Photographer
Daniel
Posts: 5169
Brooklyn, New York, US
Any banding in high ISO RAW's before NR (if you checked)?
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
in practice, you can also use the onboard flash to fire rear curtain sync at -2 stops and have that fire a digital slave which fires strobes or even fires a standard radio transmitter which in turn fires the strobes. Stephen Eastwood http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Daniel wrote:
Any banding in high ISO RAW's before NR (if you checked)? the shots go all the way to 12k I put up full size out of camera samples.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Daniel
Posts: 5169
Brooklyn, New York, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
the shots go all the way to 12k I put up full size out of camera samples.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com The still life's? Yeah. I looked at those. The EXIF suggested standard NR was applied, so I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that they were just JPEGs. I was just curious about RAW before NR.
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Daniel wrote:
The still life's? Yeah. I looked at those. The EXIF suggested standard NR was applied, so I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that they were just JPEGs. I was just curious about RAW before NR. check the amy shots at 3200 they are fairly clean and were processed no NR.
Tomorrow I will try to grab the high iso still lifes and run them through DPP.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Daniel
Posts: 5169
Brooklyn, New York, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
check the amy shots at 3200 they are fairly clean and were processed no NR.
Tomorrow I will try to grab the high iso still lifes and run them through DPP.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com I saw the one of Amy at 3200 and it looks great. I should have specified 6400. I'm itching to see it. Thanks very much, and for posting what you have already.
Photographer
StephenEastwood
Posts: 19585
Great Neck, New York, US
Daniel wrote:
I saw the one of Amy at 3200 and it looks great. I should have specified 6400. I'm itching to see it. Thanks very much, and for posting what you have already. check back tomorrow evening, I will run 3200-6400-12,800 through DPP and post them.
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
netmodel
Posts: 6786
Austin, Texas, US
While I am excited a bout 7D, I'd rather wait til Feb and see what they have to say about 60D.
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15162
Portland, Oregon, US
netmodel wrote:
While I am excited a bout 7D, I'd rather wait til Feb and see what they have to say about 60D. The rumors were fairly accurate regarding the 7D. If the same is true of the 60D,
it may have the same sensor as the 50D... which, while awesome, isn't terribly exciting as far as breaking news is concerned.
Photographer
Jason Haven
Posts: 38381
Washington, District of Columbia, US
The Amy samples look much better at 3200 than I've seen elsewhere, and even compared to your studio "still life" samples.
Hmm
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15162
Portland, Oregon, US
StephenEastwood wrote:
check back tomorrow evening, I will run 3200-6400-12,800 through DPP and post them. We're waiting Mr. Eastwood. ; )
Photographer
MC 2
Posts: 2531
New York, New York, US
Daniel wrote:
Any banding in high ISO RAW's before NR (if you checked)? I downloaded the Rob Galbraith examples a few days ago and didn't look at them until last night.
These are the ones title "reggae".
He compares a 5DII to the 7D and there are a couple of flaws in the comparison. One, the light is changing - it's slight, but just enough that it's different from photo to photo. He shot in M with identical settings and while that's my first thought of how to compare, I think in order to be accurate, you need to do that as well as Av/Tv.
Also, he did his RAW conversion in DPP. The flaw with that is that you can't convert without a camera setting. If it's not final firmware, we don't know that the setting won't change, and even if it doesn't, do we know that they are identical?
Getting to the point - there was one thing that was clear - there was far less banding a 12,800 in the 7D than in the 5DII.
Based on what I saw with only one comparison, the 5DII won at 6400, but the 7D won at 12,800.
My guess is that with 50 comparisons in M and 50 in Av/Tv, that the 7D would have more than 50 wins in low light contexts, especially if you count AF within each shot.
One thing that would have been very interesting would be to see how many 5DII shots he had to take to get his examples vs 7D, since he was using a 85 1.2, so I'm sure there were some focusing issues in the low light.
