The 7D has a bit more noise in the lower tones, less detail in the shadow areas and less dynamic range overall as distinguished by more "plasticky" tones. The 7D is still a pleasing rendition at ISO 6400 but the 5D MKII will look visibly better at larger sizes and will hold up best in really low light (low EV values).
In those 2 examples the 7D has more contrast, so the noise has more graininess as well. I suspect it could have been processed differently to produce a more similar image, but the 5D MKII is still the reigning champion in Canon cameras for low light except in terms of AF, where the 1Ds MKIII wins.
Thanks, Ziggy, thought I saw some of this in the samples, but who am I to argue? Old eyes aren't what they used to be. Considering samples are at 6400, both look very good.
These threads inevitably overlap, so sorry for the following question, not specific to the 7D. Some postings in this thread speak to turning off in-camera noise suppression, leaving the matter strictly to post. I've understood, maybe incorrectly, that in-camera settings for this and other pic characteristics (e.g., vibrancy, etc) don't apply to images shot in RAW, only to in-camera JPEG conversions. Is this true, or do some affect the RAW image? Reason why especially important is that other postings here suggest that in-camera noise suppression might be superior to post, so leads me to want to better understand. I expect many readers here are similarly uncertain. Me, I have no shame (well, in certain things, only human), so put myself out there as one of the army of the confused. Amazing that even with such shortcomings, I still get sets I'm proud of, speaks to the amazing level of gear tech.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
Don't know about the 7D but the 50D does let you control the level of noise reduction and disable it entirely. Keep in mind that a camera could conceivably do a better job than we can if it is working from an internally created black frame. I don't know whether the 7D uses this method though.
Unfortunately, the Digic IV does appear to use shadow NR masking regardless of NR setting. The adjustable portion of NR applies mostly to the lower tones, but does not apply to shadows. (Digic III did allow the user to turn off NR completely and the RAW files did not have any NR applied at any rate. Digic IV apparently applies the shadow NR regardless.)
Dark frame noise reduction only applies to long exposure NR. High ISO sensor noise is random and has to be removed by 2 different algorithms, luminance and chrominance specific, which analyse the image to try to sort out random noise from detail (similar to software based NR). The shadow noise reduction appears to be something new and additional to the random noise reduction.
Unfortunately, the Digic IV does appear to use shadow NR masking regardless of NR setting. The adjustable portion of NR applies mostly to the lower tones, but does not apply to shadows. (Digic III did allow the user to turn off NR completely and the RAW files did not have any NR applied at any rate. Digic IV apparently applies the shadow NR regardless.)
Dark frame noise reduction only applies to long exposure NR. High ISO sensor noise is random and has to be removed by 2 different algorithms, luminance and chrominance specific, which analyse the image to try to sort out random noise from detail (similar to software based NR). The shadow noise reduction appears to be something new and additional to the random noise reduction.
Long exposure noise is predictable, but changes according to camera settings, exposure duration and ambient temperature. If you duplicate the camera settings, exposure duration and ambient temperature and then take a dark frame exposure, it will contain those predictable "hot" (mostly) pixels, which may then be subtracted from the principal exposure.
True random noise has no such predictable behavior and has to be dealt with differently.
Long exposure noise is predictable, but changes according to camera settings, exposure duration and ambient temperature. If you duplicate the camera settings, exposure duration and ambient temperature and then take a dark frame exposure, it will contain those predictable "hot" (mostly) pixels, which may then be subtracted from the principal exposure.
True random noise has no such predictable behavior and has to be dealt with differently.
As Ziggy said, the noise in the low light/long exposure digital photogrpahy consists of two pretty much independent parts.
First is the imperfection of the sensor itself. Its different elements (sensels = "SENSor ELements") do have a slightly different sensitivity and that difference becomes more noticeable closer to zero (low light) and when sensor is heated (long exposure). This type of noise is "hard wired" to the device itself, and the dark frame method can deal with it, at least to a degree (taking into account the heat portion). This method is NOT reproducible in a simple RAW post-processing, unless you take a darkframe yourself and then use one of the stack methods in PS CS4 to deal with it - a method often used in astrophotography.
