# 7D Mark II Sensor Noise & banding comparison to 7D, subjective first look



## Aglet (Nov 10, 2014)

OK, so I still don’t have ACR or DNG converter that’ll work with the 7d2’s raw files so I can do my standard performance check WITH A LENS CAP ON SHOT. 

WELL, HOLY COW, I THINK THEY’VE REALLY DONE IT THIS TIME!

Using the Iridient Developer beta version 3 to process the raw files, the usual 4 stop push shows NONE OF THE VERTICAL STRIPES THAT PLAGUED THE ORIGINAL 7D and many other Canon bodies. (to do this properly you also have to reduce IrD’s DEEP SHADOW FINE TUNE to NO Tint correction.)

www.iridientdigital.com

This doesn’t provide me with a direct comparison vs my usual Adobe-based process but it’s enough to provide much optimism that the major vertical-stripe FPN issue is likely solved.

WAY TO GO CANON GANG! 

Not all wine and roses tho, there’s still quite a bit of red channel noise and there’s even horizontal and vertical banding patterns that show up at mid ISO levels but they’re of a much larger and smoother nature and will be less likely to cause issues for most pushed shots compared to what Canon users have had to endure for a long time.

I’ve attached some screen shot crops from Iridient 4 processing for a quick comparison, data's in the file name.


----------



## Jordan23 (Nov 10, 2014)

The test had to come sooner or later!
Even if it's quite an obscure test, it shows no banding. Finally!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 10, 2014)

Aglet said:


> NONE OF THE VERTICAL STRIPES THAT PLAGUED THE ORIGINAL 7D and many other Canon bodies.



It seems they've used the same improvement like on the 6d (vs. 5d3) as their newest ff camera also nearly eliminated one axis of banding, so no checkerboard pattern anymore - and you have to raise the shadows a lot to see any lines at all.

Remarkable that they've also succeeded with the 7d2 because it was theorized that the 7d1 (and 5d3?) more prone to banding due to the dual-channel readout. This is a major improvement as you can not really harvest the full dynamic range of higher iso settings.


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 10, 2014)

is now the time to mention the faint lines we drew on his older lens caps?


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 10, 2014)

Well it's something to build on and extended to the next Gen FF sensors, canon should be able to make the difference even more negligible between nikon.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 10, 2014)

The 7DII becomes a better performer every day... I'm just hoping that these AF issues aren't standing in the way of what appears to be a great body :


----------



## sanj (Nov 10, 2014)

Thanks for posting. Good to know!


----------



## sanj (Nov 10, 2014)

tayassu said:


> The 7DII becomes a better performer every day... I'm just hoping that these AF issues aren't standing in the way of what appears to be a great body :



What auto focus issues?? I am sure the best thing about the camera will the AF!


----------



## tayassu (Nov 10, 2014)

sanj said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > The 7DII becomes a better performer every day... I'm just hoping that these AF issues aren't standing in the way of what appears to be a great body :
> ...



Yeah, me too, but there were two or three reports here on CR that said something about softness (could be AFMA, though) and also I believe the user Aglet did an informal AF test, comparing its low-light AF with two CSC's, where it also did not impress... I'll keep my eyes open.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 10, 2014)

sanj said:


> What auto focus issues?? I am sure the best thing about the camera will the AF!



I'm expecting it to be the king of AF too... but some of us have noticed a rather laggard AF response, at least with certain lenses. I've also found 7d2 to exhibit some inconsistent AF performance at times, enough to be both puzzling and disappointing. Hopefully it's a firmware fixable thing. As it is, with the lenses I want to use, it's no better at AF than my 60D. I'm sure it would track motion better, but for static, center AF point, it's not been impressive .. yet.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2014)

Aglet said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > What auto focus issues?? I am sure the best thing about the camera will the AF!
> ...



Hmm, talk about opposite of the design brief use. 

