# 7D test images taken today (high ISO)



## inTempus (Nov 28, 2009)

My buddy brought over his 7D for me to play with today.

It's an amazing body.  It's very well built and the fit and feel of it surpasses that of a 50D.  The view finder and LCD overlay are superb and it left me really wanting to go buy one.   The AF system is very nicely done, the controls are intuitive and simple to use.  It's a VAST improvement over the 50D IMHO from top to bottom.

Here are some test images I shot in my studio.  I shot from a tripod using a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.   The aperture was set to f/8 (Av mode) and I adjusted the ISO from 100 to 12800.  I let the camera decide the shutter speed.  I set the white balance to tungsten.

Images were shot in RAW and processed in DPP, exported as JPG's.  No noise reduction was done to them and no other edits of any time were done.  These are straight out of camera with the exception of the last two images at the bottom of this post.

ISO 100:






ISO 400:





ISO 800:





ISO 1600:





ISO 3200:





ISO 6400:





Now, here's a heavy crop of the ISO 100 image to show how sharp the image is.  I opened these in DPP (shot in RAW) and exported them with default settings.

ISO 100 No sharpening:





ISO 100 Sharpened 80% in CS3:






I was humbled by the high ISO performance actually.  It's very impressive for an 18mp crop body.  I'll let you guys be the judge, so what do you think?


----------



## Cojaro (Nov 28, 2009)

Color noise aside, I don't see very much degradation in sharpness or image quality until ISO 3200. Even then it's still pretty good. ISO 6400 looks a little too grainy to be used on more than an as-needed basis.

I'm curious what the image quality is like in a low light situation, especially ISO 800-6400.


----------



## cfusionpm (Nov 28, 2009)

These images are clearly fake. There is no way the high pixel density of the 7D will allow any kind of usable pictures at high ISO. 18MP is just absurd for a 1.6 crop sensor. Everyone knows that!


----------



## inTempus (Nov 28, 2009)

Cojaro said:


> Color noise aside, I don't see very much degradation in sharpness or image quality until ISO 3200. Even then it's still pretty good. ISO 6400 looks a little too grainy to be used on more than an as-needed basis.
> 
> I'm curious what the image quality is like in a low light situation, especially ISO 800-6400.


These were shot in pretty low light.  The ISO 100 shot had a 1/2 second shutter time and the ISO 6400 had a 1/125 shutter time.

I disagree about the ISO 6400 shot.  I think it's perfectly usable, especially if you do a little noise reduction on it.  It would print beautifully.


----------



## Cojaro (Nov 28, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Cojaro said:
> 
> 
> > Color noise aside, I don't see very much degradation in sharpness or image quality until ISO 3200. Even then it's still pretty good. ISO 6400 looks a little too grainy to be used on more than an as-needed basis.
> ...



Well, yeah, some noise reduction on the ISO 6400 would fix things quite easily.


----------



## NateWagner (Nov 28, 2009)

oh I would totally use the 6400 for lowlight at weddings and such. Very useable, and when converted to b&w not bad at all (and of course cleaned up in color it isn't bad either.


----------



## jpeters (Nov 28, 2009)

Much better then I thought it would be. I was expecting worse color noise aswell


----------



## rufus5150 (Nov 28, 2009)

I did my first event shoot this last week with the 7D. I had to use almost exclusively ISO 1600 + and I was quite worried as my test shots had me a bit nervous. I was extremely happy with how the images came out, and even the NR in LR was able to handle the noise acceptably.


----------



## MrLogic (Nov 28, 2009)

Cojaro said:


> I'm curious what the image quality is like in a low light situation, especially ISO 800-6400.



Juzaphoto.com has some test images up... 100% crops. Scroll down to Image Quality: Noise & ISO:

Juza Nature Photography


edit: maybe not as "low light" as you had in mind. :-/


----------



## inTempus (Nov 28, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> I did my first event shoot this last week with the 7D. I had to use almost exclusively ISO 1600 + and I was quite worried as my test shots had me a bit nervous. I was extremely happy with how the images came out, and even the NR in LR was able to handle the noise acceptably.



You should export in Lightroom and DPP and compare the files side by side.  I found that Lightroom looks horrible by comparison (7D files).  DPP does a better job processing images, especially high ISO images.

Once Adobe gets their RAW converter sorted out for the 7D I'm sure this will improve.


