EOS 7D image quality at ISO3200/5000 samples from indoor track meet (RI Classic)

SirGeorge

I just put my new EOS 7d (upgrade from the 40D) through its paces at the RI Classic Indoor Track and Field meet where 95% of the shots were taken at ISO3200, and the balance between ISO600 and ISO5000. I took 6300 shots (JPEG) and had 25% charge left in each battery in the grip. I still have some 'me' issues to work out with camera but the image quality at these ISO levels is fantastic in comparison to the 40D. I have attached 3 images at ISO1600, 3200, ISO5000 and for those that would like to see a close of the original I have attached 100% sections, under the photos, to show the noise in comparison the the EOS40D.

ISO1600



ISO3200


ISO 5000




EOS 7D ISO3200


EOS 40D ISO 3200 (this is a proportionally correct crop)


EOS 7D ISO5000

ziggy53

Thanks for the comparison George and thanks especially for the crops. That helps us to understand the difference in both high-ISO noise levels and the noise pattern/signature.

Ann McRae

Hi

Thanks for this. Can you share the settings you use - lens, aperture, shutter speed and most importantly focus method. I am still struggling and am not getting nice sharp images like this. I am beginning to suspect problems with the wide open aperture I am using.

ann

Cameron

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi

Thanks for this. Can you share the settings you use - lens, aperture, shutter speed and most importantly focus method. I am still struggling and am not getting nice sharp images like this. I am beginning to suspect problems with the wide open aperture I am using.

ann

Ann - you may also consider performing micro focus adjustment on the lens in question as well to see if that improves the focus.

SirGeorge

settings
Hi Ann,

Because of the low light I have to shoot wide open, Aperture priority, using a 70mm-200mm L series @ f/2.8 and the shutter speed is whatever I can squeeze out of the gym at ISO3200 which ranged from 1/250th to 1/320th which is pretty slow for sport ( I would not recommend it )

I predominately use center-weighted averaging.

(the panning shot was ISO 1600, f/4.5 @ 1/80th)

I have a little concern about the camera's tracking ability but I think I just need to experiment with the settings.

Kind regards,

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi

Thanks for this. Can you share the settings you use - lens, aperture, shutter speed and most importantly focus method. I am still struggling and am not getting nice sharp images like this. I am beginning to suspect problems with the wide open aperture I am using.

ann

craig_d

Was the 40D shot also made using the same 70-200mm f/2.8 lens? Were JPEG quality, sharpening, and noise reduction set similarly?

One thing I note in your 100% crops is that the 40D looks sharper and the 7D seems to be applying more noise reduction. This leaves me wondering how much of the apparent softness in the 7D crops is due to NR and whether it is partially due to the 18MP sensor either exceeding the resolution of the lens or bringing out imperfections of focusing.

It would be interesting to see comparisons of this type shot raw and processed identically, without sharpening or noise reduction, to really see the differences between the sensors. But of course if you normally shoot JPEG you'll be more interested in the end product of the entire in-camera process.

The comparisons I've seen online have generally been between the 7D and the 50D, or the 7D and the 5D Mark II, rather than the 40D. I'm glad to see this post because the 40D is said by some people to have better IQ than the 50D.

SirGeorge

Crops
Craig,
All settings and lenses were identical, to the best of my knowledge, using 70mm-200mm L series and all shot in exactly the same lighting conditions.

I am still playing around with the 7D but I am totally impressed with IQ compared to the 40D at these ISO levels.

I may upload the full size images rather than the crops.

George

craig_d wrote:

Was the 40D shot also made using the same 70-200mm f/2.8 lens? Were JPEG quality, sharpening, and noise reduction set similarly?

One thing I note in your 100% crops is that the 40D looks sharper and the 7D seems to be applying more noise reduction. This leaves me wondering how much of the apparent softness in the 7D crops is due to NR and whether it is partially due to the 18MP sensor either exceeding the resolution of the lens or bringing out imperfections of focusing.

It would be interesting to see comparisons of this type shot raw and processed identically, without sharpening or noise reduction, to really see the differences between the sensors. But of course if you normally shoot JPEG you'll be more interested in the end product of the entire in-camera process.

The comparisons I've seen online have generally been between the 7D and the 50D, or the 7D and the 5D Mark II, rather than the 40D. I'm glad to see this post because the 40D is said by some people to have better IQ than the 50D.

insanefred

I don't want to sound like a troll or anything... If you like it, you like it.

I was playing with a 7D the other day, it seemed to have a lot less noise than the 40D and 50D as for raw vs RAW. But seems to sacrifice detail for less noise. I am wondering if it has some non-user controlled NR.

SirGeorge

Crop size
It is a fair point which I did not consider, probably because the reduction in noise is a greater asset for my type of photography. I have many more sale able prints.

I'll take a fresh look at this from your perspective not that I will change my opinion but I do want to make sure that the camera is fully optimized. Part of the issue may be file size - a smaller image will always look like it has more detail - the crops I posted were equal in size with respect to the percentage of print area but with 10MP compared to 18MP it may be that there is a loss off detail at 100% but as I sell mainly products in the 4x6 to 10x8 range the 'apparent; sharpness of the 7D at these print sizes is very good,

Thanks for the feedback.

insanefred wrote:

I don't want to sound like a troll or anything... If you like it, you like it.

