7D noise question - Examples

I noticed it as well with my 7D, and it's always bothered me. As long as I don't crop down or look at it too close it's been okay; the prints turn out well and the reduced sizes I use for online display look fine, but still...

I just sort of accepted it as part of this particular camera's IQ, and as long as the prints and screen work turn out okay, haven't made a big deal of it. During editing though, it's really made me grind my teeth and cringe at times. And it's really brought to mind all the conversations I've read about the 7D packing all those pixels into a crop factor sensor, and how that doesn't quite work out well on paper, and maybe not as great as we'd like in real life either.

Again, I mostly shrugged it off and learned to live with it.

But then a few days ago, I got my full frame 5DMKII, and I'm absolutely STUNNED at the difference in quality. Had I known then what I see first hand now between the two cameras, I'd have skipped right past the 7D, honestly. The images from the 5DMKII make the 7D's look downright ugly, IMHO.

There are still some things I like about the 7D that I wish I had on the 5DMKII, but when it comes to this particular category, IQ, I'm now quite dissappointed in the 7D. At first I figured I'd keep it as a backup camera body but now I've begun to consider selling it and the 40D that's also just sitting now, as well as the couple of S lenses I have, in order to help pay for a backup 5DMKII instead.

Just one shooter's opinion, but there it is.
 
Yeah, the exposures were great on these two shots. I notice it more on the ISO 400 one obviously. I read online that because of the increase in pixels, viewing the 7D at 100% is equal to viewing the Rebels at roughly twice that, and I DO see it in the rebel shots if I zoom in further, but it definately bugs me. Noise Reduction seems to be able to handle it in ACR rather well, but it just annoys me to have to do that if I want to do anything larger than an 8x10. I just have read so many horror stories of bad sensor 7Ds, yet noone clarifies well enough what that looks like, so I start wondering, "maybe mines just messed up"

EDIT ( the first shot was maybe just a hair overexposed, but I hear that helps with noise on the 7D anyway. )
 
Last edited:
can you post the uncrop version?
 
can you post the uncrop version?


I will when I get the chance. These are just crap shots, they weren't really anything I was keeping. They look fine when not "pixel peeping" but my concern is, if print at native size 15x20 or even 20x30, how apparent is this going to be. I can apply some NR to it and get it down, but I guess my main reason posting was to find out if it looks relatively normal for the 7D. I have a warranty, but I just want to get it fixed if it is an issue. I can live with it and make it work, but for $1500, if its subpar, I want it fixed.
 
Also, am I accurate in saying that a 15x20 photo zoomed 100%, would be equal to looking at a 30x40 print? ( I guess now that I stopped to look at it like that, it doesn't worry me so much haha ) Since this doesn't even have any type of processing applied.
 
There is only one way to find out :). 20x30 print at costo is only $8.99. I would think your image only needs a minor noise reduction.
 
Also, am I accurate in saying that a 15x20 photo zoomed 100%, would be equal to looking at a 30x40 print? ( I guess now that I stopped to look at it like that, it doesn't worry me so much haha ) Since this doesn't even have any type of processing applied.

Im not sure if I follow you.
 
I am saying that lets say a shot is 5x7 on my screen. Or even a physical print. If I zoom 100% then thats essentially like having a 10x14 print held up to my face? Or is it 100% of native? so my 100% crop is what I would see in a native print size, held up to my face? I thought it was essentially Doubling the size by zooming. I think I was wrong on my understanding. lol.
 
100% zoom means each pixel on your photo is on one pixel on your screen. Same thing with 100% crop.
 
Yeah, I got it now. When I get a chance, I am going to take a well exposed and focused shot from my T1i, and up-res it to the same dimensions as the native 7D pic, and then look at them both at 100%. I think then I will see a huge difference and see that the 7D is probably MUCH better at that point when zoomed 100%
 
I noticed it as well with my 7D, and it's always bothered me. As long as I don't crop down or look at it too close it's been okay; the prints turn out well and the reduced sizes I use for online display look fine, but still...

I just sort of accepted it as part of this particular camera's IQ, and as long as the prints and screen work turn out okay, haven't made a big deal of it. During editing though, it's really made me grind my teeth and cringe at times. And it's really brought to mind all the conversations I've read about the 7D packing all those pixels into a crop factor sensor, and how that doesn't quite work out well on paper, and maybe not as great as we'd like in real life either.

Again, I mostly shrugged it off and learned to live with it.

But then a few days ago, I got my full frame 5DMKII, and I'm absolutely STUNNED at the difference in quality. Had I known then what I see first hand now between the two cameras, I'd have skipped right past the 7D, honestly. The images from the 5DMKII make the 7D's look downright ugly, IMHO.

There are still some things I like about the 7D that I wish I had on the 5DMKII, but when it comes to this particular category, IQ, I'm now quite dissappointed in the 7D. At first I figured I'd keep it as a backup camera body but now I've begun to consider selling it and the 40D that's also just sitting now, as well as the couple of S lenses I have, in order to help pay for a backup 5DMKII instead.

Just one shooter's opinion, but there it is.

Interesting observations.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top