Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Canon 7D terrible noise levels! Disappointed.


certx 7 415 1 United States
31 Jul 2011 5:09AM
@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

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

MrDennis 5 234 Wales
10 Aug 2011 2:20AM
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 e2
5 6.8k 11 United Kingdom
10 Aug 2011 9:11AM

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 10 248
15 Aug 2011 10:07PM

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 8 481 Scotland
16 Aug 2011 9:36AM

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.
16 Aug 2011 9:52AM
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.
16 Aug 2011 11:41AM
The OP hasn't posted for a while - so I'm guessing their problem wasn't a 3.
certx 7 415 1 United States
16 Aug 2011 12:44PM

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 e2
11 39.5k 269 England
16 Aug 2011 1:14PM

Quote:I have a new baby in the house


Hope you're getting some nice pics! Smile
certx 7 415 1 United States
16 Aug 2011 2:57PM

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!
16 Aug 2011 3:25PM
@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
Carabosse e2
11 39.5k 269 England
16 Aug 2011 3:27PM
Very nice B/W pic, Curtis. Smile
certx 7 415 1 United States
16 Aug 2011 10:23PM
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
ChrisV 7 827 26 United Kingdom
17 Aug 2011 11:04AM
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.
17 Aug 2011 12:26PM
Certx - I took mine in RAW and converted to JPEG using LR3 (no tweaks).
Can you confirm what your workflow is?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.