Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Canon 7D terrible noise levels! Disappointed.

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

certx
certx  7415 forum posts United States1 Constructive Critique Points
31 Jul 2011 - 5:09 AM

@csurry


Quote: Certainly on Nikon's if you underexpose and then bring back in PP you are asking for trouble.

Yes... I agree. And that is what I've read on many reviews and comparisons of Nikon v Canon. Nikon: expose for the shadows because they retain detail in overexposed highlights better. Canon: Expose for the highlights because they retain detail in underexposed shadows better. And it has been my experience, that if I overexpose the highlights, detail is often lost. But if I underexpose the shadows, the detail is usually almost all recoverable. This of course assumes it's not grossly underexposed. Smile But I routinely underexpose shadows by a full stop and recover the detail with fill in PP.


So in short, I agree with what you said. Smile

Last Modified By certx at 31 Jul 2011 - 5:11 AM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
31 Jul 2011 - 5:09 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

MrDennis
MrDennis  5229 forum posts Wales
10 Aug 2011 - 2:20 AM

Now I find mine to be differing to you..If I go -1/3rd or 2/3rds and open up the shadows I get some noise even using ISO200. If I go +1/3rd or 2/3rds overexpose I can recover the highlights very easy.
I use either photoshop CRAW or Lightroom 3. Mostly the former.
I can get rid of noise in the sky if I use magic wand around the subject and invert.
I must be honest here---If I pixel peep to 100% it can be frightening, so I no longer do that. No need to. All my A3 prints up to 16 x 11 are Perfect. No Noise shows at all.
By the way, my Sony A700 was worse for noise but I still had Good images/prints from it when I got the exposure correct.
I only use iso800 if really needed and only used 1600 (I think) about twice. Inside, I now use a Megablitz 50 flash gun for all exposures. I must be honest and say I'm happy with my 7D despite the noise that creeps in. Probably means I not done correct exposure.
Hope you sort yours out soon.

mikehit
mikehit  56690 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
10 Aug 2011 - 9:11 AM


Quote: All my A3 prints up to 16 x 11 are Perfect. No Noise shows at all.

Agreed - prints are far more forgiving of noise. But that 100% view is so damned tempting...Grin

willbrealey
15 Aug 2011 - 10:07 PM


Quote: @csurry

Certainly on Nikon's if you underexpose and then bring back in PP you are asking for trouble.


Yes... I agree. And that is what I've read on many reviews and comparisons of Nikon v Canon. Nikon: expose for the shadows because they retain detail in overexposed highlights better. Canon: Expose for the highlights because they retain detail in underexposed shadows better. And it has been my experience, that if I overexpose the highlights, detail is often lost. But if I underexpose the shadows, the detail is usually almost all recoverable. This of course assumes it's not grossly underexposed. Smile But I routinely underexpose shadows by a full stop and recover the detail with fill in PP.


So in short, I agree with what you said. Smile

This isn't true. It depends on the sensor used... not the brand of camera! The Nikon D7000 shares the Pentax K5's sensor (made by Sony). Both are at the top of the class for high ISO noise / dynamic range, and recovering gross underexposure (even images that look almost totally black) is possible Smile

Railcam
Railcam  8480 forum posts Scotland
16 Aug 2011 - 9:36 AM


Quote: Certainly on Nikon's if you underexpose and then bring back in PP you are asking for trouble.

Just try a few test shots in poor light - if you live in the UK any day should be a good day for that Wink

Shoot at a static scene at -1, -0.5, 0, +0.5 and +1 and then process. Label appropriately during processing and compare the results. I would suspect that the underexposed images should be much more noisy than those from 0 to + 1.

This sounds like the classic "expose to the right" approach.

I was told on a Nikon forum (and it seems to work with my D700), better to correctly expose at a higher ISO than slightly underexpose at a lower ISO. The same approach would presumably work for most, if not all, digital cameras.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62505 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
16 Aug 2011 - 9:52 AM

I do not shoot Canon, but if some-one cannot get good noise at 400 with any recent DSLR body what I hear from pro Canon shooters is the same as I hear from Nikon pro shooters i.e.
1/ the photographer is doing something wrong
2/ the photographer is doing something unusual, like trying to decide if noise matters blown up on a low resolution monitor image to perhaps 6 foot print equivalent
3/ occasionally there is a fault with the equipment.
Links to sample images often help sort "photographer" issues from camera body issues.

DuncanDisorderly

The OP hasn't posted for a while - so I'm guessing their problem wasn't a 3.

certx
certx  7415 forum posts United States1 Constructive Critique Points
16 Aug 2011 - 12:44 PM


Quote: The OP hasn't posted for a while - so I'm guessing their problem wasn't a 3.

Actually, I have a new baby in the house so I just flat haven't had time to be online, but I will get to all these.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139544 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
16 Aug 2011 - 1:14 PM


Quote: I have a new baby in the house

Hope you're getting some nice pics! Smile

certx
certx  7415 forum posts United States1 Constructive Critique Points
16 Aug 2011 - 2:57 PM


Quote: I have a new baby in the house

Hope you're getting some nice pics! Smile

@CB Wink I have managed some time for that. Smile I'll even hopefully find time to upload a couple more... that takes much less time than forums. Smile

Here's one!

DuncanDisorderly

@certx - Fair Play!
Hope the camera is doing justice to the family pics.
The one you posted is beautiful!

I've been surprised by how active this thread has been; people will be interested in your input.
No hurry - family first Smile

Last Modified By DuncanDisorderly at 16 Aug 2011 - 3:26 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139544 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
16 Aug 2011 - 3:27 PM

Very nice B/W pic, Curtis. Smile

certx
certx  7415 forum posts United States1 Constructive Critique Points
16 Aug 2011 - 10:23 PM

Ok.... first, thanks CB and DD for the compliment on the photo Smile Second, for those (I don't remember who asked for it), but I have a 100% crop of an ISO1600 showing the noise levels there. I'll also get some at 400 and 2500 (the ISO asked for) and get them uploaded when I have a chance.

Anyway, the one linked below, was at 1600, no editing except to crop to 400x600. I would note that there is minimal, if any at all, difference between this noise level and ISO400 on my particular 7D.

ISO1600 Noise

Last Modified By certx at 16 Aug 2011 - 10:39 PM
ChrisV
ChrisV  7820 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
17 Aug 2011 - 11:04 AM

I posted a comment on the Flickr photo as follows:

That's horrible [the quality of the photo that is]. The 'noise' actually looks like there's a hell of a lot of artefacting going on.

Have you thought of emailing Canon's technical support with this?

There does seem to be a patterning to the noise which looks more like compression or heavy processing artefacts rather than straightforward noise.

DuncanDisorderly

Certx - I took mine in RAW and converted to JPEG using LR3 (no tweaks).
Can you confirm what your workflow is?

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.