# Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

I posted last week to get advice on getting a 7D now... and got some truly wonderful responses about how I should take the plunge... and I did.

I got it last night and took some photos around town today. While I was shooting around town I thought the PQ looked GREAT... I could definitely see improvements in the evaluative metering over my XSi... and shouldn't even have to mention the HUGE improvements to AF over my XSi.

Everything was going great... until I got home and loaded up those photos in LR3... and saw a ridiculous amount of high frequency noise ALL over the place... even when shooting at ISO 100-200!

I couldn't believe it so I snatched my camera and went out into my backyard and front yard and shot some more photos of houses around me at ISO 100 and was very careful to expose everything correctly and get perfect focus... brought the camera back inside... and CRAZY NOISE persists!

I am mainly a landscape photographer... so _low_ ISO performance is hugely important to me. Before I bought the camera I read a ton of reviews that were positive... but of course they were all checking the _high_ ISO performance. Now that I found a "problem" I started searching around and have found TONS of people that are disappointed with the low ISO performance of the 7D.

What to do?

I am going on a trip into the mountains (no hiking, just driving) this weekend, so I'm definitely going to take along the 7D and "do my thing"... and if I come back with noise all over the place I think I'm going to have to return this body. That's a damn shame because I love everything else about it.

I _do_ think the noise is "livable"... but I feel like I shouldn't have to "live with it" for $1,500. Also, I buy cameras for the long haul and would be extremely disappointed every time I came back from a trip with noise all over my low ISO photos. 

I feel like I've been cheated of the joy that is rightfully mine by Canon...

Any advice here?

Derek


----------



## TonyY (Dec 9, 2011)

Totally agree, a $600 sony nex 5n can beat canon 7D in terms of image quality, check out the dpreview "Studio shot comparison: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=sony_nex5n&masterSample=dsc00790&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=sony_nex5n&slot0Sample=dsc00790&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=canon_eos7d&slot1Sample=canon7d_nrstand_iso3200&x=-0.9485456681437512&y=-1.5736754905560102

If I haven't had 5DII with 8 L lenses and full frame, I would jump to sony nex 5n or 7 with legacy lenses. Actually I am think to get a nex 7 as backup main body since 5DII is collecting dust.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

A little more information.

I shoot RAW only... and mostly shot in Av mode all day today (with suitably sized apertures for "urban" landscape's DoF needs... ie around 7-12).

The noise is anywhere a "smooth" surface is. Applying any amount of sharpening brings it right out (masking helps, but the noise then still hangs out in the "fringes" of solid surfaces). Applying NR to balance... I have to apply too much to get the noise out and end up losing detail (what is the point of all of those MPs if we have to smear everything around with NR?)

It is true that I am somewhat pixel peeping here... the noise doesn't become noticeable until about 2x... but it's not like I'm view at 1:1 or something. Sure my XSi has some noise... but at ISO 100 or 200 I have never had to apply NR to get acceptable medium prints (like 13"x19"). I don't believe I could print these 7D images at even 13x19!


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

Ok a little more info. I thought maybe LR3 couldn't handle the 7D very well so I loaded up DPP... and got the same (if not worse) results...


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 9, 2011)

Any chance of some samples of what you mean?
I've got a 7D and have seen no problems with anything thus far (but then that's all relative as to how your last camera performed).
Have you tried RAW-converting in DPP? Just for a test, set it to 'standard' picture style, sharpness 3, noise reduction 1/0, i've never had a problem with mine for that on iso100, and i've shot birds at 800/1600iso (to get shutter up over 1/500s) with acceptable quality after a bit of DPP's NR.


----------



## pwp (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Everything was going great... until I got home and loaded up those photos in LR3... and saw a ridiculous amount of high frequency noise ALL over the place... even when shooting at ISO 100-200!
> Any advice here?
> Derek



Derek, this is not consistent with most 7D shooters experience.

Could you post an image that describes what you are seeing, preferably a RAW file, or at the very least a file that is completely uncorrected. This will enable people to assist you and offer relevant viewpoints/advice.

Paul Wright


----------



## jgroepper (Dec 9, 2011)

Yeah I am really satisfied with mine too, great low noise performance over my 30D. I was amazed a how little noise was present at iso1600. I am not afraid to shoot at iso > 1000. With my 30D I noticed noise issues at iso 400. I do use noise reduction in LR3 but the shots still retain their sharpness.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

Thanks for the replies guys... I'd love to get this sorted!

Firstly: I'm not bothered by the high ISO performance (>400). As most of the reviews mention... I too think it is great in that area. I'm specifically troubled by _low_ ISO performance (100-200).

It does sound like I might be doing something wrong.

I'm going to try to attach a downrezed (to 5MP) photo (so that it fits in the attachment limit). Even at that rez you should be able to see what I'm talking about. This photo just has a small amount of sharpening and nothing more... which is what I would normally do for an ISO 200 photo...

Hmmm... it won't let me attach it. Give me a minute to find a place to put these.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 9, 2011)

maybe post 2 sampels one from the 7D and the same thing from the xsi


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 9, 2011)

better idea than downres take screen shots from LR and post those


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

Ok - here's one that has just received minor sharpening (what I would do for any shot coming in at ISO 200)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6480510009_df4a26af47_o.jpg

And here's another that I've tried my hardest to "fixup" with sharpening and NR:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6480518429_3cd975c2a1_o.jpg


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

Unfortunately, I can't compare directly to my XSi right now because it still hasn't made it back from the shop ;-)


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 9, 2011)

hmm i see what you mean, definately seems noisier than you would expect at iso 200, seems there is quite a bit of CA in there too you havent got ISO In auto or anything silly like that?


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> hmm i see what you mean, definately seems noisier than you would expect at iso 200, seems there is quite a bit of CA in there too you havent got ISO In auto or anything silly like that?



Nope - ISO was set by me. Both that I posted are ISO 200.

First is f/11 second is f/9.

These are with my Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

Both shot in Av mode.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 9, 2011)

did you buy it from a shop? perhaps you can take it back and ask to try another unti side by side. Definately seems off by alot, looks more like ISO1600 on my 1Dmk3 than ISO 200 I just checked a shot from last night at ISO 800 and its considerably less noisy especially in the shadows


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 9, 2011)

While I've always been happy with the 7D's high ISO performance, I always thought that the low ISO performance was a bit more noisy than it should be. But I only notice it when I pixel peep so I don't worry about it. I'm not sure that it was all that unusual or worse than my old XSi.

The second shot you posted looks ok to me, but that first one does look pretty noisy. For ISO 200 anyway.


----------



## akiskev (Dec 9, 2011)

I think that your 17-55 may be slightly decentered. Right side is kinda soft in both pictures.

I suggest you not to worry so much about the noise levels. What I'm seeing (in terms of noise levels) is totally acceptable even for large prints.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

akiskev said:


> I think that your 17-55 may be slightly decentered. Right side is kinda soft in both pictures.
> 
> I suggest you not to worry so much about the noise levels. What I'm seeing (in terms of noise levels) is totally acceptable even for large prints.



You're definitely right about the right side of my 17-55. For whatever reason it only really shows at certain apertures and focal length combos. I've kind of learned to deal with it over the years. I wouldn't mind sending it in sometime... I was always just a bit worried that it would come back _worse_ in some other way ;-)

I do get quite good photos out of it though (note that I didn't try very hard to actually get nice looking photos here... these were really just noise tests). You can see some of them here: http://500px.com/friedmud

Do you think it would be worth sending it in? Now that I have a more demanding body I might be time to do just that.

You think the noise is ok? It might be. I'll take photos with it this weekend and then fixup a few a do some larger prints and post some back to this thread. I guess I'm just really bothered by my inability to use sharpening with these photos from the new body. As a primarily landscape photographer I lean heavily on sharpening to give me crisp looking scenery. Maybe I just need to change my practices...


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> I posted last week to get advice on getting a 7D now... and got some truly wonderful responses about how I should take the plunge... and I did.
> 
> I got it last night and took some photos around town today. While I was shooting around town I thought the PQ looked GREAT... I could definitely see improvements in the evaluative metering over my XSi... and shouldn't even have to mention the HUGE improvements to AF over my XSi.
> 
> Everything was going great... until I got home and loaded up those photos in LR3... and saw a ridiculous amount of high frequency noise ALL over the place... even when shooting at ISO 100-200!



Hi Derek,

I think I may have been one of the ones who recommended the camera to you last week. I'm a little surprised you're having such a problem. While I do think the 7D is a tad noisy at low ISO, I found for myself that ISO 160 seems to be great. I'm not exactly sure what Canon says about the 7D, and whether it differs from their other cameras in any way...however I've heard two things about it:

1. The 7D, unlike other canon DSLR's, has ISO 80 as a base, making ISO 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ideal. 
2. The 7D IS a bit noisier than their other DSLR's (not surprising given its pixel density), and ISO 160 a -1/3 stop pull from ISO 200, resulting in a slight deamplification of the image, lowering noise, but also slightly lowering DR. (Additionally, ISO 125, 250, etc. are pushed from the previous native setting, which contributes to their CONSIDERABLE noise...avoid +1/3 ISO stops at all costs!)

This video is a helpful demonstration: http://vimeo.com/10473734

Either way you slice it, you should try ISO 160, 320, 640 and see how you like the results. I have not noticed any huge issue with using those ISO's, and if there is any loss in DR, its never been a problem for me. Additionally, remember that the 18.1mp of your 7D is 48% MORE detail than the 12.2mp of your XSi. At 100% pixel peeping, your looking at noise at a much finer level of detail thann the XSi. If you scale the 7D image down to the size of an XSi image with some standard bicubic, the additional noise should be mitigated against, if not entirely normalized with, your 450D. I've also found that Lightroom 3.5's NR does a pretty good job at reducing noise, and when I print at home with a Canon PIXMA Pro 9500 Mk II @ 13x19", the noise is usually invisible (and some noise is always a bit beneficial for printing smooth gradients, like a fade into shadow or a sunset sky.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> You're definitely right about the right side of my 17-55. For whatever reason it only really shows at certain apertures and focal length combos. I've kind of learned to deal with it over the years. I wouldn't mind sending it in sometime... I was always just a bit worried that it would come back _worse_ in some other way ;-)



Definitely send it in. Canon's repair service is superb, and pretty quick. I had to send my 100-400 L in once, turnaround time was about 6 days including a weekend. They returned my exact lens (same serial #), and it was in perfect condition...not a problem with it once it came back.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

jrista said:


> friedmud said:
> 
> 
> > I posted last week to get advice on getting a 7D now... and got some truly wonderful responses about how I should take the plunge... and I did.
> ...



Wow - good information on ISO 160, 320, 640.... I'll definitely give that a shot tomorrow (and this weekend).

Even when I scale the photo down to XSi size I'm still having trouble with the noise... but I do understand what you're saying about comparing the XSi to the 7D. I haven't actually done that comparison yet... but I'm still somewhat disappointed in the performance the 7D has put in so far.

Good to hear about the prints... I have the same printer myself. I'll do some prints from my shots this weekend to see if everything looks ok.


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 9, 2011)

It's commonly known that there is low ISO noise, and lots of it.

Great features, crap sensor.

If IQ is paramount buy a used 5D mk1, but unless you get a 1D series you can't have both I'm afraid.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Looking at your sample photos, I don't see any problem. There are two ways I think most people display their work: at very small scale on a computer screen (roughly 4x6" overall area, give or take, say 750-900px wide/tall screen size), or at moderate scale in a print, say 8x10 - 13x19, possibly 17x22 at the upper end. Its a rarer photographer that blows their work up to immense size in print.

In both of the more common formats, the amount of noise I see in your sample photos should NEVER be a problem from any practical standpoint. If you scale your photos down to a reasonable viewing size on a computer screen, you would need noise on the level of the 7D's ISO 3200 for it to really begin to be a problem, and LR is pretty good at reducing ISO 3200 noise to more reasonable levels. If you print at 13x19, you will probably find that a bit of noise is actually a welcome addition, as it really helps normalize tonal gradents in a print. 

I've never had anything to complain about with 7D prints, although admittedly I have not had mine much longer than you have had yours. My previous 450D had pretty terrible noise at or above ISO 800, and I've had a couple very large multi-foot prints created from some of its photos. The high noise level at ISO 800 and 1600, which is a fair bit worse than the 7D's ISO 100 noise, is slightly visible...the worst part about it is that it affects some of the fine detail in such a large print at high PPI. To be honest, I've never expected an APS-C sensor to perform well enough for such enlargements, even with the amount of work I tend to put in optimizing the TIFF images I send out to be printed. I have been holding out for a 5D III to take care of my more extreme need to print 4 feet by 3 feet, and I suspect it will service that need superbly. The 7D fills a different need, and allows me to capture shots of birds and wildlife in action far better than either the 450D did or the 5D might. I usually print those shots at smaller sizes, and the noise is never a problem.


----------



## Cannon Man (Dec 9, 2011)

you mentioned about shooting with apertures 7-12, the calculated DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) for the 7D is f/6.9 so it means that when you go to apertures 8,9,10... you lose sharpness and image quality. the 5DII has a DLA of f/10.2 and it sucks more light in because its full frame.

And i recommend buying a sharper lens so you won't have to apply sharpening at all.. 
That way you can keep all the IQ and hence get better images. tilt shift lenses are great because you can shoot landscapes with larger apertures and with a bigger depth of field.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 9, 2011)

My first 7D seemed noisy to me as well, even at ISO 800. I received it in the first batch made. I returned it. This summer, I bought a second one, a refurb from Canon using the CLP, and it is better, but not comparable with my 5D MK II or 1D MK IV for high ISO. its usable with a ton of NR.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 9, 2011)

jrista said:


> 1. The 7D, unlike other canon DSLR's, has ISO 80 as a base, making ISO 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ideal.


Do you have a source for this? It doesn't jive with what I've read:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=784514

Of course sensorgen.info shows the "marked" normal ISOs are quite different from the stated:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=784514

@ friedmud: Have you tried auto ISO for a comparison? ISO 400 in the same situations? What you describe sounds a little bit like noise from underexposure.

Also, you should check the Highlight Tone Priority setting: Turn it off, if it is on.


----------



## te4o (Dec 9, 2011)

I have been wondering about all those people coming here to ask for a confirmation of a purchasing decision - where everyone on this forum shouts "buy now" - see, this is a result of listening to other people... 
To a small population of patient unlucky Canon victims it is obvious that even the "best ever" 5D2 has terrible pattern noise if pushed at ISO 100-200 with sharPening or exposure push. We ARE WAITING for better days and use the old stuff like 30Ds and 40Ds and work around their insufficiencies like in an old marriage. Because the 5D c or 2 are still TOO EXpensive for what they can offer!
You just sPent 1500$ on a new "bride" to realize it is not better than the old ones... 
Many users just don't want to see the noise on Canons current sensors - they are the happy ones. Try to teach yourself...


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

* Pixel peeping means greater magnification for the 7D image.

* Finer pixels also means that the 7D's noise is "sharper" than noise from lower resolution cameras even after you equalize the pixel dimensions and viewing conditions. It's not necessarily more noise and it's not necessarily apparent in even the largest prints, but it seems more obtrusive while pixel peeping. (Same thing with the D3x vs D3s.)

* I regularly make 24" and 30" landscape prints. I use sharpening, and sometimes also use NR. The prints are tack sharp, full of detail, and show no noise. In fact, I've made a few 20" portrait prints shot at ISO 800 and they are gorgeous.

* I've even got some 20" prints from cropped 7D images, surfing shots, at ISO 400. No noise on the print.

That said, there's a little noise even at low ISO while pixel peeping. But pixel peeping is like looking at a 60-70" print from a couple feet.

With all of that out of the way...your first sample does look like it has more noise then I would expect. Did you nail the exposure, or underexpose and adjust in post?


----------



## dstppy (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Ok - here's one that has just received minor sharpening (what I would do for any shot coming in at ISO 200)
> 
> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6480510009_df4a26af47_o.jpg
> 
> ...



I'm with the others that suggest seeing if you can try out another 7D. 

I have a 60D and I just don't see noise like this in daylight pictures as you've seen here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2011)

KeithR said:


> My 7D will beat the crap out of any 5D you care to pick, at the image level...



The 5D will have lower ISO noise across the board...and that's pretty relevent to the issue the OP describes. 

Looking back over friedmud's original thread, s/he stated something in this thread that was _left out_ of the request for purchase advice, "*I am mainly a landscape photographer...*" I suppose someone here should have asked that question previously (and there was a reference to shooting 'out in the Japanese countryside' in the original thread), but no one did, and the OP had EF-S lenses and stated having no interest in a 5DII/III. 

Still, armed with the info that the primary use was landscape photography, I would not have recommended the 7D. Don't get me wrong - I think the 7D is a great camera. But if I'm going out to shoot landscapes, I'll grab my 5DII every single time.


----------



## Gothmoth (Dec 9, 2011)

and now please let us hear the guys who want a 36MP 1Ds..... 

what mircales do you expect from a new sensor when going to a photoside size near the 7D sensor....?


----------



## CowGummy (Dec 9, 2011)

I too agree with those that are suggesting sending it back, or at least comparing to other 7D models. The noise on that first image looks too high for my liking. And given the kind of money you've spent on this camera I too feel you ought to be expecting excellent IQ, and the low iso noise is clearly getting in the way of your enjoyment.

However, I also agree with neuro - I thought the same thing when reading your initial post where you state you are mainly a landscape shooter. The 7D is a very good camera - no doubt. But landscape shooting was never going to be it's strongpoint. Full frame will usually handle landscapes more successfully.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 9, 2011)

I was never impressed with the 7D noise levels at whatever ISO. Both in landscape and in macro this would be very noticable if the performance is not bang-on. It is possible there is some unit to unit variation, I am not sure. I have seen terrible flickr images and counted them as those from a terrible photographer only to see most of their images are awful, even a horrible photographer is bound to take an occational clean shot . Other people's images seem ok on the other hand. Unless you can play with it at the shop with a few units in hand, this seems rather a toss up. I will say however, I love the AF improvements.


----------



## catz (Dec 9, 2011)

dstppy said:


> friedmud said:
> 
> 
> > Ok - here's one that has just received minor sharpening (what I would do for any shot coming in at ISO 200)
> ...



Me too. My 60D sucks in many ways compared to my 5D mark II. 
In same lighting conditions one picture taken with 5D and another with 60D and the difference is huge when I edit it on Aperture. The 5D picture (in addition to video) is much better in terms of noise, detail and latitude. I can push the 5D RAW images much further than the 60D RAW images ever. And it is not about the lenses either, I can use the same L-lens in both and the results with 5D are just from another planet than with the 60D. 

Many reviews were stating that 60D would have had identical video and comparable still image quality, but after purchasing the second body I saw the truth by myself. It is not about the picture styles either. The latitude simply can not be found from the 60D. 60D images may look at first sight more "shiny, vivid and saturated" at low resolution (not 1:1 resolution because 60D images at that resolution have lots of camera phone like noise on it which really annoys me) when taken out of the camera than the 5D images, but after processing, the truth is that 60D images are crap and the 5D images have so much information that it is almost unbelievable at times. And the 5D mk II is many years old camera. 

And yeah, the video: 60D video is so crappy and aliasing and latitude and detail lacking (even in good lighting conditions, with studio lights and all) that it almost hurts my eye while I find the 5D mk II video usable.

When 5D mark III comes, I will probably sell my 60D and use the mk II as second body.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 9, 2011)

The noise problem in higher pixel density sensors is one reason why Canon has probably gone back to the drawing board as professional photographers will *never* put up with this, nor will they dole out $7000+ for that kind of performance. Regardelss of the vocal protestations from the enthusiasts wanting more and more MP, looking at the actual marketing strategy of Canon.... lower priced, higher pixel density, smaller sensors for enthsiasts, and all "1" series have been lower MP. I assume Canon, who is making the money and marketing this, knows something about who wants what.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

Very interesting to see all of the replies. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me... but I'm left wondering where to go. On paper the 7D looked like the ideal camera for me: it's got the "pro" features I want in an EFS package. But now it seems like not only can I not upgrade to the 7D... but the 60D and T3i are out (same sensor).

I suppose I'm just going to have to continue with my XSi for now.

As for not mentioning that I'm a landscape photographer... that was definitely an omission on my part. After reading everything about this camera I don't fault the people that told me to snag it... there are _many_ happy customers with this camera. I just think it's not right for me.

I think that "catz" post is the most relevant to my situation. I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them. If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me. What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.

As for "pixel peeping". I don't think that's what I'm doing. Anyone who looked at those photos I posted should be disgusted. I didn't do _any_ exposure adjustment at all and just a tad bit of sharpening (not even close to as much as I typically would for a landscape shot). The exposure is spot on... fully covering the range in every channel (yay evaluative exposure on 7D! My XSi would have trouble doing that with even this shot ;-)

If I try to crop this photo down _at all_ I can see the noise with the full photo being displayed (ie not zooming in) on my 27" iMac. And that's doing a pretty small amount cropping (like only including the whole church). If I go any further, like just the front half of the church... it looks like I took this photo at ISO 800+! How anyone shooting landscapes would think that is acceptable is beyond me. I've cropped ISO 100-200 photos from my XSi _way_ down and been satisfied with the results (and I didn't have to apply any NR at all!).

Here is a screenshot of what I'm seeing on my screen: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6482020907_8689f39356_o.jpg

Bottom line: $1,500 for RAW files that you can't "push around" at all and having to apply NR at ISO 100-200 is completely unacceptable to me.

Like I mentioned, I'm still going to give it a go this weekend and see what the results are... but at this point I'm not expecting it to be good...

Thanks again for everyone taking the time to reply! This has been extremely insightful!


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Very interesting to see all of the replies. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me... but I'm left wondering where to go. On paper the 7D looked like the ideal camera for me: it's got the "pro" features I want in an EFS package. But now it seems like not only can I not upgrade to the 7D... but the 60D and T3i are out (same sensor).
> 
> I suppose I'm just going to have to continue with my XSi for now.
> 
> ...



The 7D is a fine camera. I put my RAW files through quite a bit and they look great. I have a few issues with some of the things but I've learned to eliminate the issue or work around it. I think there could be something wrong with your 7D. But I wouldn't write off the entire 7D line for your use. It's the best crop body out right now. Period.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2011)

Reportedly, the 7D has a pretty strong AA filter, meaning it's require more sharpening in post, which affects noise.



friedmud said:


> I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them. If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me. What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.



I find that with _a lot_ of work, I can manage to get 7D files post-processed to the point where the IQ is close to those from my 5DII...but that's straight out of the camera from the 5DII.

FWIW, the 5DII has the same C1-C3 custom settings. A hotshoe bubble level works great, that's what I use with my 5DII. 

May I ask...why are you dead-set against the 5DII? Is it your EF-S lens collection? What lenses do you have? I had the 10-22mm and the 17-55mm with my T1i, and then 7D. When I got my 5DII, I sold the 10-22mm...for $50 less than I had paid for it (new from Amazon) after a year of use - and that was before the early 2011 price increases, if I sold it today I'd make a profit based on current used prices. I kept the 17-55mm for us with my 7D, since that serves as a backup camera (as your XSi would, presumably).


