutter speed there can be a bit of noise creeping in at low ISO (400) and PP can make it worse (using Elements 7, should use DDP more)
 
Canon Bob said:
I'm awaiting Sara's comments when the new one arrives
Click to expand...

I guess I am qualified to answer this in one respect! I indeed had a 7D that I was not happy with. I am no expert, but to my eye I was getting unacceptable noise at low ISO's. Perhaps it was just me I thought as most people on various forums thought that it was OK.

So, I sent it off to Canon and they informed me that it was indeed a software problem and replaced it with a brand spanking new 7D.

Here is the bit I am unqualified to answer - is it better? I haven't got a clue as I've not got round to having a play. My consolation is that surely I can't be so unlucky to get 2 pups? I hope not anyway!!

Processing wise, I used DPP to convert from raw and then CS3 for the other bits from there.
 
cosmix3 said:
What conditions and speeds (shutter ) you seeing it at Bob, one thing I have noticed with mine is in dull/overcast conditions with a slowwer shutter speed there can be a bit of noise creeping in at low ISO (400) and PP can make it worse (using Elements 7, should use DDP more)
Click to expand...
Stu...I'll come back to this in a moment but what do you mean by "slower shutter speeds"?

swag72 said:
I guess I am qualified to answer this in one respect! I indeed had a 7D that I was not happy with. I am no expert, but to my eye I was getting unacceptable noise at low ISO's. Perhaps it was just me I thought as most people on various forums thought that it was OK.

So, I sent it off to Canon and they informed me that it was indeed a software problem and replaced it with a brand spanking new 7D.

Here is the bit I am unqualified to answer - is it better? I haven't got a clue as I've not got round to having a play. My consolation is that surely I can't be so unlucky to get 2 pups? I hope not anyway!!

Processing wise, I used DPP to convert from raw and then CS3 for the other bits from there.
Click to expand...

Sara,

Judgement can indeed be simply down to perception. I've read so many "my 7D's the bees knees" threads that I assume mine's a "pup" too. I can't get excited about a body that is noisier than my old 30D (which I still have for comparison)at the lower Iso's, no matter how many extra pixels have been poured into it. Many people are quite adamant that it's cleaner than xxD bodies and mine is a long way off...it can't hold a candle to the 1D3 and 5D2 but that's no surprise to me and I hadn't got anywhere near that expectation.

Bob
 
I used the 7D recently to shoot an an event and processed the results (to JPEG from RAW) with DPP and I was very pleased with results up to ISO 1600 and 3200 usable at a push - which is a lot better than I've seen before on a 1.6x crop. Always be wary that people's processing techniques differ quite a lot and you never know how much an image has been cropped so best to be cautious until you have a look at a variety of images
 
I have one of the first in the UK and im really happy with mine there are shots of a bearded tit in my gallery Greylag Geese & Bittern iso 400-800 no problems it knocks spots off my mk 2 at iso 400 and im so impresed i am buying a second body instead of the 1d mk4 can't say more than that
Regards
Richard
 
Canon Bob said:
Stu...I'll come back to this in a moment but what do you mean by "slower shutter speeds"?

Bob
Click to expand...


Sorry should have be clearer, just read and not too clear, have noticed it (not always) between 1/100 - 1/200 when using the 100-400 at 400, am sure it is just down to the low speeds in naff conditions.
 
post an example?
 
and...are you using liveview?
 
I've only had mine for a few days and haven't really had much chance to give it a good hammering but I haven't noticed anything to complain about as yet... I shoot weddings and portraits so I'll be keeping a close eye on things and if it doesn't perform as it should, it'll go back... :)
 
Just want to add, am happy with mine, just think I am pushing the condition I am shooting in at the moment, have used it in the studio with no issues at all, and on clear days have no complaints :)
 
very interesting, another tick in the box for a reason to jump ship to a d300!!

I've looked at images from atleast 15 people, some on forums, some just online galleries, and must say the images @ iso 1600 + are 'acceptable' for that High an ISO, yet the 400 aren't, just what Bob says!
 
i will have to do a test on mine tomorrow at 400, I know its very good above and below, but ive not looked at 400
 
I've also looked at a good number of images shot on the 7D at varying ISO's and not detected any abnormalities... I also shoot with a 40D and side by side, the 7D is better in terms of image quality from what I've seen so far.