We, some of you, demand ever more capability in these cameras and they can't fail to evolve into specific genres, then you start pulling them apart even when they are massive upgrades when they don't work outside their focused design brief. If you demand a twitchy air superiority fighter don't moan that you can't stretch your legs on a long flight.

With the greatest respect, you guys are crazy.


----------



## jrista (Nov 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> With the greatest respect, you guys are crazy.




I can only assume you have never had problems with noise on Canon cameras. If so, then that's wonderful...for you.


However, not everyone has had a luxurious ride when it comes to processing Canon data. In the case of landscapes, I have the option to do HDR. I don't like doing HDR, it has it's own tradeoffs, but I have the option. In all the rest of my photography, I can't do HDR...it's action photography. I do everything I can to minimize dynamic range and best utilize the DR of my cameras, but I am not always able to achieve that. In many cases, I cannot move because the bird or animal I am photographing knows I'm there, and would bolt/fly if I moved. 


So, as much as it may seem crazy to you, there are those of us to whom these factors of sensor IQ matter, and matter legitimately.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 10, 2014)

I read it that PBD was talking about the AF and the mention that it wasn't "impressive" for static objects.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Hmm, talk about opposite of the design brief use.



not entirely, even motion and tracking AF has to _start_ somewhere.
Another thread or two on the site are discussing the same AF lag issues i experienced.
Compared to my other bodies, this lag is sometimes so long that I'm wondering if I pressed the button!
In the time other bodies give me a confirmation beep, the 7d2 is only just starting to move the lens. This is not good.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > With the greatest respect, you guys are crazy.
> ...



I learnt how to expose Velvia 50, every digital camera ever has been easier; I learn how to focus by hand where a good critically sharp keeper rate for action was in the 10% range, even modest cameras AF rates are 80-90% and top of the line gear 95%+ even with world class action sequences. I shot weddings when our "cards" took 36 exposures and if we didn't shoot for the timed instant could blow through that in less than four seconds and miss the next moment in the 60 seconds it took to reload out film.

I learnt this stuff when photography, whilst struggling to be an art most of the time, was a craft, I believe I am a craftsman nothing more. I do not have sympathy for bleeding hearts that want to pick up a finely tuned tool and bemoan the fact that they can't get the same results without investing a fraction of the time many have.

Guess what, I can't program like you, I can't shoot astro like you. It seems you can't take normal pictures with current gear and get results like me, I am not special and most of my images are boring images for commercial clients, I just did the 10,000 hour (and then some) bit, so did Sporgon and a host of other shooters here.

But that wasn't the point, as lintoni noticed (thanks). The point was specifically about the AF not performing as expected on a static object in one shot mode when that use has to be as diametrically opposed to the intended target use of that particular AF. I wasn't saying it shouldn't work, just expressing surprise at the way you guys think, act and test.


----------



## jrista (Nov 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Guess what, I can't program like you, I can't shoot astro like you. *It seems you can't take normal pictures with current gear and get results like me*, I am not special and most of my images are boring images for commercial clients, I just did the 10,000 hour (and then some) bit, so did Sporgon and a host of other shooters here.




First, the highlighted part is entirely incorrect, and demonstrates how much you guys have entirely missed the points that have been made. I can take "normal" pictures with gear and get the results I want. That has never been the point. By now, you should know that. 


It's about the effort you have to invest in order to get the result you want. I haven't put 10k hours into my photography yet...simply not enough time since I started to have achieved that. That said, I do put in a TON of hours. I also know that when I work data that comes from a better device, I don't have to invest as many hours doing the same old mundane things to get as good or better results. <-- THAT is the point. That's what matters to me. I can spend countless hours doing the same old things, not because it's part of the craft, but because it's simply necessary, because the data is lacking in some way. That isn't the kind of work that increases your knowledge...it's just busywork. 


