Canon 7D ISO Handling

Just shot these this morning with the 7D. All taken with the 50mm 1.2, all hand held, all full frame - no processing whatsoever.

4315247667_bf4ca72baf_o.jpg


4315985718_f1e7589ac7_o.jpg


4315985860_d7d623b7cc_o.jpg


4315248163_a4b18d7aed_o.jpg


4315986158_7df4f2b0c5_o.jpg


4315248495_209e403913_o.jpg
 
I find the ISO handling of my 7D equal to that of the 40D upto about ISO 800-1000. Behond this point the 7D exhibits noticeably cleaner noise, and retains considerably more detail.
 
took mine out today and although there is some noise, its considerably better than my 50d
 
Decisions would be so much easier if they all behaved the same but there seems to be variation in samples.

I was going to have a look at a 7D one day but after reading reviews and threads I think I've scared myself off and that I'll just sit this one out and hope that in a year or two the performance of whatever is new on the market looks a bit more consistent.
 
petersmart said:
Have to say CT the shots look excellent to me, noisewise, and I think you have proved my earlier point as I would have been very surprised to see noise on 15Mp full sensor reduced to approx 800-530px.
Click to expand...

Well that's exactly right Peter. although the 7D is actually 18mp. I can't see how anyone can have real difficulty getting a good 800 pixel image from even a very high ISO image. Some of these threads frankly just mystify me.

Having said that and to forstall the likely response from some quarters that the 7D is only good for web images, I'd be happy to post 1:1 versions of any of the above images. All the above images would be capable of a large good quality print.
 
As I say I found the 'grain' noise that some report as a 7d quirk off putting. Over and above 400 the noise handling was pretty damned good.
The 5d mk II actually feels like a downgrade technically as the 7d is such a ground breaking camera and i miss mine.
The 5d mk II's IQ is so so good though.
If I came into a little coin tommorow I'd definately buy another 7d ( hopefully one without exposure probs) and keep both even with the grain at low iso
 
zooxanthellae said:
As I say I found the 'grain' noise that some report as a 7d quirk off putting. Over and above 400 the noise handling was pretty damned good.
The 5d mk II actually feels like a downgrade technically as the 7d is such a ground breaking camera and i miss mine.
The 5d mk II's IQ is so so good though.
If I came into a little coin tommorow I'd definately buy another 7d ( hopefully one without exposure probs) and keep both even with the grain at low iso
Click to expand...

Well even though the 5D II has an even higher pixel count (21.1) than the 7D (18MP - thanks CT) the difference in the sensor means that the FF 5D sensor has less photodiodes per sq mm so they can be larger.

This helps to explain the higher ISO capabilities of the 5D and also the better IQ than the 7D.

Personally I lust after the 5D for the extra IQ but unfortunately cost almost certainly prohibits a purchase this year.
 
CT said:
I can't see how anyone can have real difficulty getting a good 800 pixel image from even a very high ISO image. Some of these threads frankly just mystify me.
Click to expand...

I think one of the main problems is that we expect far too much from our cameras.

In the "good" old days of film, although new cameras and lenses came out every now and then the recording medium, film, didn't change much from year to year.

When we shot photos most professionals and advanced amateurs had used the same film for years.

We knew what the film was capapble of and we all had our favourites for a specific purpose.

We also knew the simple rules needed to get a good shot - especially fill the frame as far as possible to minimize enlargement and keep grain down.

In addition for higher quality work most pros shot 2 1/4 sq for the extra quality - there were many excellent 2 1/4 sq cameras around at reasonable prices - and not a great deal of difference pricewise between 35mm and 2 1/4 sq.

Today the situation is exactly reversed and the recording medium (flash cards etc) is virtually unimportant - but cameras AND sensors are changing every year and we have forgotten - or never knew - the simple rules for getting a good image.

Since the actual cost of getting an image is virtually free we tend to shoot a great deal more images than we ever did in the days of costly films and we rely on PP and a scatter gun approach to getting a good image.

And I'm as guilty as anyone.

I think we should all promise ourselves to get back to - or even learn - the basics of photography.

Fill the frame as much as possible to reduce noise.

Learn the basics of exposure and the use of histograms to give correct exposure.