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

Hey Derek... I've shot with the 7d professionally since it's release and still have it as my second shooter... I see your situation with the noise... A couple things that come to mind off hand... given the high MP and sensor density, things to consider is what in-camera sharpening do you have the camera set at and what in camera noise reduction do you have the camera set at... too high of a sharpening setting and too low of a NR will product higher noise than needed. Secondly what do you normally output the files to? Print? Online? Normally I almost always aim to have my photos printed (or judged based off of prints...). I've had my 7d printed up to 16x20 and even seen 7d's being printed at 20x30... typically in print, all that noise becomes detail and your prints look great... I also warn that the base large file is for outputting at 300dpi a 11x17 print... I'd suggesting print a test print and check noise... If it still bugs you at that time, check your settings and or send your camera in... 

For what it's worth, I dont do a lot of landscapes but I do my fair share of architecture and I find shooting around F8 gives more than enough DOF for this camera and also gives the sharpest results with my L lenses (well 5.6-8).


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 9, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I find that with _a lot_ of work, I can manage to get 7D files post-processed to the point where the IQ is close to those from my 5DII...but that's straight out of the camera from the 5DII.



I'm reading this thread with great interest, as I also just snagged a 7D but have not opened it yet as I'm nervous about these types of issues and being a refurb from Canon I cannot return it once opened. So anyway...

What is "a lot of work" exactly? Again, my context is shooting athletes in a race, so I may have 500 nearly identical shots (500 different runners or cyclists)--can I do the "a lot of work" once and then copy and paste the develop settings to the other 499 (in Lightroom) or would it differ for each photo and I would have to do "a lot of work" 500 times?


----------



## whatta (Dec 9, 2011)

> I find shooting around F8 gives more than enough DOF for this camera and also gives the sharpest results with my L lenses (well 5.6-8).



what about the Diffraction Limited Aperture = f/6.9 for the 7d


----------



## unfocused (Dec 9, 2011)

> I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me.



I'm guessing that's the right answer. 

I'm one of those very satisfied 7D owners. Other than some fringing, I honestly didn't see much wrong with the files you posted (Certainly nothing I would consider earthshatteringly disappointing). I also can't see anything that makes me think the sensor is defective, so I suspect exchanging it won't make much difference.

I've never found noise to be an issue, but then again I don't spend a lot of time obsessing over electronic files (everything looks better in print) and as a former Tri-X shooter all of today's camera's blow me away with their quality. 

I suppose it has to do in part with what your tolerances are and what you want to say with your photos. For me, content always trumps technique. Which is why I'd take Robert Frank over Ansel Adams any day of the week. 

If you are sincerely disappointed in the 7D, then nothing others say here will convince you. You are probably better off looking for another camera.



thepancakeman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I find that with _a lot_ of work, I can manage to get 7D files post-processed to the point where the IQ is close to those from my 5DII...but that's straight out of the camera from the 5DII.
> ...



Pancakeman, don't worry. If you are shooting real people doing real things, you won't have any problem. Take a look at the samples posted with this thread and judge for yourself if you think there is something horribly wrong with them. (I don't) 

The only time you'll run into issues is if you have to do a radical crop and that would be the same on almost any camera. (And I mean really radical.) 

To put things in perspective, have a look at the contest finalists in the various categories selected by CR Guy. Do you even notice or think about noise in those shots. Of course not, because the content is what is interesting and compelling.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The 7D, unlike other canon DSLR's, has ISO 80 as a base, making ISO 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ideal.
> ...



From some other forum threads, posts by people who have purportedly talked directly to Canon reps about the issue. Note, I guess I wasn't clear, but the two options were either/or, not both together. Its either that the sensor is BASE 80, rather than BASE 100, OR its that the sensor is just a bit noisy, and 160/320/640 are pulled from the previous ISO, which is why they look a bit better than the prior native ISO's. I don't know which case is true, but I'm not trying to state that both cases are true.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

whatta said:


> > I find shooting around F8 gives more than enough DOF for this camera and also gives the sharpest results with my L lenses (well 5.6-8).
> 
> 
> 
> what about the Diffraction Limited Aperture = f/6.9 for the 7d



I find that aperture to work great with my L lenses... I've mentioned prior in other threads diffraction is more based on the camera/lens combo rather than a hardline camera rule... for instance using the kit lens 28-135mm you may very well have a limit of 6.9 or even shallower but with the 24-105L, as example, would give you a little more leadway, hence F8... My last thing in my post your referring to, I did say F 5.6-8 works best but even at 5.6 for instance, shooting landscape scenes, you should have more than enough DOF unless you are shooting objects in the extreme foreground that you want sharp in tandem with the background, otherwise a city scape or whatever you, especially if you compensate a little for hyperfocal length, you should be golden.


----------



## x-vision (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me...



I had the exact same experience as yours ... and my 7D was returned to the retailer within the two-weeks return period. 
This is not a camera for someone who cares about image quality. 

Haven't read all posts on this thread but I'm sure you got a lot of advise on how your improve your technique, how the 7D requires more careful post-processing, etc..

My advise is that you should just return your camera, as you'll never be happy with the results. 
Most likely the 5DII will give you the results you expect. Good luck.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 9, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I find that with _a lot_ of work, I can manage to get 7D files post-processed to the point where the IQ is close to those from my 5DII...but that's straight out of the camera from the 5DII.
> ...



Canon has a 14 day return policy on refurbs, so its very important to put it into use immediately. You can call them and get a RMA if its not workiing right.

DON'T WAIT !!


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 9, 2011)

Your subjects/time of day are very far from ideal. Most of the content of your images are in shadow, and in one image the sides of objects are being struck by bright highlights while the rest remains covered by moderate shadow. I also question how well 1/30 and 1/40 shutters are working for you, (they certainly can be made to work) but if you are not being really careful to be stabilized, even with IS on it could degrade 100% pixel peeping results. Even still, these images are technically quite use-able for HQ imagery if you don't use them at 100% and I think even in the sub-optimal conditions you are shooting in, that you might be able to eek out slightly better pixel peeping results with different user operation and different editing approaches. That also isn't the greatest copy of the greatest lens on the planet and while I think you could pull off miracles with it and make it sing, I wouldn't expect that to happen easily. But regardless what I think, if you really aren't happy, sell/return the equipment and get something else, but I suspect in that price range you are going to get similar results given all conditions/settings/user operations being about the same.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Ok a little more info. I thought maybe LR3 couldn't handle the 7D very well so I loaded up DPP... and got the same (if not worse) results...



LR NR is pretty good. It is not magic but pretty good.


----------



## skitron (Dec 9, 2011)

TonyY said:


> Totally agree, a $600 sony nex 5n can beat canon 7D in terms of image quality, check out the dpreview "Studio shot comparison: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocompare.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=sony_nex5n&masterSample=dsc00790&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=sony_nex5n&slot0Sample=dsc00790&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=canon_eos7d&slot1Sample=canon7d_nrstand_iso3200&x=-0.9485456681437512&y=-1.5736754905560102
> 
> If I haven't had 5DII with 8 L lenses and full frame, I would jump to sony nex 5n or 7 with legacy lenses. Actually I am think to get a nex 7 as backup main body since 5DII is collecting dust.



Thanks for the cool link, that is a nice resource for making comparisons. Unfortunately I couldn't find any info on what lens were used so that limits the usefulness somewhat...

I thought the RAWs out of the 5N and 7D looked a lot alike. The 5N may be slightly better at low ISO and and 7D better at high ISO. I also added the 5D2 and 50D since it will compare 4 at a time, so I would have references of both clearly better and clearly worse.

Not that it much matters if all you're interested in comparing is noise, but I did notice that the comparisons don't all have the same focal plane. For instance the 5D2 is OOF when zooming the queen's face on the playing card and also the checker targets in the upper corners, but is sharp on subjects more forward in the shot. Meanwhile the 50D is OOF when zooming anything further forward like the paper clips and bottle labels, but the queen's face is sharp as are the corner targets. Just a heads up for anyone looking at sharpness comparisons...


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Everything was going great... until I got home and loaded up those photos in LR3... and saw a ridiculous amount of high frequency noise ALL over the place... even when shooting at ISO 100-200!



I agree. I like to call the 7D, "my little noise pig". Noise levels at low ISO are unnaceptable for a $1500 camera. I found the 50D and 40D files superior in IQ, especially the 40D. My 7D at ISO 800 looks like my 40D at 1600. The 40D files are smooth and clean, giving better fur detail and landscape detail. The 7D files have a bit of mush on top of the noise. I'm using a combination of L lenses and EF-S lenses.

I love the features of the 7D, but in the end IQ is more important. I'd love to thave the 40D's sensor inside the 7D's body.

On top of this, I've found the 7D's AF, (or maybe it's a very strong AA filter) to produce images that are not quite "there" in terms of sharpness. Keeper rates are down with my L primes from the 50D, especially shooting wild animals or horses.

Despite my wildlife shooting, I am seriously contemplating a move to the 5D II. My 7D feels like a Canon S2 or those crazy Panasoniz consumer superzooms from the early 2000's (the Fz5, I believe).

I heard a lot of feature hype over the 7D, but not much talk of IQ. I'll be more careful next time. The video is what lured me over.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Very interesting to see all of the replies. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me... but I'm left wondering where to go. On paper the 7D looked like the ideal camera for me: it's got the "pro" features I want in an EFS package. But now it seems like not only can I not upgrade to the 7D... but the 60D and T3i are out (same sensor).
> 
> I suppose I'm just going to have to continue with my XSi for now.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry to hear you say this, I think your selling yourself and the 7D a little short. I've looked at your sample images pretty closely. I do indeed see some noise in and near shadows, however I wouldn't call it "disgusting". It is kind of annoying, but when I take your image and scale it down to 900px wide (the standard size of a 500px.com photo), I don't see any noise at all. When you think about how much higher density most 300-PPI prints are vs. the pixel density of a computer screen (which ranges from 72ppi to around 103ppi), they are about 4-3 times as pixel dense, which hides a LOT of the noise you may see at 100% on a computer screen.

Regarding pixel peeping...those photos you posted are 100% size photos...so looking at the noise in them really can't be considered anything other than pixel peeping. Thats what it is: examining detail at a pixel level at 100%. I also had a 450D, and I remember that smooth areas...smooth gradients and solid color surfaces and the like, often had visible noise at ISO100. Not quite as much as the 7D does, but some nevertheless. The current (pre 1D X) generation of Canon sensor tech is a bit noisy compared to what competitors have to offer (which these days are largely all Sony sensors, which have a much lower noise floor than Canon sensors.) 

If you want high resolution with low noise, you are either going to have to spend the bucks on a 1D X, wait for a 5D III and hope it performs as well or nearly well as a 1D X, or jump ship and head to a different brand. I know Pentax is well known for having some of the best ISO noise performance of any brand these days (excluding the 1DX...I guess we'll see how it fares soon enough), however I have never been particularly impressed with its lens lineup. Nikon has some great lenses, and many of their newer cameras use Sony sensors. Even the Canon 5D Mark II has only marginally less pixel-level noise as the 7D...its just generally less obvious at commonly presented format sizes because it is once again higher resolution. The 5D II, according to some of the comments on 7D threads about its noise, has the same exact issues. ISO 100 is a bit noiser than ISO 160, 320 is less noisy than 400, etc. The 5D II has its own unique noise issues as well, as it seems to suffer from lower right corner thermal noise that produces very uneven noise distribution from left to right in an image when above ISO 1600. I don't ever recall anyone really complaining that much about it though, as in most real-world situations, its unnoticeable. 

You might also want to consider the calibration of your monitor. An improperly calibrated screen might display color or luminance with too much contrast. It may be configured to enhance sharpness via the screen itself (many LCD screens allow sharpness tuning), etc. I use an Apple CinemaDisplay 30" at 2560x1600, recently calibrated with a DataColor Spyder 3 Elite. The brightness of my screen is tuned for 120cd/m, with a 5500k white point. On this screen, your ISO 200 photos look fine, and while if I get about 6 inches from the screen I CAN see noise in shaded parts of the photo, and a little bit in the roofing tiles, at my normal viewing distance of about a foot and a half, I have to squint to see any noise at all. Scaling the image down with a quality scaling algorithm to either mimic print or preview for on-screen sizes (I have to scale down about 1/3rd the original size on my 103dpi screen to simulate how big the image might be in print), I can't see any noise at all at a comfortable viewing distance.

On a properly calibrated screen in a properly lit room, the lowest image with noise from the following thread should be ISO 250 and the other +1/3 stop settings. ISO 100, 160, 320, 400, 640, should all look nearly completely black. ISO 800 and on is where noise starts to present:

http://marvelsfilm.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/canon-7d-noise-and-iso-test/

The comments on the above thread provide some useful insight. A better evaluation of 7D noise and DR can be found here:

http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

One "last" shot:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6482628305_3127405636_o.jpg

That is a screen grab of me looking at a photo I _just_ imported into LR3. I haven't made a single adjustment. This one happened to be taken at ISO 200... but the ISO 160 shot looks nearly identical. More specs: Evaluative Metering, Av Mode, Auto Lighting Optimizer off, Full RAW, default LR3 sharpening (25), default LR3 color noise reduction (25). No exposure modifications at all.

This is _not_ a zoom. This is just looking at the full photo on my 27" iMac. This is exactly how I see it (and how others will if I show them this photo on either this screen or my 30" screens at work). If you are viewing this image make sure to view it at "Actual Size" so that you can see what I'm seeing.

Unacceptable. The noise in the sky is insane for ISO 200. The noise in the shadow areas is awful.

Is it a "good looking photo" sure. But my XSi could produce that same good looking photo without the noise in the sky at ISO 200.

I've decided to not even take this camera with me this weekend. I don't want to accidentally damage it and not be able to return it. It's going in the box now... and I'll re-evaluate what I'm doing going forward.

A few things:

To the guy talking about the diffraction limit. It is true that you won't be able to get the thing you have focused on to be more sharp once you go beyond the diffraction limit... however, in order to obtain better overall front-to-back sharpness in landscape photography you often have to go beyond the diffraction limit (so that things in front of and behind your focal plane are "sharper" in the final image). Yes, you can go too far and actually cause your photo to look worse by going beyond the diffraction limit, but sometimes that has it's place too (ie when you need a REALLY slow shutter speed and you head for f/18 or smaller)

Thanks for the advice x-vision. I'm going to ship this one back... and I think I'm just going to hang out and see what Canon comes up with over the next couple of months.

If I'm going to go FF it would mean buying a new workhorse lens (in same range as my 17-55) and a new telephoto (I have a crappy 55-250 that I don't mind moving away from... I was already planning on buying an L upgrade for that soon). I was trying to avoid laying down that cash... but I may have no choice. IF I am going that route I may re-evaluate my choice to go with Canon. As long as I'm buying new lenses they may as well be Nikkors... I'll put everything on the table and make the best choice. But to do that I'm going to have to save up some cash.

I do already have other lenses that will work on FF bodies though (nifty 50 and a Lensbaby). Other things I have would move to Nikon just as easily (Lee filters and filter holders, etc.). I'll just have to see how it works out.

Thanks again to everyone for your comments. It's a tough decision for me to send this back, but ultimately I feel as if I would be disappointed every time I loaded shots up straight from the camera.... and that just isn't acceptable for $1500.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 9, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Your subjects/time of day are very far from ideal. Most of the content of your images are in shadow, and in one image the sides of objects are being struck by bright highlights while the rest remains covered by moderate shadow.



Sorry, I disagree. There is no excuse for his first picture's noise level... at ISO 200! Geesh! if we are making excuses to justify that kind of performance and that level of "grain" in a daylight shot...its laughable. Either the settings are wrong in one of the menus or the unit is not performing well. I Don't wan't to paint all 7D's as being subpar as owners are apparently happy with their bodies...but suggesting this poster's image is "acceptable" or that his technique could be better is not a fair assessment. 

I say return the unit and try a replacement if you want to stick with 7D, or get yourself a 5DII if you can afford it and can't wait for 5D3 to arrive. That level of grain is not acceptable or normal in the pics posted. Cheers!


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> friedmud said:
> 
> 
> > Everything was going great... until I got home and loaded up those photos in LR3... and saw a ridiculous amount of high frequency noise ALL over the place... even when shooting at ISO 100-200!
> ...



I've shot with 2 50D's in the past and hated both of them for the low ISO noise... Compared to my 7D when I sold/unloaded my 50D's the 7D files were superior in every way, especially in low ISO which was surprising to me given it had more MP... I may have been blessed with a really good 7d or cursed with really bad 50Ds... but from my experience, they are not even close. Also food for thought... this format of camera 35mm (7d is smaller than 35mm)... it was only previously designed to output small prints... 8x10's, 5x7's... maybe the occasional 11x14... and that was a full 35mm... now the 7d natively pumps out 11x17's at 300dpi and it's sensor is half the size of a 35mm film... i think you guys are asking for a lot from such as small sensor, pixel peeping without even printing it out...


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Ok - here's one that has just received minor sharpening (what I would do for any shot coming in at ISO 200)
> 
> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6480510009_df4a26af47_o.jpg
> 
> ...



Last night when I posted I had my MacBook Pro on my lap. I actually hate evaluating images on my MacBook screen because of the contrast and saturation, and the fact that the brightness is all over the place based on where I'm sitting.

This morning I took a 2nd look on my 23" HD monitor which is calibrated in all respects for photography and printing. Not just color, but brightness, contrast, and saturation are set to match printed output from my 3880 as closely as possible. Another important difference: I think last night I just clicked the image and used Preview. This morning, PS CS4. Screen view quality depends a lot on the scaling algorithm used by the viewing program, and a lot of programs produce scaled views which are grainier and softer than PS. Apple's Preview can be particularly bad with high resolution images scaled to certain sizes.

Looking at the first link...

* At 50% (22" print size on my screen) there is no noise visible, period.

* At 66% (36" print size) detail seems a bit rough, but there is no real noise to speak of.

* At 100% (54" print size) there is visible noise in some areas. But if you have any kind of film background, it's far less than the best 35mm films ever were, and even less than MF films printed this size. (Of course MF film would have much more detail at this size.)

Forget what I said last night that it seemed to have more noise then I would expect. Viewed in PS on a properly calibrated monitor it's fine. Exposing to the right would have helped with the noise at pixel peeping views, but made no real difference in print. The lens issues (CA and some softness on one side) stand out far more and at smaller sizes than any noise.

FYI, a standard Noise Ninja pass using their 7D ISO 200 profile eliminates pretty much all of what you see even at 100%. At that point you have to zoom to 200% (108" print) to see noise.

And this is all after you sharpened. If I use Noise Ninja, I use it before I apply local contrast enhancement and sharpening.

I trust PS scaling and my monitor 100%. What I see is what comes off my printer.

So how are you viewing and evaluating this?


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > My 7D will beat the crap out of any 5D you care to pick, at the image level...
> ...



It will not have less noise in print, nor at ISO 3200. (I'm assuming you mean 5D and not 5D2.)



> Still, armed with the info that the primary use was landscape photography, I would not have recommended the 7D. Don't get me wrong - I think the 7D is a great camera. But if I'm going out to shoot landscapes, I'll grab my 5DII every single time.



I've made comparison landscape prints at 24" and 30" from both bodies. At low ISO they are indistinguishable.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Forget what I said last night that it seemed to have more noise then I would expect. Viewed in PS on a properly calibrated monitor it's fine. Exposing to the right would have helped with the noise at pixel peeping views, but made no real difference in print. The lens issues (CA and some softness on one side) stand out far more and at smaller sizes than any noise.



Agreed, when I look at all the sample photos, what stands out to me far more than the noise is the lens softness and CA. I would be willing to bet thats just a calibration issue that could be fixed with sending it in. 


@friedmud:

Regarding noise in the sky in the latest sample, thats NOT surprising! The blue sensels in most bayer sensors are lower sensitivity than the green sensels. There are also half as many of them as there are green. They require greater amplification to match the luminance level received by green sensels. This is a well-known phenomena with bayor sensors in general, and would not be any different on any other brand of camera that has 16-24mp in an APS-C format. Its simply a matter of physics, the nature of light and filtration, and how the different color sensels in a sensor are processed to produce even luminance and proper color. The 7D is effectively as dense as a 46.7mp full-frame camera...VERY DENSE! You can't expect 40D level noise performance when pixel peeping a camera that has nearly TWICE the resolution.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

CowGummy said:


> However, I also agree with neuro - I thought the same thing when reading your initial post where you state you are mainly a landscape shooter. The 7D is a very good camera - no doubt. But landscape shooting was never going to be it's strongpoint. Full frame will usually handle landscapes more successfully.



I am mainly a landscape shooter, and I've purposely shot a 7D and 5D2 side by side to see if it was worth investing in the 5D2. At low to mid ISO I could not discern between 24" and 30" prints, and neither could anyone I showed them to.

The 7D is a fine landscape camera up to 30", which incidentally is the same maximum print size I would put on 5D2 files for critically reviewed landscape prints.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Reportedly, the 7D has a pretty strong AA filter, meaning it's require more sharpening in post, which affects noise.



Nope. The AA filter is actually weak compared to older bodies. But it's APS-C, and APS-C does require a bit more sharpening in post.



> I find that with _a lot_ of work, I can manage to get 7D files post-processed to the point where the IQ is close to those from my 5DII...but that's straight out of the camera from the 5DII.



I find 3 things are needed: possibly a NR pass, a bit more LCE, and a bit more sharpening. That's not a lot of work and is at most 1 additional step.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 9, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> Jettatore said:
> 
> 
> > Your subjects/time of day are very far from ideal. Most of the content of your images are in shadow, and in one image the sides of objects are being struck by bright highlights while the rest remains covered by moderate shadow.
> ...



His images are suffering from additional problems on top of noise, include chromatic aberration, over-all soft focus, additional lens problems with focus on the right side of the image, possible camera shake, lack of highly resolved detail at 100% anywhere in the image, questionable exposure, an non-ideal lighting conditions etc. etc. etc. so it's really hard to tell if his 7D is truly a bad copy or not. I can say I don't have low-ISO noise problems on my 7D under good conditions. I find noise to be the least of the problems with these pictures which makes it difficult to analyze under a microscope and I find looking at noise on it's own a form of taking things completely out of context. Have him post shake free RAW CR2 files with a subject captured in sharp focus and with a variety of in camera options options compared to some free file uploading site with good lighting/exposure and then we can analyze it better. My bet is that I could take his copy of the 7D body with my lenses and make really nice pictures with it that do not suffer from any of the above problems.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

I've taken one of freidmud's sample images, loaded it into photoshop, and hit the "Print Size" zoom button under the zoom tool. Additionally, I adjusted levels...midtones to 1.3, and applied medium contrast curves, to enhance the image a bit. Both adjustments often have the effect of enhancing visible noise. The screenshot below is of that image in photoshop at print size (for 300ppi on my 103dpi computer screen):






http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4149/friedmudsampleatprintsi.jpg

I don't see ANY visible noise anywhere it was present in the original 100% crop. I think the worst areas were the shaded parts of the fence posts and the columns of the building in the background. At print size, WITH an added boost to contrast, no noise is visible at all. 

I know people like to pixel-peep, and LOVE to complain about the noise levels of the 7D...but I think the results are WAY overblown and overstated. The 7D is a very high resolution camera...possibly as high as it can get without outresolving the current crop of Canon's BEST lenses. The simple fact of the matter is, no one views images at 100%. For on-screen viewing, the final resolution is quite possibly 1/4 or less the native resolution, and all noise is absorbed. For native-resolution prints, all noise is absorbed. For reasonably enlarged prints, noise tends to help keep gradients smooth, and IF it is visible, a bit of noise reduction is usually all thats necessary to fix the problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> Again, my context is shooting athletes in a race...