I can create great photos. I just don't like having to invest so much time in making my photos great, because something is wrong with the data. I understand such things don't matter to you. However it's just flat out rude to claim all the rest of us are "crazy" because it matters to us. It doesn't matter if the issue is with DR, or with AF, or anything else...sometimes the minutia matter to some people, because they've experienced better, and loved it. My photography is not clinical, it's not just a craft...it IS my art. I don't want to have to be clinical about it, I don't want to have to deal with all the minute extra details that Canon equipment often makes me deal with. 


Same thing goes for astro CCD cameras. I wanted to buy a camera back during summer. I've put it off. I had picked a camera that I thought I liked, then had a couple people demonstrate to me the issues with it. I've been given the option of working the data from that camera, as well as a few others. Some of them, ironically, use Sony sensors, which again are better than the Kodak (or now TrueSense, I think, as Kodak sold the unit) sensors. For narrow band work, the higher sensitivity and ultra low dark current of the Sony sensors are again significantly superior...and it matters when you get down into the minutia...which in the case of astro, it's ALL minutia...every fraction of an e- more read noise has a huge impact to the end results. 


Maybe we are just "measurebaters" to a "craftsman" such as yourself. Fine. However that doesn't invalidate how we do things...it's simply different than how you do things. Some people care about minutia...even if their viewers don't see these small differences, we do. Maybe we couldn't just pick out a D800 image from a 5D III image...at least, not until we were sitting in front of a computer working the data. Then I guarantee you the differences would be blatantly obvious to many of us. 


So, you call us crazy for caring about minutia. I can't help but think someone such as yourself is crazy for caring so much that we care...and constantly reminding us that were crazy because were not like you. Can you not simply leave us be in peace, and let us care about the things that we have decided matter to us?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Guess what, I can't program like you, I can't shoot astro like you. *It seems you can't take normal pictures with current gear and get results like me*, I am not special and most of my images are boring images for commercial clients, I just did the 10,000 hour (and then some) bit, so did Sporgon and a host of other shooters here.
> ...



He'll leave you in piece the second Canon does it as well or better and not a minute before.

Just like Keith Reeder. The guy who helped drove some people away from posting and bashed everyone a thousands times over bring up the 'nonsense' about banding and how only lab bound fools look for banding and blah blah blah, well guess what, now that the 7D2 fixes up banding super well, he is going around ragging on anyone who doesn't bring up banding and trashing DxO for penalizing the 7D2 for not reporting that it has a lot less banding! 

Pretty rich. He slammed and trashed and tried to get people banned if they mentioned banding and he'd go on and on about how it makes no practical difference and is meaningless and now suddenly that a couple Canon models, especially the 7D2, handle banding super well again now he suddenly is all for bringing up banding and he trashes anyone who fails to mention how important is and how fails to mention that it's an incredible major improvement from Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> I just don't like having to invest so much time in making my photos great,



That is what I said, and as a professional in another area I can understand why you feel like that, but I think it is disingenuous and bogus. If we could all do everything as well as anybody else there would be no value to anything.



jrista said:


> However that doesn't invalidate how we do things...it's simply different than how you do things. Some people care about minutia...even if their viewers don't see these small differences, we do. Maybe we couldn't just pick out a D800 image from a 5D III image...at least, not until we were sitting in front of a computer working the data. Then I guarantee you the differences would be blatantly obvious to many of us.



I agree, your opinion is no more invalid than mine, or valid. I am about the image, I don't care if it is a Nikon or Canon file, it is about the end use image, if I couldn't get the results I need to pay my bills from seven year old Canon gear I'd buy something else, it is as simple as that.



jrista said:


> So, you call us crazy for caring about minutia. I can't help but think someone such as yourself is crazy for caring so much that we care...and constantly reminding us that were crazy because were not like you. Can you not simply leave us be in peace, and let us care about the things that we have decided matter to us?



No, again, that isn't why I called you* crazy (I never said you personally either, you have just taken issue with the comment). I called it crazy that you are criticizing the AF when used in as diametrically opposed case use as it is designed for, I was saying that you regularly demand this and that of Canon, invoking the wildest of claims about their future if they don't deliver this or that feature, then when they do deliver you use it in the most inappropriate series of settings imaginable, that is all.