I probably would have exposed brighter and with higher contrast than he did as well, since the contrast drops starting at 6400 and nosed dives after that on the 5DII.
Model
StephenE
Posts: 2629
Great Neck, New York, US
http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/iso_comp_7/tif/ 8 bit raw no NR as shot no change to anything in conversion but turning off any NR. Let me know here http://www.,modelmayhem.com/280705 if any links do not work. Cropped chip or not, its damn impressive and only getting better. how many people actually used to buy 6400 let alone 12k or 25k film for 35mm before? Stephen Eastwood http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Cuervo79
Posts: 1059
Guatemala, Guatemala, Guatemala
StephenE wrote:
http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/iso_comp_7/tif/
8 bit raw no NR as shot no change to anything in conversion but turning off any NR.
Let me know here http://www.,modelmayhem.com/280705 if any links do not work.
Cropped chip or not, its damn impressive and only getting better. how many people actually used to buy 6400 let alone 12k or 25k film for 35mm before?
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com Maybe its just me being a newbie, but why 8bit tiff? why not 16bit?
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Cuervo79 wrote:
Maybe its just me being a newbie, but why 8bit tiff? why not 16bit? Bandwidth, perhaps. These tiffs are enough to tell us what we need to know.
Photographer
Daniel
Posts: 5169
Brooklyn, New York, US
StephenE wrote:
Cropped chip or not, its damn impressive and only getting better. Definitely impressive. Thanks again!
StephenE wrote:
how many people actually used to buy 6400 let alone 12k or 25k film for 35mm before? Trick question? I'm pretty sure pushing would be the only way someone could get there.
Photographer
Leggy Mountbatten
Posts: 12562
Kansas City, Missouri, US
StephenE wrote:
Cropped chip or not, its damn impressive and only getting better. how many people actually used to buy 6400 let alone 12k or 25k film for 35mm before? I pushed KonicaColor 3200 to 6400 when shooting it in my Bronica. Shot TMax p3200 up to 50000. So yeah, that's right up my alley...
Photographer
Pete Tsai
Posts: 21
Chicago, Illinois, US
Thanks for the info Stephen, I was already aware of both solutions from when I first got the 5D2. The multimax is a studio solution at best imo, as when I shoot fire spinners I'm working the shutter for the light painting effect and changing shutter speed on 2 devices is not reasonable for a live event. I don't really like either solution as they're both very inelegant which is why I was hoping Canon finally change it. Wishful thinking I guess. But hey at least theres a commander mode, so theres hope for change!
Photographer
Stephen Melvin
Posts: 16334
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Comparing the 7D to the 5D is very interesting. At 12800, the 5D is contrastier. Or perhaps its exposure is a little darker. But it definitely has visible pattern noise, and I'm seeing none with the 7D.
Edit: from looking at the EXIF, you shot the 7D at f/10 and the 5D at f/11, both at 1/200 at 12800. That may explain why the 5D image is darker.
I'm really impressed. Canon has done a bangup job with this sensor. At high ISO, it really looks like film.
The 25000 sample from the 5D looks unusable. Maybe NN could save it, but man, it's a mess.
Edit: this brings to mind a question. Could you try the 7D at 12800, and underexpose by one stop and bring it back up in DPP? Seeing these makes me wonder how it will handle ISO 25000 compared to the 5D. I suspect it will do surprisingly well...
Digital Artist
Koray
Posts: 6720
Ankara, Ankara, Turkey
I looked and read and looked and decided to keep 40D and buy 24-105mm f/4 L 
Photographer
Stephen Melvin
Posts: 16334
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Koray wrote:
I looked and read and looked and decided to keep 40D and buy 24-105mm f/4 L The 40D is a great camera. The 7D is the first camera since the 40D that I actually want. Well, from Canon, anyway.
I just compared the 5D and 7D photos in the individual channels. The pattern noise really, truly appears to be gone from the 7D. The 5D's looks like previous Canons.