Stop right there. The 7D is the camera for you, unless you are considering a 1-series body. No amount of work in post will correct the out-of-focus shots you'll get trying to track runners with the 5DII's AI Servo AF. I would not even consider the 5DII further. In the context of landscape shots, that's different, but for moving subjects, the 5DII is not the body of choice.



thepancakeman said:


> ...can I do the "a lot of work" once and then copy and paste the develop settings to the other 499 (in Lightroom) or would it differ for each photo and I would have to do "a lot of work" 500 times?



They're pretty stereotyped adjustments, in the sense that the 5DII's images are generally sharper (for the same magnification), have better color, contrast, and saturation, and lower ISO noise. The challenge is increasing the sharpness also increases perceived noise, so tradeoffs need to be made. As I said...close...but not quite there.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

jrista said:


> I don't see ANY visible noise anywhere it was present in the original 100% crop. I think the worst areas were the shaded parts of the fence posts and the columns of the building in the background. At print size, WITH an added boost to contrast, no noise is visible at all.
> 
> I know people like to pixel-peep, and LOVE to complain about the noise levels of the 7D...but I think the results are WAY overblown and overstated. The 7D is a very high resolution camera...possibly as high as it can get without outresolving the current crop of Canon's BEST lenses. The simple fact of the matter is, no one views images at 100%. For on-screen viewing, the final resolution is quite possibly 1/4 or less the native resolution, and all noise is absorbed. For native-resolution prints, all noise is absorbed. For reasonably enlarged prints, noise tends to help keep gradients smooth, and IF it is visible, a bit of noise reduction is usually all thats necessary to fix the problem.



Print and screen pixel peeping are 2 separate things... I think the pixel peeping is a dis-service for the camera as printing is what canon is aiming viewers to be excited about... the final product... not on peoples monitors blown up to 200% looking to find ways to tear apart their products... If you do that with the 5d2 or 3, I got news for you... you'll find noise too...


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> I think that "catz" post is the most relevant to my situation. I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them.



So am I. Noise is simply not an issue in my prints.



> As for "pixel peeping". I don't think that's what I'm doing.



It's exactly what you're doing. But I think there is an issue beyond that and it might be this:



> If I try to crop this photo down _at all_ I can see the noise with the full photo being displayed (ie not zooming in) on my 27" iMac. And that's doing a pretty small amount cropping (like only including the whole church). If I go any further, like just the front half of the church... it looks like I took this photo at ISO 800+!



Your description is confusing. I don't know if you are viewing at 50%, 100%, 500%? What are you doing when you say cropping but not zooming in? It sounds like the more you crop, the more noise you see, which implies you are cutting up the photo and viewing those cuts at increasing magnification. But from your description I can't tell what that magnification might be. For all I can tell you're looking at the equivalent of 200" prints.

But even if you don't touch the photo at all and just view at 100% (pixel peeping), you are viewing on a 27" iMac. I love Apple's products, but I *** hate *** their screens for photography work because you cannot tone down the contrast and saturation no matter how hard you try. They look beautiful for anything else, but I think they suck for photography. Even after color calibration they do not give an accurate preview of prints. That's why I have a 3rd party monitor. Out of the box it had the over-the-top-candy-world brightness, contrast, and saturation that is the fad right now, but I could tone it down to match real prints.

So at 100% it's like looking at a 50" or 60" print but with the brightness, contrast, and saturation shoved up. I'm sorry, but you will see noise in a 60" print even from a 5D2, especially if you push those three variables over the top.



> How anyone shooting landscapes would think that is acceptable is beyond me. I've cropped ISO 100-200 photos from my XSi _way_ down and been satisfied with the results (and I didn't have to apply any NR at all!).
> 
> Here is a screenshot of what I'm seeing on my screen: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6482020907_8689f39356_o.jpg



Again, I'm confused as to whether you are actually cropping, or just viewing at 100%. That sample looks comparable in size to what I see viewing the image at 100% in PS on my monitor, so let's go with that. You're looking at the equivalent of a roughly 60" print. Do you make 60" prints? If so, you will not be happy with any small format DSLR and couldn't possibly be happy with the XSi which would be mush at 60". You need either the MF 645D, or a pano head to stitch 3 frames from a DSLR.

You made the comment that other people will see the same on their screens. Do you often crop out 1/3rd to 1/4th of your landscape photos for viewing on 27" screens? Or do you frame the scene properly, maybe do a bit of cropping, but otherwise show people complete photos? Because even on an iMac screen a complete photo looks fine. (Except occasionally in Apple's Preview. At some magnifications it just wrecks photos. And it's particular scales to, because I've played with zooming and showing full screen and a difference of just 20% might result in the preview looking fine.)


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > friedmud said:
> ...



This test clearly shows the 50D is superior in low ISO noise to the 7D in RAW. I shoot RAW, and agree with these results:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_RAW.shtml

The 7D is a little farting noise pig. Oink Oink. Not good for $1500, IMHO.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 9, 2011)

dtaylor, jrista and awinphoto, I'm giving you all some positive karma. I appreciate that you've taken the concerns of the original poster seriously and provided intelligent responses. 

BTW, I really appreciate this explanation:



> The blue sensels in most bayer sensors are lower sensitivity than the green sensels. There are also half as many of them as there are green. They require greater amplification to match the luminance level received by green sensels. This is a well-known phenomena with bayor sensors in general.



I've often noticed this issue with shots of a blue cloudless sky. The image looks fantastic at first, but on closer inspection I do see noise in these images. Usually not enough to freak me out, but enough to make me wonder if there is something I could be doing differently. (And, again, it's NOTHING in comparison to what these used to look like on 35mm transparencies.)

I'd love to know more about your individual workflows. Would you consider starting a thread to that effect?


----------



## friedmud (Dec 9, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Print and screen pixel peeping are 2 separate things... I think the pixel peeping is a dis-service for the camera as printing is what canon is aiming viewers to be excited about... the final product... not on peoples monitors blown up to 200% looking to find ways to tear apart their products... If you do that with the 5d2 or 3, I got news for you... you'll find noise too...



Read again... I wasn't blowing these "up to 200%". I am looking at the whole photo on my screen. Not zooming at all (ie I can see the edges of the photo). I am _not_ "pixel peeping" (I am _not_ looking at the photos at 1:1 with my screen. Just viewing the photo like anyone would.

Everyone: Print is only one final avenue for my prints. Most often they are enjoyed on high resolution monitors.

I agree that none of the noise present in the shots I've posted would not show up in any reasonably sized print.

THAT IS NOT THE POINT

The point is that I paid $1500 and am receiving _inferior_ quality at ISO 100-200 to the camera I bought 3 years ago for $700. THAT IS NOT GOOD.

No other arguments need to be made.

For my purposes (and for others who are interested in landscape photography) this body does not work.

As for the actual quality of some of the photos I posted: I totally agree guys... I wasn't taking any time at all to actually take attractive photos here. Any CA would have been fixed in lightroom (fixed automatically by just turning on lens adjustments). Blurring, etc would be fixed with tripods, etc. Please stay on target and talk about the noise.

The last photo I posted this morning was shot handheld at 1/1000 in bright daylight. There is no noticeable blurring in the photo beyond a bit of softening at the edges which is normal for this lens.

I can't even believe how far some people go to justify this stuff. There is no way I could keep this camera with this output for landscape photography. The first time I wanted to do a 25% crop (by which I mean crop down to a piece of the photo that is taking up approximately 25% of the original space) of a once in a lifetime photo SHOT AT ISO 100 I would want to blow my brains out.

When shooting at low ISO you should NEVER have to apply NR (or at least not much depending on how much you've cropped) and you should feel free to crank up the sharpness. Anything less is unacceptable.


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Dec 9, 2011)

"Earthshattering?"

Talk about First World problems. 

It's not an inexpensive camera, I get that. And if you are unhappy with it, you should return it. 

I do want to say that I doubt the people looking at your photos are likely to judge them based on what is essentially a forensic examination at high magnification. It seems to me that many people obsess over the minutiae of technical details and forget about the actual composition. 

I've found my 7D to be a good camera. It's a durable tool that shoots quickly and has perfectly acceptable ISO performance for the price. The failings of my photography have to do with the skills, or lack thereof, of the person behind the camera. For me, noise at 100% has never been much of factor in the creation of compelling images.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 9, 2011)

Maybe I'm a little thick again but could some one show me where there are issues with "noise" in those samples? I see issues, especially with CA but all of that seems more a lens issue. I just don't see it.

Seems like a typical shot by the way where digital cameras still struggle due to the unforgivingly low dynamic range. I'd play with the exposure a little first and see what that does. Also: any chance some of the little software gizmos like "highlight priority" or something like that are turned on?


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Michael7 said:
> ...



To each their own... as I said it very well could be I got a good sample of the 7d and it has worked well for me, my clients whom are household names whom you would know, and gotten rave reviews review website after review website... I know your website you are referring to... i've commented in the blog section below commenting it was odd that the 7d with an inferior lens they used to test the camera was sharper than the 5d2 and lens they used for that test... If you or derek or anyone else dont like the camera, return it, sell it, do whatever with it... of all the client whom I shoot for, none of them has ever complained about noise, and I have used this camera to pump out tradeshow booth murals for that stretch over 15 feet wide (albeit printed at like 72dpi or so) No one is telling you that you should love the camera or even keep the camera... It has worked wonders for people like me and others and has been a steady workhorse for my photography and will continue to assist my 5d2 until the day comes where I see no need for the camera... 

For what it's worth, i've had coldwell banker display my photos screen res on large HDTV monitors throughout the vancouver olympics... I did not hear any grumblings about noise in the photos displayed... They were all shot with the 7d.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

unfocused said:


> dtaylor, jrista and awinphoto, I'm giving you all some positive karma. I appreciate that you've taken the concerns of the original poster seriously and provided intelligent responses.
> 
> BTW, I really appreciate this explanation:
> 
> ...



Thanks for the vote of confidence. 

Smooth gradients of any prime color can be problematic from a noise perspective, simply due to the nature of noise and how luminance is generated from a bayer sensor (i.e. if you shoot an even red gradient, you have to amplify red sensels more to get a proper luminance, as green and blue sensels will be capturing minimal light...that can produce a very noisy red image even at ISO 100). Even at ISO 400, I often ran into noise issues in moderately even green scenes with my 450D. The more even and smooth a prime-colored thing, the more likely the *random* nature of noise will exhibit. The random effects of noise tend to be most visible in even tone things of the prime colors red, green, and blue; when SNR is low (i.e. black and dark shadows); and in under-exposed high-key tones (light gray and white). Smooth gradients of any of those will usually exhibit more noise than non-prime colors, not just blue. I think the problems friedmud is having are due to the fact that the scene was a bit under-exposed (I think some judicious ETTR would have probably helped a LOT), and the fact that there were large, unbroken expanses of even blue sky.

Regarding my workflow, I'm sure I could provide answers...I'm not 100% certain what your asking though. If you start another thread, I'll take a look and offer what insight I can.


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

Congratulations, that's quite impressive. But that still doesn't mean the 7D is superior to the 50D in low ISO noise. It's not. And it's even worse compared to the 40D.

The amount of noise in wildlife shots (fur, darker areas at the wildlife standard ISO 400) and landscapes (low ISO is where most people shoot here) is inexcusable for a $1500 camera. It can never be called an "upgrade" if the result is more noise.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> This test clearly shows the 50D is superior in low ISO noise to the 7D in RAW. I shoot RAW, and agree with these results:
> 
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_RAW.shtml
> 
> The 7D is a little farting noise pig. Oink Oink. Not good for $1500, IMHO.



I find that test VERY suspect. They bumped up sharpness for the 7D by 5! They also reduced the sharpness for the 5D by 2!! The 7D shots in that comparison are FAR sharper than either the 50D or the 5D, and the sharpening is guaranteed to enhance the levels of noise. The 7D is known to be a little soft, and usually most objective reviewers bump up sharpness in DPP by 2, at most 3, to even things out. At 3, I've found the 7D to be sharper than the 5D, so I think a fair comparison would have been to keep the 5D sharpness at default, bump the 7D to 2, and THEN compare noise. As it stands now, the linked comparison has way over sharpened the 7D, which feels very much like the author is biasing against the 7D. Its clear as day how much softer the 5D shots are...if you visually balance out SHARPNESS between all the samples, then compare noise, I think the 7D would fair a hell of a lot better, like it should.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Read again... I wasn't blowing these "up to 200%". I am looking at the whole photo on my screen. Not zooming at all (ie I can see the edges of the photo). I am _not_ "pixel peeping" (I am _not_ looking at the photos at 1:1 with my screen. Just viewing the photo like anyone would.



That might actually be the issue. It looks like your using Lightroom, and one of the things that annoys the hell out of me about Lightroom is that when viewing images "fit" to the screen, it does a very nasty, quick, and DIRTY scaling. Its not a quality downscale, its cheap nearest-neighbor downscaling. I think the problem your having is not that the image is truly as noisy as it appears on your screen...it might be that the larger size of the 7D images requires a greater amount of downscaling to "fit", more so than the 40D. Cheap nn filtering tends to get worse the more you down scale, resulting in more and more noise, not less.

I would suggest downscaling with bicubic smoother in photoshop to roughly the same size, and see how things look. You seem to be pretty thoroughly poisoned against the 7D already, so maybe its too late to change your mind...but don't trust Lightroom's standard "fit" previewing as a measure of IQ...its simply not.


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Dec 9, 2011)

Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera. 

http://500px.com/alwaysbj182

That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

friedmud said:


> Read again... I wasn't blowing these "up to 200%". I am looking at the whole photo on my screen. Not zooming at all (ie I can see the edges of the photo). I am _not_ "pixel peeping" (I am _not_ looking at the photos at 1:1 with my screen. Just viewing the photo like anyone would.



But you've also said you're cropping, and the mix of terminology and lack of details leaves people confused as to what the final magnification is.

The screenshot you posted that I took a look at showed roughly the same view I see at 100% (1:1, i.e. pixel peeping) on my screen. The noise looks the same as well, and while it's there, it's certainly not Earth shattering. I know that noise looks worse on a typical Apple screen with typical settings. But, again, this is 100%, roughly equivalent to a 50-60" print. No small format DSLR is noise free at that size.



> Everyone: Print is only one final avenue for my prints. Most often they are enjoyed on high resolution monitors.



Viewing the entire original jpeg on my screen is 50% magnification. I see no noise at that scale.



> The point is that I paid $1500 and am receiving _inferior_ quality at ISO 100-200 to the camera I bought 3 years ago for $700. THAT IS NOT GOOD.



No you're not. You're not viewing them at the same scale, and you're viewing images that, due to other issues, are not exhibiting the fine detail the 7D is capable of.



> For my purposes (and for others who are interested in landscape photography) this body does not work.



I've got a couple 22" portfolios that say differently. And I know a landscape photographer who shoots DSLRs, MF, and 4x5. He has said that through 24" it's extremely hard for him to tell the difference between his 7D shots and his 4x5 shots, and that he will grab his 7D before grabbing his FF (12 MP) for landscape work.



> I can't even believe how far some people go to justify this stuff.



Nobody is justifying it. We're simply pointing out that people do not expect 60" views out of small format cameras. Not any currently shipping small format camera. Not the 5D2 or D3x, and I wouldn't expect it out of the 1Dx either. If you actually make 60" prints, you need a larger format or stitching.



> There is no way I could keep this camera with this output for landscape photography. The first time I wanted to do a 25% crop (by which I mean crop down to a piece of the photo that is taking up approximately 25% of the original space) of a once in a lifetime photo SHOT AT ISO 100 I would want to blow my brains out.



Do I understand you to mean that you would take a 1296x864 crop out of the full file? That's a 1.1 MP image. You can't expect to view or print a 1.1 MP image at 27". 5x7 would be about the limit if there's any fine detail.

Do you mean a 4.5 MP image? 8x10 or maybe 11x17, depending on subject and shot quality.

Do you really shoot, crop out 25% of your images, and view/print at 27"? How could you be satisfied with any small format DSLR doing this? Why not just frame the photo the way you want it to appear?



> When shooting at low ISO you should NEVER have to apply NR (or at least not much depending on how much you've cropped) and you should feel free to crank up the sharpness. Anything less is unacceptable.



Whether or not I apply NR at low ISO depends on the subject, exposure, and how hard I've pushed the RAW file. As for sharpening, well, I'm careful about it, but definitely fall on the sharp side. Nothing I print goes without both LCE and some sharpening.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> Congratulations, that's quite impressive. But that still doesn't mean the 7D is superior to the 50D in low ISO noise. It's not. And it's even worse compared to the 40D.
> 
> The amount of noise in wildlife shots (fur, darker areas at the wildlife standard ISO 400) and landscapes (low ISO is where most people shoot here) is inexcusable for a $1500 camera. It can never be called an "upgrade" if the result is more noise.



From my personal experience working with both cameras, this is what my personal opinions are of the two cameras... I found the 50d awful and hated it so much i sold it to my father-in-law the day the 7d was announced/released... If you find the 50d better, use it... i'm not saying you shouldn't.. you could sell your 7d if you haven't and buy 2 50d's if you wish... All I can give you is my own personal findings... A company I shoot for still have a 50D and comparing shots I've taken with that camera vs shots I've taken with my 7d or 5d2... i'd take my cameras any day of the week... but that is me... I'm not debating or telling you what you should do... I'm just stating my POV from my experience with my equipment... that's all.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

Cfunkexplosion said:


> Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.
> 
> http://500px.com/alwaysbj182
> 
> That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.



Great shots... +1


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Cfunkexplosion said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.
> ...



Ditto! +1


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

jrista said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > This test clearly shows the 50D is superior in low ISO noise to the 7D in RAW. I shoot RAW, and agree with these results:
> ...



The 7D received the same sharpening as the 50D.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> The 7D received the same sharpening as the 50D.



Indeed, and it is also sharper than the 50D shots. The 50D and 5D are close...the 50D seems ever so slightly sharper than the 5D. The 7D, however, is noticeably sharper than both. As I said...the sharpness should be equivalent visually, not according to arbitrarily chosen numeric sharpening levels applied in post. The noise if the 7D in those samples is greater because the shots were _oversharpened_ relative to the other two cameras.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 9, 2011)

jrista said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Cfunkexplosion said:
> ...



+1


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Dec 9, 2011)

Just want to stress those photos are not mine, just examples of what the 7D can do with the requisite skill.


----------



## justsomedude (Dec 9, 2011)

Friedmud,

If you are truly as disappointed with your 7D as you claim you are, and you fall outside your warranty window, drop me a line via private message. I have a direct phone number and extension for a customer service rep at Canon who will replace your body - if you hold your ground and don't take no for an answer. I also have a direct email and cell phone number for one of Canon's regional reps - who can step in if the CS person doesn't give you the answer you need.

I'm not going to get into the flame war of "user error" vs "faulty camera" that creep into the discussion when it comes to AF and IQ issues with the 7D. Clearly, some people have repeatable issues regardless of settings, experience level, or history with the 7D. 

If, in the end, you really are unhappy with the body - let me know and hopefully I can put you in touch with some one who will get the ball rolling with the replacement process. Just be warned - the replacement will be a factory refurbished unit - not new. And there's no guarantee the the replacement body will give you any better results. Some people have glowing reports after receiving a replacement, while others have been just as unhappy with the body they were given.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 9, 2011)

Cfunkexplosion said:


> Just want to stress those photos are not mine, just examples of what the 7D can do with the requisite skill.



All the glory you could have basked in... hats off to your honesty Sir !


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > Congratulations, that's quite impressive. But that still doesn't mean the 7D is superior to the 50D in low ISO noise. It's not. And it's even worse compared to the 40D.
> ...



I may do just that (or go to 5D II). I found the 50D superior in low ISO IQ, same with the 40D, and numerous results back that up. There's also considerable griping across the web about the 7D's nasty low ISO noise. Here's another comparison that proves the low ISO issue (post #8):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338

Again, I think it's awesome that you enjoy your camera. Some folks have posted neat pics. But those things don't refute the low noise issue of the thread topic.


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

jrista said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D received the same sharpening as the 50D.
> ...



No ,what you're seeing is the effect of an inferior RAW file. It's been well documented that the 7d's RAW files are softer than 50D, 40D, and even Canon Rebel cameras:

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

justsomedude said:


> Just be warned - the replacement will be a factory refurbished unit - not new.



If he bought the camera new, and it is covered under warranty with all the appropriate documentation, why would he not receive a new replacement?


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> This test clearly shows the 50D is superior in low ISO noise to the 7D in RAW. I shoot RAW, and agree with these results:



DPReview noise measurements show the 7D to have less noise across the board. They are also one of the most consistent, reliable, and trust worthy sources. It's easy to screw up these kinds of tests, and I would not take a single cameralabs.com photo test over a DPReview lab test.

The 7D and 50D are close enough at low ISO that a tiny mistake will throw the test. As for the 40D and 7D, the MP difference is great enough that most complaints stem from a failure to equalize scale or a failure to scale properly (scaling method is important). I kept my first DSLR, the 10D, all these years. It's cleaner then the 7D at first glance. Scale the 10D file up to 7D dimensions, or the 7D file down to 10D dimensions, and the difference between them is very large and quite clearly in the 7D's favor.

Pixel peeping can be misleading even when it's done correctly. When done incorrectly, it's a joke.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Michael7 said:
> ...



Sure, I never denied the 7D is a bit soft. But I also said that most OBJECTIVE reviewers only seem to need to bump up sharpness by about 2 in DPP, at most 3. That comparison bumped up sharpness in DPP by 5!! Thats an unnecessary amount of sharpening, even for the 7D. I would be willing to bet that if that comparison was redone without changing the 5D sharpness, bumping the 50D by 5, and the 7D by 2, the results would have been pretty consistent across the board. My point is, the review is either biased, or simply shoddy, and the resulting comparison is not the best example of 7D IQ.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > This test clearly shows the 50D is superior in low ISO noise to the 7D in RAW. I shoot RAW, and agree with these results:
> ...



Those are the same results that i've came up with when comparing even the old 30D files I have with the 7d... also keep in mind DPR has always in the past been very critical of Canon cameras and very pro nikon... when the 7d came out, they gushed over it and even declared it the temporary king of APS-C cameras... That's got to say something... 

All that aside, it is a tool... michael and derek, if you dont like this certain tool, canon has 4 other current semi pro and pro cameras (1dx, 1d4, 5d2, 60D) to choose from as well as other consumer rebels not to mention nikons offerings, sony offerings, etc... There's a heavy saturation of cameras in the market to find that perfect camera you need. yeah if i underexpose an image, even at iso 100, i could see noise, but when I have my photos printed and mounted and or printed in magazines, periodicals, flyers, etc... it just isn't an issue. Find a tool to help you and your photography grow, just dont whine and gripe because all you do is start unneeded debates such as this...


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

@friedmud: 

One last suggestion, before you send your 7D back. One of the things I like about Canon DSLR's is the fact that they have mRAW and sRAW. These two raw formats make better use of the bayer sensor pixel information to produce higher quality images, albeit at lower resolution. In the same vein as Foveon sensors, where they have stacked photodiodes of differing color sensitivity, an mRAW photo from a Canon makes full use of 1R, 1B, 2G bayer pixels per RGB pixel...meaning you should be able to upscale an mRAW to the original 7D RAW image size, and still have STELLAR results. 