Why should I care? Well I don't care about you personally, I do care that many of the people that read some of the craziness here actually believe it and think that 5D MkIII's can't be used for prints above, what was it you said? 8"x10", well some people read that and believe it, so I just see myself as a needed counterpoint to much of the deluded hyperbole that rampages through here sometimes. I also disagree with fanboys who make silly claims about Canon capabilities, things like "unique look" etc, but you don't comment on those posts..........

* I would point out I never called you, Jrista, crazy, you just seem to have taken offense like you so often do.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> He'll leave you in piece the second Canon does it as well or better and not a minute before.
> 
> Just like Keith Reeder. The guy who helped drove some people away from posting and bashed everyone a thousands times over bring up the 'nonsense' about banding and how only lab bound fools look for banding and blah blah blah, well guess what, now that the 7D2 fixes up banding super well, he is going around ragging on anyone who doesn't bring up banding and trashing DxO for penalizing the 7D2 for not reporting that it has a lot less banding!
> 
> Pretty rich. He slammed and trashed and tried to get people banned if they mentioned banding and he'd go on and on about how it makes no practical difference and is meaningless and now suddenly that a couple Canon models, especially the 7D2, handle banding super well again now he suddenly is all for bringing up banding and he trashes anyone who fails to mention how important is and how fails to mention that it's an incredible major improvement from Canon.



I believe I am more consistent than that, but whatever, like I said, I only see my input as a counterpoint, not a personal objection to Jrista or anybody else.


----------



## jrista (Nov 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't like having to invest so much time in making my photos great,
> ...




Well let me simply straiten out the record here. It is not disingenuous. It is not bogus. I really don't care if you cannot understand why I, and people like me, care...but we do. Most of my time is spent on astrophotography these days, however when I get deep into the bird and wildlife photography, I can bring back four or five cards full of photographs. Most of it is bursts, 5-8 frames, to capture the best moment. Importing then working through all those photos is MASSIVELY time consuming. I used to spend a huge amount of time doing it. The import, culling and picking isn't all that bad. It's the working my picks that takes so much time. I'd spend days, all my weekends, processing photos. I just got sick of it. I am sick of it. In part, because working the astro data is 100x more time consuming and complex. I just this weekend finally finished working a Pleiades photo that I originally started gathering data on in SEPTEMBER! It isn't some joke. It isn't a lie. It isn't some pretense to trick people or anything like that. I don't like having to spend countless hours processing photos. I TRULY DO feel that I have to spend EXTRA time processing Canon files than I do Exmor-based files. I do things with Canon files I simply don't have to do with others...like run things through Topaz DeNoise and/or Nik Dfine. I don't have to use any action scripts to clean up other forms of noise that neither of those are good at (such as dealing with color blotchiness in the shadows...I actually use one of my astronomy actions to deblotch, because it is fantastically good at it.) Extra steps, extra work. Time 100, or 300, or 500. And it all just accumulates the more time goes on...I still have a backlog of photos to work. 


So, no, sorry. I have no intention of being disingenuous. I'm dead serious. 



privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > However that doesn't invalidate how we do things...it's simply different than how you do things. Some people care about minutia...even if their viewers don't see these small differences, we do. Maybe we couldn't just pick out a D800 image from a 5D III image...at least, not until we were sitting in front of a computer working the data. Then I guarantee you the differences would be blatantly obvious to many of us.
> ...




And this is where we diverge. I care about the image, but I also care about how much effort I have to invest to create the artistic result I want. You say you shot Velvia 50. I know a couple large format photographers who still shot it, and insist it gives them the best results. They love it for it's natural output. They don't work it after the fact. They put the time in up front to get the results they want, and develop. Either they botch the shot, know it on scene, and retake...or it comes out of solution how they want it to look. I spend the time in-camera to get the best data I can...and yet, I still have to invest additional time after the fact, regardless. 