The second part, the aforementioned random noise, mostly comes from a very low light environment and cannot be treated with a dark frame method since it's not sensor-layout specific. However, multiple frames and the stacks can help a lot - provided you can take multiple frames... Otherwise the only existing methods are those that analyse noise pattern on a assumingly evenly lit areas and try to remove it from the image (NN, etc.). The typical sideeffect is that the image becomes softer.
Yep, just got a call, they ship today and I'm getting it Wednesday... Which means... I'll be able to use for my Thursday shoot (at least partially) !
EDIT: correction: Tuesday
Yep, just got a call, they ship today and I'm getting it Wednesday... Which means... I'll be able to use for my Thursday shoot (at least partially) !
EDIT: correction: Tuesday
Once again, I'd like to thank the early adopters for choosing to help Canon work the kinks out of the first few units so that the rest of us who choose to wait and see will receive the best possible product.
Once again, I'd like to thank the early adopters for choosing to help Canon work the kinks out of the first few units so that the rest of us who choose to wait and see will receive the best possible product.
Once again, I'd like to thank the early adopters for choosing to help Canon work the kinks out of the first few units so that the rest of us who choose to wait and see will receive the best possible product.
Cheers,
-joel
I'm with you on that one. I just took delivery of a 5DII about a month ago - after all the dust had settled. I figure it'll be a while before I'll be ready to replace my 50D with the 7D .... or does that sound like sour grapes? Nah.
Thanks Ziggy. I was on the list at McBain Camera and checked last week. They said the 30th for them to get into stores. I was downtown so I went in anyway - and the manager said 'we don't know how many we will get so I cannot say you will get one of the first ones'. I left feeling sad, and drove around the block to Vistek. Asked if they were still taking pre-orders and she said, well we actually have the camera in stock right now!
Thanks Ziggy. I was on the list at McBain Camera and checked last week. They said the 30th for them to get into stores. I was downtown so I went in anyway - and the manager said 'we don't know how many we will get so I cannot say you will get one of the first ones'. I left feeling sad, and drove around the block to Vistek. Asked if they were still taking pre-orders and she said, well we actually have the camera in stock right now!
and the rest is history!
Forgot to buy the remote shutter tho!
ann
Ann, you beat both Andy and me!
Hat's off to you sister!
Now it's *your* responsibility to deliver the hands-on review!
Just picked up a 7D :-)
San Jose Camera had 20 arrive this week and I picked one up...there's two left as of Noon today (Tuesday).
Battery is charging...can't wait to take some pics when I have a moment...my real test will be at the Presidents Cup Next week during the practice rounds when I'll be hunting Tiger(s) ...rented a 400mm 2.8 L from borrowlenses for a few days.
Disagree completely. Those comparisons are useless, I hate how much they're being referenced like this. Even cheaper cameras can look very good at high ISO with well lit, well exposed, motionless subjects. The real comparisons are over at robgalbraith.com (see the reggae shots), and the 5D2 still reigns as Canon's Lord of Darkness. However the 7D is a significant improvement over the XXD line.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I would love to hear an AF review from any new 7D owners who also have/had a 1DIIN or 1DIII.
If the 7D compares well, I may sell my 1DIIN to get one in the spring before baseball. Why? Portability, resolution, room for cropping, better high ISO, ergonomics/controls, AF-on button, new processors, etc.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Comments
These threads inevitably overlap, so sorry for the following question, not specific to the 7D. Some postings in this thread speak to turning off in-camera noise suppression, leaving the matter strictly to post. I've understood, maybe incorrectly, that in-camera settings for this and other pic characteristics (e.g., vibrancy, etc) don't apply to images shot in RAW, only to in-camera JPEG conversions. Is this true, or do some affect the RAW image? Reason why especially important is that other postings here suggest that in-camera noise suppression might be superior to post, so leads me to want to better understand. I expect many readers here are similarly uncertain. Me, I have no shame (well, in certain things, only human), so put myself out there as one of the army of the confused. Amazing that even with such shortcomings, I still get sets I'm proud of, speaks to the amazing level of gear tech.