If you do some quick searches for Foveon vs. Bayer, and read the results and look at some of the upscaling comparisons, you should get an idea of how an upscaled mRAW image from the 7D might look. Since I got my 7D, I've been mostly experimenting with it...I have yet to do any truly serious photography with it yet. One of the things I've been playing with is mRAW, and I am TRULY impressed with it. So impressed, even, that I would happily take a 32mp 5D III and only use mRAW for everything, and never look back!


----------



## japhoto (Dec 9, 2011)

I'm shooting with the 7D myself and while I'm not "earthshatteringly disappointed" with the low ISO performance, it still is an issue with this camera.

What I mean by that is that it's a good camera for what I do, but I'm not too impressed with the ISO performance and actually I'd like to step the AF-system up a notch as well.

Low ISO noise is not a huge problem anymore for me, but you have to learn ETTR (which I would do with any given camera) and to use the sharpening properly in Lightroom (if that's what you're using). Especially masking will save your day.

AF-system is a bigger problem for me, since it has good features, but it's inconsistent. I have to MA my lenses properly when I get the time, but it could be better.

One possible solution is to go with a second hand 1Ds MkII, since they are now cheaper than the 7D, the IQ and the AF-system are magnificent. Just a thought...


----------



## sawsedge (Dec 9, 2011)

I don't see anything alarming in the samples. The noise that is there won't show up in prints until you make them rather extreme. They might be a tad underexposed, but that is no surprise with lots of snow around.

When I moved from the 20D to the 50D, I thought I'd made a mistake. Over time, what I found was... the 50D requires more care and precision, and different processing than the 20D. I think the XSi to the 7D is probably going to be a similar experience.

I avoided anything over 400 on the 50D for awhile, then bought noise ninja and found 1600 suddenly wasn't bad on the 50D. 

More recently, I bought CS5 and found that I can make ISO 1600 look really really close to ISO 100... and it does a good job with extreme darkness pattern noise at 3200 as well. I'll have to post a sample at some point, I don't have one handy. I'm totally sold on CS5 though.

All I'm getting at is there may be a learning curve. Maybe steeper than you expected. One thing that I've noticed, not sure if it is really true as I have not the money to test it, is bigger pixels need less processing. You might be happier with a 5D2 in that sense. 

Now, having had the experience with the 50D, when a friend of mine tested out a 7D and showed me the results, I was able to add some tweaks and make it look nearly identical to the results from his 5D. A little more care in processing, but perfectly doable.


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

> All that aside, it is a tool... michael and derek, if you dont like this certain tool, canon has 4 other current semi pro and pro cameras (1dx, 1d4, 5d2, 60D) to choose from as well as other consumer rebels not to mention nikons offerings, sony offerings, etc... There's a heavy saturation of cameras in the market to find that perfect camera you need. yeah if i underexpose an image, even at iso 100, i could see noise, but when I have my photos printed and mounted and or printed in magazines, periodicals, flyers, etc... it just isn't an issue. Find a tool to help you and your photography grow, just dont whine and gripe because all you do is start unneeded debates such as this...






A couple things:

No one here is "whining". People are actually concerned about the IQ of the 7D at low ISO's. We are simply having a nice discussion about the 7D IQ. For some reason, people get defensive about gear. I don't. I own a 7D. I had it next to a 50D, and a 40D before that.

It's far too easy to accuse other of whining, and then to suggest they buy another camera or brand. That's the easiest solution to anything. The more difficult solution is to analyze data and have meaningful discussion, not "if you donâ€™t like it, go home". 

Here you'll see (on DPreview, no less) that the 7D has much more noise at low ISO than the 50D:


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp

Here's you'll see the 7D losing out to the 40D at ISO 800, (DP review again):

http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-7d-review-noisier-than-40d/

Here you'll see the 50D showing much less noise at low ISO:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_RAW.shtml

At post #8 you'll see the 40D defeating the 7D in low ISO noise:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

japhoto said:


> I'm shooting with the 7D myself and while I'm not "earthshatteringly disappointed" with the low ISO performance, it still is an issue with this camera.
> 
> What I mean by that is that it's a good camera for what I do, but I'm not too impressed with the ISO performance and actually I'd like to step the AF-system up a notch as well.
> 
> ...




I agree with you about the AF. I get much less keepers with my L primes compared t othe 50D and 40D. I also notice I need to keep shutter speeds higher.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 9, 2011)

I went outside and shot some pictures of the sky just now. This is a test only, I really didn't pay any attention to composition and the in camera exposure I pulled off isn't even close to perfect. I did various tests at ISO 100, 160 and 200 in RAW. I only shoot in RAW and don't know if my results have any application to .jpg only shooters. With all 3 of those ISO's there *is* noise *if you use the default RAW values*, but I really couldn't say any of the ISO's were more or less noisy than the other, they preformed practically the same for me. Below I will post a single shot from these tests at ISO 200 (it was significantly bright enough to have shot at ISO 100, which I did, but the noise was the same, and the OP is concerning ISO 200 so I proceeded with an ISO 200 file).

http://minus.com/mbmGfU9Wuj#1

The first image, is a 100% crop of the default RAW values you get when you use Photoshop's RAW importer (+lens profile correction enabled) and you can see noise of 7D RAW file at default Adobe settings. The second image is the same as above but I used the sliders to completely remove all traces of the noise without losing detail. The last image isn't even needed but it shows the details of the shadows and highlights/HDRI recovery ability of shooting with RAW, it's also entirely noise free like the second image, but displays the range of RAW exposure manipulation the editor has access too. Each file was only processed in Photoshop RAW, the set was cropped and then saved to highest quality JPG, no other processing/filters/tricks etc. were involved.

I liken the idea of not processing RAW images properly and taking the idea of seriously considering data arrived when doing that, to be entirely non-real world and entirely impractical and nonsensical. To me it's the equivalent of not properly developing your negatives and being upset with the film you purchased.

100% Crop Image from 7D and a 24-70L lens @42mm, ISO200, f/6.3 1/2000sec. You are going to have to view close up to see noise, and then to see how the noise disappears by changing a few RAW settings. If you would like me to make another test of a different subject, I will gladly do that, just ask.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> DPReview noise measurements show the 7D to have less noise across the board. They are also one of the most consistent, reliable, and trust worthy sources.



DPReview relies on ACR's 'black box' conversion.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 9, 2011)

I've decided to try to turn this conversation into a positive benefit for all forum participants.

I've started a thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2390.new.html#new

It's titled "Your Personal 7-Point" System and the purpose is to give participants a chance to share some of their favorite tips and techniques for dealing with noise reduction, sharpening, expanding range, etc. etc. I hope folks will consider playing.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael... for almost every website and test and such you give me to point out the noise I can provide websites of people loving the camera... In theory, if you look at tests of gray cards, yes, you could reproduce just about result you wish, just depends on what your agenda is... In theory, the 7d can have more noise than lower MP cameras, it's just a matter of physics, but in practice, it really isn't a problem. In practice when printed, you really wont see noise until ISO 800 or more and even at that, they tend to be quite competitive to any competitors prints... You have made your point that you hate the camera and are "concerned" about it... I have pointed out that I loved that camera when i used it daily and still respect it in it's place in my camera bag... Frankly, i'm not concerned about what some test some person i've never met took and says about a camera, I'm more concerned about my experience and what I can do with my gear... I was trained to be able to shoot any camera whether it's an 8x10 large format camera all the way to SLR/DSLR, to scanning back, P&S, in daylight, middle of the night, snow/sleet/rain or shine... Given that, i dont care as much about negative aspects to a camera because every camera, LF to MF to 1dx to P&S will have it's pros and cons... I just worry about getting the most out of what I have and what I use. It could explain why I'm dismissive of your website reviews tests, but instead of worrying about noise that wont even show up in print, I worry about how I can use the camera to my advantage to get the shot my client wants under budget.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> Here you'll see (on DPreview, no less) that the 7D has much more noise at low ISO than the 50D:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp



What I see is that the 50D applies more NR in JPEG than the 7D. Even so, _"Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7."_ This does not support your claim of "much more".

Now let's look at the RAW graphs where NR is completely off. Across the board the 7D has lower noise, and we read this: _"...but it also becomes clear that the 7D produces a cleaner image than the 50D and, at very high ISOs, also than the D300S. This explains to a degree the 50D's slightly softer JPEG output at high ISOs. Its JPEG engine has to apply more chroma noise reduction than on the 7D in order to get noise onto the same level."_

NR is a choice that's entirely up to you. If you want cleaner JPEGs out of camera than the 50D, increase the NR.



> Here's you'll see the 7D losing out to the 40D at ISO 800, (DP review again):
> 
> http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-7d-review-noisier-than-40d/



No. I see a blog poster who spent too much time writing and not enough time thinking about what he was doing. His comparisons are not presented at the same size. Granted, those little DPReview squares are not size equalized in the first place, and I think they're worthless for that reason. But the graphs are accurate.

Check the DPReview graphs and you'll find, at 800, that the 7D measures about the same for all three types of measurements. Scaled to the same size there should be no visible difference.

If I go to the Imaging Resource samples and compare their ISO 800 studio scenes from the 40D and 7D, they are close but the 7D is cleaner. If I view them at 100% with the 40D scaled to the 7D's dimensions, the 7D is also sharper and clearly has more fine detail. If I sharpen the 40D to the same level the noise difference becomes significant, and of course sharpening can't restore fine detail. The 40D was a fine camera and the image is very good, but there's no question which is better, even on noise.

I'm not going to address cameralabs.com further. Their results are not consistent with DPReview or IR, and I know who I trust.



> At post #8 you'll see the 40D defeating the 7D in low ISO noise:
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338



I see a PopPhoto chart. How about some full size images so I can analyze the test? Without those I'm not impressed.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> I agree with you about the AF. I get much less keepers with my L primes compared t othe 50D and 40D. I also notice I need to keep shutter speeds higher.



The shutter speed comment tells me right there you are viewing the 7D at higher magnification and complaining.

Come on people, this is camera comparison 101: you have to scale the images to the same dimensions


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > DPReview noise measurements show the 7D to have less noise across the board. They are also one of the most consistent, reliable, and trust worthy sources.
> ...



With the exception of open source software, all RAW converters are 'black boxes.' Are you saying 0 NR in ACR is not 0 NR? Or that another converter should be used? And if so, why?

I use ACR because in tests against DPP I found ACR yielded greater resolution and fine detail, without noticeably more noise.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 9, 2011)

fact is we need more then 30MP (best 40-45MP) on a FF body to have good image quality for landscape pictures ... i learned that here in this "expert" forum.

you canÂ´t crop with a 18MP camera and overall the size is waaaaay to small for landscape prints.. i learned that here too.

and noise will NOT increase with smaller photosites... some "rain in small buckets vs. rain in big bucktes + signal to noise ratio" examples show this... and i really donÂ´t care that real sensors seem to ignore these examples.

ironie off...


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> No one here is "whining".




Hmm, really?



Michael7 said:


> The 7D is a little farting noise pig. Oink Oink. Not good for $1500, IMHO.



;-) Sorry, not really intending to be rude, but it was that comment that required me to investigate your opinion a bit deeper, and verify the objectivity of your references. I won't re-do the superb rebuttle @dtaylor has just provided, however I will state that I entirely agree with him. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to provide a serious, objective argument, and back it up with concrete examples where necessary. When you say things along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "dpreview's own samples show the 50D noise is _much_ better than the 7D", when in the reviewers own words they say the difference is marginal, and the reviews chart demonstrates the difference is at worst a few percent, and at best BETTER, that reduces your credibility. Credibility issues on top of *"farting noise pig"*, and you have a _very long way_ to go before you can claim unbiased objectivity here.


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Michael... for almost every website and test and such you give me to point out the noise I can provide websites of people loving the camera...



And I could show you hundreds of posts with people praising the Panasonic Z30. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a noise monkey.


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

jrista said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > No one here is "whining".
> ...




Actually I've provided four different sources for my claims and injected some humor into the conversation.

Where are your links to prove that the 7D has superior low ISO RAW noise performance to the 40D and 50D?

This isn't about you loving or not loving a camera. This is about the 7D's low ISO noise performance.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> fact is we need more then 30MP (best 40-45MP) on a FF body to have good image quality for landscape pictures ... i learned that here in this "expert" forum.



My statements were that a 45mp FF sensor is necessary to _achieve the same pixel density_ as the 7D...not to have good IQ for landscapes. I also stated I would prefer to have a 21.1mp 5D III sensor with better noise than a 30mp sensor with the same noise we have today. Its rather obvious from the work you can find on the web that pretty much any Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, and a whole slough of other cameras from half a dozen manufacturers are more than capable of taking fantastic landscape photos. The desire (lets call it a desire, rather than a concrete need) to have more resolution is that it aids in printing larger...one thing I'll say about a landscape photo, at 36-60" across hanging in a wall, they really do take your breath away! Its certainly not impossible to get a nice 36" print from a 12mp camera, you just have to make trade-offs.



> you canÂ´t crop with a 18MP camera and overall the size is waaaaay to small for landscape prints.. i learned that here too.



Again, statement was that for people who use the 5D II's 21.1mp to help give them additional cropping power would LOSE OUT with a 5D III that reduced resolution to 18mp.



> and noise will NOT increase with smaller photosites... some "rain in small buckets vs. rain in big bucktes + signal to noise ratio" examples show this... and i really donÂ´t care that real sensors seem to ignore these examples.



Noise _*per pixel*_ does increase...however when you double the resolution, say from a 40D to a 7D, you have approximately 3 smaller and slightly noisier pixels for every larger and slightly less noisier pixel you used to have. Average the noise from those 3 pixels, and those "smaller buckets" don't look so bad. Thats nothing to say of the considerable advancements in sensor fabrication tech...microlensing, gapless microlensing, smaller readout wiring, higher purity materials, better image processing chips, etc. etc.


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Michael7 said:
> 
> 
> > Here you'll see (on DPreview, no less) that the 7D has much more noise at low ISO than the 50D:
> ...



If you look at the crops, they seem to mirror the results at Camera Labs. I see a significant difference in IQ at lower ISO's in those clips.

Camera Labs, DP Review, and PopPhoto all show the 40D/50D to have less low ISO noise than the 7D.



> I see a PopPhoto chart. How about some full size images so I can analyze the test? Without those I'm not impressed.



That's because you already have a predetermined answer you want to believe, and won't acknowledge clear evidence to the contrary. I guess we'll just take your word over DPreview, Camera Labs, and PopPhoto.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> With the exception of open source software, all RAW converters are 'black boxes.' Are you saying 0 NR in ACR is not 0 NR? Or that another converter should be used? And if so, why?



My understanding is that ACR does apply some NR as part of the demosaicing algorithm. That might no longer be the case, though.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> Actually I've provided four different sources for my claims and injected some humor into the conversation.
> 
> Where are your links to prove that the 7D has superior low ISO RAW noise performance to the 40D and 50D?
> 
> This isn't about you loving or not loving a camera. This is about the 7D's low ISO noise performance.



Ok, thats fair. I'll reuse one of your own references:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp

Lets skip JPEG, because we can't really be objective about noise in a JPEG. Different generations and brands of cameras have different algorithms to process jpeg images, different generations of noise reduction algorithms, etc. Not to mention the fact that none of us knows anything about those algorithms... Its impossible to be objective here.

Under the part where it discusses RAW noise. From the monkeys arse (emphasis added):



> With noise reduction turned off we get a more accurate idea of how noisy these sensors are and the image looks slightly different to what we've seen above in the JPEG section of this page. The Pentax K-7 is much closer to the pack *but it also becomes clear that the 7D produces a cleaner image than the 50D and*, at very high ISOs, also than the D300S. *This explains to a degree the 50D's slightly softer JPEG output at high ISOs. Its JPEG engine has to apply more chroma noise reduction than on the 7D in order to get noise onto the same level.*



Lets assume for the moment that the 7D did have more noise at ISO100 than the 50D. At 100%, even though there may be more pixel-level noise, the chroma sample for the 7D certainly appears clearer and sharper than the 50D. The even lower resolution D300s seems to have better sharpness than the 50D, however if one were to upscale it to the same size as the 50D's sample, the margin would likely shrink. The Pentax, while it certainly has the lowest noise visible in solid flat gray and black samples, appears to be even softer than the 50D! Sadly, this is a subjective comparison, so what I see may not be what you see. 

To be more objective, lets take a look at the RAW noise graphs. At Chroma ISO100, the 50D is approaching 3, while the 7D is just above 2.5 as far as I can tell. That means the 7D is BETTER than the 50D...albeit _marginally_. Follow both cameras through to the end of the graph, and the 7D is better at every tested ISO setting, the 50D is never better! The story is even better with Black ISO100. Only with Gray ISO100 do the 7D and 50D perform THE SAME at the lowest ISO, but again, following the graph through to the end, the 7D ultimately outperforms the 50D.

Just for completeness, comparing the Nikon and Pentax, they have excellent low-ISO performance, however both has a crossover point with both the 50D and 7D, and perform worse at high ISO.

I can't tell, using your own reference, how one could conclude that according to DPReview, the 50D has "much better" ISO performance at low settings than the 7D. Lets see if we can get a better idea of how well the 7D performs against other cameras than just the ones in its own review. Luckily, newer DPReview reviews allow you to select which cameras you wish to compare. The Nikon D7000 review is a good one:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page12.asp

Again, under RAW noise, you can pick the 7D, the 50D, and lets say the Pentax K-5. The 7D has the highest resolution of all of those cameras, I believe...and while it does appear that it is a bit noisier than the others in solid-color samples, the chroma sample appears to be noticeably sharper. Intriguingly, the K-5 seems to improve in sharpness until ISO800, at which point it seems to be the clear winner from both a noise and sharpness standpoint. Both the D7000 and 50D start losing sharpness immediately (not to mention they both start out softer than the 7D). This is a subjective comparison, as there are no charts that directly compare the D7000, 7D, 50D, and K-5, so I honestly can't say whether you will see the same thing there or not. One thing does seem to be sure, though...if you routinely photograph objects with lots of solid, flat colors, the Pentas K-5 is the camera for you. On the other hand, for anything with fine detail at ISO1600 and below, the 7D seems to be the best bet, although the K-5 is a close second. Neither the Nikon D7000 nor the 50D have the same clarity and sharpness as the 7D at any ISO.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Michael... for almost every website and test and such you give me to point out the noise I can provide websites of people loving the camera...
> ...



Dude, I get that you are less than pleased with your camera... I'm sorry that I dont care, but you're not going to make me not like my camera by trying to prove me wrong... Either learn to shoot to the 7D's advantage, trade it in, get it repaired, or move to another camera... I'm not looking to pick a fight but the more and more you go on, the more and more you come off as whiner...


----------



## Michael7 (Dec 9, 2011)

Great conversation, everyone. *Like the original poster, I'm selling/returning my 7D * and looking at other options. Just too much noise at lower ISO's, and the RAW files are soft. This is not the kind of image quality I was expecting for $1550. Far from it, actually.

I joined the CR forum today specifically because of this thread. Glad I found it, because numerous posts confirmed what I already knew. I have no further time to discuss this, as I have numerous social requirements to attend to, and other activities with a much higher priority.

I'm looking at the 5D II, or possibly switching to Nikon. Not sure yet as I have a heavy lens investment with Canon. I'd probably be better off working into that slowly and keeping my Canon gear for comparisons.

Happy Holidays


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> Great conversation, everyone. *Like the original poster, I'm selling/returning my 7D * and looking at other options. Just too much noise at lower ISO's, and the RAW files are soft. This is not the kind of image quality I was expecting for $1550. Far from it, actually.
> 
> I joined the CR forum today specifically because of this thread. Glad I found it, because numerous posts confirmed what I already knew. I have no further time to discuss this, as I have numerous social requirements to attend to, and other activities with a much higher priority.
> 
> ...


i cant wait to hear what you think of the 5D AF


----------



## wockawocka (Dec 9, 2011)

Experience of noise in camera bodies I've owned:

40D - Great starter camera, well controlled noise levels for it's ISO range
50D - Very poor high ISO noise compared to the 40D
7D - Unacceptable low ISO noise but decent high iso
5D1 - Beautiful IQ, noise present in High ISO, like a 40D almost
5D2 - Very clean images up to ISO3200
1Ds3 - Cleanest images I've ever seen at ISO 100. Noise clearly present from 1600, but grain like film.
1D4 - Pretty much the same as the 5D2 up to ISO 6400 where it's better.


----------



## jrista (Dec 9, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> Great conversation, everyone. *Like the original poster, I'm selling/returning my 7D * and looking at other options. Just too much noise at lower ISO's, and the RAW files are soft. This is not the kind of image quality I was expecting for $1550. Far from it, actually.
> 
> I joined the CR forum today specifically because of this thread. Glad I found it, because numerous posts confirmed what I already knew. I have no further time to discuss this, as I have numerous social requirements to attend to, and other activities with a much higher priority.
> 
> ...



Well, I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say about the 5D II if you pick one up. From my research about 7D noise, I came across quite a few owners of the 5DII that said the same fundamental issues with noise that affect the 7D also affect it. Granted, it does have better ISO100 noise, however it has the same 1/3 stop push/pull problem for non-base ISO settings. The same extra noise you see in the 7D's ISO 125/250/500/1000 seem to plague the 5D II as well, just to a lesser degree.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

There is a common theme in these threads ... those who want more megapixels in their sensors, blindly, or knowingly, or with misty eyes endorse, support, and build up the pixel denisity champ in the canon line up which is 7D and the like. This is pretty self serving. It could be a complete dog and they would claim it is a first rate runway model and that those who call it a dog need to get their eyes checked.

Comparing 5d2's noise levels to 7D is probably the lamest of comparisons ever because to any unbiased person 5D2 is miles ahead in ISO performance. Most people agree 7D can be a bit noisey (not inviting vitriol or trying to be snarky, but the 5D2 comparison makes me laugh!). Lets give credit where credit's due and talk about where 7D is better than 5D2 in real terms, such as AF just to name one feature. But lets not bring down 5D2 to the level of 7D just so you can champion your higher MP horse.


----------



## Cornell (Dec 10, 2011)

What was the shutter speed? If you were using a long shutter speed, you will need to enable Long-Exposure Noise Reduction (C.FN II-1).

Cornell


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> There is a common theme in these threads ... those who want more megapixels in their sensors, blindly, or knowingly, or with misty eyes endorse, support, and build up the pixel denisity champ in the canon line up which is 7D and the like. This is pretty self serving. It could be a complete dog and they would claim it is a first rate runway model and that those who call it a dog need to get their eyes checked.
> 
> Comparing 5d2's noise levels to 7D is probably the lamest of comparisons ever because to any unbiased person 5D2 is miles ahead in ISO performance. Most people agree 7D can be a bit noisey (not inviting vitriol or trying to be snarky, but the 5D2 comparison makes me laugh!). Lets give credit where credit's due and talk about where 7D is better than 5D2 in real terms, such as AF just to name one feature. But lets not bring down 5D2 to the level of 7D just so you can champion your higher MP horse.