I care about the end result, but I also care about the effort to get there. 




privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So, you call us crazy for caring about minutia. I can't help but think someone such as yourself is crazy for caring so much that we care...and constantly reminding us that were crazy because were not like you. Can you not simply leave us be in peace, and let us care about the things that we have decided matter to us?
> ...




You didn't call me specifically "crazy". However you did make a generalized statement about a particular group of people, of which I am a part:




> We, some of you, demand ever more capability in these cameras and they can't fail to evolve into specific genres, then you start pulling them apart even when they are massive upgrades when they don't work outside their focused design brief.




After that statement, you make the proclamation that because we pull apart cameras and figure out all the details of how they work, we're crazy. I like picking cameras apart and finding where they fall apart. I like to know what the limits of my gear are, and understand WHY it is that I have to invest additional time dealing with certain aspects of the data. When I find a fault, I DO demand that the next generation improve. It's how I am. So do many other members on these forums. That isn't dumb, or idiotic, or bad, or stupid or anything like that. It's simply something we like to do, because the details matter to us, and we want things to continually improve. 


You make the simple assumption that there can't be any issues with the 7D II AF. What if there is? What if it is a firmware issue that needs to be addressed? You jump right out and accuse the people who are actually using the camera and noticing things about it's performance that they are crazy. You make the assumption that they are misusing the AF system. If there is a problem, how else is it going to be found, reported to Canon, and dealt with unless people test, push the system to limits, and talk about it?


None of us are going around assuming everyone else is an idiot, and proclaiming such. Guys like you, Keith, and a good number of others? Your constantly going around telling everyone who doesn't agree with you, the seasoned craftsman, is crazy for caring about details. What is it going to take to get you guys to just leave us the hell alone? I mean, do you even get it, that we want to be left the friggin hell alone? Or do you prefer to play the role of antagonist, constantly drudging things up and making an issue out of it?


As much as you guys are sick and tired of hearing anyone bring up DR...to be quite honest, were sick and tired of being dragged through the mud buy guys like you every time we say something you don't agree with. I don't pick apart every single post you make. I read a LOT of them, but I ignore most. I know you don't give a crap about my opinion. I don't really give a crap about yours. I'm sick and tired of you guys saying the same things over and over again as well. We could simply be ships passing in the night...but, no...one of you always has to pull out the hot poker and...poke.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 10, 2014)

Aglet said:


> As it is, with the lenses I want to use, it's no better at AF than my 60D.



I don't know about your lenses or shooting circumstances, but for me lifting the +0.5lv af limit of the 60d (that's not very dark esp. with f4+ lenses) is a merit on its own.



privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> You make the simple assumption that there can't be any issues with the 7D II AF. What if there is? What if it is a firmware issue that needs to be addressed? You jump right out and accuse the people who are actually using the camera and noticing things about it's performance that they are crazy. You make the assumption that they are misusing the AF system. If there is a problem, how else is it going to be found, reported to Canon, and dealt with unless people test, push the system to limits, and talk about it?
> 
> 
> None of us are going around assuming everyone else is an idiot, and proclaiming such. Guys like you, Keith, and a good number of others? Your constantly going around telling everyone who doesn't agree with you, the seasoned craftsman, is crazy for caring about details. What is it going to take to get you guys to just leave us the hell alone? I mean, do you even get it, that we want to be left the friggin hell alone? Or do you prefer to play the role of antagonist, constantly drudging things up and making an issue out of it?



You really do like the sound of your own voice don't you.

Anyway, I made no assumptions and am well aware that there could be a genuine issue with any new release, or a problem with a specific manufacturing batch, indeed nowadays it seems unlikely that there won't be some kind of issue, contrary to your belief I do not live in denial. But that doesn't mean there isn't a little craziness around some of the time!