Learn what our particular camera can, and more importantly, can't do.

and finally - use a single prime for a great many more shots - and learn what YOU can do with it.
 
Peter's advice is very good and something we should all try to remember... And I'm just as guilty as the next person for forgetting the basics at times! :bonk:

For those of you who've been put off buying a 7D, I'd advise the following... Grab a CF card and go down to your nearest camera shop and ask the staff if you can take a few test shots at various ISO's. Then go home and process them yourselves and make your own judgements.

I went to two different camera shops and tried a couple of different 7D's and tested things out for myself. No matter what reviews or comments you read, there's no substitute for getting out there and making an informed decision based on your own experience.

I've had my 7D for a week now and I love it... I could have waited a month or two and put some extra cash into getting a 5DMKII but I was really impressed with the 7D. I shoot weddings so I needed a camera that would deliver good, consistent quality and I believe I've made the right choice. :)

Regards,
Si
 
Spiritflier said:
For those of you who've been put off buying a 7D, I'd advise the following... Grab a CF card and go down to your nearest camera shop and ask the staff if you can take a few test shots at various ISO's. Then go home and process them yourselves and make your own judgements.

I went to two different camera shops and tried a couple of different 7D's and tested things out for myself. No matter what reviews or comments you read, there's no substitute for getting out there and making an informed decision based on your own experience.

Regards,
Si
Click to expand...

Now we know why some people on here ask about new cameras having been used to take pics !:lol:
 
petersmart said:
Now we know why some people on here ask about new cameras having been used to take pics !:lol:
Click to expand...

Hehe! That's very true Peter! :lol:

It's also the reason why I insist on a sealed and unopened box when I buy anything expensive (and electronic)! :D
 
Great set Tim, cant see anything wrong there, thanks for putting the slide show together.
 
Cheers, chaps. These are some of the better shots from the session. There were plenty that hit the recycle bin for one reason or another. It is very clear that I need to work on my BIF technique in order to improve my keeper rate. FWIW I had IS disabled, on purpose, and 1/1000 was really not enough to reliably get blur/shake free shots, but to go higher would have required pushing the ISO to 1600, which I did not want to do. Those that went into the bin were for all manner of reasons - poor composition, missed focus, blur/shake, duplicates, boring, subject too small, light hitting the subject poorly. None were binned due to problems with noise.
 
tarmac_chaser said:
Hope you don't mind me linking this one Tim, but it's a belter. Not seen a duck shot like this before. Reminds me of those creatures in the film the Fifth Element
Click to expand...

I thought exactly that too!
I may not yet be qualified to pass comment. But, from what I've seen from my new 7D I have noticed no problems at all. I've not been doing any PP as of yet because I've only got the LR3 Beta so been using that for importing/viewing only. But so far I am a very happy camper.

Tom N. :canon:
 
That really is an excellent sequence of shots... especially without the image stabiliser turned on! I'm guessing you had the drive set to continuous high during the in flight shots?

I'm hoping to head up to Nant-yr-arian at some point during the week to try the 7D out on the Red Kites at feeding time.
 
Yep, I had the camera on 8 FPS. Sometimes I just let her rip, but mostly I would shoot in short bursts of 1-3 images at a time. I think my longest continuous sequence was 11 frames, but most of those were junk - clipped wings etc..

The thing is, you probably want to be in high speed mode, just in case you need it, but spray and pray technique is not the best approach, unless you like filling your buffer and then sifting through tons of similar shots, so single shots (needs a quick shutter finger!) or short bursts are better. You may also find that with a short burst you may have one or two shakey shots in the series, but one crisp one in amongst them.

BTW, the reason I had the IS turned off is that it does not work at all well when you are trying to track birds that are flying in all directions. Mode 1 IS is OK if the birds are coming straight at you. Mode 2 is OK if you are panning smoothly across the scene. But if birds are wheeling about and changing direction the IS gets very upset and tries to foil your attempts to follow the bird, so it is better left off. I suppose I could have kept altering settings each time I started shooting, but sometimes you don't know what might happen, so a bit like having 8 FPS to hand, it is nice to not have to worry about IS mode being inappropriate. Unfortunately, without IS I find a shutter speed of 1/2000 and faster is more suitable with a 400mm lens and crop body, but that needs really good light, a fast aperture, or a high ISO. Since I'm stuck with f/5.6 at best, the only wiggle room is the ISO and I chose not to go to 1600. Maybe next time, if the light is not better, I'll try pushing the ISO higher anyway and see whether trading blur/shake for noise is worthwhile. It may well be. With noise you can run NR. With excessive shake/blur there is nothing you can do.
 