----------



## musicaleCA (Nov 28, 2009)

Cojaro said:


> Color noise aside, I don't see very much degradation in sharpness or image quality until ISO 3200. Even then it's still pretty good. ISO 6400 looks a little too grainy to be used on more than an as-needed basis.
> 
> I'm curious what the image quality is like in a low light situation, especially ISO 800-6400.



You can see one shot that went in the student paper at UBC here. That was 6400, 1/30-60 (probably 30), and f/2.8. And even then I was underexposing by at least a full stop if not two. Even in that small photo, you can see the evidence of severe chroma and luma noise in the walls/paint.

If you're in a situation like this, a 1Ds and f/1.4 lens is the only thing that will save you, at least in terms of getting a commercially viable shot (in my opinion). (Also, at f/2.8 the AF system was having a LOT of trouble locking on; enough for me to switch to MF, and hope I got closeit was too dark to see clearly.)

All that to say that there IS a limit and at some point you'll be fighting to get anything usable. But that limit is really up there. That is the one time that the 7D wasn't up to the task for me, and it's definitely a rarity. They were literally playing in near-pitch-black.


----------



## rufus5150 (Nov 28, 2009)

inTempus said:


> rufus5150 said:
> 
> 
> > I did my first event shoot this last week with the 7D. I had to use almost exclusively ISO 1600 + and I was quite worried as my test shots had me a bit nervous. I was extremely happy with how the images came out, and even the NR in LR was able to handle the noise acceptably.
> ...



I did that for HOURS the first few days and didn't see enough of a difference to inconvenience myself with DPP. 

The images were really quite clean from the latter shoot, though.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 28, 2009)

Here are some images from the 5D Mark II.  I may go back and reprocess the 7D images to make them larger so you can see more details.  

ISO 100:





ISO 1600:





ISO 3200:





ISO 6400:





ISO 100 No Sharpening Crop:





ISO 100 80% Sharpening Crop:


----------



## RyanLilly (Nov 28, 2009)

These are very usable, Here The ISO 6400 shot, With a mild application of noise reduction done with Noiseware. The texture of the monkey's face is very difficult to preserve with out masking it from the noise reduction, so I went light on the luminance noise reduction. However with the default setting everything else in the photo looked near perfect, but the monkey's face was noticeably smoother.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 28, 2009)

I would say the 5D Mark II images are much sharper out of camera.

But you're right, the NR on the image looks great.  Totally usable.


----------



## FrankLamont (Nov 28, 2009)

I am rather disappointed with ISO 1600 - and higher ones, too - on the 7D, but with no NR and on a 1.6x 18MP sensor, it isn't bad, considering. I'd say it's as good if not better than the 450D/500D.


----------



## eighty4 (Nov 29, 2009)

Noise aside, my friend recently got one of these, his only complaint with it is it tends to overexpose in almost every shot. I read on dpreview.com that it is a pretty well known problem. 

For that reason alone it put me off buying one, I've had way too many problems with the Nikon D80's metering


----------



## rufus5150 (Nov 29, 2009)

Should average them out. Mine seems to underexpose by about 1/2 a stop.


----------



## FrankLamont (Nov 29, 2009)

How much so? Half or one whole stop is fine for me - I prefer that over underexposed metering.


----------



## JamesMason (Nov 29, 2009)

Noise ?

Wow i really need to upgrade my d80


----------



## CyclonePWR (Nov 29, 2009)

Cool thanks for taking the photos.


----------



## musicaleCA (Nov 30, 2009)

Exposure problems are resultant of the new metering system which takes into account colour and active AF points. Operator error shouldn't be ruled-out. I've had some exposure problems in difficult situations, like hockey rinks. The wash of bright white, coloured jerseys on the active AF points, and dark, dark backgrounds (the seats), throws the meter through a loop. It tends to over-expose the ice a tad (1/3-1 stop), but properly exposes the player in focus. Solution: Know what the meter is doing, and compensate for it. In this case, take manual control and get consistent exposures without bleaching the ice white, then use some fill light in post.


----------



## Sam6644 (Nov 30, 2009)

Thanks for the write-up! 

I'm still planning to get a 7D sometime in the next couple months, and these photos have definitely shown me that this camera will be VERY usable at high ISO for the stuff I do most of the time. 

The photo at 6400 would be more than acceptable for news paper printing.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 30, 2009)

Keep in mind these are RAW images processed with no noise reduction.  I didn't shoot in JPG mode with NR enabled.  I imagine the ISO 6400 shot with NR would look pretty darn good, either applied in camera or in post.