I don't assume everybody is an idiot, I know some are, and I know many are way smarter than me (which isn't that difficult), there are many threads where I suspect i could call bullshit but don't because I am just not knowledgeable enough in a specific area to comment.

I care about details, but not in and of themselves, I know the answer to where the magic bullet is, it is inside each of us, it is not in one more stop of DR, better AF or anywhere else connected to the gear; I am not suggesting for a second gear doesn't matter, of course it does, and in some shooting situations it is paramount, but even the best gear in the hands of somebody without the time and knowledge to use it won't deliver. And that is what I feel many of the rants are about, the unrealistic expectation and the unwillingness to commit the time needed to master a hobby, any hobby. I know that if I get the same rod and reel, or gun as a fisherman or hunter I am not going to get the same results, it isn't about the type of bait or cartridge I use, it is because I have spent fifteen minutes fishing in my entire life, I don't feel the fish or the deer.

I am not surprised you shoot thousands of images birding, but I don't understand why you think you should get tens of images to "work", 99.9% of them are not worth the time or effort, those that are, are worth the time and effort! Unrealistic expectations.

When will I leave you alone? When you stop making what I see as outlandish or farcical claims that you either can't illustrate, make no difference to the actual images people shoot, or when you stop mistaking example Canon images for Exmor ones! I am not out to antagonise you, indeed you have sought out this contretemps, I have said I see myself a bit of a balance to some of the sillier claims (8"x10" prints) and to add a little to a few other threads.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I know that if I get the same rod and reel, or gun as a fisherman or hunter I am not going to get the same results, it isn't about the type of bait or cartridge I use, it is because I have spent fifteen minutes fishing in my entire life, I don't feel the fish or the deer.



The real question is would you go to a fishing or hunting forum and blame your lack of success on the harsh color banding on the lure or the inadequate range of the gun? :-X


----------



## jrista (Nov 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You make the simple assumption that there can't be any issues with the 7D II AF. What if there is? What if it is a firmware issue that needs to be addressed? You jump right out and accuse the people who are actually using the camera and noticing things about it's performance that they are crazy. You make the assumption that they are misusing the AF system. If there is a problem, how else is it going to be found, reported to Canon, and dealt with unless people test, push the system to limits, and talk about it?
> ...




No more than you, apparently. : 




privatebydesign said:


> I have said I see myself a bit of a balance to some of the sillier claims (8"x10" prints) and to add a little to a few other threads.




I clarified this at the time, but apparently only fragments of my posts are ever read. When I made the comment about 8x10" print, I clearly stated I was referring to "for viewing on the web." I was talking about an image downsampled to approximately 8x10" size ON SCREEN. I also clarified that when I print at home, I usually print at 13x19" which for the 5D III is just about native size. This is my issue...you guys pick posts apart so thoroughly you lose the context.


Well, whatever. 


You keep making the assumption that I am not interested in investing the time to master something. The whole concept about Outliers is pretty clear that it is 10,000 hours of dedicated practice, with express intent and effort to always learn something new every hour of time you invest in whatever it is you are trying to master. Repetitive, mundane "task" work is mastered rather quickly, and once mastered, it is no longer going to contribute to your growth. You have to actually find an area you are weak at, say focusing, and work it with the express intent of LEARNING more about focusing. If you are weak at tracking, you have to work it with the express intent of LEARNING more about tracking. That is what it takes to become an outlier. That 10,000 hours isn't just total mundane hours spent...it is 10,000 hours of dedicated, explicit practice that intentionally pushes your boundaries and forces you to constantly break into new territory. To grow as an artist, for example, you have to actually be an artist. Removing banding and blotch, extra steps to denoise, or running an HDR merge...that isn't art, it's just the busywork that you have to perform to get up to the point of then being an artist, of working the photo to produce an actual work of art. It's useless extra.