Not quite, I'm on the camp that wants better ISO performance (in particular while in low-light situations) on the 5DIII as a priority over more MP. But at low ISO, there is no native noise I can't entirely remove and without perceivable quality loss on my 7D. And because of that, I find this entire discussion fairly ridiculous. It has no effect on my work, and I would need to see actual RAW/work files that aren't completely un-usable images to begin with, from someone claiming the contrary as I suspect I could easily edit my way around their complaints and automate the process to boot.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 10, 2011)

justsomedude said:


> Friedmud,
> 
> If you are truly as disappointed with your 7D as you claim you are, and you fall outside your warranty window, drop me a line via private message. I have a direct phone number and extension for a customer service rep at Canon who will replace your body - if you hold your ground and don't take no for an answer. I also have a direct email and cell phone number for one of Canon's regional reps - who can step in if the CS person doesn't give you the answer you need.
> 
> ...



I may just need to drop you a line. I just went a looked... and the return policy of the online retailer I used (Newegg... I had some gift certificates... don't ask) SAYS THAT I CANNOT RETURN THIS CAMERA!

OMG - I thought it would be no problem to return it. Boy was I wrong. Now I'm in for a crazy struggle. What a nightmare.

I suppose I might have a 7D for sale now....

I will surely pay more attention to return policies when ordering camera gear from now on! Honestly, I didn't pay attention because I thought this camera was a slam dunk.

Sigh.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> RayS2121 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a common theme in these threads ... those who want more megapixels in their sensors, blindly, or knowingly, or with misty eyes endorse, support, and build up the pixel denisity champ in the canon line up which is 7D and the like. This is pretty self serving. It could be a complete dog and they would claim it is a first rate runway model and that those who call it a dog need to get their eyes checked.
> ...




If you have to "edit" and "work" your "way around" and as some other users listed how to "work around" what 7D puts out... and what is "acceptable" and what can be "expected" from 7D image quality and all the rest of the litany of excuses ...then we concur this is not the image quality that's enviable. 

If it requires these many explanations, excuses, and reasoning to understand and appraise a picture, which should speak for itself, with no words, I am sorry, its not there yet... ultimately it seems "I have it, therefore I am gonna support it" also seems to be a good enough camp to belong to. 

A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed



Very true. However, I did try to put a picture to it, demonstrating the points I and several others have been trying to make. Sadly, no one has really commented on it, for or against. See:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2375.msg50850.html#msg50850

I'm all for providing physical evidence, however there are clearly two hardcore camps, and physical evidence doesn't really seem to matter to either. Kind of a sad outcome.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 10, 2011)

I don't see it that way Ray. Plus it's not work if it's automated. You can come up with a profile that gets applied by default that will work for the majority of images shot at low ISO quite perfectly and I don't really shoot any pictures that simply don't get edited to some degree and the better the image the more care I tend to put into it's development, so I'm processing everything anyways. I can't imagine working without editing in post as part of the image creation process. This issue, regarding 7D noise on low ISO settings is completely null for me.

*And honestly you simply just changed the subject entirely.* As you were talking about two camps being one in the same before, and I responded to that, and now you have simply just changed the subject.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> Great conversation, everyone. *Like the original poster, I'm selling/returning my 7D * and looking at other options. Just too much noise at lower ISO's, and the RAW files are soft. This is not the kind of image quality I was expecting for $1550. Far from it, actually.
> 
> I joined the CR forum today specifically because of this thread. Glad I found it, because numerous posts confirmed what I already knew. I have no further time to discuss this, as I have numerous social requirements to attend to, and other activities with a much higher priority.
> 
> I'm looking at the 5D II, or possibly switching to Nikon. Not sure yet as I have a heavy lens investment with Canon. I'd probably be better off working into that slowly and keeping my Canon gear for comparisons.



If you're unhappy, return it or sell it. Simple as that. No need to tell us all how full and important a life you have...I'm sure we all do, too. 



RayS2121 said:


> If it requires these many explanations, excuses, and reasoning to understand and appraise a picture, which should speak for itself, with no words, I am sorry, its not there yet... ultimately it seems "I have it, therefore I am gonna support it" also seems to be a good enough camp to belong to.
> 
> A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed



The 7D generates wonderful *pictures*. That's the whole point. Yes, the IQ of the 5DII is better. But the 7D captures pictures which the 5DII cannot - fast-moving subjects like birds in flight, complex focus situations like birds in thickets with Spot AF, etc. Horses for courses.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

@Jettatore Not sure what you mean... I think I added some emphasis such as what's in bold in this line "a picture *which should speak for itself*" and "there fore" changed to "therefore" etc.... from my point of view no change in the theme or content or what my views are about 7D IQ could be any clearly stated, before or after...I was pretty clear that a picture should require no major explanation... it is either acceptable or not for the user concerned. Emphasis or idioms or bad spelling all counted, corrections or no corrections, this is what I feel on the general quality of the 7D pictures:



RayS2121 said:


> If you have to "edit" and "work" your "way around" and as some other users listed how to "work around" what 7D puts out... and what is "acceptable" and what can be "expected" from 7D image quality and all the rest of the litany of excuses ...then we concur this is not the image quality that's enviable.
> 
> If it requires these many explanations, excuses, and reasoning to understand and appraise a picture, which should speak for itself, with no words, I am sorry, its not there yet... ultimately it seems "I have it, therefore I am gonna support it" also seems to be a good enough camp to belong to.
> 
> A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed



Again, if it works for you, perfect and I totally understand. I know several 7D users who love their cam and I am a tad envious of the AF myself, not the image quality. Cheers!


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 10, 2011)

Because what I was originally responding to was *your theory* that the people who wanted high mega-pixels on the upcoming 5D were the same people who are ok with the 7D in low ISO. I for one, prefer improved ISO performance for the upcoming 5D even if it means a decrease in MP and I am fine with the low ISO on my 7D. You did not respond to my rejection of your theory, you responded only to my beings of OKness with the 7D low ISO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> Again, if it works for you, perfect and I totally understand. I know several 7D users who love their cam and I am a tad envious of the AF myself, not the image quality. Cheers!



So, if you're shooting fast moving action - a sporting event, for example, would you prefer the much better IQ of the 5DII, and 95% of your 'pixel-perfect' shots unusably OOF because of the inadequate (for that situation) AF on the 5DII?

I'm a big fan of the 7D, mainly for its AF. I want at least that level of performance from a FF camera with better IQ. Unlike many, I sincerely doubt Canon will deliver excellent AF in FF body short of the 1-series. This, I intend to replace my 5DII with a 1D X once they're available. I'll be keeping the 7D for situations where I'm focal length-limited, though - I want more than The ~7 MP I'd have after cropping down an 18 MP FF image.


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 10, 2011)

@Jettatore, In that case, sorry, the original comment was not directed at you and it was not my intent to lump *every* supporter of 7D image quality as high MP supporter (especially those who argue 7d being par with 5d2, cuz you know we have had that argument made here)... it was however a general and fairly accurate trend in reading the posts.

As neuro notes 7D in and of itself has several advantages, so much so I will not upgrade to 5d3 unless the AF is equal to if not better than the 7D. My comment was a follow up to the "5d2 has noises issues too" thread. Best! 


@Neuro, sadly the 1'series caveat you suggest is possible with canon marketing strategy, I can only hope they don't "cripple" the AF just to knock it a peg below. Although I am hoping they will deliver *at least * 7D level performance for AF. I don't see any point in upgrading to 5d3 from 5d2 if the AF remains the same, or remains "fairly" the same.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 10, 2011)

Understood Ray. cheers


----------



## mrjimmy (Dec 10, 2011)

I have taken many pictures with my 7D. I find that having the Highlight Tone Priority Disable help's 
But if your unhappy you need to try a new camera because you will never be happy now that your mind is made up that the camera is junk. Also your pictures lack color that pops out at you. Just look around at the thousands of pictures on the wed that where made by people using the canon 7D and you can see its a good camera. But it needs light and a good lens. I also have a 50D and it takes gerat pictures. I am a truck driver not a photo guy. for 20 years I have been driving all over the country taken pictures. Day in and day out the 50D cant match the detail in my photos with the 7D. lately I have been going to places I have shot before just to re-do with the 7D. Either I am getting better or the 7D is just better. Its a good, very good camera. I also dont go 100% crop when looking a my pictures. Whats the point of that. My main lens is a 17-40L and I have a 70-200 f4 IS and 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 No matter what camera you have someone will say its junk for one reason or another. As far as people saying that the 30D and 40D take just as good of pictures well yes there right, Up to a point.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 10, 2011)

Hey, cheap 7Ds? Gimme. 


neuroanatomist said:


> They're pretty stereotyped adjustments, in the sense that the 5DII's images are generally sharper (for the same magnification),


You don't get the same magnification from the 5D as from the 7D, though. I'm aware you are probably not using the term in a technical sense, but it ought to be said.



sawsedge said:


> When I moved from the 20D to the 50D, I thought I'd made a mistake. Over time, what I found was... the 50D requires more care and precision, and different processing than the 20D. I think the XSi to the 7D is probably going to be a similar experience.


This is worth highlighting.

A while back I found a post on the "super sharpness" of one of the very early Canon Powershots (at Photograhy-On-The-Net) and as it turned out it was horrible, with too-sharp value shifts from pixel to pixel. Some of this "softness" may just be the lenses.

To be sure, that's not noise. But on the noise front, the T1i (and the 50D, by extension, I am quite sure) had more chroma noise than the 450D - according to DPR. The camera makes up for it in some ways, I think, but there's still some noise, especially when you try to get away with underexposing the photo. If you have enough light, things clear up great.


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> My comment was a follow up to the "5d2 has noises issues too" thread.



I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I never said the 7D was on par with the 5DII in noise across the board, I simply said that it had the same functional _issues_ as the 7D (and, for that matter, probably all current Canon DSLR's). That issue being the +1/3 EV ISO settings are digitally pulled, and look a _lot_ worse than the +1EV and -1/3EV ISO settings. Michael7 seems to think the 7D is a truly horrid and unworthy camera, and I was trying to demonstrate that its not "horrid" but simply on par (functionally) with the rest of Canon's current gear, that the 5D II isn't a magic bullet that will bring true low-ISO bliss to his work...but that it will be, like the 7D vs. 50D, marginally better. 

According to both DxO and DPReview's noise charts, the difference in ISO100 noise is indeed marginal. I think the DPReview charts show that the 5D II has a standard deviation of luminosity for ISO100 noise at about 1-1.2, while the DPReview charts show that the 7D has a standard deviation of luminosity for ISO100 noise at about 1.9. Thats on a scale of 0-20. Yes, the 5DII is better, but its not an ungodly difference of "miles", as I think someone put it. Now, talk about high ISO performance, and there is no question the 5DII outperforms the 7D by a healthy margin. But the discussion here was about ISO 100, not ISO 3200.



All that aside, I'm sorry that @freidmud purchased a camera he does not like, and cannot return. I don't think anyone anticipated that outcome when they recommended the camera. I hope you find a way to get your money back, and I hope you find a camera you do like. Given your need (you mentioned you photograph action sports or something like that), I don't know that there are a lot of options. The 7D was designed for that kind of work, and while it is not the king of the crop when it comes to AF, I think the only other options are the 1D IV, the 1D X, or jumping ship to Nikon (which seems to have pretty great AF in much more of their lower model DSLR's than Canon does, as well as excellent glass.)


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 10, 2011)

Michael7 said:


> If you look at the crops, they seem to mirror the results at Camera Labs. I see a significant difference in IQ at lower ISO's in those clips.



The crops are not equalized in size. I've always wondered why DPReview uses crops of varying view sizes. But it doesn't matter because DPReview graphs the results for you and their descriptions do not match yours. The 7D has less low ISO noise.

This is absolutely consistent with the many samples at IR once you equalize the viewing size.

If you can't grasp that different percent magnifications applied to MP (i.e. 50%, 100%) result in different physical magnifications from APS-C, resulting in different final view/print sizes, and you refuse to take the time to equalize this variable, then you shouldn't be offering an opinion on IQ.



> > I see a PopPhoto chart. How about some full size images so I can analyze the test? Without those I'm not impressed.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you already have a predetermined answer you want to believe, and won't acknowledge clear evidence to the contrary. I guess we'll just take your word over DPreview, Camera Labs, and PopPhoto.



This from the person telling us DPReview proves X when DPReview themselves say they proved Y. Talk about failing to acknowledge clear evidence to the contrary....


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> There is a common theme in these threads ... those who want more megapixels in their sensors, blindly, or knowingly, or with misty eyes endorse, support, and build up the pixel denisity champ in the canon line up which is 7D and the like. This is pretty self serving. It could be a complete dog and they would claim it is a first rate runway model and that those who call it a dog need to get their eyes checked.



I see two camps. One camp understands that more MP = greater real magnification when pixel peeping in Photoshop, Light Room, etc. That camp knows how to equalize view/print sizes when comparing sensors, and how noise seen while pixel peeping affects (or rather does not affect) prints. They also know how to NR that noise away if desired without losing fine detail.

The other camp foolishly zooms into every image 100%. Then they compare 100% images from lower resolution sensors to 100% images from higher resolution sensors and complain that they see more softness, noise, CA, motion blur, whatever. It never seems to dawn on them that there really isn't more of these things, they're just making those things more apparent with their 60" print equivalent pixel peeping. You would think it would dawn on them since some things like motion blur and CA are independent of the sensor, but it doesn't.



> Comparing 5d2's noise levels to 7D is probably the lamest of comparisons ever because to any unbiased person 5D2 is miles ahead in ISO performance.



I don't think anyone has compared these two bodies in this thread and said the 7D was better. I will say that after post processing and printing to 24" and 30", I see no noise in prints from either at low ISO. At high ISO the 5D2's advantage starts to show in actual prints, and it's both a lower noise and finer detail advantage due to less NR. But even at high ISO it's really only an issue in larger prints, not 8x10's or 11x14's.

And let me state again for the record that I own a 17" wide printer, I regularly make 20-24" long prints, I send out for 30" prints, and I've made prints from both bodies. If the 5D2 were "miles ahead" I would pay cash for one tomorrow morning.

(The hyperbole amazes me. Didn't anyone ever shoot film? The noise differences between DSLRs are split hairs compared to digital vs. 35mm, or the differences between the various emulsions.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 10, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> (The hyperbole amazes me. Didn't anyone ever shoot film? The noise differences between DSLRs are split hairs compared to digital vs. 35mm, or the differences between the various emulsions.)



Doesn't seem so.  But be careful what you say...you might spark off the next great debate: Film Grain vs. Digital Noise! Oh My!


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> If you have to "edit" and "work" your "way around" and as some other users listed how to "work around" what 7D puts out... and what is "acceptable" and what can be "expected" from 7D image quality and all the rest of the litany of excuses ...then we concur this is not the image quality that's enviable.



When I've worked on 5D2 files alongside 7D files the workflow has been nearly identical except for different inputs, i.e. I sharpen both but the values are different in the dialog. I'm more likely to do a NR pass on a 7D file then on a 5D2 file, but that's only one extra step, and only sometimes. (Sometimes the 7D file doesn't need it; sometimes the 5D2 file needs it as well.) Not exactly a major work around.

One of my most recent "lucky to live in this age of photography" moments was printing a 16x20" informal portrait of a relative's baby made with my 7D at ISO 800. If I had seen that print 10 years ago I would have guessed that it had been made with MF and portrait film with an ISO no higher than 160. I would have never believed it came from 35mm much less APS-C. My 20-24" landscape prints can stand next to landscape prints from 6x7. At larger sizes 6x7 will show its advantage, but not through 24".

This image quality is not enviable? Really?



> A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed



The only explanation anyone has offered is "duh...scale the images for comparison to the same size."


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 10, 2011)

What it all boils down to is the 7d is a tool.. a very good tool... it's not a 5d2, never was intended to be a 5d2 nor marketed at such... it is a great camera for when you need that speed and responsiveness... There will never be that "perfect" camera... unless you have the top of the line hassy MF camera with carl ziess lenses and top of the line digital back, but then again, no AF... Or you could have the 1d series camera but oh wait, you cant get it past security without press credentials... The 7d is not the perfect camera, but i'm not making excuses or trying to make it out for something that it is not... If i'm out in the field and know i'm going to do cityscape or still life subjects or products, then by all means I'll grab my 5d2... If i'm out and about need speed, accuracy, and cant afford to miss the shot... the 7d gets used... heck i've used the 7d as my main workhorse for a while... It is what it is... Like we always suggest to those who question Nikon vs Canon, we always say it's a personal preference... test out the cameras, hold them, feel them, shoot them, find one that becomes an extension of them... Just like this, the 7d is a personal preference once again.. It's not for everyone but those who love it and can get those most of those files will get great shots... Once you make up your mind that you hate something, you will always be jaded and see through those glasses... Find that camera that suits you perfectly and enjoy your days shooting.


----------



## CanonFanNum1 (Dec 10, 2011)

The "extremist" on both sides are wrong.

I owned a 7D for 18 months and recently upgraded to the 1DmkIV, so I can also speak from experience.

Was I happy with low noise iso perf? No, I wasn't "happy" about it. 

But there is a simple solution people, two words: topaz denoise. Boom. Seeing is believing. If your picture is THAT important, then spend ~1 min running it through a good denoise filter.

And everyone understands that shooting sports and wildlife with a 10mm lens is about as dumb as shooting a wedding with a 600mm f4 lens. And if you use the 18-200 lens, don't expect as good of IQ as a 24mm prime or a 70-200 f2.8, but 1 lens instead of 10 has its advantages too. Concepts to learn: tradeoffs and the difference between specialized and general purpose.

So, use your 7D for action & wildlife for the vastly superior AF and frame rate and use your 5DmkII for portraits and landscapes. Got even more money? Buy the 1DX (or 1DmkIV) and use it for both. Got less money? Then pick a body that handles the majority of your work and don't flame the one you didn't get.

But don't complain about the 7D not being good at landscapes or portraits. Its not AS GOOD as a 5DmkII, but its not BAD either. 

Want my recommendation? If I had only 1 body under $3k and I didn't shoot exclusively portraits and or landscapes, I would take the 7D in a heartbeat. Why? Because if you want to shoot anything where your subject is moving (which occurs often on Earth) then the 7D is way better than the 5DmkII and the 7D can shoot subjects that don't move too. But if you are a "landscape photographer" then get a 5DmkII and don't complain about the 7D.

fin


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 10, 2011)

CanonFanNum1 said:


> But don't complain about the 7D not being good at landscapes or portraits. Its not AS GOOD as a 5DmkII, but its not BAD either.



Don't complain about the 7D not being good at landscapes or portraits. Its not AS GOOD as a 5DmkII, but its not BAD either. 

_*also*_

Don't complain about the 5DII not being good at sport. Its not AS GOOD as a 7D, but its not BAD either. 

Just choose whatever best meets your requirements but dont complain if you make the wrong choice.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 10, 2011)

RayS2121 said:


> A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed


What an _infantile_ argument...

If you want examples of what the 7D is _easily_ capable of - without any tugging and puling in PP, just a well-sorted conversion/pp routine (and one which I've been essentially using since my 30D days) - have a browse around my site:

www.capture-the-moment.co.uk

I don't need "so many words" to "prop up" the 7D, _I just know how to use it_ - and the images speak for themselves, don't they?

And yes, they look _great_ printed large, on the odd occasion when I do so.


----------



## infared (Dec 10, 2011)

This whole ten pages of discussion is just a bunch of silliness. ....but I guess just anybody can start a thread.
My question is ...why did anyone even respond to Friedmud,(perfect)...in the first place???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> One of my most recent "lucky to live in this age of photography" moments was printing a 16x20" informal portrait of a relative's baby made with my 7D at ISO 800. If I had seen that print 10 years ago I would have guessed that it had been made with MF and portrait film with an ISO no higher than 160. I would have never believed it came from 35mm much less APS-C. My 20-24" landscape prints can stand next to landscape prints from 6x7. At larger sizes 6x7 will show its advantage, but not through 24".
> 
> This image quality is not enviable? Really?



It's all relative, though. We're not comparing today's camera with one from 10 years ago or 25 years ago. I bought my first Mac 25 years ago, and paid hundreds extra for the optional internal HDD. At the time, 20 MB was 'huge'. Today, one RAW file from my 5DII is bigger. Technology moves fast, and that impacts photography. 

@OP, sorry you got stuck. Newegg's 7D listing states, "Return Policy: Limited Replacement Only Return Policy." So, if you think you got a lemon you can exchange it. Else, you're likely looking at a 20-25% loss to sell it used. Or you could play Santa and give someone a really nice gift...


----------



## clank72 (Dec 15, 2011)

Cfunkexplosion said:


> Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.
> 
> http://500px.com/alwaysbj182
> 
> That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.



These don't impress me. Anyone can take a good shot and size it down to 600px 72dpi and sharpen the crap out of it- to "fake it". There is no proof in these photos and I've seen comparable shots from much lesser cameras. Anyway...

Know-one wants to talk trash about where they live, or think something is wrong with an item they own and paid big bucks for. Same with a new car.

There are WAY too many 7D users complaining about the noise. There are literly thousands of posts online about it. The grain does not compliment your work. Some users suck it up and some are a bunch of anal sons of bitches (like Me) that only demand the absolute best image quality. And they expect it from a brand like Canon and they are not getting it.

Regarding the 7D vs 50D vs 5D test: 

Grain can give the "illusion" that the image is sharper. Especially around edges of objects. When post-sharpening is applied the grain is enhanced even more. Grain takes away detail and the ability to sharpen what is actually in the photo. How do you sharpen the subject without sharpening the noise too? Easy, just resize it down to 1000 pixels and then sharpen. Give me a break.

Bottom line, viewing the 7D at 100% is SAND PAPER. Always has been, always will be. It's not you, it's the camera. Sell it and buy a 5D or 1D. Read reviews online, look at the comparisons. The proof is in the pudding.

But yeah, in the end it's just a tool.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 15, 2011)

Cfunkexplosion said:


> Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.
> 
> http://500px.com/alwaysbj182
> 
> That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.



I'm impressed.


----------



## whatta (Dec 15, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Cfunkexplosion said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.
> ...


me too, but I wonder how much postprocessing..


----------



## KeithR (Dec 15, 2011)

clank72 said:


> Bottom line, viewing the 7D at 100% is SAND PAPER. Always has been, always will be. It's not you, it's the camera. Sell it and buy a 5D or 1D. Read reviews online, look at the comparisons. The proof is in the pudding.


Which proves two things:

one, that you don't have a clue about how to get the best out of the camera - _mine's_ not "sandpaper" at 100% view; and

two, you're a muppet for worrying about how it looks at 100% anyway.


----------



## markIVantony (Dec 15, 2011)

clank72 said:


> ...
> There are WAY too many 7D users complaining about the noise. There are literly thousands of posts online about it.
> ...



If this is true, wouldn't it support the idea that you and friedmud would know about the noise before purchasing the 7D?


----------



## sawsedge (Dec 15, 2011)

In another thread, the OP, Friedmud, indicates he is making friends with his 7D, learning his way around it.

I've seen too many great images from the 7D to believe the camera has a problem. Lemons can exist, but most problems are user error. The 50D went through this sort of nonsense too. 

Years ago I read a quote from George Lepp, which I will paraphrase: "all it takes is one good image to know who or what is at fault." Yep.


