# Canon 7D MKII -- Love the low noise!



## JRPhotos (Nov 30, 2014)

I shot this at 1/50th, f/1.6 (Sigma 1.4 ART), ISO 1600 (couldn't shoot above 800 on 7D) and no flash, just ambient.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 30, 2014)

Yes the noise is quite better than the 7D and what noise creeps in at higher ISO's seems to be more random and smaller. It's still not as good as the full frame 5d3 or 1dx but for a camera that is less than 2K there is no match when you compare it to other brands as a system and not just on noise.


----------



## pwp (Nov 30, 2014)

That image looks almost butter smooth. Did you apply any noise-reduction in PP?

-pw


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 30, 2014)

At the size we see on the forum you probably could have shot at ISO 6400 with minimal loss of IQ (that might be an exaggeration but the point is, everything looks bad when you're a pixel peeper  )

However, I must say I really like the composition of that picture. Very nice.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 30, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Yes the noise is quite better than the 7D and what noise creeps in at higher ISO's seems to be more random and smaller. It's still not as good as the full frame 5d3 or 1dx but for a camera that is less than 2K there is no match when you compare it to other brands as a system and not just on noise.



So true and what noise is there cleans up much easier and better also.

JRPhotos - a beautiful shot.


----------



## JRPhotos (Dec 1, 2014)

pwp said:


> That image looks almost butter smooth. Did you apply any noise-reduction in PP?
> 
> -pw


Not unless it did it in-camera. I did sharpen it to 7 in DPP.


----------



## candc (Dec 1, 2014)

Nice photo, dpp applies noise reduction just like in camera jpeg by default.


----------



## digital paradise (Dec 1, 2014)

It is pretty good. 12,800


----------



## bholliman (Dec 1, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Yes the noise is quite better than the 7D and what noise creeps in at higher ISO's seems to be more random and smaller. It's still not as good as the full frame 5d3 or 1dx but for a camera that is less than 2K there is no match when you compare it to other brands as a system and not just on noise.



Full frame 6D's are going for $1,249 today!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2014)

bholliman said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the noise is quite better than the 7D and what noise creeps in at higher ISO's seems to be more random and smaller. It's still not as good as the full frame 5d3 or 1dx but for a camera that is less than 2K there is no match when you compare it to other brands as a system and not just on noise.
> ...



He was writing about _the whole system_, not about a good sensor without everything else cut back like in the 6d.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 1, 2014)

Three notes:

1) We've consistently seen that well-lit scenes look great for noise on the 7d2, but that this isn't a tough test of high ISO noise. It's the dark scenes that are the tough situations for high ISO. I do think that the 7d2 does really, really well at high ISO for a crop sensor and am amazed at shots I get out of it. But this excellent xmas tree shot would likely be OK on the 7d at 1600, although inferior. 

2) The introduction of auto iso (at least to me, as I upgraded from 70d) unlocks this capability, as I would otherwise normally have had to set my iso to something 800 or below to get a usable image, and as a result didn't even really attempt shots at 1600, never mind 6400, which I'm doing regularly now. The auto iso function allows this discretion without fiddling with controls, which was enough friction that I just didn't bother taking the shot in many cases previously. This "friction" is under-appreciated for those who take auto iso for granted because of the cameras they used previously. 

3) While the more scientific tests of the sensor show a 2/3 stop improvement in ISO performance (less at low isos and slightly more at higher isos), which gets wider the higher the ISO, the actual performance seems to be to be much, much, much better than that. I think part of it can be attributed to my exploitation of auto iso, as mentioned above, but there just appears to be some images that I know I couldn't come close to making usable had I been using my old 70d. It feels like a 2.5 stop difference in ISO. I can't explain why I feel this other than to say I'm getting more images that are acceptable as a ratio, I'm taking more images that could be acceptable (where before I wouldn't even try). Perhaps there is an inflection point where that 2/3 stop difference is all the difference, and this just happens to be where the line is crossed. People who haven't used the 7d2 won't appreciate this until they fool around with it. 

