Reading mode: Light Dark

7D Low ISO Day 3

Go to last post
D700 has a DXOmark of 80.5. The D90 has a DXOmark of 72.6.

In high ISO tests, the D700 has a score of 2527 whereas the D90 has a score of 977.

--
40D, 28-135, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX
Broken G9, soon to be fixed.
Ufraw and Gimp power user.
 
I dont get it. What is the strange noise pattern in your low iso images. I never get this kind of pattern in my images.
 
honza_pl said:
honza_pl said:
The problem is that if there's noise at 100% view even at base ISO, you won't get the advantage of 18MP. If you are going to use it like a 10-12mp camera why should we deal with huge files? heck I wish if Canon have stayed at 12MP and improve noise and DR.
Click to expand...
YES ! that's the point
Click to expand...
The OP uses TOPAZ that creates all those artifacts. Anytime he posts his links, this triggers the high-mp count nonsense remarks.
 
ACR is beta version for 7D.
 
This is the dilemma to be wrestled with!

On screen the 18MP is simply excessive.. the inability of the monitor to fully show the resolution at 100% result sin many side effects... if you could have a monitor with 6,000 x 4,000 pixel resolution it might be interesting!

But let's assume first that Canon could NOT lower the resollution and increase DR/lower noise. in that even they made avery smart move. The added resolution DOES allow for the added detail. Thus, when NR software is applied and finally the file sized reduced, you end up with a detailed 12 MP shot that the D300 cannot match ( to my eyes most high iso D300 shots tend to be of lesser detail than the 50D or 7D ). it becomes a round about way to get a clean 12MP shot with more detail.

now, IF printing you do NOT downsize. On screen the noise may be visible even at lower ISO's.. God knows the amount of on screen magnification is incredibl eat 100% ( ie stop viewing at 100% on screen.. saves a lot of heartburn.. you dont need 100% on screen to view as at that point you are staring at a hair on a gant's butt so to speak ). In printing the added resolutin does come into play and in the end you end up with a 13 x 19 with great detail and again no noise.

Canon's decision to go high resolution crop sensor is changing thing sup.. those insisting on 100% viewing size on screen will not be happy. On flip size those printing and or reducing size for on screen viewing will be quite pleased!
jeminijoseph said:
I agree. If you downsize the image to D300 size 7D is cleaner. I also noticed 7D holds more details at higher ISO even though there's little bit more noise. SO you can clean it up.

The problem is that if there's noise at 100% view even at base ISO, you won't get the advantage of 18MP. If you are going to use it like a 10-12mp camera why should we deal with huge files? heck I wish if Canon have stayed at 12MP and improve noise and DR.
JDavis37 said:
Part of what you are seeing is the extreme magnification of the 18MP sensor.. downsize the photo to the D300 resolution and the noise youa re seeing will go away for the most part. The problem with the high resolution criop sensors is , on a pixel level, it simply shows more than your eye would ever see. in print it isnt visible. The 50D taught me this lesson. Goo dluck with your choices.. Canon big glass for now is more affordable though i fear that may well change.
jeminijoseph said:
I'm a D300 user (don't call me troll please :)) and looking to move to canon because of the price of 500/4 IS and 7D.

I see more noise at lower ISO compared to D300. Actually D300 has more noise than 40D. This was one of my complaint about D300.

Love this shot too

http://www.sportsactiondigital.com/College-Soccer/Winthrop-gardnerwebb/9843260_zFGeq#669300564_yjzqh-A-LB

The file size is 2300X1900. Is this cropped or resized?

--
Thanks
Jemini Joseph

http://www.wildbirdimages.com

Click to expand...
--
Please forgive the typos! A great speller I am, a great typist I am not!
Click to expand...
--
Thanks
Jemini Joseph

http://www.wildbirdimages.com

Click to expand...
--
Please forgive the typos! A great speller I am, a great typist I am not!
 
DXI does not tak einto account loss of detail in thie rmeasurements. is easyt o produce a noise free picture but if the noise free means detail free whats the point? non eof these cameras are "bad' and until Nikon makes a boduy that accepts Canon glass it is moot ( and vice versa ). but compare the mannequins on IR between the D300s and 7d and tell me the D300s has any detail left at ISo3200a nd 6400? reduce the 7D down to 12 MP and the picture gets even clearer. regardless of what DXO says, I stil prefer seeing detail even at the expens eof noise, especially if I can use software to clean ip up and reduce the file down for bette ron screen viewing.

is ironic that 4 years ago many nikon shooters told me they preferred noise and the ability too let software clean it up. Seems now they prefer the camera to do the work for them and alow the softness take over. Nikon makes many fine products,, and i'd be proud to shoot with them. I just prefer Canon is all. In the end though it remains up to the shooter and not the body.
sandy b said:
Its a great camera but in no way bests the D300 other than 1 fps and resolution. I have looked at virtually every photo posted, and their is no way it is better IQ than my D300s. DXO will bear this out.
Click to expand...
--
Please forgive the typos! A great speller I am, a great typist I am not!
 
This is exactly what's happening. It seems like in all the threads with very nice 7D shots, the trolls lurk in the shadows without a peep. Then an average Joe posts his shots in the workflow he and apparently his customers is happy with (but maybe not up to the standard of some people here) and the trolls come out of the woodwork conveniently ignoring that these are NOT STRAIGHT OUT OF CAMERA yet claim how bad the 7D must be. Then there are the photo die-hards who get upset that OP is putting up troll bait and bashing from both sides ensues.

All you guys doing this need to cut this crap out. Chill out. The OP is gracious enough to spend the time to share the work he does in the way he likes it. IMO, I think the OP's PP process doesn't produce results I would like, but that doesn't really bother me and if the results upset you, there are many other threads with different workflows/results. Forget about the trolls because if they didn't find this particular thread to justify their bias, they will eventually... That is the way of the single-minded.

Anyway, have a nice day!
 
A lot have commented on the use of ACR for processing rather than DPP. I plan to eventually do a side by side comparison. However, in the meantime, starting with image number 108 you can see what I did with a 1D Mark III using a 300 2.8 lens and at the end a 50D using a 135 2L lens. Some interesting differences, some of which may be camera/lens and some of which may be processing.
 
steven limentani said:
A lot have commented on the use of ACR for processing rather than DPP. I plan to eventually do a side by side comparison. However, in the meantime, starting with image number 108 you can see what I did with a 1D Mark III using a 300 2.8 lens and at the end a 50D using a 135 2L lens. Some interesting differences, some of which may be camera/lens and some of which may be processing.
Click to expand...
This is a normal pic (6400 iso) no weird patterns or (dé)mosaic!!

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=138871&size=big&cat=&what=allfields&name=Photo-John&name=Photo-John&crproducts=445830:Canon%20EOS%207D |&mcats=all
 
Go back to IR and check the raw samples. No difference to speak of. And thats a good thing, I have not bad mouthed the 7D once. And I shoot with a 5D during weddings, so I am no fan boy. Truth be told, the 7D equals the D300s.
 
Post your best ISO 3200, no noise reduction, JPG fine. Then I will too.
 
thanks for sharing this information here. The look of the 7D images is closer to the 50D (tonality, roughness etc), but obviously the improved AF system is showing it's capability. Those taken with the 1D3 look smoother and colors are more realistic from what I can tell.
--
gustavo

http://www.pbase.com/gustabod
 
I'll mention it again, stop shooting at f2. Some of your photos are focused well, others are out of focus not due to subject motion or camera shake, but being front or back focused.

You were at iso100 so there is no excuse for using f4 instead of f2 to get better quality DOF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top