Better high ISO APS-C than 70D?

Hi,

I'm currently using the 70D, and I really do think it's a great camera in almost every way, for my shooting. The only issue I do have is that once I pass ISO 1600...the IQ drops too low. Noise is not the main issue, but sharpness, saturation/contrast suffers.

Does any of you have experience of going from the 70D to 7D II or even the 80D, and if so, what is your opinions on the performance gain regarding higher ISO.

I know FF will do better, but I want the crop, so no need for that advice

I really don't want to be forced over to the Nikon D500, with all this Canon glass I love!

/R

Going from a 60 D to a 7Dm2 was a big leap, especially in iso performance. The examples are shot with Auto WB at 6400 iso all hand held with a 70 - 200 2.8. Lighting in the gym was just OK. Ron P

I have the 70D and yes, anything after ISO 1600 IQ really suffers.

For fast shutter speeds when I need to increase the ISO, my image suffers.

The 7D II will handle our concerns from what I know...I don't know of the 80D however.

I am debating whether to wait for the 7D Mark III if it will ever exist, or if I dare say, flip over to the Nikon D500 - I'm sure you know how well that camera performs in low light and with fast AF and shutter speeds.

Rhodin said:

Hi,

I'm currently using the 70D, and I really do think it's a great camera in almost every way, for my shooting. The only issue I do have is that once I pass ISO 1600...the IQ drops too low. Noise is not the main issue, but sharpness, saturation/contrast suffers.

Does any of you have experience of going from the 70D to 7D II or even the 80D, and if so, what is your opinions on the performance gain regarding higher ISO.

I know FF will do better, but I want the crop, so no need for that advice

I really don't want to be forced over to the Nikon D500, with all this Canon glass I love!

/R

Click to expand...

Rhodin said:

I'm currently using the 70D, and I really do think it's a great camera in almost every way, for my shooting. The only issue I do have is that once I pass ISO 1600...the IQ drops too low. Noise is not the main issue, but sharpness, saturation/contrast suffers.

Click to expand...

I use a 5D Mark III, 7D and 80D. I used to have a 70D. I relate to what you wrote above.

Rhodin said:

Does any of you have experience of going from the 70D to 7D II or even the 80D, and if so, what is your opinions on the performance gain regarding higher ISO.

Click to expand...

I tried a 80D for a month and decided to sell the 70D that I had enjoyed. My practical experience indicates that the performance gains are significant. My 5D3 and 7D tend to sit on the bench these days.

Because Canon APS-C DSLR models have been released at different points in time and aimed at different target audiences, it is difficult to rank those models in a strictly linear fashion. In certain performance aspects, the 80D can be considered "better" than, say, the 7D Mark II. (No offense to anyone. But then, why be offended? Life is short and it's juts a camera which is to be replaced in a couple of years, or maybe 5 years.)

Rhodin said:

I know FF will do better, but I want the crop, so no need for that advice

Click to expand...

Rhodin said:

I really don't want to be forced over to the Nikon D500, with all this Canon glass I love!

Click to expand...

No comment.

Simple: Nikon D500

Rhodin said:

Hi,

I'm currently using the 70D, and I really do think it's a great camera in almost every way, for my shooting. The only issue I do have is that once I pass ISO 1600...the IQ drops too low. Noise is not the main issue, but sharpness, saturation/contrast suffers.

Does any of you have experience of going from the 70D to 7D II or even the 80D, and if so, what is your opinions on the performance gain regarding higher ISO.

Click to expand...

The 7D2 is better at high-ISO read noise than the other Canon crops, but compared to the D500 and A6300, it is about a stop behind, at least according to DxOMark. I don't know how the character of noise compares, though, which is often as important as noise quantity.

Rhodin said:

I know FF will do better, but I want the crop, so no need for that advice

Click to expand...

FF can do better. It does not automatically do better. To get the generic light-collecting benefit of a larger sensor, you need a larger lens, with a longer focal length, a larger aperture, and use a shallower DOF. If you don't have this lens, then the fact that FF generically has 2/3 stops less noise doesn't materialize, except at base ISO with ample light, where it makes the least practical difference. The fact is, even though FF has 2/3 stop less noise at the same ISO, you will never shoot the same shot on a FF and and APS-C at the same ISO! This is the elephant in the room which is often forgotten. That said, some FF sensors have noise benefits which go beyond the conditional size benefit.