I'm not afraid to work and spend the time to master something. I've spent the last eight months doing exactly that with my astrophotography, and I have some great examples to demonstrate real-world growth in that area, as an astrophotographer, and an artistic one. I don't like all the extra busywork. DSLR's increase the busywork I have for astro...moving to mono CCD will eliminate a LOT of that busywork. Depending on exactly what kind of astrophotography I want to do, some cameras would be better than others...it's a careful choice, no different than with regular photography. Canon's read noise is often a source of busywork I have for regular photography (namely landscapes)...moving to a camera that has lower read noise would eliminate much of that busywork.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 10, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> When will I leave you alone? When you stop making what I see as outlandish or farcical claims that you either can't illustrate, make no difference to the actual images people shoot, or when you stop mistaking example Canon images for Exmor ones! I am not out to antagonise you, indeed you have sought out this contretemps, I have said I see myself a bit of a balance to some of the sillier claims (8"x10" prints) and to add a little to a few other threads.



You forgot to mention the bit about citing (blatantly) multiple exposure D800 pictures exhibited on 500px, as single frame exposures.........

Now that jrista has actually used an Exmor based camera in the field he must realise that he was wrong on this front, but hasn't admitted it........yet.


----------



## jrista (Nov 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > When will I leave you alone? When you stop making what I see as outlandish or farcical claims that you either can't illustrate, make no difference to the actual images people shoot, or when you stop mistaking example Canon images for Exmor ones! I am not out to antagonise you, indeed you have sought out this contretemps, I have said I see myself a bit of a balance to some of the sillier claims (8"x10" prints) and to add a little to a few other threads.
> ...




I admitted that one or two might have been multiple exposures based on an author comment or something like that. As for the rest, sorry, but I don't believe they are "proven" multiple exposures. They do look *tonemapped *to me...but that's what you do with tons of dynamic range. It doesn't matter if it's 14 or 20 stops worth, you still have to tonemap it into the limited DR you can see on screen or in a print. I haven't admitted anything because I don't believe most of those are anything other than single, tonemapped shots...even after having used an Exmor based camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> You forgot to mention the bit about citing (blatantly) multiple exposure D800 pictures exhibited on 500px, as single frame exposures.........



When one is convinced of the superiority of Exmor, one sees that superiority.......everywhere. Even in Canon images! :


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 11, 2014)

Hi Folks. 
It amazes and saddens me at how fast two intelligent beings can descend the spiral to the bottom. It appears from outside this "argument" that neither is listening to the other, each has misunderstood part or all of a post and both like your own voice! 
By the way this from someone who respects both of you as valuable contributors to this community. Perhaps we could draw a line under this and move back to the original topic? 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Aglet (Nov 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I don't know about your lenses or shooting circumstances, but for me lifting the +0.5lv af limit of the 60d (that's not very dark esp. with f4+ lenses) is a merit on its own.



FWIW, I measured +0.1 EV with my Sekonic 558 on an indoor target i was using for some tests.
with the 100-400 L mounted and stroked out to the 400mm end, the 60D and the 7d2 were both able to AF, and oddly, the 60D did it subjectively faster every time.
I think there may be some minor issues the 7d2 needs to have addressed with some firmware tweaks.
I'm pretty sure 7d2 would deliver better IQ than the good old, non-ML-equipped, 60D.


----------



## jrista (Nov 11, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about your lenses or shooting circumstances, but for me lifting the +0.5lv af limit of the 60d (that's not very dark esp. with f4+ lenses) is a merit on its own.
> ...




Well, is it possible the 7D II has firmware that is explicitly designed to throttle AF speed on lenses that need it to happen more slowly? The old 100-400 has it's issues...mine seemed to hunt more than I ever liked. Maybe they are forcing a slower AF speed now to limit hunting. Have you tried other lenses? 