Cheers, CT. I hope that with more practice - a lot more - I will start to get more consistent results. Right now I struggle to keep the focus point where it needs to be, but with practice I do hope to improve.

The problem is that it is not always easy to find a willing supply of BIFs that are happy to keep coming at you all day long. Yesterday I simply camped out at a favourite duck feeding corner of a lake in a local country park. That was OK at the weekend, with plenty of families coming to feed them, but without a regular new influx of bread being thrown I would have struggled to find much to shoot. I think if I went back today there would be nothing much in the air to practice on. I suppose I could take my own bread :)

I'm also wondering whether my 100-400 is fully up to the challenge, in terms of ultimate sharpness and focus speed. The trouble is that I like the lens for all the things it is good for, like IS and the flexibility of the zoom, but I know it is not the be all and end all for ultimate IQ and focus speed. However, getting a 400/5.6 is probably only going to yield an incremental improvement, and the next stage beyond that - 300/2.8 or 500/4 - is mighty expensive all of a sudden. So for now I'll continue plugging away at my own technique. :)
 
I don't really get as many chances as I'd like for BIF shots Tim, but from what shots I've managed to take with the 7D, I'm pretty sure the duff shots are a problem behind the camera. :D

Funnily enough, I've just done something I said I never would -sold the 100-400L. Basically, it just wasn't getting used with the primes at my disposal, and someone has been buggng me to sell it to him, so I finally relented weakened by a couple of shots of firewater!

I'm half minded to replace it with a 400mm 5.6 which I know is a cracking sharp lens, but a bit slow at f5.6 for BIF shots unless the light is pretty good, and I do have other lens options so I'll sleep on it a while. I know I'm probably gonna miss the flexibility of the 100-400 sooner or later, but probably not for birding.
 
I'm gonna the Canon CPS event at Calumet tomorrow so will raise the noise issue. I've noticed a bit at 400 iso but I just use noiseware professional on the shots. it is IMHO an absolutely excellent programme add on for CS4 and I've used it on some much higher isos with excellent results.
George
 
George said:
I'm gonna the Canon CPS event at Calumet tomorrow so will raise the noise issue. I've noticed a bit at 400 iso but I just use noiseware professional on the shots.
Click to expand...
In addition to the shots I posted yesterday, some at 400 ISO, I have assembled all my other 7D shots at 400 ISO and uploaded them to an album, along with those from yesterday. These were all processed in Lightroom. Many are cropped. A few have been brightened in post. A few have been dimmed. None have any NR applied other than Lightroom defaults. At the pixel level there may be reason to complain. At the image level I am happy with the results. Here is the new album....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTig...gCNTus9a3hcv8RQ#slideshow/5433394897173891986
 
Well, Canon looked at the images I was concerned about, and said there is no problem, and in fairness it is only at full crop. Am going to do further tests at the weekend.
However the body may go back as quite a few of my lenses seem to need +12-+18 correction on microfocus.
Anybody else had this experience?
 
I've got nine Canon lenses and four bodies with the microadjustment feature. Many combinations need a little adjustment, mostly in the +ve range, but typically the adjustments average around +5. My largest adjustment on any combination is +10.

I did buy a Sigma 10mm fisheye, which needed an adjustment of +15, which I thought was pretty disgusting for an ultrawide prime with a massive DOF. I sent that straight back for a refund and did not bother replacing it. With Sigma's woeful reputation of build AF consistency I did not want to waste my time chasing after a good copy. Mind you, I've bought some Canon lenses that were also not up to scratch and were also returned. One of those was a 24/1.4L, which was beyond calibration. The focus performance was random, and varied depending on lens orientation. Maybe that one had been used for football practice. All were bought brand new.
 