----------



## clank72 (Dec 15, 2011)

markIVantony said:


> clank72 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I bought one a year ago.

Like others, we saw the Youtube films shot with the 7D, saw the resized pics online, figured we were good to go. The problem was unexpected. This takes "Doing your research before you buy" to a whole new level my myself and others.

As for "How you use the camera determines...".

DSLR's do not have a noise setting (besides ND). There is no way to control the noise. You can't turn it off or on. You can't select the type of noise you want. There is no control over it. Your shots have noise that is "Burned in". Even with the right light, right place, right time, regardless. The solution is to grab the NR tool in Lightroom and live with it. Or, upgrade to a 5D to have less noise, and soak up your loss.


Nikon wins in the noise area but I probably won't be switching soon

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/01/23/high-iso-comparison-canon-1d-mark-iv-nikon-d3s-canon-7d-nikon-d300s/


----------



## Trovador (Dec 15, 2011)

Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)

http://www.500px.com/ruddyflorentino


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 15, 2011)

clank72 said:


> Nikon wins in the noise area but I probably won't be switching soon
> 
> http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/01/23/high-iso-comparison-canon-1d-mark-iv-nikon-d3s-canon-7d-nikon-d300s/



Uhhh you do realize what you are comparing the 7d to right? The closest camera to it competition wise (especially at the time of release) was the nikon D300(s)... according to your test, the 12MP at 100% is getting owned by the 7D... yes, compared to the 1.3 APC-H sensor (bigger sensor) and the D3s (full frame) the 7D will struggle, but come one... apples and oranges... the best comparison is the nikon D300s, Sony's 24MP monster... ehh... that's it.. well for the most part... but in your own link you posted... the 7D in High ISO is superior hands down to nikon. 

Is the 7D perfect, no, but for where it sits in it's class, it's still one of the best competitors in the APS-C arena. As far as noise, you can add in camera NR, but really, you're bitching about ISO noise 1600 and above at 100%? Really? Seriously? Are you printing ISO 3200 at 20x30? Plus as neuro suggested many times, it's easy to fix noise in post however if you miss the shot with the 5d2, it's not nearly as easy to fix.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

Trovador said:


> Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)
> 
> http://www.500px.com/ruddyflorentino



Really good photographs Trovador. What lenses and extras do you have in your kit if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 15, 2011)

clank72 said:


> There are WAY too many 7D users complaining about the noise.



There are also way too many people who spend all day studying mundane snapshots at 100% so they can fight about equipment in online forums. Personally I'm far more interested in the opinion of photographers making prints and online galleries, i.e. producing and viewing photographs at normal sizes for the purpose of enjoying photography.



> How do you sharpen the subject without sharpening the noise too?



One technique I occasionally use is to apply sharpening from within Noise Ninja, apart from any separate NR step. I turn down the noise sliders so that they just balance out the sharpening. As long as I balance the two correctly it ends up working pretty well and sharpens detail without enhancing grain or excessively smoothing anything out.



> Bottom line, viewing the 7D at 100% is SAND PAPER.



http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos7d/downloads/001.jpg

Bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about.



> The proof is in the pudding.



Agreed. Which is why nobody talks about noise while looking at my 17x22" portfolio. I make prints. I don't spend hours obsessing over 100% views. You would be shocked at how much noise is literally invisible even at larger print sizes. As my post processing has improved I have reworked some images to further reduce noise, only to see no difference in a 24" print.

Obsessing over 100% views is the height of ignorance. A 100% view means nothing outside of the context of the total resolution and maximum possible print size. It's like looking at 35mm and 4x5 film under a microscope and saying 4x5 has just as much grain and softer details. Then spending all day arguing in forums that 4x5 is no good and people should just use 35mm. A person who did this would be laughed out of the forum for failing to realize the context of the microscopic view, and the fact that 4x5 can make much larger prints which will be sharper and cleaner than any 35mm print.

Yeah, these arguments about noise at 100% look that stupid.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 15, 2011)

Trovador said:


> Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)
> 
> http://www.500px.com/ruddyflorentino



Nice work!

(sarcasm on) But you better zoom in to 300% because I think there's noise and you need a D3s ;D (sarcasm off)


----------



## unfocused (Dec 15, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Trovador said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)
> ...



Hah! That's good. 

I would just add, Trovador, [sarcasm] the difference is that you are trying to take pictures that people will find interesting. You should know better than that on this forum. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

Also I'm staring at this noise test page someone posted: http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/01/23/high-iso-comparison-canon-1d-mark-iv-nikon-d3s-canon-7d-nikon-d300s/. The D3s is a $5,200 camera so you can just ignore that one along with the ID Mark IV for this comparison, although it is obvious that the D3s has built in noise removal as well. The D300s, just like the D3s has built in noise removal processing, which is really not ideal as the process is permanent when the camera is doing it. Better to have full manual control over noise removal in post than to have the camera do a potentially sloppy job, or at least make sure that whatever the camera does do, can be un-done and redone losslessly in post. Just look at the resolved detail of the D300s compared to the 7D, it's not capturing nearly as much information and is no where near as crisp, you aren't even getting usable information out of the D300s in these examples. By the time you get those D300s pictures through post you still have nothing to work with if you plan on using the shots that close up like this, yet all the shots of the 7D, at least below 6400 would clean up quite nicely. The 7D is hands down kicking the noise on the D300's ass and then some simply because that data under that noise is actually usable and you can manually clean the noise in post, those D300s shots that 'appear' to have less noise are useless. If you couldn't see that the first time, then look again.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 15, 2011)

wow that D3s is amazing, totally kicking the 1D4's ass


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (Dec 16, 2011)

I went to the Newseum in DC recently, and viewed the small but quite excellent Pulitzer photo exhibit. Strange that it did not occur to me to bring a jeweler's loupe to give the images a proper examination. Now that I think about it, how did I ever enjoy photos by Cartier-Bresson or Adams? Such noisy rubbish!

Everyone needs a hobby, and I support the gearheads' right to obsess over the minutiae of technical details. Technical details of course matter, but when they become the entirety of the interest, those individuals are gearheads alone. That the machinery is a camera is of no real importance, and I feel little compulsion to call them photographers.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2011)

Cfunkexplosion said:


> I went to the Newseum in DC recently, and viewed the small but quite excellent Pulitzer photo exhibit. Strange that it did not occur to me to bring a jeweler's loupe to give the images a proper examination. Now that I think about it, how did I ever enjoy photos by Cartier-Bresson or Adams? Such noisy rubbish!
> 
> Everyone needs a hobby, and I support the gearheads' right to obsess over the minutiae of technical details. Technical details of course matter, but when they become the entirety of the interest, those individuals are gearheads alone. That the machinery is a camera is of no real importance, and I feel little compulsion to call them photographers.



+1 

I went to a Cartier-Bresson exhibit in Chicago a little over a year ago. It included some early work that he printed (before he got to the point where he left the printing to others) My conclusion: the guy couldn't print worth crap! Muddy tones. Dust spots everywhere. But did it matter? Hell no. 

Take a good look at Robert Frank's The Americans. Even in print you can see the massive amounts of grain and lots and lots of less than crisp focus. But, that doesn't stop it from being the most important book of photographs of the last 50 years.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 16, 2011)

unfocused said:


> I went to a Cartier-Bresson exhibit in Chicago a little over a year ago. It included some early work that he printed (before he got to the point where he left the printing to others) My conclusion: the guy couldn't print worth crap! Muddy tones. Dust spots everywhere. But did it matter? Hell no.



C-B was one of my early inspirational togs - street is still where my heart is.

From last night in our local 'clubbing corner' - and yes I take street with the 400 2.8 on tripod and gimbal  I suspect the 7D would struggle with iso 4000 whereas the 1D4 is OK - it prints better than it displays


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 16, 2011)

I think the gentleman has had it with high ISO noise discussions! Great shot.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 16, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> and yes I take street with the 400 2.8 on tripod and gimbal



A 400/2.8 pointing at random drunken strangers at night...

...

... you're a brave brave man.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 16, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > and yes I take street with the 400 2.8 on tripod and gimbal
> ...



Actually they think you are press, I find it safer than with more modest kit. 

I get the police suggesting I go to places where people are 'boisterous'. The sight of a 'press' person gets them playing to the camera.

This type of shooting is one of the reasons I moved from the 7D to the 1D4 with the good low light (my definition) shooting.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 16, 2011)

This is for the person that complained about the police and us Brits


----------



## Trovador (Dec 16, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Trovador said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)
> ...



Thanks! my "go to" lens is the Canon 10-22, but I also have the 24-70L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II, 100L 2.8 macro, 100-400L and a few other from other brands  In terms of extras the things I use the most are a Manfrotto tripod/head and Cokin Z-Pro graduated filters.


----------



## Trovador (Dec 16, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> Trovador said:
> 
> 
> > Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## KeithR (Dec 17, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I suspect the 7D would struggle with iso 4000



Why? It doesn't struggle with 8500 ISO (6400 ISO underexposed then equalised in conversion/PP):







Looks like there's more light in your shot too - Exif's in mine.


----------



## KeithR (Dec 17, 2011)

How about these? All straight out of Lightroom, no additional NR:

*4000 ISO*





*6400 ISO*






*12800 ISO*


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2011)

KeithR said:


> How about these? All straight out of Lightroom, no additional NR



Doesn't a 75-88% downsampling constitute substantial NR? Not being facetious - I've taken a badly underexposed shot at ISO 3200, pushed it 2.5 stops in post, and it didn't look bad as a 4x6" print. But it would have been horrible as a large print.


----------



## bikersbeard (Dec 17, 2011)

are those samples of high ISO on the 7D ? they look way better than my 5DII and i mean way better..


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 17, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Doesn't a 75-88% downsampling constitute substantial NR?



Yes, which is why these conversations are so difficult: each person evaluates the photo based on personal expectations. Those who typically downsample for electronic viewing will have different expectations from someone who prints large, who will have different expectations from someone who peeps pixels. It's been said before, but it's important to put your photo in context when talking about image quality: how's it going to be displayed?

Another note: The ISO 12,800 photo (fishing reel?) was taken at f/6.3 at 1/160s with -0.3 exposure bias. This was an extremely well-lit photo, so it's probably also free of shot noise. It's my personal experience with my 60D that, at high ISO's, well-lit photos look much better than low-light photos.

To compare high-ISO quality "apples-to-apples," we'd need to have a standard for downsampling and exposure settings as well.


----------



## infilm (Dec 17, 2011)

jrista said:


> friedmud said:
> 
> 
> > I posted last week to get advice on getting a 7D now... and got some truly wonderful responses about how I should take the plunge... and I did.
> ...


I'm with jrista. I have had my 7D for about 8 months. If I stay at ISO's of 80, 160, 320, ect. I get very good results. Once I go into the 1/3 stop variants of the native ISO the noise comes running in.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 17, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > How about these? All straight out of Lightroom, no additional NR
> ...



Not unless he cropped out 600-700 pixels of the file representing the 100% view...but then again this would need to be specified and it's all subjective... as we've debated before neuro... your expectations for noise and my expectations for noise are two separate expectations and tastes and frankly, when shooting for clients, I usually light my subjects or shoot in good conditions so i shoot low ISO and rarely need high ISO unless i'm in a pinch, and my clients are cool with that... Plus my work is 90% printed on commercial printers so I get away with a lot especially printed at CMYK... Anyways... I personally think this debate has gone on long enough... There are no right or wrong answers on what is acceptable or not acceptable... it either works for you or it doesn't and to argue and complain is futile in the end.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 18, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> Those who typically downsample for electronic viewing will have different expectations from someone who prints large, who will have different expectations from someone who peeps pixels.


Who needs to downsample for electronic viewing? If you have a decent sized monitor you can view enough of a RAW file at 100% to get an idea what is going on. In practice, I think most everybody has to switch between "downsampling" (resampling, actually) and 100% views on the fly when electronically editing. The mythical user who only views at 100% or only views downsample must be a very rare species, because even if your preference is "full image view" (aka resampled fit-to-screen) or 100% peeps, the other view still has its uses.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 18, 2011)

markIVantony said:


> If this is true, wouldn't it support the idea that you and friedmud would know about the noise before purchasing the 7D?



I will admit that I didn't do the "right" research this time around.

I had planned on picking up a T3i or 60D since I thought that's the best upgrades I could get in my price range... then my wife said "why don't you go for the 7D?"... well I'm sure all of you with wives out there understand that when a statement like that gets uttered by "the boss" you don't tend to do a lot of research past that point ;-)

That said I _did_ read quite a few reviews that raved about the 7D... but almost universally they were talking about how awesome the high ISO capability was. My failing was in believing that if the high ISO is that good then certainly the low ISO wouldn't be worse than my XSi... that didn't exactly pan out.

Yes, I have "made peace" with my 7D. I've already shot about 600 photos with it (been traveling a lot lately) and I am in _love_ with the camera itself. Just tonight I was out shooting some great tree silhouettes in the sunset... and the way the camera works allows me to get the camera out of the way and really focus on the creativity of the shots I'm trying to produce.

However... I _do_ still have a tinge of regret over the noise. It really is there. I really wish it wasn't.

Even so, I think I'm going to have a long and productive friendship with this machine. I don't sell my photos to stock houses or anything... so if it helps me get the shot I have in my head into a RAW file better and that translates well to the web and print... then I'm happy.

Cameras and Lenses are a series of tradeoffs. If there was a "perfect" camera body _everyone_ would buy it. Unfortunately, the reality of price / performance rears its ugly head and the mortals among us have to make tough decisions. Fortunately that formula continues to drift further and further in favor of mortals all the time...


----------



## jrista (Dec 18, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't a 75-88% downsampling constitute substantial NR?
> ...



You would have to blow up a print at least *three fold* for it to be large enough for noise to exhibit like it might at 100% on-screen. The simple fact of the matter is, the VAST MAJORITY of viewing contexts require downsizing, usually significant downsizing or increases to resolution density, relative to a 100% crop view on a computer screen. The only time you are actually enlarging any viewing context beyond that scope is with prints larger than 52"x35" (for the 7D anyway), at which point image pixels in print are about the same size as on a screen. Most of the time, enlargements of such scale are done _very carefully_, with meticulous care around noise and sharpness, so noise is rarely as visible on screen as it is in such a large print.

The only time the levels of noise we have today in current-generation cameras (7D, 60D, 600D, even 5D II) exhibit as a problem is when viewed at 100% crop on a computer. Outside of those who tend to obsess over quality at 100% crop, viewing any photo in that way is impractical and unrealistic. @KeithR's sample photos, while they do appear to be downsized a bit, also demonstrate a *REALISTIC* viewing context, and thats where any photo's IS should be evaluated...in realistic context.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 18, 2011)

jrista said:


> You would have to blow up a print at least *three fold* for it to be large enough for noise to exhibit like it might at 100% on-screen. The simple fact of the matter is, the VAST MAJORITY of viewing contexts require downsizing, usually significant downsizing or increases to resolution density, relative to a 100% crop view on a computer screen. The only time you are actually enlarging any viewing context beyond that scope is with prints larger than 52"x35" (for the 7D anyway), at which point image pixels in print are about the same size as on a screen. Most of the time, enlargements of such scale are done _very carefully_, with meticulous care around noise and sharpness, so noise is rarely as visible on screen as it is in such a large print.
> 
> The only time the levels of noise we have today in current-generation cameras (7D, 60D, 600D, even 5D II) exhibit as a problem is when viewed at 100% crop on a computer. Outside of those who tend to obsess over quality at 100% crop, viewing any photo in that way is impractical and unrealistic. @KeithR's sample photos, while they do appear to be downsized a bit, also demonstrate a *REALISTIC* viewing context, and thats where any photo's IS should be evaluated...in realistic context.



I know that you believe what you are saying and trying to be helpful, but I still think that you don't understand the crux of the problem. Let me see if I can break it down for you.

1. I can see the noise from an ISO 100 shot on my 7D when looking at the entire photo on my 27" screen. That is... NOT a 100% crop. Quit saying that noise is only an issue at 100%.

2. Next you will say "calibrate your monitor!". That has nothing to do with it... as my XSi shots look fine when viewing the whole image on the screen.

2.5 (Ninja Edit) Extreme resolution monitors are on the horizon (most likely this year). There are already talks of a 2880x1800 Macbook Pro... and an iMac could come out with 5120x2800! At those resolutions npise is going to start to be easily visible in a lot of photos!

3. Cropping: one of the main reasons to move up to a higher MP is so you can crop a bit closer. If your image has a ton of noise in it that negates a lot of your ability to crop.

4. Different people have different purposes for their photography. If you are doing portraits, you might leave the final picture a bit soft so as to downplay facial blemishes. However, if you are shooting landscapes you want to bring out every detail and that means "sharpening". If there is a ton of noise hanging around it might not matter to the person doing portraits, however if you are trying to sharpen tiny details in your photo (that you bought an 18MP camera to capture) noise makes life extremely difficult.

5. You keep claiming that all anyone does is look at tiny versions of your photos. I will mostly agree with that (but add a caveat about cropping - and how that effectively means that even viewers of your prints are "zoomed in"). However, what if that didn't have to be the case??

Personally, I upload full resolution jpegs to Flickr. If someone is so inclined, they can view it at full resolution and zoom in to see detail in my landscapes. Now, I agree that most people probably don't do that... But just think about if you could capture perfectly noise free images: you could encourage people to explore the full res versions of your photos, giving a new, dynamic way to enjoy your photography.

--

I guess my problem with your philosophy on noise boils down to this: You, just like every other luddite throughout history continue to claim that "What we have is good enough!". The problem is that you are WRONG and will be proven so as technology advances. In 5 years we'll wonder about how we put up with these noisy machines as we look forward to advances on our 45MP mirrorless pieces of awesome that we use in ways you cannot even fathom right now and you will still be saying things like "Why do you need something better than 45MP!"...

I have been entirely too negative in this post so I will leave you all with a link to a set of photos of mine on Flickr. These were taken with My XSi and have the full res versions of the images there... So feel free to view them that way!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedmud/sets/72157628014191618/


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 18, 2011)

friedmud said:


> 1. I can see the noise from an ISO 100 shot on my 7D when looking at the entire photo on my 27" screen. That is... NOT a 100% crop. Quit saying that noise is only an issue at 100%.



I cannot see this on screen or in print, and my printer can most certainly out resolve my screen. If you are seeing noise at 27" equivalent print size, then your exposure was off, or some action in post brought it out, or the scaling algorithm is messing up.

I've got ISO 800 shots which look great on my monitor and print great at 24". Granted they've had a bit of Noise Ninja filtering, but still.



> 2. Next you will say "calibrate your monitor!". That has nothing to do with it... as my XSi shots look fine when viewing the whole image on the screen.



Though the XSi does have measurably less noise at ISO 100, it's not significant and should not be human observable even when pixel peeping. The Imaging Resource comparometer bears this out. You have to shoot under identical conditions, and when shot under identical conditions these cameras do not differ in noise at ISO 100.



> 2.5 (Ninja Edit) Extreme resolution monitors are on the horizon (most likely this year). There are already talks of a 2880x1800 Macbook Pro... and an iMac could come out with 5120x2800! At those resolutions npise is going to start to be easily visible in a lot of photos!



There's no noise to speak of from either camera at ISO 100, even when pixel peeping, given a proper exposure. 



> 3. Cropping: one of the main reasons to move up to a higher MP is so you can crop a bit closer. If your image has a ton of noise in it that negates a lot of your ability to crop.



I've made 16x20" surfing prints from 8-10 MP crops of 7D files, with ISOs up to 800. Noise ranges from non-obtrusive to none at all. Again this assumes proper exposure and some post work, but it shows what can be done.



> 4. Different people have different purposes for their photography. If you are doing portraits, you might leave the final picture a bit soft so as to downplay facial blemishes. However, if you are shooting landscapes you want to bring out every detail and that means "sharpening". If there is a ton of noise hanging around it might not matter to the person doing portraits, however if you are trying to sharpen tiny details in your photo (that you bought an 18MP camera to capture) noise makes life extremely difficult.



You yourself produced a nice, sharp, detailed landscape with the 7D and it had no real noise to speak of.

I don't know what you're looking at that you think the 7D has any real noise at lower ISOs. I can only imagine that exposures are off, or you're mistaking surface texture for detail, or the scaling algorithm is messing up. (Apple's preview app can really screw up the scaling of anything, even a 5D2 image. Not sure why. It seems to be random, but it happens.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 18, 2011)

@friedmud: FYI, I wasn't actually responding to you with my last post. However, here are some responses to your points:



> I guess my problem with your philosophy on noise boils down to this: You, just like every other luddite throughout history continue to claim that "What we have is good enough!". The problem is that you are WRONG and will be proven so as technology advances. In 5 years we'll wonder about how we put up with these noisy machines as we look forward to advances on our 45MP mirrorless pieces of awesome that we use in ways you cannot even fathom right now and you will still be saying things like "Why do you need something better than 45MP!"...



First off, there is no need for name calling. I'm not really sure how you can claim I'm a luddite...if you read anything else I've said on this forum, I probably more than anyone else believe we CAN achieve MUCH more than we have today. Not only that, I WANT to achieve more...in that respect, I'm very progressive. However I am also keenly aware that pretty much all of what we have today is DAMN GOOD!! So before you enthusiastically leap off the cliff of rudeness and spurt out inane things, make sure you know what your talking about. If you haven't read some of my other posts about megapixels and resolution and noise, which should thoroughly refute your opinion that I'm "just another luddite", please do before you decide to make more assumptions about who I am and what I want.

I don't deny that things will get better...however thats not my point. My point is that many people don't evaluate things like IQ in a _realistic context_, and I think many other members of this forum will agree. Compare the noise of the 7D to just about ANY 35mm film grain, and I think you'll likely be astonished at how much better the 7D appears (aesthetics aside...different discussion.) Compare the noise of the 7D to the 450D at the identical resolutions, and I still think you'll be surprised. Scale the 450D images up, and they will be quite soft, and the lack of detail, despite their apparent lower noise, will be very clear. Scale the 7D images down, and the apparently hideous noise will suddenly not look all that bad, and you'll likely still see better detail to boot.



> 1. I can see the noise from an ISO 100 shot on my 7D when looking at the entire photo on my 27" screen. That is... NOT a 100% crop. Quit saying that noise is only an issue at 100%.



I am keenly aware that you have not always looked at your images at 100%. I remember reading all the replies where you stated as much, and remember the Lightroom screenshots you posted to demonstrate what you were talking about. However initially, the samples you uploaded were full-size images that downloaded at 100% for anyone who took the time to download them (which is probably what a lot of the comments about pixel-peeping were based on.) I did some experimentation with them myself, and zoomed out in Photoshop on my 30" Apple Cinemadisplay to the native print resolution (which, btw, is a lot larger than the 900px I commonly use for web viewing size), I can't see any noise at all. Earlier in this thread I posted a sample screenshot, similar to your screenshots of Lightroom...I don't know if you saw it, but I think it demonstrates quite well the power of noise absorption a little proper downscaling or printing can do. In Lightroom, all of my 7D an 450D images look very noisy when zoomed out...as far as I can tell, Lightroom does cheap nearest-neighbor filtering when zooming out. If you leave it for a while, or start dragging the image around, it either randomly or in a patchy manner decides to generate a better preview.