It seems to me that as far as this place is concerned, the actual owners aren't reporting much in the way of issues with the camera...
 
Web compression makes judgement difficult but here's a 100% crop of my red test chart...Iso 800 at 1/250th. A few JPG artifacts have crept in during the conversion but you can see the basics. I don't profess that 100% cropping of subject detail is a valid way to criticise an 18Mp sensor but looking at a smooth, single colour image should stress anything. This is sharpened level 7 in DPP but without any noise reduction applied. Blue and green channels are both good.
Using a real world shot, the required noise reduction on the red channel is such that feather detail loss becomes unacceptable.
Bob

Red_test_web.jpg


Edit......Blue channel added for comparison

Blue_Test.jpg
 
have you got a link to the test chart?

In DPP, use the luminance noise reduction on the colours, that supposed to be good.
 
matty said:
have you got a link to the test chart?

In DPP, use the luminance noise reduction on the colours, that supposed to be good.
Click to expand...

It's not a web chart, it's a printed test "swatch" from my working days...used to check ink colour reproduction in the packaging industry.

DPP's luminance noise reduction is the thing I normally use but it's up to halfway to get rid of this and then too much detail goes with it.

I happened across this example on another site...compares the D300 and 7D.....it's not as bad as mine but zoom in and compare the top left of the bonnet from each body http://www.cameratown.com/reviews/canon7d/assets/Canon7D_NikonD300_ISO800.jpg

Bob
 
i will have a play tomorrow and see what mine does, i know it doesnt reproduce reds that well but im putting that down to not having set it up properly yet..
 
c_robinson said:
I've been looking at a lot of 'in the field' images from the 7d, and to be entirely honest i'm horrified by how BADLY it handles high ISO speeds! :razz:

I've seen shot's @ ISO 400, and back to back compared them to my 40D at 1000 ISO and the 40d is less grainy, straight out of the camera un-processed!

How do you 7D owners find the ISO Handling?
I know (seeing the images i have) i would be sending the camera back if i had a 7d!

i've seen images from 15-20 separate people, and all are overly noisy IMO!

Charlie
Click to expand...
Here are shots from my 7D at 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO respectively. They were shot raw and converted to JPEG in Lightroom. If you want to look at pixels you will see noise. If you want to look at pictures then the noise is really not that much of an issue. If it becomes so then noise reduction software will hopefully deliver the results you need.

800 ISO, no adjustments at all :
20100126_141025_2626_LR.jpg


1600 ISO, white balance adjustment only :
20100105_141053_1688_LR.jpg


3200 ISO, white balance adjustment only :
20091106_150658_0471_LR.jpg


6400 ISO, cropped and tweaked :
20100115_193520_1945_LR.jpg
 
I've been following 7D threads with interest and I've noticed that the higher ISO images on the net look good (even if some seem way over processed, but that's down to taste...) but that some lower ISO shots look noisier than my 20D. It seems that it's almost as though the performance has been balanced towards high ISO to the detriment of lower ISO's but I've no idea if this is actually possible.

I suppose that it's impossible to tell how other people shoot and what they do in post process so although I am slightly put off I've reserved final judgement until I try a 7D and can process some shots myself on my own pc.

I think I'd trust the views of people here more than I would those on a couple of other forums I've viewed images on so I'll follow this thread with interest.
 
100 ISO, WB adjustment only :
20091115_104335_0949_LR.jpg


200 ISO, WB and some tweaks to exposure and black level :
20100109_102815_1869_LR.jpg


400 ISO, no adjustments :
20091104_104602_0189_LR-3.jpg
 
Cheers, Bob and malla1962. :)

There's nothing wrong with the 7D, unless you get a bad copy, of which I guess there may be a few. Far more likely causes of disappointment are....

- poor exposure technique;
- poor choice of camera settings;
- poor post processing technique or software;
- unrealistic expectations when pixel peeping;
- thinking that more megapixels increases your cropping ability, no matter what the ISO.

That probably covers the bulk of the issues with "noise". Then there is the question mark over sharpness. The resolving power of the 7D will expose flaws in the the lens and photographic skills when pixel peeping. Problems include....