-tig


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> Three notes:
> 
> 1) We've consistently seen that well-lit scenes look great for noise on the 7d2, but that this isn't a tough test of high ISO noise. It's the dark scenes that are the tough situations for high ISO. I do think that the 7d2 does really, really well at high ISO for a crop sensor and am amazed at shots I get out of it. But this excellent xmas tree shot would likely be OK on the 7d at 1600, although inferior.
> 
> ...



There is one thing that I find most consistent when people discuss low light noise and that is usually when the are trying to push the exposure from almost darkness. A crop sensor is not going to let you shoot in the dark as a full frame may. THe benefit of high ISO is to allow one to expose properly for the shadows as in the shots of the arches shown below. In fact if you over expose the shadows slightly and pull the exposure down in post you will get a greater reduction in noise than if you just used a lower ISO to start with.

oh to have magic lantern on the 7d2!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

I see that DPR has updated their studio shot comparison today, so we can compare raw shots with other models at various ISO settings.

I looked at the spools of thread, which allows me to view fine detail, saturation, and noise.

I can see noticible RAW noise at ISO 800, and some of the fine detail is going away. There is some smearing that I don't see with the 6D, so the in camera NR might be doing it. All cameras have NR built in at the sensor level, and Canon seems to have boosted it on the 7D MK II. Its just a hair better than the 70D at ISO 3200, but pulls away as ISO climbs.

At 12800, it looks bad, so a lot of NR has to be applied to make it less obvious. Reducing the size of the image helps make it look better, but the noise and loss of detail are still there.

The color saturation seems very high compared to the Sony sensor cameras and the NX1, so that can throw perception off. The D810 does have a lot more fine detail without increasing noise, it does look good. The 5D MK III is getting old now, but still holds up well in the comparisons.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> oh to have magic lantern on the 7d2!



I don't see this happening anytime soon, don't count on it happening at all. This is unfortunate as ML is the only way to raise dynamic range on low iso - but then again, this is not what you buy the 7d2 for.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I can see noticible RAW noise at ISO 800, and some of the fine detail is going away. There is some smearing that I don't see with the 6D, so the in camera NR might be doing it. All cameras have NR built in at the sensor level, and Canon seems to have boosted it on the 7D MK II. Its just a hair better than the 70D at ISO 3200, but pulls away as ISO climbs.



Yup, but coming from the 18mp crop, comparing 70d vs 7d2 I have to say the 7d2's iso 800 is ok, while with the 70d it's still just ok-ish and with the 700d only if 100% properly exposed.

But with what the 7d2 is designed for (action at medium iso) I have to say it's actually a big leap ahead and if you denoise and downsize for photojournalism it's still excellent value even for the release price. Of course for high quality stills, nothing beats ff.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=canon_eos70d&attr13_2=canon_eos700d&attr13_3=canon_eos6d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.31785872104033835&y=0.6860735315376509


----------



## jblake (Dec 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > oh to have magic lantern on the 7d2!
> ...



I was just over at the dpreview site and was comparing the 70D to the 7D II. At RAW 12,800, the 70D is slightly cleaner and sharper than the 7D II. Looking at the color checker classic, the 70D looks cleaner there as well as basically everywhere. Not sure what you two are looking at.

Now the 7D II may cleanup better in post, but as far as the studio scene is concerned, I don't see an high ISO improvement with the 7D II over the 70D; it is noticeable when I compare the 7D II to the 7D.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 9, 2014)

pwp said:


> That image looks almost butter smooth. Did you apply any noise-reduction in PP?
> 
> -pw



+1


----------



## pwp (Dec 10, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > That image looks almost butter smooth. Did you apply any noise-reduction in PP?
> ...



I don't think JRPhotos is letting on....! To my eye it looks pretty solidly noise-reduced in PP.

-pw


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 10, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> there is no match when you* compare it to other brands as a system *and not just on noise.



Lots of qualifiers there.


----------