> 2.5 (Ninja Edit) Extreme resolution monitors are on the horizon (most likely this year). There are already talks of a 2880x1800 Macbook Pro... and an iMac could come out with 5120x2800! At those resolutions npise is going to start to be easily visible in a lot of photos!



Regarding high res screens...its higher density...smaller pixels more closely spaced. Much like print, the higher density will effectively "absorb" noise, not make it more visible, as the resolution approaches the limit of visual acuity. Its like viewing a photo at 100% on an iPhone 4s...the retina display is so high resolution with such an incredibly high pixel density, its literally like looking at a print...the noise is so fine you can barely see it (I would DIE to have a computer screen that pixel dense...it would be pure heaven!) 



> 3. Cropping: one of the main reasons to move up to a higher MP is so you can crop a bit closer. If your image has a ton of noise in it that negates a lot of your ability to crop.



I tend to crop myself as well, particularly with my bird photography, so I understand what your getting at. Remember, I also own the XSi (450D) camera, so I also have the ability to make direct comparisons between the two cameras. In the 450D, noise at or above ISO800 was horrid...and it ate detail for breakfast! The 7D trounces the 450D in that respect...it LOOKS noisier, however there is almost twice the detail. I'd take the 7D noise over the 450D (XSi) noise any day...I care about detail preservation (i.e. fine feather detail), not apparent noise cleanness. I've also found that I can push Lightroom noise reduction much farther with the 7D before I start to see visible degradation of fine detail (around 75-80 or so), where as the 450D would start to lose detail around a setting of 45-50 or so, sometimes earlier than that at ISO1600. Don't forget that the 7D has 48% more resolution, so no matter how much noiser it may look, its still preserving a hell of a lot more detail than the 450D can even capture in the first place.



> 4. Different people have different purposes for their photography. If you are doing portraits, you might leave the final picture a bit soft so as to downplay facial blemishes. However, if you are shooting landscapes you want to bring out every detail and that means "sharpening". If there is a ton of noise hanging around it might not matter to the person doing portraits, however if you are trying to sharpen tiny details in your photo (that you bought an 18MP camera to capture) noise makes life extremely difficult.



Regarding camera purpose, sure, there are different reasons to use a camera. But the reason you take a photo doesn't usually change the presentation mediums most of the time. Portraits are often printed at 8x10 or so, which is still a fairly significant downscaling from the 7D's native print resolution which is about 13x19" with a small border (17.5x12", to be exact.) For landscapes, you would have to print at 4'4"x3' at 300ppi for the print to match the pixel size of the monitor at 100%, or about 3'x2' for it to match lightroom when viewing at "full". Many people print no larger than 11x16, some stop at 13x19, and for those who have the ability, some print at 17x22. I know a photographer who has ALL their landscape prints framed in simple black frames with simple off-white matting at 8x10 in a gigantic collage on their wall (its actually pretty amazing)! For those who DO print at huge size, careful and meticulous attention is usually paid to the process of scaling the image up properly so as to eliminate as much noise as possible while maintaining as much sharpness and detail as possible, so its difficult to compare an actual print of multi-foot dimensions apples-to-apples with a 100% display on screen. I like my large prints to be viewable from 2-3 feet without apparent softening, however many of the people I know who print that large only care about people standing 5-6 feet back, in which case noise doesn't even enter into the equation.



> 5. You keep claiming that all anyone does is look at tiny versions of your photos. I will mostly agree with that (but add a caveat about cropping - and how that effectively means that even viewers of your prints are "zoomed in"). However, what if that didn't have to be the case??



You state that I claim all people see is tiny versions of photos. On the contrary, I claim that people view them at _realistic sizes_. On a computer screen, those sizes tend to be several times smaller than native resolution (500-900 pixels wide is the most common range people scale their images down to for display on the web, and many of the better sites like 1x.com or 500px.com mandate a maximum resolution of around 900px wide). An average print is 300ppi, or pixels per inch. The average professional's computer screen is 96ppi, with the high end about 103-106ppi (i.e. Apple CinemaDisplays, LaCei, Eizo, NEC), and the low end...the dirt cheap LCD screens that can't be considered an adequate viewing medium in any serious context...at 72ppi. Photoshop has a handy button when using the zoom tool: "Print Size". It scales images on-screen to the matching physical print size. Try using that on a few of your shots (make sure you configure Photoshop with your proper screen PPI first), and see how they look. Hold up a piece of paper that matches the cameras native resolution (i.e. a 13x19" A3+ sheet), and see how the on-screen image fits perfectly inside the frame of the piece of paper. THAT is what I am talking about most of the time. 

With 7D images, print is usually around 42% the native size of the image 34% the native size of the image (Edit: Sorry, the original 42% was for 240ppi, not 300ppi), which amounts to 2.94x more noise absorption power than viewing an image at 100% (or 1.0x). Lightroom's fit view usually displays images larger than that, a little larger than 50% on my screen, so it has about 1.75-1.8x or so noise absorption power (when it actually decides to render the preview properly.) At the fine resolution of a print...and a 13x19" print is fairly big, mind you...noise is below or just at the visual acuity of the human eye (1/60th of a degree, or more precisely around 55 arcseconds, for 20/20 vision) at a normal viewing distance (keep in mind, were not talking 4" viewing distance with a loupe....were talking about a foot or so.) When I say people don't view most photos the way the photographer views them on-screen when post-processing with Lightroom or Photoshop, I'm basing my statements on some basic science and math (which I can go into, of you or anyone else is interested, since this debate can be settled with a little math and real-world facts.)

Last, while you may have been the initiator of this thread, not all of my replies have been directed at you. Many of them have been clearly and expressly directed at other participants, as should have been clearly indicated by who I quoted. My last response was a direct reply to something @Orangutan stated (I thought inaccurately) about people who downsize for electronic viewing vs. people who print large. I think its important to be explicit, especially in discussions related to image noise, as it is a highly controversial topic and making vague or blanket statements that lack specificity leads to misnomers that are often regurgitated without a proper understanding (sadly, thus is the nature of the internet.) Much of the complaints over noise (even if it IS higher today than we might likely see in the future) are based on a lack of understanding or a misunderstanding of realistic viewing contexts that cover the majority of viewers using computers or viewing prints. I've only tried to be clear about the facts, in hopes that it EDUCATES people...nothing else.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 18, 2011)

In my experience problems like this are either through operator error or camera defect.

Inevitably the camera is blamed - which is why there are so many retruns

I have had a camera returned to me as the IQ was '[email protected]' - from a demonstrably perfect 5D classic. The image shown to me to back it up had little white dots all over it. It was raining ........

Back to this 7D issue. It is clear that the 7D for most people does not show significant noise at 100-200 - certainly not on my 2 7Ds either, I checked. 

In other forums the 7D has caught out new users with the changes from the previous xxD and xxxD and Rebel models. There are significant changes to the metering. It is clear that out of the box the 7D is not a high ISO camera - care and pp work has to be applied to get clean images at 1600 and above, but iso100/200 should not be an issue.

So is it the user or the camera? Has the camera been checked under warrantee? Have the factory defaults been used (with perhaps RAW set)? Has a test picture been taken in perfect conditions?

Landscapes are difficult subjects to get perfect due to the high DR needed in strong light.

Settings that would impact noise are:

- Long exposure noise reduction
- High ISO speed noise reduction
- Highlight tone priority (which WILL incease noise in shadow areas if set)


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 18, 2011)

jrista said:


> You would have to blow up a print at least *three fold* for it to be large enough for noise to exhibit like it might at 100% on-screen. The simple fact of the matter is, the VAST MAJORITY of viewing contexts require downsizing, usually significant downsizing or increases to resolution density, relative to a 100% crop view on a computer screen. The only time you are actually enlarging any viewing context beyond that scope is with prints larger than 52"x35" (for the 7D anyway), at which point image pixels in print are about the same size as on a screen. Most of the time, enlargements of such scale are done _very carefully_, with meticulous care around noise and sharpness, so noise is rarely as visible on screen as it is in such a large print.
> 
> The only time the levels of noise we have today in current-generation cameras (7D, 60D, 600D, even 5D II) exhibit as a problem is when viewed at 100% crop on a computer. Outside of those who tend to obsess over quality at 100% crop, viewing any photo in that way is impractical and unrealistic. @KeithR's sample photos, while they do appear to be downsized a bit, also demonstrate a *REALISTIC* viewing context, and thats where any photo's IS should be evaluated...in realistic context.



Jrista, I don't see what part of my post you're responding to or disputing. It seems to me that we agree that reducing an image masks noise, particularly in light of your your later reply to someone else. My point was that viewers can't readily compare two sample images that have been produced differently. If one is a crop at 100%, and the other is a down-sampled, the noise will not be comparable. Also, if one is taken at 1/5s at f/2 and the other at 1/200s at f/6.3, even if the histograms are similar, the images will not be entirely comparable. I was specifically responding to bikersbeard who said the 7D images looked better than those from his 5D2; however, we don't really have enough info to draw that conclusion.

If someone wants to check whether he's got a dud 7D, he/she needs to be careful about the sample images used for comparison. This is why web sites such as imaging-resource.com (Comparometer) take such care to construct their test environments.


----------



## jrista (Dec 18, 2011)

@Orangutan: It just sounded like you were saying that downsampling for viewing on a screen was effectively different than printing from a noise management standpoint. I guess I was trying to clarify that until your blowing up a print 3-4x or more, both downsamping for viewing on a computer and printing have the same effect...they absorb noise.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 18, 2011)

@jrista

Firstly, I know you weren't responding to me directly, but that doesn't stop me from commenting on your posts...

Secondly, you still used the same arguments.

Let me try again.

Your argument basically boils down to: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

This is a fine, rational explanation... however it doesn't add anything to the conversation. You could make this argument about EVERYTHING on this site:

Post Title: "1DX rumored"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

Post Title: "Should I upgrade from a 450D to a 5DII?"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

Post Title: "Will the 5DIII have 54MP?"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

Post Title: "My 18-85 seems a bit soft"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

Post Title: "This new 70-200 seems to be off a bit on the focus"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

Past Post Title: "Should I upgrade from a 20D to a 40D?"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

Future Post Title: "Is an 80D better than a 70D?"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

Future Post Title: "120MP 5D9 Rumored!"
Your Response: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."


Yes, you have a very well reasoned mathematical basis behind your posts: but so what! It's not adding anything to the conversation about whether or not the 7D has quite a bit of low ISO noise. In essence, your posts are just adding "noise" to the conversation!

Whatever our motivations are for being interested in low ISO noise on the 7D... just let us talk about it without slapping us in the face with your dogma on printing / viewing sizes.

I mean, seriously... it's like you want this banner at the top of Canonrumors whole website: "Prints are generally 4x6 to 13x19 and if they are bigger then your viewers won't be critically close so don't worry about it."

To me, Canonrumors is all about pointing out existing weaknesses in Canon's cameras and fantasizing about the future of these machines. If we can't have a real conversation about things people are actually observing in their existing cameras, why do these forums even exist?



NOW - back on topic. I shot a bunch of tree silhouettes last night with my 7D on ISO 100 and am very happy with the output. Unfortunately, I only have a tiny loner Macbook Air with iPhoto on it right now so it is hard to get a sense of the noise in the photos... but after a bit of sharpening and a little bit of denoise in iPhoto I feel like I got some really nice shots.

The more I use this camera the more I'm enjoying my time with it.

(Please excuse the quality of the upload... iPhoto is fairly limited, I'll give these shots a proper workup when I get back home)


----------



## jrista (Dec 18, 2011)

I'm sorry, _but now your putting words into my mouth_, *and I don't like that.* Since you've made this a personal attack, here we go. I've argued consistently in THIS THREAD because I think YOU ARE WRONG about the 7D noise. I'm not the only one who thinks that. Several attempts have been made to explain why your evaluation of noise in comparison to your 450D is wrong, however are ignored with just as much DOGMA as I may present in my arguments that noise on a computer screen at or _near_ 100% crop is IRRELEVANT!!! I think it can be DEMONSTRATED that you are WRONG, both visually (KeithR did a pretty damn good job of that...BTW...CLICK for 100% views of his shots), and mathematically. I think you are evaluating the IQ of the 7D incorrectly in an unrealistic context, and complaining about a factor that does not matter in the real world.

I'm done with this thread now, as its pointless to argue with people who refuse to embrace a little bit of real-world objectivity. I'm glad you like your 7D now, and I hope you enjoy more time in the future complaining about its noise.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 18, 2011)

I still dont think we have established whether it is the operator or the camera that is at fault.

We know that the 7D gives excellent results at low ISO - is it just this particular body that is at fault. Should it be returned to Canon?

Are the settings incorrect and therefore causing noise 

Lack of information is making everyone double guess

Lets have some solid facts


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 18, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I still dont think we have established whether it is the operator or the camera that is at fault.
> 
> 
> Lets have some solid facts



Agreed.

â€œData! Data! Data!...I canâ€™t make bricks without clay.â€ (Sherlock Holmes)


----------



## Isaac (Dec 19, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I still dont think we have established whether it is the operator or the camera that is at fault.
> ...



+1 we need some info before judging what the problem is.


----------



## Maui5150 (Dec 19, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I still dont think we have established whether it is the operator or the camera that is at fault.
> ...



Since when did Star Trek the Next Generation encounter Sherlock Holmes??? 

And wasn't it Bones McCoy "I'm a Doctor... Not a brick layer"

All this confusing and mis-matching sci-fi has me befuddled!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> Since when did Star Trek the Next Generation encounter Sherlock Holmes???
> All this confusing and mis-matching sci-fi has me befuddled!



In the holodeck, of course, when Commander Data _was_ Sherlock Holmes, and Moriarty attempted to take over the Enterprise.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 19, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > â€œData! Data! Data!...I canâ€™t make bricks without clay.â€ (Sherlock Holmes)
> ...



Google tells me this quote is from Before Roddenberry:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#The_Adventure_of_the_Copper_Beeches




> I observed that he sat frequently for half and hour on end, with knitted brows and an abstracted air, but he swept the matter away with a wave of his hand when I mentioned it. â€œData! Data! Data!â€ he cried impatiently. â€œI canâ€™t make bricks without clay.â€ And yet he would always wind up by muttering again that no sister of his should ever have accepted such a situation.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

I brought my 5d2 with me this weekend to take pics of my kids with santa and playing around on train rides and a "fun center" style thing... I think I should start a new thread called Earthshatteringly Disappointed with 5d Mark II... Holy crap the AF focus was horrendous even in so so light... my lord... granted when the camera did nail focus it was magical what it could do, but you almost needed to fire a few off focus shots to get the in-focus goodie... I think i'll keep the 7D strictly for everyday shots and 5d for studio... holy crap.


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 19, 2011)

Maui5150 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > â€œData! Data! Data!...I canâ€™t make bricks without clay.â€ (Sherlock Holmes)
> ...



+1. Almost any Star Trek reference is going to get an applause from me. ;D 

And actually ST:TNG did have encounters with Mr. Holmes: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> I brought my 5d2 with me this weekend to take pics of my kids with santa and playing around on train rides and a "fun center" style thing... I think I should start a new thread called Earthshatteringly Disappointed with 5d Mark II... Holy crap the AF focus was horrendous even in so so light... my lord... granted when the camera did nail focus it was magical what it could do, but you almost needed to fire a few off focus shots to get the in-focus goodie... I think i'll keep the 7D strictly for everyday shots and 5d for studio... holy crap.



<sarcasm>It must be operator error. Briansquib shoots motorsports with his 5DII and the AF performs flawlessly, tracking fast-moving carts around curves, even moving toward and and away from the camera. If you can't even shoot a running kid, don't blame the camera.</sarcasm>

Yes, I know from experience that the 5DII's AF is pretty bad with anything moving. That's the main reason I plan to get a 1D X as soon as they're available.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> xxxx shoots motorsports with his 5DII....Yes, I know from experience that the 5DII's AF is pretty bad with anything moving. That's the main reason I plan to get a 1D X as soon as they're available.



Kids are particularly difficult. Even though moving cars are faster, they're predictable and have nice straight lines to focus on. Moving kids, on the other hand, are little more than blur to begin with: not much to lock focus on.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I brought my 5d2 with me this weekend to take pics of my kids with santa and playing around on train rides and a "fun center" style thing... I think I should start a new thread called Earthshatteringly Disappointed with 5d Mark II... Holy crap the AF focus was horrendous even in so so light... my lord... granted when the camera did nail focus it was magical what it could do, but you almost needed to fire a few off focus shots to get the in-focus goodie... I think i'll keep the 7D strictly for everyday shots and 5d for studio... holy crap.
> ...



<insult> removed <insult>

Just because you cant run 100m in <11 sec doesn't mean no one else can


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > xxxx shoots motorsports with his 5DII....Yes, I know from experience that the 5DII's AF is pretty bad with anything moving. That's the main reason I plan to get a 1D X as soon as they're available.
> ...



+1 - motorsports are totally predictable and straight forward to take pictures of - that is why it is easy (with the right technique) to get sharp images at 1/50.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

It's weird, not to get off track on the 7d, but I get and see that the 5d2 gives nice files and compared to the 7D, it gives me a little bit more leadway in files just because of the crop/ff, and the 5d2 has better ISO preformance which i see why many wedding pros want to use the 5d2, but i also dramatically see why the same wedding pros complain about the focus... If this camera in a bright enough lit indoor facility fits and such gives the 5d2, and the outside points are a mere crapshoot whether they will nail focus and the center point and recomposing is your best bet, and that's assuming your subject matter isn't moving... I would be bankrupt by now if i depended on the 5d2 and weddings to get me by... I'm sure things will get better more I play with it and such but I also can see why these pro's shoot 500-1000 shots per weddings... an odds game... out of those a few hundred HAS to be in focus and or usable... Orangutan has a point about predictability and panning... With kids and even some adults, sudden movements and not being able to shoot fast shutter speeds are crucial with this camera.. I think for less critical work (family and such) the 7d is a better choice where if i get controlled environments and can let the 5d2 shine, then it will be a great tool... 

***Santa, all I want for christmas is a 5d3!

****brian... The 5d2 focus has been as documented as peoples gripes about the 7d image... Some people can make it work for their style and some cant... Motor sports are easy for some and hard for others... glad you're getting the results you and your client needs.. while others adapt and or wait patiently..


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

I have posted several pictures to back this up - however it is hard work to get it right - which is why I bought a 1D4 to give me better fps and AF than my 7D and better low light images than the 5D2. After the 5DII I was disappointed with the quality of the images and the bokeh that the APS-C 7D gives

The 5D2 and 1D4 are getting used about 40/60 at the moment, with the 7Ds in the draw unused.


----------



## wombat780 (Dec 19, 2011)

Geez...these negative posts about the 5DMKII's AF with kids has me worried. I currently have an unopened 5DMKII w/ 25-105L F4 kit lens (great price), 70-200L F4 IS, and the 85 1.8 waiting for Christmas. This would be my first DSLR. My current SLR is a film Nikon N90s from the mid-1990s, but it hasn't gotten much use lately as I just don't have time for film anymore. I have never had a problem with its ancient AF.

My main purpose is just to get really high quality pictures of my 2 and 3 year old kids, family, dog, travel, etc. and to use for just general subjects. I had, perhaps nievely assumed that, while not state of the art, the AF in the 5DMKII could cope with that, at least if used with the center point only and AF expansion. For me, image quality is paramount (I admit I am a pixel peeper and do essentially all viewing on-screen). I wanted FF from so that I could start building up a collection of lenses for the long-haul. I will be very disappointed if with this camera and these lenses I cannot get any in-focus shots of my kids when I can do so with any old P&S or even an iPhone.

Am I making a mistake with the 5DMKII? I guess the only alternative would be to either pick up a D700 (though I really hate the idea of spending $1k more on a camera due to be replaced even sooner than the 5D), or wait for the 5DMKIII/D800 (both of which will probably blow out my price range). All very discouraging. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

wombat780 said:


> Geez...these negative posts about the 5DMKII's AF with kids has me worried. I currently have an unopened 5DMKII w/ 25-105L F4 kit lens (great price), 70-200L F4 IS, and the 85 1.8 waiting for Christmas. This would be my first DSLR. My current SLR is a film Nikon N90s from the mid-1990s, but it hasn't gotten much use lately as I just don't have time for film anymore. I have never had a problem with its ancient AF.
> 
> My main purpose is just to get really high quality pictures of my 2 and 3 year old kids, family, dog, travel, etc. and to use for just general subjects. I had, perhaps nievely assumed that, while not state of the art, the AF in the 5DMKII could cope with that, at least if used with the center point only and AF expansion. For me, image quality is paramount (I admit I am a pixel peeper and do essentially all viewing on-screen). I wanted FF from so that I could start building up a collection of lenses for the long-haul. I will be very disappointed if with this camera and these lenses I cannot get any in-focus shots of my kids when I can do so with any old P&S or even an iPhone.
> 
> Am I making a mistake with the 5DMKII? I guess the only alternative would be to either pick up a D700 (though I really hate the idea of spending $1k more on a camera due to be replaced even sooner than the 5D), or wait for the 5DMKIII/D800 (both of which will probably blow out my price range). All very discouraging. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts.



I would say you have a great system awaiting you... All cameras have their quirks... the 7D has great AF and ok image quality, but the 5d2 has so so AF and great mage quality... the 1d series you need to rob a bank to acquire and shoot tripod/monopod if shooting for prolonged time due to weight... Coming from a 7d, the 5d2 leaves me wanting/expecting more (especially since i shoot professionally) but from another person with a different set of expectations and needs, it may be more than enough to get what you need... I'd definitely give it a good test run and an open mind and see if you're blown away or not...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

wombat780 said:


> Geez...these negative posts about the 5DMKII's AF with kids has me worried. I currently have an unopened 5DMKII w/ 25-105L F4 kit lens (great price), 70-200L F4 IS, and the 85 1.8 waiting for Christmas. This would be my first DSLR. My current SLR is a film Nikon N90s from the mid-1990s, but it hasn't gotten much use lately as I just don't have time for film anymore. I have never had a problem with its ancient AF.



It seems that old school shooter have much less problem with the AF on the 5DII. 

For portraits and when they are not running at 100mph, the AF on the 5DII is more than up to it providing:

- the light is decent
- you use the center point for AF
- use SERVO rather than One Shot

Just for the doubters - here is a panned train on a 5D at 1/25, f11, iso50


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> wombat780 said:
> 
> 
> > Geez...these negative posts about the 5DMKII's AF with kids has me worried. I currently have an unopened 5DMKII w/ 25-105L F4 kit lens (great price), 70-200L F4 IS, and the 85 1.8 waiting for Christmas. This would be my first DSLR. My current SLR is a film Nikon N90s from the mid-1990s, but it hasn't gotten much use lately as I just don't have time for film anymore. I have never had a problem with its ancient AF.
> ...



brian, no one is doubting the 5d's ability during panning and a portrait setting with subjects posing, etc... (even though you have to use the center point and recompose I think is BS, but to each their own)... but in moving situations, unpredictable situations, kids, even like kids on a merry go round where not only is the positioning changing but depth of field within the scene depending how deep they are within thing... stuff like that can be a bit challenging for this camera... Scenes like that you can always use center point but given how quick everything is, you get in a habit of keeping your subject centralized which takes away from the ability to compose... stuff like that the 7d would have a field day with... The perfect camera in my humble opinion would be the 5d2 image and sensor, 7D or 1d AF, and keep the puppy at the current price point. =)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > <sarcasm>It must be operator error. Briansquib shoots motorsports with his 5DII and the AF performs flawlessly, tracking fast-moving carts around curves, even moving toward and and away from the camera. If you can't even shoot a running kid, don't blame the camera.</sarcasm>
> ...