Photographer
PhotosByStorm
Posts: 852
Waianae, Hawaii, US
im surprised this only has 100 posts and not like 300 or some outrages number like that
Photographer
PashaPhoto
Posts: 9726
Brooklyn, New York, US
i'm getting one...  i saw that shot of Amy as a physical 12x18 print (done at costco of all places:) ) and it looked amazingly clean... i had 5d2 on order, but cancelled... besides the fact that it should retail cheaper, it also has a few things going for it that the 5d2 doesn't... the af feels "frisky", and i like the way the points group... it had no problem locking focus in pretty much darkness, and with a slow tampon lens attached... the af definitely beats the 5d2's... the fact that the pop up flash saves me from spending the extra two-three bills on an ste-2 is also nice the only thing i didn't like about is that much like the 5d series it still feels like a toy... it's almost there to be a capable sports shooter, but it just won't survive the beating... but that's what the 1d is for, and 1d4 is supposedly soon on the horizon for a backup for sports, and as a primary walk around/some studio work camera it would be great... like i said, i'm getting one
Photographer
Photographer Simon Mott
Posts: 2879
Kirkland, Washington, US
All good and exciting news, really can't wait. Pasha whats a tampon lens if you don't mind me asking?  Simon
Photographer
PashaPhoto
Posts: 9726
Brooklyn, New York, US
Arclight Studios wrote:
Pasha whats a tampon lens if you don't mind me asking?
Simon tamron...
damn freudian slip
Photographer
Photographer Simon Mott
Posts: 2879
Kirkland, Washington, US
PashaPhoto wrote:
tamron...
damn freudian slip Hehehehehe
Photographer
PhotosByStorm
Posts: 852
Waianae, Hawaii, US
i hope the drop of a 7d means lowering prices on other cameras. I cant wait for the 1dsmkIV to come out so that the other 1ds cams will hopefully drop in price.
Photographer
MisterC
Posts: 15162
Portland, Oregon, US
PashaPhoto wrote:
the only thing i didn't like about is that much like the 5d series it still feels like a toy... it's almost there to be a capable sports shooter, but it just won't survive the beating... I don't know what constitutes a beating, but was very, very difficult on my 20D
for a few years. I'm primarily a nature photographer... lot's of drops onto rocks, through rainy forests, and in sub zero temps. Probably 50,000 actuations. For
my purposes, anything above the XXXD series cameras are virtually indestructible.
I imagine the 7D is going to be rugged enough.
Model
StephenE
Posts: 2629
Great Neck, New York, US
MinisterC wrote:
I don't know what constitutes a beating, but was very, very difficult on my 20D
for a few years. I'm primarily a nature photographer... lot's of drops onto rocks, through rainy forests, and in sub zero temps. Probably 50,000 actuations. For
my purposes, anything above the XXXD series cameras are virtually indestructible.
I imagine the 7D is going to be rugged enough. they actually are very durable, but compared to a 1 series they do feel toylike. Its deceptive, you feel like its going to break, but it holds up fairly well. I know I have had many models hit my camera, knocking it to the ground in an attempt to get closer to me, and still the camera functions! Its my charm, I can't turn it off
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
StephenE wrote:
I know I have had many models hit my camera, knocking it to the ground in an attempt to get closer to me, and still the camera functions! Its my charm, I can't turn it off
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com Really? 
Photographer
Garrett Sanders
Posts: 1109
Bloomington, Illinois, US
Stephen Melvin wrote:
Edit: from looking at the EXIF, you shot the 7D at f/10 and the 5D at f/11, both at 1/200 at 12800. That may explain why the 5D image is darker. It seems rather unfair to deliberately underexpose one shot and then compare the shots side-by-side.
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked, as it's really just an ad for the 7D.
