Will the 7D II Have improved Noise Levels?

[tvstaff]

Canon 7D, ISO 640, Canon 400 f/5.6L.

Nice shot!

 

[riknash]

Its pure speculation but there has been some rumors of new sensor tech. The advancements are a function of how long in the future before such a camera is released. It's already been a long time and the longer it is, the more likely the noise levels will be improved. By the time the 7D Mk II appears, it will have a new name and we will no longer associate it as the improved 7D.

The 7D is very old with no replacement announced. The recent, vaguely announced Nikon D4s will have made its debut before we see a 7D replacement. Maybe it will have similar pixel density to the 7D replacement but as a FF sensor. Serious wildlife users may be swayed into abandoning the crop sensor's reach in favor of this and adding some nice Nikon glass to their tool-chest. Nikon's long telephoto lens are very comparatively priced these days and deliver great results.

 

[tvstaff]

For those of us who are sports shooters I'd like nothing more than a Crop that can give the noise and resolution I want while turning my very expensive Canon glass into an even better tool for reaching out into the action. My f/2.8 300mm IS USM is a prime example. If I could get the resolution and tools and fps of my 1DX on a CROP I'd be in LOVE with the thing.

So my 300mm would be a 480mm at f/2.8 that is amazing. Add a 1.4TC to that and at f/4 I'm rocking and rolling.

Canon could score big with BIF and Sports shooters who would welcome this!!!

 

[JackM]

Do you think you really needed 1/2000 on that shot or did you forget to change settings from BIF to BIT?

 

[Flying Fish]

JackM: I'm using a Canon 400 f/5.6L handheld, which has no image stabilization. I find my photos, even of BITs, are much better if I use higher shutter speeds than the minimum rule of thumb, which would be 1/560 accounting for the 1.6 crop factor. It takes only the slightest motion to noticeably blur the image. I'd MUCH rather have a little noise than lack of focus or motion blur, and in this case, I don't even see any noise. Now if I'd been using a tripod, for this case I'd have used ISO 100.

Thanks, tvstaff.

I have to add that after using my new 6D for a few days I'm not near to giving up the 7D for birds in most cases. Landscapes and portraits, now that's another story.

FF

 

[Mikael Risedal]

AS a wildlife and landscape photographer, I loved many things about my 7Ds, even using one as a backup to my 5D III. The fly in the ointment for me was the noise the 7D exhibited at low ISO's, so I sold my last one. Now using two full frames, but I miss the reach of the 7d crop factor on telephotos, particularly the 500 F4. Assuming there is a new crop frame update to the 7D (something I'll believe when I see it), is it possible Canon can improve the noise characteristics in the 7D sensor without mucking up resolution? Given the physical laws of sensor geometry, this is probably too much to hope for I suppose, but I always have hope.

--
Colin Smith

There are a lot Canon can improve and have also done since the 7D introduced

Less banding, improved QE from 41 to 45% (Sony,Toshiba has a QE of 52% in theirs APS and Sony 58% in d800 ) is two examples. The biggest improvements have been in the internal signal treatment, using better electronics and the cameras is producing better JPG than ever before

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

 

[Flying Fish]

That shutter speed by rule of thumb should be 1/640. I keep doing the calculation for the 1.4X teleconverter instead of the 1.6 crop factor, and vice versa.

FF

 

[JackM]

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[aftab]

Surely, there will be some improvement in the noise department. How much we don't know.

I think Canon is the King of Noise Police. Think about 6D. It uses an 'old technology'. Still, it is one of the best noise killing machines in the market today. We can only guess what would happen if and when Canon moves to new sensor technology. Other than photon noise everything else will be a fair game.

 

[j900]

Working for a studio doesn't mean working in a studio all the time. We get all kinds of jobs, inside and out, and are very well aware of the meaning of dynamic range. But whether the images were taken inside or out, they still have to be printed for most jobs (or are used in video presentations with even less dynamic range than prints).

Camera dynamic range is never sent directly to printer. Since you're well aware of the meaning of dynamic range you certainly know that when post-processing using the lightroom shadow/highlight sliders, the camera DR is compressed in post-processing into the output DR, be it jpeg or print...

 

[The Davinator]

Odd....I've produced landscape shots from iso 200 and printed at 32x48 with no noise at all. I just came out of a museum exhibition where there where many prints from many different cameras....and there was no noise difference in the 20x30 prints between the 5D3 and 7D.....both clean at low isos.

Must be your processing.

 

[The Davinator]

Working for a studio doesn't mean working in a studio all the time. We get all kinds of jobs, inside and out, and are very well aware of the meaning of dynamic range. But whether the images were taken inside or out, they still have to be printed for most jobs (or are used in video presentations with even less dynamic range than prints).

Camera dynamic range is never sent directly to printer. Since you're well aware of the meaning of dynamic range you certainly know that when post-processing using the lightroom shadow/highlight sliders, the camera DR is compressed in post-processing into the output DR, be it jpeg or print...

This seems to be the misconception with many. Because a print has less DR than the sensor, you must have no need for more DR....which we know is a fallacy. I've seen the advantage enough over the years to know that Canon currently needs to up its game in the sensor tech department, as all the cameras from Sony, Nikon, Pentax, and Fuji deliver more....and more is always more....not less.

 

[j900]

Working for a studio doesn't mean working in a studio all the time. We get all kinds of jobs, inside and out, and are very well aware of the meaning of dynamic range. But whether the images were taken inside or out, they still have to be printed for most jobs (or are used in video presentations with even less dynamic range than prints).

Camera dynamic range is never sent directly to printer. Since you're well aware of the meaning of dynamic range you certainly know that when post-processing using the lightroom shadow/highlight sliders, the camera DR is compressed in post-processing into the output DR, be it jpeg or print...

This seems to be the misconception with many. Because a print has less DR than the sensor, you must have no need for more DR....which we know is a fallacy. I've seen the advantage enough over the years to know that Canon currently needs to up its game in the sensor tech department, as all the cameras from Sony, Nikon, Pentax, and Fuji deliver more....and more is always more....not less.

Thanks for pointing that out - over the past 5 years I've seen a lot of misinformed talk on DR, and it seems that some people still don't get it.

On a side note, similar misconceptions arose when high density sensors (20MP+) appeared. Many people said that you don't need this density and that it increases noise. But the truth is, a downsampled high density sensor matches the noise characteristics of a low density sensor. An upsampled low density sensor will never recreate the info that the high density sensor has captured.

As you say capturing more of the scene is indeed always more, not less.