Canon EOS 7D Noise

[DirtyDFeckers]

Hey guys, I'm in the market for a new camera and have narrowed it down to a few different options, one of which being the 7D.... My only concern with this camera is the high resolution on a cmos sensor. I'm sure that in good lighting, this camera produces amazing images, but what about in low light situations? I ask this question here because of course, reading on the manufacturers website, they are going to say great things about it. If anyone out there has any input or examples, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Neil S.]

Read this whole thread, and it will answer many of your questions:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ts-news-reviews/217072-7ds-high-mp-count.html

As Matt proved, the 7D does indeed have good high ISO performance for a crop body.

 

[pbelarge]

I shot the Yankee game last saturday with the 135L lens. It was a night game. Yes the field was well lit, but I found a couple of issues.
1. at 800 most of the photos had noise in them, not bad, and I have not edited them yet, so I am not sure if the noise is completely removable. I was shooting at anywhere from f/3.5-f/8.
(Now this all may be my inexperience, so do not take it that the noise is an issue with the camera. I have learned that there is a lot to learn when using this camera)

2. One of the other issues was not the camera, but me. I would meter the image on a player's uniform (approximately 100ft -250ft from me), If the focal point left the uniform, the metering would drastically change. More than I was ready to handle as quickly as the action took place.
Also, I had a difficult time keeping the blurries away without being at 200-320 shutter speed. There were a couple at 125 that worked, but that was hit or miss, mostly miss. For the action shots, it had to be 500...which really put me in a funk-metering wise.
Metering on the grass/infield dirt/ uniforms/crowd were all very different, and different at different parts of the stadium. This is not the type of photography I have worked with before, and if I do it again (it looks like I have tickets to a few more games), I will need lots of help.

*I did take one photo I really liked. Jeter, Teixeira, Arod, and Cano were all discussing a play during the TV time out. I took many photos, and 2 were pretty good.

 

[Derrel]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyondbasics/218907-7d-noise-question-examples.html#post2032837

This thread was about the 7D's noise problems. The Original Poster has rescinded his comments about noise issues. It has a somewhat different point of view than that espoused by certain 7D fans.

 

[cfusionpm]

Read this whole thread, and it will answer many of your questions:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ts-news-reviews/217072-7ds-high-mp-count.html

As Matt proved, the 7D does indeed have good high ISO performance for a crop body.

But it does so with a sacrifice to low ISO noise, especially in RAW. I don't know what kind of electronic or processing trickery is going on to make it look great at high ISO, but it looks like it comes at the price of low ISO. Below I have a recent example of a shot at ISO 100 and you can see some decent noise in the bokeh. It's disappointing, but I feel the performance at 1600, 3200, and 6400 is more than good enough to make up for it. And since I usually shoot at those high ISOs anyway, it doesn't really bother me. Also, the grain is insignificant enough that simple NR software can get rid of it entirely, and if you actually print (or downsize) your photos, you won't even see it.

Below is a recent example I shot at ISO 100. Click the image for a big 100% crop. Notice the slight grain in the bokeh.

 

[icassell]

This thread might be useful to you:

-= 7D Post Pictures Here - Canon Digital Photography Forums


I love my 7D. It IS susceptible to noise if you underexpose, but if you are aware of that and expose to the right, you will be fine. I can get good images to ISO 3200 and occasionally 6400 (12,800 is useless).

ISO 3200 - You can clearly see noise on the hummingbird (I used Noiseware Pro on the background), but I don't think it's bad at all considering.

 

[IgsEMT]

What the hell, I'll be a devils advocate (Even though I do like to see clean images )
What's wrong with little noise? Why is is that images have to be perfectly cleaned and polished, etc. Not to long ago, when we were shooting film, using asa 800 black and white (for weddings for example) and having grain wasn't an issue. In fact most processing programs out there DO give you an option to add noise. What's really wrong with noise?
WoW, its so tough being on the other side and talk against own beliefs and views. :lmao:

 

[icassell]

What the hell, I'll be a devils advocate (Even though I do like to see clean images )
What's wrong with little noise? Why is is that images have to be perfectly cleaned and polished, etc. Not to long ago, when we were shooting film, using asa 800 black and white (for weddings for example) and having grain wasn't an issue. In fact most processing programs out there DO give you an option to add noise. What's really wrong with noise?
WoW, its so tough being on the other side and talk against own beliefs and views. :lmao:

I actually agree with you. Of course, it depends on what I'm shooting, but in general I don't mind some noise. On the other hand, I don't think digital noise generally looks as nice as the same size film grain.

 

[pbelarge]

What the hell, I'll be a devils advocate (Even though I do like to see clean images )
What's wrong with little noise? Why is is that images have to be perfectly cleaned and polished, etc. Not to long ago, when we were shooting film, using asa 800 black and white (for weddings for example) and having grain wasn't an issue. In fact most processing programs out there DO give you an option to add noise. What's really wrong with noise?
WoW, its so tough being on the other side and talk against own beliefs and views. :lmao:

This leads to another question....is 'digital noise' the same thing as 'grain' in an image?

 

[cfusionpm]

What the hell, I'll be a devils advocate (Even though I do like to see clean images )
What's wrong with little noise? Why is is that images have to be perfectly cleaned and polished, etc. Not to long ago, when we were shooting film, using asa 800 black and white (for weddings for example) and having grain wasn't an issue. In fact most processing programs out there DO give you an option to add noise. What's really wrong with noise?
WoW, its so tough being on the other side and talk against own beliefs and views. :lmao:

To be honest, my particular photo was supposed to be used in a retro theme shoot, and the final one looks even worse!

 

[IgsEMT]

This leads to another question....is 'digital noise' the same thing as 'grain' in an image?

I was waiting for someone to come in and start that one...

 

[IgsEMT]

i like retro look, which filter(s) did you use?

 

[icassell]

What the hell, I'll be a devils advocate (Even though I do like to see clean images )
What's wrong with little noise? Why is is that images have to be perfectly cleaned and polished, etc. Not to long ago, when we were shooting film, using asa 800 black and white (for weddings for example) and having grain wasn't an issue. In fact most processing programs out there DO give you an option to add noise. What's really wrong with noise?
WoW, its so tough being on the other side and talk against own beliefs and views. :lmao:

This leads to another question....is 'digital noise' the same thing as 'grain' in an image?

No, they are NOT the same.

 

[cfusionpm]

i like retro look, which filter(s) did you use?

Messed with levels to pull the brightness up in the mid tones and lower contrast. B/W gradiant map at ~30% to mute the super vibrant colors. Pink to brown gradiant map also ~30% to give it a faded feel. Couple of douplicates of the levels ajustment layers with different masks to bring up or darken areas. Googled "old paper" texture and layered on top, blended with linear burn at ~40%. The text is duplicated with a slight gausian blur underneath to make it blend better with background. Opacity is controlled with a layer mask to make transparancy uneven. It looks really great at full res.


(Click for full)