Also, is the 7D II consistently accurate and precise? I mean, is the issue just that it's slow, or is it actually misfocusing? The thing I'm most interested in is whether Canon's new 65pt AF system inherited the 19pt AF system's inherent "jitter"...in that, frame to frame, it would always adjust focus ever so slightly, resulting in some frames just being enough OOF that you could tell...then popping back into perfect focus the next frame.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 11, 2014)

I'm not totally against this lens cap photo comparison, but i'd much prefer photos of a real life scene. i just don't trust that the camera bodies are being honest with what they are showing me. in regards to what the cameras might be doing, in the words of han solo, "i can imagine quite a bit." 
now back to "bidness" as usual (insert DR range comments)

what? 2 replies while i was typing, if they are on topic i'm drinking a second beer! or should that be the other way around? 
- this just in, CR forum drinking game, so everytime someone types something about DR we all take a shot of jager!


----------



## Aglet (Nov 11, 2014)

Here's another series of screenshots from Iridient Developer, v3 beta.

These are 25% linear scale of the black-cap-shots which give an impression of what the raw files are like when pushed even harder so you can better see the residual horizontal and vertical banding structures.

Files are saved as jpg with 4-4-4 subsampling to better preserve the speckle appearance which 4-2-2 otherwise smears. hopefully that doesn't get messed up when uploaded here.

These are pushed FIVE stops.
Then another has +100 Fill Light added
Deep Shadow Fine Tune has NO tint correction applied

done for both 100 and 1600 Iso

one 1600 iso is pushed 5 stops, no fill light, and then Deep Shadow Tint-Correction is set to low. Notice how it does a nice job of removed most of the red noise speckle. No idea how well this would translate to shadow detail loss, however. Perhaps someone can try that and post the results.

The file names are 7d2_iso-EV-fillLight-444.jpg

EDIT - just checked full size image recovered from clicking on the sample here and it's pretty much what it should look like.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 11, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Files are saved as jpg with 4-4-4 subsampling to better preserve the speckle appearance which 4-2-2 otherwise smears. hopefully that doesn't get messed up when uploaded here.



This site converts in-thread previews from jpeg to png, so to preserve the best quality simply upload as png right away. You can still link the original full-res jpeg files from an imagehoster in addition to that. To save filesize or for detail comparisons use compressed tiff or (imho best choice) lossless jpeg2.


----------



## bgosselin (Nov 11, 2014)

For the expert on that subject. Where is that noise coming from? Is it completly random or it's pixel dependent? What I mean. If you shoot with your caps on twice. With the same exposure time and same iso. Will both raw look exactly the same when push 4 stops?
If it does. Would it be possible to manipulate the raw file so you correct the exposition per pixel? I know that is a lot of pixel to be corrected. But with computer power that must be something that can be done.

I seen on my mark iii an option that reduce noise for long exposure. What does canon do then? They just filter out dim light in long exposure?

Feel free to send me to articles on this subject that could make me understand it better.


----------



## FEBS (Nov 11, 2014)

bgosselin said:


> For the expert on that subject. Where is that noise coming from? Is it completly random or it's pixel dependent? What I mean. If you shoot with your caps on twice. With the same exposure time and same iso. Will both raw look exactly the same when push 4 stops?
> If it does. Would it be possible to manipulate the raw file so you correct the exposition per pixel? I know that is a lot of pixel to be corrected. But with computer power that must be something that can be done.
> 
> I seen on my mark iii an option that reduce noise for long exposure. What does canon do then? They just filter out dim light in long exposure?
> ...



Here a link to CPN:

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 11, 2014)

bgosselin said:


> Is it completly random or it's pixel dependent? What I mean. If you shoot with your caps on twice. With the same exposure time and same iso. Will both raw look exactly the same when push 4 stops?



Neither - It's not fixed, the results change from shot to shot. It's also not random, the readout electronics Canon uses tend to introduce patterns into the noise. You have areas with higher noise next to patches with a cleaner signal. 
Now fixed pixels could easily suppressed, and completely random noise can be cleaned up by statistical means or simply left in as it has a mostly local effect.
The patterns OTOH are bad because they remain perceivable even with aggressive noise reduction or image size reduction and introduce large scale artifacts.


----------