The only thing that I saw that rang true with previous reports was the images looked a tad bit soft when compared to the 5D Mark II.  The 5D2 images are exceptionally sharp right out of camera compared to the 7D.  But with sharpening applied the 7D images look pretty good.

I'm still not sold on the color metering of this camera.  I'm glad Canon left it out of the 1D Mark IV.    I'm sure the next iteration in the next generation bodies will have more of the kinks worked out.

With that said, I would still like to have one to use for travel.  It's still smaller than the 5D2 and I really do like the new features.  The view finder and AF system really impresses me.  If the 5D Mark III has the same arrangement in it's next iteration, I will be all over it!


----------



## Montana (Nov 30, 2009)

Thanks for the sample images Tim.  I am personally skipping the 7D, keeping my 5DII and added to the list for the 1DIV.  I fully believe that most of the "issues" on the internet about the 7D are user related.  Its a whole new ball of wax for Canon users.  That and the aftermarket editing software hadn't caught up yet.  I think it (the 7D) will pan out to be a homerun for Canon and a true step in the right direction.  I would venture to call it the top crop body camera.   I have seen some stunning results from it.


----------



## musicaleCA (Nov 30, 2009)

Montana: Indeed. In your case it probably makes total sense to just hold onto the FF and get a 1D series camera (okay, okay, so I'm tossing 1.3x in the same boat with 35FF; sue me  ).

Here's a good review from Scott Bourne on the 7D. He's a Nikon guy now, but has extensive experience with both Nikon and Canon gear (having switched from Canon to Nikon recently). He notes how much of the negative reviews of the 7D can either be attributed to user error, or overlooked key factors (like RAW processing and sharpening) in the reviews. He also notes that the AF bloody well does work (which a few of us with 7D's have been saying for awhile, strengthening the argument that it's user-error when people run into focusing problems, not the camera) and that the noise is also a different kind of noise, which appears more grain-like, and is less abhorrent to the eye, which I also noted a while ago.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 1, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Montana: Indeed. In your case it probably makes total sense to just hold onto the FF and get a 1D series camera (okay, okay, so I'm tossing 1.3x in the same boat with 35FF; sue me  ).
> 
> Here's a good review from Scott Bourne on the 7D. He's a Nikon guy now, but has extensive experience with both Nikon and Canon gear (having switched from Canon to Nikon recently). He notes how much of the negative reviews of the 7D can either be attributed to user error, or overlooked key factors (like RAW processing and sharpening) in the reviews. He also notes that the AF bloody well does work (which a few of us with 7D's have been saying for awhile, strengthening the argument that it's user-error when people run into focusing problems, not the camera) and that the noise is also a different kind of noise, which appears more grain-like, and is less abhorrent to the eye, which I also noted a while ago.



I agree with him about the noise comment. In the 100% crop of the monkey picture last page, noise can be seen, and that's because it's 18MP in an APS-C sensor. The amplifier really has to kick in. Same things happens to point and shoots. 


And yes, if canon had kept the MP at 10 or 12, it could possibly be the best APS-C camera you can get. Sometimes marketing though gets in the way of the engineers.


----------



## Montana (Dec 1, 2009)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Sometimes marketing though gets in the way of the engineers.


 
This is very true, ......so very true.    However, I must say that most (like 85%) of the prints I sell are 18 inches or larger on the long side.  I don't mind the higher megapixels myself, but my sales are not typical of everyone elses I am sure.


----------



## inTempus (Dec 1, 2009)

Here's some more comparison crops from the 7D and 5D shot at ISO 100.

7D no sharpening:






7D with 70% unsharp mask in CS3:





Here's the 5D2 crops.

5D2 no sharpening:





5D2 with 70% unsharp mask in CS3:


----------



## rufus5150 (Dec 1, 2009)

> 7D with 70% unsharp mask in CS3:



What were the radius and threshold?


----------



## inTempus (Dec 1, 2009)

Here are some high ISO pixel peeping crops from the 7D.

ISO 100 for a baseline:






ISO 800:





ISO 1600:





ISO 3200:





ISO 6400:





...and for grins ISO 12800:


----------



## inTempus (Dec 1, 2009)

rufus5150 said:


> > 7D with 70% unsharp mask in CS3:
> 
> 
> What were the radius and threshold?