Unfortunately, the Digic IV does appear to use shadow NR masking regardless of NR setting. The adjustable portion of NR applies mostly to the lower tones, but does not apply to shadows. (Digic III did allow the user to turn off NR completely and the RAW files did not have any NR applied at any rate. Digic IV apparently applies the shadow NR regardless.)
Dark frame noise reduction only applies to long exposure NR. High ISO sensor noise is random and has to be removed by 2 different algorithms, luminance and chrominance specific, which analyse the image to try to sort out random noise from detail (similar to software based NR). The shadow noise reduction appears to be something new and additional to the random noise reduction.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Isn't all noise random by definition?
Long exposure noise is predictable, but changes according to camera settings, exposure duration and ambient temperature. If you duplicate the camera settings, exposure duration and ambient temperature and then take a dark frame exposure, it will contain those predictable "hot" (mostly) pixels, which may then be subtracted from the principal exposure.
True random noise has no such predictable behavior and has to be dealt with differently.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
As Ziggy said, the noise in the low light/long exposure digital photogrpahy consists of two pretty much independent parts.
First is the imperfection of the sensor itself. Its different elements (sensels = "SENSor ELements") do have a slightly different sensitivity and that difference becomes more noticeable closer to zero (low light) and when sensor is heated (long exposure). This type of noise is "hard wired" to the device itself, and the dark frame method can deal with it, at least to a degree (taking into account the heat portion). This method is NOT reproducible in a simple RAW post-processing, unless you take a darkframe yourself and then use one of the stack methods in PS CS4 to deal with it - a method often used in astrophotography.
The second part, the aforementioned random noise, mostly comes from a very low light environment and cannot be treated with a dark frame method since it's not sensor-layout specific. However, multiple frames and the stacks can help a lot - provided you can take multiple frames... Otherwise the only existing methods are those that analyse noise pattern on a assumingly evenly lit areas and try to remove it from the image (NN, etc.). The typical sideeffect is that the image becomes softer.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Sweetness!
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
You both are making me envious.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
EDIT: correction: Tuesday
My Gallery
Cincinnati Smug Leader
Jealous till next Spring.
www.tednghiem.com
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Best way to put it! hahah!
www.tednghiem.com
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
I see Canon was kind enough to add a SmugMug Pro strap as well.
Now I bet even Andy is envious (because you have the new camera.)
Congratulations Ann.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
and the rest is history!
Forgot to buy the remote shutter tho!
ann
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Whoa...is that...wait. no way...
A SmugMug PRO strap?
I want one...
Oh hey there is a 7D attached to it. Very nice. Let us know how it performs!?
OneTwoFiftieth | Portland, Oregon | Modern Portraiture
My Equipment:
Bodies: Canon 50D, Canon EOS 1
Lenses: Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8
Lighting: Canon 580EXII, Canon 420 EX, 12" Reflector, Pocket Wizard Plus II (3), AB800 (3), Large Softbox
Stability: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3 Tripod, Manfrotto 488RC4 Ball Head, Manfrotto 679B Monopod
(smugmug pro camera strap? I wants!)
www.tednghiem.com
Ann, you beat both Andy and me!
Hat's off to you sister!
Now it's *your* responsibility to deliver the hands-on review!
That should be some relief to you and Andy. All of us rabid dgrinners won't be hounding you for initial reviews and thoughts!
www.tednghiem.com
San Jose Camera had 20 arrive this week and I picked one up...there's two left as of Noon today (Tuesday).
Battery is charging...can't wait to take some pics when I have a moment...my real test will be at the Presidents Cup Next week during the practice rounds when I'll be hunting Tiger(s)
taken from my iPhone:
Disagree completely. Those comparisons are useless, I hate how much they're being referenced like this. Even cheaper cameras can look very good at high ISO with well lit, well exposed, motionless subjects. The real comparisons are over at robgalbraith.com (see the reggae shots), and the 5D2 still reigns as Canon's Lord of Darkness. However the 7D is a significant improvement over the XXD line.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
If the 7D compares well, I may sell my 1DIIN to get one in the spring before baseball. Why? Portability, resolution, room for cropping, better high ISO, ergonomics/controls, AF-on button, new processors, etc.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.