I was playing with a 7D the other day, it seemed to have a lot less noise than the 40D and 50D as for raw vs RAW. But seems to sacrifice detail for less noise. I am wondering if it has some non-user controlled NR.

Andy

Good stuff. Folks have to remember that there are tradeoffs everwhere. If you don't have the primo spot and a 200 f/1.8 lens to shoot from, you're gonna need to jack the ISO up, plain and simple. In these cases, having such good high isos (that would make just great prints by the way), is a good thing. Any of the recipients of these shots would be thrilled, at 5x7, 8x12, heck, maybe even larger, depensing on their allergy level to grain.

Folks today get obsessed with noise. Today's digital ISO 6400 in many cases is just like the awesome film grain we lived with for years. Only because we have 100% crops, large monitors, and public measurebating, do we have this issue with 'noise' at high ISOs

craig_d

Andy wrote:

Good stuff. Folks have to remember that there are tradeoffs everwhere.

Always a good thing to remember, yes. Though one can question the wisdom of particular tradeoffs. If the 7D produces noticeably soft images, maybe the 18MP APS-C sensor wasn't such a hot idea.

The world around us is largely populated with lies. Canon would love for us all to believe that every new camera model is such a vast improvement over last year's version that we all have to run out and buy it right this minute. Evaluating and publicly discussing various aspects of these cameras, analyzing and possibly debunking various claims made for and against them, is a healthy part of the community's relationship to the tools we use and the companies that create and market them. This is, in a sense, a distraction from actually taking pictures, but it is an important part of the photographic ecosystem nevertheless. Even if we agree that the 7D's images are a bit soft and show a lot of NR artifacts, it would be simplistic to simply say that the 7D is a "bad" camera; but the awareness that we gain from studying an discussing these issues helps us to reach our own conclusion, independent of Canon's marketing engine, as to just how important this new model is, and whether for our individual purposes it is a worthwhile purchase.

Andy wrote:

Folks today get obsessed with noise. Today's digital ISO 6400 in many cases is just like the awesome film grain we lived with for years. Only because we have 100% crops, large monitors, and public measurebating, do we have this issue with 'noise' at high ISOs

That's partly true. Most of us were never in the habit of making wall-sized prints just to look for technical imperfections in images that we never intended to print larger than 8"x10" in the first place. OTOH, ISO 1600 film grain tends to be less offensive to the eye than significant amounts of chrominance noise, which to my eye is the biggest problem of high-ISO digital images -- luminance noise is much less irritating. Of course, in the old days we weren't shooting ISO 6400 film because there was no such thing. To have the option of working at that level at all is something of a blessing, but only if we can get images of acceptable quality out of it. This again leads us to the importance of public discussion of the issue, so that we can benefit from each other's experiments and analyses.

angevin1

craig_d wrote:

Always a good thing to remember, yes. Though one can question the wisdom of particular tradeoffs. If the 7D produces noticeably soft images, maybe the 18MP APS-C sensor wasn't such a hot idea.

The world around us is largely populated with lies. Canon would love for us all to believe that every new camera model is such a vast improvement over last year's version that we all have to run out and buy it right this minute. Evaluating and publicly discussing various aspects of these cameras, analyzing and possibly debunking various claims made for and against them, is a healthy part of the community's relationship to the tools we use and the companies that create and market them. This is, in a sense, a distraction from actually taking pictures, but it is an important part of the photographic ecosystem nevertheless. Even if we agree that the 7D's images are a bit soft and show a lot of NR artifacts, it would be simplistic to simply say that the 7D is a "bad" camera; but the awareness that we gain from studying an discussing these issues helps us to reach our own conclusion, independent of Canon's marketing engine, as to just how important this new model is, and whether for our individual purposes it is a worthwhile purchase.



That's partly true. Most of us were never in the habit of making wall-sized prints just to look for technical imperfections in images that we never intended to print larger than 8"x10" in the first place. OTOH, ISO 1600 film grain tends to be less offensive to the eye than significant amounts of chrominance noise, which to my eye is the biggest problem of high-ISO digital images -- luminance noise is much less irritating. Of course, in the old days we weren't shooting ISO 6400 film because there was no such thing. To have the option of working at that level at all is something of a blessing, but only if we can get images of acceptable quality out of it. This again leads us to the importance of public discussion of the issue, so that we can benefit from each other's experiments and analyses.

Valid discourse. But look at the work of the first three photos as taken. Superb. And they will print superbly.

I recently printed a gaggle of photos taken sitting in my living room. I used the D300 and D700 and pushed the ISO up and took up-close portrait photos, then printed them on my crappy printer. I found to my great surprise that ISO 3200 was quite acceptable for the D300 as was ISO 12.5k
on the D700: in Print. On screen, I could scroll in and see all sorts of nasty stuff. But in print, they were fine. The biggest factor I found when all else was equal, was using a pro grade nikkor versus a kit lens.

While I enjoy reading what the community thinks in regards to the latest camera bodies' performance, I have taken on a new mantra: All is well that prints well~