Rhodin said:

I really don't want to be forced over to the Nikon D500, with all this Canon glass I love!

Click to expand...

It's tough watching your platform lag in one way, but my 7D2 and 400/4DO II IS work so well together, that I would not trade the lens sharpness and AF precision to wet my feet on another platform, which doesn't have a lens like that (and none of them have a 100-400 v2 quality-equivalent, either). I can wait a little longer and see how Canon gets their act together on APS-C high-ISO read noise. The character of the 7D2's high-ISO noise is not perfect, but pretty good, and much better for heavy cropping at higher ISOs than the 7D I used previously, which had somewhat poorer high-ISO read noise character, and a stop more of it.

First, problems at high ISO are sometimes user-related, from incorrect exposure. Secondly, "noisey images" can be very subjective. Finally, good post processing can make a big difference. It would help if you could post some of the images that bother you, both pre and post processing.

The general opinion is that the 7DII and 80D are noticeably better than the 70D at high ISO - not just in initial image quality, but also because post processing noise reduction works better due to the nature of the noise. Whether these improvements will be sufficient for you will depend on your techniques, subjects, and your personal opinion.

Jeff Peterman said:

First, problems at high ISO are sometimes user-related, from incorrect exposure. Secondly, "noisey images" can be very subjective. Finally, good post processing can make a big difference. It would help if you could post some of the images that bother you, both pre and post processing....

Click to expand...

Agree.

-

Rhodin:

Are you referring to IQ while 100% pixel peeping or actual print IQ?

JPG or RAW images?

Per Imaging Resource 70D Review - Print Image Quality:
ISO 1,600 produces a very good 13 x 19, which is quite a respectable print size for this ISO, retaining nice, accurate colors throughout.

ISO 3,200 holds up well at 11 x 14 inches, which is yet again a nice size for so far up the ISO scale.

ISO 6,400 prints still pop nicely at 8 x 10 inches, with accurate color renditioning and only minor noise apparent in some areas.

FWIW 70D PP RAW 3200 ISO


EXIF in image

Cheers,
Jon

The 7DII is the best Canon APS-C at high ISO. As for the D500, despite everything that people say, it's no better in real world use than the 7DII at high ISO. When you process RAWs with even minimal amounts of NR, especially color NR, which everyone does for high ISO, the results from the 7DII match or exceed any crop competitors. I processed the dpr RAW samples from 5 different cameras, at ISO 3200 and 12800, with the same minimal NR and sharpening settings for each camera, and stripped the EXIF. No-one I showed them to preferred the D500 images to the 7DII images. As John says, the character of the noise could be just as important as the sheer quantity as measured in lab tests. That's because the character of the noise affects how well it responds to processing. In my processing, I used a fair bit less NR than I would actually use, but still some, which is more than dpr uses. The dpr comparison tool, while not completely useless, is very limited in judging what your results from a particular camera will look like, compared with a different one. If you really want to know how one camera will compare with another at high ISO, download the RAWs, and process them yourself. I have discovered that I won't get any better results from the D500 than from my 7DII.

You know, it's certainly true due to physics that FF sensors will generally deliver lower noise at higher ISO settings. One thing that occurs to me when comparing FF to APS-C is that to get the same FOV you will need a longer lens with FF than with APS-C. Unless you have the deep pockets to afford the long 2.8's, the crop cameras may actually get the picture at a lower ISO. Comparing an 85 1.8 on a crop camera to perhaps a 70-200 f4 on a FF to get the same FOV. You will need higher ISO on the FF and more money and end up with probably just as noisy a picture. Not perhaps the best example, but something to think about, especially if your not a pro.

Tom

Rhodin said:

Hi,

I'm currently using the 70D, and I really do think it's a great camera in almost every way, for my shooting. The only issue I do have is that once I pass ISO 1600...the IQ drops too low. Noise is not the main issue, but sharpness, saturation/contrast suffers.

Does any of you have experience of going from the 70D to 7D II or even the 80D, and if so, what is your opinions on the performance gain regarding higher ISO.

I know FF will do better, but I want the crop, so no need for that advice

I really don't want to be forced over to the Nikon D500, with all this Canon glass I love!

/R

Click to expand...

Check one of Tony Northrup's comparison videos on the 80D/7D2.


--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128728392@N05/