I've only really tried calibrating the long lenses I tend to use the most and I can't seem to make any improvement on the default setting with either the 7D or the 50D. Perhaps I'm just lucky.
 
tdodd said:
I've got nine Canon lenses and four bodies with the microadjustment feature. Many combinations need a little adjustment, mostly in the +ve range, but typically the adjustments average around +5. My largest adjustment on any combination is +10.

I did buy a Sigma 10mm fisheye, which needed an adjustment of +15, which I thought was pretty disgusting for an ultrawide prime with a massive DOF. I sent that straight back for a refund and did not bother replacing it. With Sigma's woeful reputation of build AF consistency I did not want to waste my time chasing after a good copy. Mind you, I've bought some Canon lenses that were also not up to scratch and were also returned. One of those was a 24/1.4L, which was beyond calibration. The focus performance was random, and varied depending on lens orientation. Maybe that one had been used for football practice. All were bought brand new.
Click to expand...

That's why I think +18 is too much. My 1Ds hardly requires any micro adj.
 
George said:
That's why I think +18 is too much. My 1Ds hardly requires any micro adj.
Click to expand...

Ouch! I would not be happy with that. I'm not thrilled by needing +10, but I can live with it. At +18 I would be seriously disgruntled and would do something about it. Just be sure you haven't boobed somewhere with your measurements and accidentaly done something silly like leaving AF expansion on or something like that. It's the kind of thing that can be overlooked if one is not paying attention.

Also, make sure you are using a valid type of test target. Here's my latest version. The box is my focus target and the rule is used purely as a scale to judge where the DOF falls. The box is sufficiently large to fully cover the focus point, and then some, so there is no ambiguity about where the camera might be focusing....

20100129_092537_LR.jpg
20100129_092537_3_LR.jpg
 
"Sigma's woeful reputation..."

Hmmm, I've had no problems.
 
tdodd said:
Ouch! I would not be happy with that. I'm not thrilled by needing +10, but I can live with it. At +18 I would be seriously disgruntled and would do something about it. Just be sure you haven't boobed somewhere with your measurements and accidentaly done something silly like leaving AF expansion on or something like that. It's the kind of thing that can be overlooked if one is not paying attention.

Thanks, Tim, but it's not operator error. The body's going back as soon as I have a window. I'm going to try a few more tests first, though.
Click to expand...
 
woof woof said:
"Sigma's woeful reputation..."

Hmmm, I've had no problems.
Click to expand...

That's all right then. Sigma's reputation is saved.

It's a pity the original page has disappeared, but try this - http://www.hrphotocontest.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112612

and this - http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-10

I don't know how this thread will pan out, but it covers the topic - http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma_lenses/discuss/72157612401290614/

Then try reading forums like POTN. You'll get the idea.
 
scottthehat said:
any tips on testing a sigma 150-500mm i keep getting mixed results.
Click to expand...

I don't see why there should be any special procedure for a Sigma lens on a Nikon body. Canon have issued their own guidance on how to test, which will probably apply equally well to other brands, but you might want to double check whether there is anything peculiar you need to be aware of.

Here's the Canon version (scroll down a little to get to the right section) - http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html

I guess one piece of advice you might take from the Canon advice is to test at not less than 50X focal length. For a lens at 500mm that means testing at a distance of 25m or more, not indoors across the dining table. Another alternative bit of advice is to calibrate at a "typical shooting distance for your photography". If you do routinely shoot your 500mm lens at 2m or 3m then you might indeed want to run your calibration at that distance, but more realistically, if you are using your long lens for shooting at large distances that should be where you perform your calibration, for the most pertinent and reliable results. You should probably also check out the performance at, say 150mm and 300mm, or something like that, in case different amounts of adjustment are required. You might need to settle for an "average" adjustment that best suits all focal lengths reasonably well, if not perfectly.
 
"That's all right then. Sigma's reputation is saved."

But churlish don't ya think? I just thought I'd add a bit of balance as I keep reading scare stories about Sigma.

As I posted elsewhere, someone tried my 50mm f1.4 and declared it to be hopelessly front / back focusing when it was clearly user error. I'm not saying that's your problem but I do think that Sigma's woes are maybe overrated by some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top