Radius: 1.0
Threshold: 0
(default)


----------



## rufus5150 (Dec 1, 2009)

Thanks. I'm actually starting to lean toward a higher threshold (I consistently used 3 with the images off my XTi) and a slightly larger radius (again, used to use 1.0). I've been toying with 1.5 and 5 respectively, and have been pleased with the results thus far but I'm still not done toying.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 1, 2009)

Have you tried something along the lines of 200 to 500%, with a radius of from .22 to .38 and a threshold of Zero? You might have better results at removing the AA-filter's blurring effect that way, as opposed to 70% at 1.0 pixel width, which is kind of coarse.


----------



## inTempus (Dec 1, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Have you tried something along the lines of 200 to 500%, with a radius of from .22 to .38 and a threshold of Zero? You might have better results at removing the AA-filter's blurring effect that way, as opposed to 70% at 1.0 pixel width, which is kind of coarse.


I'll give it a shot and see what it looks like.


----------



## inTempus (Dec 1, 2009)

7D image with 500% sharpening with a .3% radius and 0 threshold.


----------



## rufus5150 (Dec 1, 2009)

Nice and crisp. The threshold that low is always going to pop those specular highlights at the end of the hairs, though.

Ugh... this new camera has turned me into both a PixelPeeper and a PixelTweaker!!!


----------



## inTempus (Dec 1, 2009)

Hehe.

I stared off not being real keen on the 7D.  After playing with it and shooting with it, I'm liking it.  I would like to have a chance to play with it some more... I may have to buy one to give it proper attention.  LOL


----------



## MPSax1 (Dec 1, 2009)

1. The ISO 6400 could clearly be used as long as the print isn't huge.
2. As for how the 18MP goes into the whole thing on how these pictures have better noise than even the D3! (as far as I've seen). Either the pictures are fake (I don't know why the guy would have to lie) or it is as many landscape photographers have presumed in ignoring the release of the 7D and still grabbing onto the 40D for economical purposes (assuming they can't get the FF cameras). Canon has some seriously nice noise removal built into the camera, but it lowers the amount of information as far as I've been told. The pictures aren't going to be sharp at extremely large prints, or if you take away the noise reduction, they'll be sharp at large with tons of noise. 

Try turning the noise reduction off and using no editing


----------



## inTempus (Dec 1, 2009)

MPSax1 said:


> Try turning the noise reduction off and using no editing


You do realize *every single digital camera* on the market uses noise reduction, right?  Any digital image produced by any camera over ISO 800, no matter how expensive or cutting edge the camera is, would look like complete ass without it.  A *default* level of NR is completely appropriate, which is what has been applied here.  The "Neutral" picture style was selected and DPP's settings were unaltered.  These images represent what a user would get out of their camera if they opened the box and started shooting without making any changes to their settings.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "editing".  No editing was done to any image.  Well, I did crop several images to show pixel level detail.  I assume you're not talking about that.  I also sharpened a couple of images, but I pointed those out and posted the unsharpened versions for comparison... so again, I assume you're not talking about that.


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 2, 2009)

Posted this link before, but the _entire_ 7D review is now up at Juza Nature Photography:

Juza Nature Photography


The last part with the teleconverters is somewhat interesting, but I found it odd that he only "tested" the combos wide open, and didn't use a 1.7x TC, but only a 1.4x and a 2x TC. But still: 

_"Considering the very                                          high pixel density of the 7D, I thought                                          that the 2x would have not been                                          necessary: I was wrong. Even on the 7D,                                          the 2x TC is still able to extract a                                          little more detail than the 1.4x, at                                          least on high quality lenses._"


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 2, 2009)

Posted by Peter Hawrylyshyn on BirdPhotographers.net:


"_The 50D and Mk3 had AF Microadjustments to calibrate the AF of the 400mmDO to each camera body
The 7D is a new demo model with no AF micro-adjustments
This may in part account for slight differences in sharpness_"











thread: Image Noise : 7D vs 50D vs Mk3 - BirdPhotographers.Net - It Ain't Just Birds!


----------



## MPSax1 (Dec 2, 2009)

When I refer to the noise reduction, I do it on reviews solely. I believe this is what a decent number of reviewers do. This is the case because different cameras have "better" noise reduction programs built in at defaults to make the images appear superior, when in fact you are losing information. In reviews I'd compare it to something like a 1d Mark III or a 1ds Mark III, etc and have them all without any noise reduction. This way you get the compare and not just go off the image formed. Just my opinion, regardless they look  like good photos in terms of nosie


----------