- Camera shake more evident with the 7D than any other camera;
- Subject blur more evident with the 7D than any other camera;
- Diffraction softening visible earlier on than any other camera when stopping down;
- Poor lens IQ more readily exposed;
- Focus calibration errors more readily exposed;
- Focusing errors more readily exposed;
- Post processing technique or software not well honed.

None of this is the fault of the 7D, and if you view/compare whole images rather than individual pixels you will not find the results from the 7D lacking when compared to any other APS-C camera.

By the way, Bob, nice camera lineup - the same as mine :)

p.s. I might add that I do sometimes get poor results from my 7D, usually when shooting BIF. Every single time I double check the gear I find nothing wrong, but when I review where my focus point was in relation to the subject, or whether the shutter speed was really high enough to ensure blur free results, I always find that the blame lies fairly and squarely with me, not the kit, and definitely not the camera. I also try my best to fill the frame as much as possible. Cropping (heavily) is no way to improve IQ, especially when shooting at higher ISOs.
 
Tim,

Picking a couple of points from your post above....

I'm exposing +1/3 or 2/3 EV....are you going higher generally?
My results are based on the EF100/2.8 ISL, 300/2.8 ISL and 600/4 ISL so I'm not too concerned there.
Diffraction....the maths and science tells me that anything much beyond f/8 and any supposed pixel advantage has been swallowed as they merge...the 600/4 with 2x becomes a diffraction versus aberration fight.

I fully agree with the cropping statement but that'll just start another protracted discussion....I had Mrs CB stick me in my straitjacket to prevent me typing last time.

Bob
 
Tim, those are very impressive, thanks for posting, i'd be delighted.

I'm only concerned as most of my shooting will/would be at 400 ISO and below, and that seems to be the problem with some 7d users.

i'm not in a position to buy at the moment but if i was, i'd not be looking at the 7d having seen *** i've seen from it (although your images at lower ISO's don't show the problems i've seen. maybe i should get contacting the 'tog's who's images i've seen and ask for permission to link to their shots for this thread!

Charlie
 
I shoot with manual exposure almost exclusively, and as a raw shooter I typically aim to ETTR, so shooting at +1/3 or +2/3 doesn't really come into it, since I don't use EC. I will normally spot meter my highlights at +3 and let the rest of the image end up wherever it may. I'll fine tune the levels in post. If I'm shooting at lower ISOs then ETTR is not so important, but I do always aim to nudge the exposure a little above where it "should" be and then bring it down again later.
 
I owned a 7d for three months, a technically fine camera. Nothing out there comes close at the price point. I did eventually return mine due to a hot pixel showing up in indoor shots and on video.

My other gripes were the grain between 100-400 iso, I just couldn't live with it.
I use my cameras for home aquatic photography as well the usual stuff. My 7d couldn't expose correctly under the challenging artificial high powered lighting used for reef tanks.
I have never had a camera struggle so much, it would often over expose by a stop for some odd reason.
When it did over expose the focus went to pot, I imagine that may have something to do with the new focus system reading colour info.
In the end I went for a 5d II, no more low iso grain or dodgy exposures.
I do miss the 7d for it's myriad of user settings and handy features but I don't miss the IQ of my dodgy copy.
 
Noise was one of the first things I noticed when I got my 7D. Even at lowish iso's. I'd gone from a 40D to a 1DIIN before so had a fairly reasonable idea of what to expect. The images from my 1D were still very nice at 100%, with practically zero noise at low iso's.

There are people on other forums saying you can't judge the image quality of the 7D files at 100%, although I forget their reasons for saying that!

I doubt my 7D is defective though and I'm pretty happy with mine. I love the video function, even if you don't plan to create brilliant videos it's a nice feature to have to record your own personal moments. I have also taken advantage of the 18mp resolution to heavily crop photos, with very pleasing results. The built in wireless flash transmitter is brilliant too!
 
I believe that simple physics dictate that, all other things being equal, the smaller the individual photodiodes on a sensor the higher the degree of amplification necessary and the higher the noise levels.

Of course in Digital Photography all things aren't equal and the manufacturers are constantly working to improve both the sensors and amplification circuits.

And of course the higher pixel level means that greater levels of image reduction to produce the same size print will also reduce the perceived noise.

But in the end "Ye canna beat the laws of physics cap'n" - or, unfortunately, ignore them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top