Thanks for the kind insult. The <sarcasm> was not directed at you, but rather at awinphoto - I wanted to be absolutely clear that I was not insulting his technique or skill, in the case of shooting kids playing. As Orangutan correctly stated, that's a challenging situation for AF, and IMO the 5DII is quite bad at it, relative to the 7D for example. 

I've certainly acknowledged that your photos of moving subjects with the 5DII are excellent, but I still don't believe that they're relvant or proving your points - the panning shot of the train being a great example of the fact that it's not the camera responsible for keeping the subject in focus, it's the skill of the photographer. _You_ are following the train, that's what panning means. Furthermore, it's at a distance and at f/11 - your AF could have been off by many yards and the subject would still be in focus. The 5DII's AF isn't doing the job. Like several of the go cart examples, they highlight _your_ ample skill, but do not convincingly demonstrate the capability (or lack thereof) of the 5DII's AF system. 

The simple fact is that if I put a fast-focusing lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on the 5DII, put it in AI Servo, set it to f/2.8 and put the center AF point over one of my kids running around the yard and start tracking and shooting, my keeper rate is pretty low. If I put the same lens on the 7D in AI Servo, the keeper rate is close to 100%, despite taking 2x as many shots with the faster frame rate.



briansquibb said:


> Just for the doubters - here is a panned train on a 5D at 1/25, f11, iso50



So, this thread is about how the IQ of the 7D is bad at low ISO. Just for the doubters, here is an ISO 100 shot from the 7D:







Now, does that show that the 7D has no noise at low ISO? Sure, it does - just about as convincingly as your panning shots demonstrate the effectiveness of the 5DII's AF.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> brian, no one is doubting the 5d's ability during panning and a portrait setting with subjects posing, etc... (even though you have to use the center point and recompose I think is BS, but to each their own)... but in moving situations, unpredictable situations, kids, even like kids on a merry go round where not only is the positioning changing but depth of field within the scene depending how deep they are within thing... stuff like that can be a bit challenging for this camera... Scenes like that you can always use center point but given how quick everything is, you get in a habit of keeping your subject centralized which takes away from the ability to compose... stuff like that the 7d would have a field day with... The perfect camera in my humble opinion would be the 5d2 image and sensor, 7D or 1d AF, and keep the puppy at the current price point. =)



I regret buying my 7Ds as, yes I got more in focus than the 5DII but each 5DII image that is in focus is far better than those from the 7D - especially the bokeh from the 7D which is horrible in comparison.

The one beauty about the 5DII is that you can use the centre point for focus then crop to get the AF point off centre and still have a better IQ than any 7D will give.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Back to this 7D issue. It is clear that the 7D for most people does not show significant noise at 100-200 - certainly not on my 2 7Ds either, I checked.





neuroanatomist said:


> So, this thread is about how the IQ of the 7D is bad at low ISO. Just for the doubters, here is an ISO 100 shot from the 7D:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So has the OP got camera or operator error?


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > brian, no one is doubting the 5d's ability during panning and a portrait setting with subjects posing, etc... (even though you have to use the center point and recompose I think is BS, but to each their own)... but in moving situations, unpredictable situations, kids, even like kids on a merry go round where not only is the positioning changing but depth of field within the scene depending how deep they are within thing... stuff like that can be a bit challenging for this camera... Scenes like that you can always use center point but given how quick everything is, you get in a habit of keeping your subject centralized which takes away from the ability to compose... stuff like that the 7d would have a field day with... The perfect camera in my humble opinion would be the 5d2 image and sensor, 7D or 1d AF, and keep the puppy at the current price point. =)
> ...



To each their own... your ability to crop is probably as easy/quick for me to run a batch noise filter and get the same IQ as the 5d, and heck... I'd have 3-4 In Focus shots to choose from to the 5d2's 1 shot to chose from... Dont get me wrong, I like the possibilities of the 5d2 and see it's potential and place in my line up and heck, if the 5d3 comes out to be my dream camera, both my cameras could go up for sale to buy the new camera and maybe lenses... Both the 7D and 5d2 are fine cameras in their own right and strengths... and to your question for neuro regarding the OP, I thought we all concluded the image had a bit of both operator and camera problems with the image being a tad under for the original photos but also inherit noise that would not be printable.


----------



## EYEONE (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> especially the bokeh from the 7D which is horrible in comparison.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> To each their own... your ability to crop is probably as easy/quick for me to run a batch noise filter and get the same IQ as the 5d, and heck... I'd have 3-4 In Focus shots to choose from to the 5d2's 1 shot to chose from...



You will still have the issue of the fast lens and the poor bokeh. It is not just the noise - it is the issue of ff vs crop - and the IQ will still not be as good.

Remember I have both and have tried everything to get the 7D as good as the 5DII - and now the 7Ds are in the draw waiting to be sold


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > To each their own... your ability to crop is probably as easy/quick for me to run a batch noise filter and get the same IQ as the 5d, and heck... I'd have 3-4 In Focus shots to choose from to the 5d2's 1 shot to chose from...
> ...



I have both also... right now i'm on the verge on giving up on the 5d2 for anything but studio and controlled environments... I've never had an issue with bokeh... Just isn't something that I shoot a lot of and it's not where I make my money professionally so I shoot what makes me money... That's your personal preference but it doesn't mean the 7d is a bad camera, it's just not for you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > especially the bokeh from the 7D which is horrible in comparison.



Yeah, I was curoius about that too. I don't see how that can be the case. Certainly for the same framing and aperture, the 7D will have _less_ OOF blur - but bokeh is the quality of that blur, and I had thought that was a property of the lens for the most part. The one area in which sensor size might play a role in bokeh is the 'cat's-eye' shapes of OOF highlights, which result from optical vignetting - but in that case, the crop sensor would be better than FF (assuming we're comparing the same lens, but that's the only possible relevant comparison for bokeh), since the smaller sensor reduces vignetting.


----------



## JR (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The simple fact is that if I put a fast-focusing lens like the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on the 5DII, put it in AI Servo, set it to f/2.8 and put the center AF point over one of my kids running around the yard and start tracking and shooting, my keeper rate is pretty low. If I put the same lens on the 7D in AI Servo, the keeper rate is close to 100%, despite taking 2x as many shots with the faster frame rate.



I was going to get a 7D for that very reason...that was until the 1DX was announced so I will wait for it but shooting my little daughter on the move even using servo AF with my 5D mkII is such a pain! In the same setup you describe above, my keep rate with my 5D mkII is almost zero! So I just gave up ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

JR said:


> I was going to get a 7D for that very reason...that was until the 1DX was announced so I will wait for it but shooting my little daughter on the move even using servo AF with my 5D mkII is such a pain! In the same setup you describe above, my keep rate with my 5D mkII is almost zero! So I just gave up ???



Just shoot at f/11 - it will seem like the AF is doing a good job. Don't mind that the background is in crisp focus, too.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to get a 7D for that very reason...that was until the 1DX was announced so I will wait for it but shooting my little daughter on the move even using servo AF with my 5D mkII is such a pain! In the same setup you describe above, my keep rate with my 5D mkII is almost zero! So I just gave up ???
> ...



Hey neuro... just out of curiosity... Most people say the 7D's diffraction limit is roughly F7 give or take... what is the 5d2's?


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I regret buying my 7Ds as, yes I got more in focus than the 5DII but each 5DII image that is in focus is far better than those from the 7D - especially the bokeh from the 7D which is horrible in comparison.



LOL! Bokeh is entirely a quality of the *LENS.*

If you don't know this then don't bother to offer an opinion on how the bodies compare.



> The one beauty about the 5DII is that you can use the centre point for focus then crop to get the AF point off centre and still have a better IQ than any 7D will give.



A demonstrably false statement since the two are very evenly matched at low to mid ISO when the 5D2 has all of its pixels, something that can be confirmed by comparing test images and measurements at sites like DP Review and Imaging Resource (to eliminate any chance of operator error).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Hey neuro... just out of curiosity... Most people say the 7D's diffraction limit is roughly F7 give or take... what is the 5d2's?



It's f/6.9 for the 7D and f/10.2 for the 5DII. Note that those are the apertures at which diffraction theoretically _begins_ to reduce image sharpness...but it's a subtle thing at first, getting progressively more impactful as you stop down futher.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Hey neuro... just out of curiosity... Most people say the 7D's diffraction limit is roughly F7 give or take... what is the 5d2's?
> ...



Thanks... i was hoping with the much lower pixel density it would be lower like F16, but F10 i suppose is a stop and a third more roughly... saving up for your 1dx?


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, I was curoius about that too. I don't see how that can be the case. Certainly for the same framing and aperture, the 7D will have _less_ OOF blur - but bokeh is the quality of that blur, and I had thought that was a property of the lens for the most part. The one area in which sensor size might play a role in bokeh is the 'cat's-eye' shapes of OOF highlights, which result from optical vignetting - but in that case, the crop sensor would be better than FF (assuming we're comparing the same lens, but that's the only possible relevant comparison for bokeh), since the smaller sensor reduces vignetting.



Yes, with one caveat: if the lenses being used on FF and crop have the same diameter of aperture, and the background is far enough in the distance, then background blur will be identical. Blur near the plane of focus is controlled by DoF. Blur far outside the plane of focus is controlled by physical aperture size. (Not the f-stop, but the actual size of the opening for the lens at the given f-stop.)

This doesn't often happen indoors because the background is generally too close. For outdoor shots though you can end up with the same background blur on FF and crop. Subject DoF will still be more shallow on FF, though that may or may not be desirable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> saving up for your 1dx?



Cash in hand, just waiting for B&H to start accepting pre-orders. ;D


----------



## K-amps (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > saving up for your 1dx?
> ...



Lucky Man!


----------



## JR (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to get a 7D for that very reason...that was until the 1DX was announced so I will wait for it but shooting my little daughter on the move even using servo AF with my 5D mkII is such a pain! In the same setup you describe above, my keep rate with my 5D mkII is almost zero! So I just gave up ???
> ...



Thanks I will try that. I never thought of trying this but it makes sense, and as a bonus I will feel good about my 5D mkII AF, so it will serve as therapy...until the 1DX gets here!


----------



## Peerke (Dec 19, 2011)

Just a link to a site some of you probably know. It shows the capability of the 7D to shoot landscapes.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/gallery.php?l=en&id=38

It can be done. Take a look at some other galleries he made with his 7D. It's a great camera.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 19, 2011)

I'm coming to this discussion late, but thought I'd offer my experience. I bought a 7D early in 2011 to supplement my 5D classic. 

There is no doubt that the 7D is a much faster handling camera than the 5D or I believe the 5D II. That's why I bought it. I always shoot RAW and use various programs for post processing. I typically shoot at ISO 100 or 200.

I had quite a bit of trouble getting images that I liked from the 7D at first. The images are definitely different than what my 5D classic produces. There is more detail, due to the additional megapixels, but there is also more noise. I had to get used to using more noise reduction for my RAW files and less sharpening. (Of course sharpening depends on the lens and other factors too.)

I decided to keep the 7D as a sports/action type camera, since the 5D is certainly not good for those subjects. I got the 7D as a refurb through the Canon Loyalty program so it was not terribly expensive.

Working with the 7D has made me really appreciate the image quality of the 5D. It's hard to describe exactly what it is that I like, but I will note that I can manipulate the tone curves a lot before the image starts to break down - much more so than with the 7D

Mike


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Thanks... i was hoping with the much lower pixel density it would be lower like F16, but F10 i suppose is a stop and a third more roughly... saving up for your 1dx?



Note that diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for the same FoV and DoF. Also, as neuroanatomist pointed out, it's a subtle effect at first and becomes progressively stronger as you continue to stop down.

On crop at the 7D's resolution I don't really notice it at all until f/11, where sharpening offsets it nicely. f/16 is still usable for most intents (subject matter / print size combos), but I will not stop down to f/22.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > saving up for your 1dx?
> ...



Nice... You've mentioned before you're an "ameature" photographer and not professional, so what do you do for a profession that makes you so well versed in photography? Should I assume given your name and icon you are a medical photographer or work in neurology or is it something else entirely? Shoot I had that type of money in hand a few months ago but did my wife let me get a 1 series... nooooo... haha Went straight towards a house... oh well... my cameras are serviceable.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> That's your personal preference but it doesn't mean the 7d is a bad camera, it's just not for you.



Which is why I have ended up with the 1D4 - top AF, top IQ


----------



## K-amps (Dec 19, 2011)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'm coming to this discussion late, but thought I'd offer my experience. I bought a 7D early in 2011 to supplement my 5D classic.
> 
> There is no doubt that the 7D is a much faster handling camera than the 5D or I believe the 5D II. That's why I bought it. I always shoot RAW and use various programs for post processing. I typically shoot at ISO 100 or 200.
> 
> ...



Hi Mike; This is great information since mostly people compare the 7d to the 5d2, and not to the 5dc.. Since I own a 5dc, and was considering a 7d, I wanted someone's experience with these 2 Cameras and always wanted to ask someone if I would see an improvement in IQ if i got the 7d after I already use the 5D. I mostly do scenery/street/people. Not so into sports/action yet, but the extra reach of the 7d (APS-C +higher pixel density) always made me think about it ... any thoughts from you on the 7d/5d noise & IQ would be helpful !!


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > That's your personal preference but it doesn't mean the 7d is a bad camera, it's just not for you.
> ...



As long as your happy with your results and your clients, then more power to ya...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



Not a bad camera, just too much compromise on the IQ for me

Here is one that I almost threw away, but the client drooled over.

7D, [email protected], 1/2000, iso 200 uncropped and hand held


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Nice shot... what zoo/park/sanctuary was that at?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Nice shot... what zoo/park/sanctuary was that at?



Leeds Castle, Kent, UK


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Nice shot... what zoo/park/sanctuary was that at?
> ...



Nice... are you from the UK?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

Here is another focussed with the 5dII, servo mode coming towards me .....

[email protected], 1/400, f5.6, iso200


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> Nice... are you from the UK?



Yes


----------



## friedmud (Dec 19, 2011)

I was just out shooting a redtailed hawk that was in a tree nearby with my 7D. Even with my dumb old 55-250 IS I was able to get some decent shots of the bird as it flew away.

I really like the "continuous AF track priority" option! I had the middle AF point selected and after I locked on with it (which was admittedly slow due to the crappy lens) the AF points dutifully followed the bird around the frame as I "machinegunned" my way through a few seconds of flight. Every single one of those shots was in focus. Really impressive!

Drmikeinpdx: thanks for your comment! It seems to mirror my general feelings about the 7D. Unfortunately, I don't have the cash to step up to FF right now... so I'm going to continue to make peace with the 7D.

There are a ton of things to love about this camera... but there are definitely a couple of IQ issues...


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Nice... are you from the UK?
> ...



Cool.. my wife was from Newcastle, UK... live in the US... nice work...


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 19, 2011)

friedmud said:


> I was just out shooting a redtailed hawk that was in a tree nearby with my 7D. Even with my dumb old 55-250 IS I was able to get some decent shots of the bird as it flew away.
> 
> I really like the "continuous AF track priority" option! I had the middle AF point selected and after I locked on with it (which was admittedly slow due to the crappy lens) the AF points dutifully followed the bird around the frame as I "machinegunned" my way through a few seconds of flight. Every single one of those shots was in focus. Really impressive!
> 
> ...



I hope the new FF 5d will be a married system of full frame quality and at least 7D AF... if they come out with that camera, I'm dumping the 7d and 5d2... I never realized how rough the 5d2 AF can be where the 7d doesn't even think twice... Perhaps I'm giving Canon too much credit for being able to create such a camera but I can hope.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2011)

nice shots briansquibb!,

can you give us people struggling with AF some detailed tips for shooting with the 5D2 AF?
it would really be much appreciated

cheers.


----------



## JR (Dec 20, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Here is another focussed with the 5dII, servo mode coming towards me .....
> 
> [email protected], 1/400, f5.6, iso200



Wow! You certainly know how to focus with the 5D mkII! Nice!


----------



## JR (Dec 20, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> nice shots briansquibb!,
> 
> can you give us people struggling with AF some detailed tips for shooting with the 5D2 AF?
> it would really be much appreciated
> ...



You red my mind sir!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2011)

JR said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another focussed with the 5dII, servo mode coming towards me .....
> ...



To be honest, it looks to me like the critical focus is from the backs of the wings to the tail, not on the head where it should be. That's consistent with the 5DII's AI Servo AF not being able to track all that well, nor predict motion very well.



JR said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > can you give us people struggling with AF some detailed tips for shooting with the 5D2 AF?
> ...



He did just that in another thread...twice:



briansquibb said:


> Try focusing at f/8 or more which is what I do for weddings ....





briansquibb said:


> I dont use the 5DII for shallow DOF - typically nowadays for weddings and landscapes for anything much less than f/8 is rare.



If you're shooting with a deep DoF, such as at f/8, focus errors are masked quite well. But as I stated in that other thread (apologies for repeating myself), most people expect a $2K+ camera to focus accurately even with a shallow DoF. Speaking for myself, I certainly didn't buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 135mm f/2L, or 85mm f/1.2L II to 'f/8 and be there.'


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> He did just that in another thread...twice:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



... again you have totally misread my comments


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I suppose you never get the AF point in the wrong place when tracking a fast moving bird across the sky?

It certainly doesn't prove that the AF system is weak as you suggest - just means I got the big bit of the bird - but that wont serve your argument though like when you rubbished the kart pictures when in reality they did prove the servo tracking was working.


----------



## JR (Dec 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > If you're shooting with a deep DoF, such as at f/8, focus errors are masked quite well. But as I stated in that other thread (apologies for repeating myself), most people expect a $2K+ camera to focus accurately even with a shallow DoF. Speaking for myself, I certainly didn't buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 135mm f/2L, or 85mm f/1.2L II to 'f/8 and be there.'
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I suppose you never get the AF point in the wrong place when tracking a fast moving bird across the sky?



Of course I do. I've done so dozens, if not hundreds of times. But I deleted those shots as not having the critical focus where I wanted it, i.e. OOF shots. I didn't save them and post them to exemplify good AI Servo tracking of moving subjects.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 20, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose you never get the AF point in the wrong place when tracking a fast moving bird across the sky?
> ...



My client liked them enough. I never said they exemplified good AI Servo - just that the servo kept up and essentially if I can do it anyone can. Many not be perfection but it is a real life photo that does show that the servo kept up - even if it was embarassing to me..... but I am not showcasing my photos, just suggesting that the AI servo is adequate. 

I could post some OOF 7D pictures and argue that this showed how poor the 7D is ......


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 20, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I suppose you never...


 


neuroanatomist said:


> But I...



If you two don't stop squabbling, the teacher's gonna send you both to the principal's office.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose you never...
> ...



+1. Maybe now people will understand why I like this feature. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2473.0.html


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 20, 2011)

unfocused said:


> +1. Maybe now people will understand why I like this feature. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2473.0.html



Thanks, but it took about 1 minute after my post for someone to smite me. Possibly a new record.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > +1. Maybe now people will understand why I like this feature. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2473.0.html
> ...



Hey, a two to one applaud-to-smite ratio is still golden. Lots better than the misbehaving students.


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 20, 2011)

If I can just add my 5 cents worth. There is a place for both the 7D and the 5D (classic and 5DmkII). [How diplomatically started, right] ;D

I've used full frame and APS-C. For me, at this stage and my style of photography, the 7D suits me best. I really appreciate the AF improvements (over my 350D). I'll acknowledge that the 5D's focus is above that of my 350D.

However I even still use my 350D - eg when I really need something light, and I will pack my 18-55mm kit lens, and still achieve great photos.

But for anything sports, moving, macro, etc- my 7D comes out first. Also, I'm very happy with my 7D for landscapes at ISO100, or ISO200, and for low light photos, I do like the 7D's ability and handling. With some careful post processing, I can get images I am thankful for.

Definitely for landscape a 5D or 5DmkII with the FF sensor is most suited for most of those general 'scenic' applications. Though - as I wrote in another post - unless someone's pixel peeping, often it's hard (or impossible) to tell from normal viewing distance if a certain photo was taken with FF or APS-C.

All the best to everyone! 

Paul


----------



## friedmud (Dec 20, 2011)

pj1974 said:


> If I can just add my 5 cents worth. There is a place for both the 7D and the 5D (classic and 5DmkII). [How diplomatically started, right] ;D
> 
> I've used full frame and APS-C. For me, at this stage and my style of photography, the 7D suits me best. I really appreciate the AF improvements (over my 350D). I'll acknowledge that the 5D's focus is above that of my 350D.
> 
> ...



Good post Paul... and most definitely appreciated! Good to hear from someone who has used a 7D for quite a few different purposes.

I am quickly realizing that the 7D was still my best bet at this moment (although I am thinking I could have held out a bit longer to see what comes down the pipe from Canon... but that's water under the bridge now). After initially receiving underwhelming performance I went straight to the 'net and found scores of others claiming the 7D has all sorts of problems (as you can do for any piece of photographic equipment!) and quickly convinced myself I had made a mistake.

All of the quality posts pouring into this thread about the versatility of the 7D are making me realize that I fell into that old internet trap of listening to those who yell loudest (which are typically the ones with "problems").

Are there real issues? Certainly. If you have the cash to spend, are there better options for purely landscape photography? Yes (I think that has been well established at this point). Is it still a highly versatile camera with MANY excellent points: DEFINITELY.

This thread proves once again that the best pictures are the ones we actually take... and that any modern equipment can be used to produce exceptional and moving images when put in the right hands. It is plainly obvious at this point that the 7D won't hold anyone with capability back.

I would like to thank all of the 7D owners who have chimed in with their helpful experiences in using this camera. It has been thoroughly insightful!


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2011)

17 page thread in such a short space of time not relating to a new announcement or release...

Well Done


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 22, 2011)

JR said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 22, 2011)

The suggestion for f/8 came about solely for groups of people. 

I would suggest that is you want to catch a running child then f/5.6 will get most of the child in focus, depending on the lens and the distance from the child

Not sure I like portraits with one eye in focus and the other OOF


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 22, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> 17 page thread in such a short space of time not relating to a new announcement or release...
> 
> Well Done



My 7D is an emotional matter!


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Aug 27, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> If I can just add my 5 cents worth. There is a place for both the 7D and the 5D (classic and 5DmkII). [How diplomatically started, right] ;D
> 
> I've used full frame and APS-C. For me, at this stage and my style of photography, the 7D suits me best. I really appreciate the AF improvements (over my 350D). I'll acknowledge that the 5D's focus is above that of my 350D.
> 
> ...



I can totally agree! 
I use my old scratchy 350D for the really hard times! When there is the not so small chance that the used camera is smashed on a rock while I am climbing or I could easily fall into salt water with it. 
beside I love my 7D but hate that noisy low ISO-Images it produces (no word on hi-ISO  )


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 28, 2012)

Timothy_Bruce said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > If I can just add my 5 cents worth. There is a place for both the 7D and the 5D (classic and 5DmkII). [How diplomatically started, right] ;D
> ...



You realize you're responding to an 8-month old thread right?


----------