Despite what this thread maintains, this camera is NOT getting stellar reviews for high ISO:
"At ISO1600, it's not so bad, even if it's not 5D level, but it starts getting kinda gruesome at ISO3200" (http://gizmodo.com/5349829/canon-7d-dsl … o-for-1900)
"At ISO 3200 and beyond you'll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows. At all ISO increments, other than the very lowest ones, pictures can take on a slightly harsh appearance not present in larger-pixel cameras in Canon's lineup, such as the EOS-1D Mark III, or Nikon's D3 and D700." (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_ … 0042-10239)
"At ISO 3,200, noise grain becomes coarser and the blurring stronger, resulting in a noticeable drop in detail. Noise and the effects of noise reduction really become a problem at ISO 6,400 and especially at ISO 12,800, with strong blurring, bright noise pixels and chroma blotching." (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E … MAGING.HTM)
I'm not saying it's not a good camera, and probably better than the 50D (although the extra 3MP in a crop sensor is a cause for concern), it's just that people who buy this camera based on what's been said in this thread are in for disappointment in this camera's performance above ISO 1600.
Note: the "digital dandruff mentioned in the second review is very visible in the ISO 3200 photos posted earlier in this thread--it looks as if someone has spilled salt on the dark areas of the image.
Photographer
sublime LightWorks
Posts: 6074
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Garrett Sanders wrote:
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked, as it's really just an ad for the 7D. You do know that Mr. Eastwood is a very highly respected member of this site....and a site Moderator too....right?
Photographer
Sean Baker Photo
Posts: 8044
San Antonio, Texas, US
Garrett Sanders wrote:
...
Despite what this thread maintains, this camera is NOT getting stellar reviews for high ISO:
... Most every complaint you've quoted has people comparing the sensor to FF ones. The sensels have as much as four times the footprint, yet they still make the comparison of pixel level noise. I do not blindly believe that this camera is the savior of the Canon line - far from it - but I do believe that their making of the comparison in the first place is telling.
Photographer
Robert Hold
Posts: 357
Elizabethtown, Kentucky, US
I know what my next major purchase will be... once I have the money to actually purchase one...
My big question is how in the world does one get on to beta test gear like this?
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Sean Baker wrote:
Most every complaint you've quoted has people comparing the sensor to FF ones. The sensels have as much as four times the footprint, yet they still make the comparison of pixel level noise. I do not blindly believe that this camera is the savior of the Canon line - far from it - but I do believe that their making of the comparison in the first place is telling. +1
Photographer
Stephen Melvin
Posts: 16334
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Garrett Sanders wrote:
I'm not saying it's not a good camera, and probably better than the 50D (although the extra 3MP in a crop sensor is a cause for concern), it's just that people who buy this camera based on what's been said in this thread are in for disappointment in this camera's performance above ISO 1600.
Note: the "digital dandruff mentioned in the second review is very visible in the ISO 3200 photos posted earlier in this thread--it looks as if someone has spilled salt on the dark areas of the image. I've said, repeatedly, that noise does not bother me. And it doesn't. Only pattern noise ("banding," as some put it) bothers me, and it bothers me quite a bit. I've seen nothing in these 7D samples to suggest the 7D suffers from pattern noise, and that's fantastic news.
That "digital dandruff" is very, very easily removed with Lightroom's noise reduction, with no loss of detail.
Perhaps it's because I've been shooting film since 1989 (well, before that, but that's when I bought my first SLR), but grain has never bothered me much at all. I've long enjoyed shooting in dark places, pushing the fastest available films as far as they would go. Based on what I've seen, the 7D outperforms any 35mm format film I've ever used. And some medium format film.
As for this being an "advertisement" for the 7D, the only person in this thread with any incentive to do that would be Stephen Eastwood, and all he's done is present his honest opinion, and some sample files he took. All the other posts are pent up excitement by long-frustrated Canon users, finally happy to see Canon release a camera that's more than a lukewarm upgrade of a previous model.
Photographer
Brian T Rickey
Posts: 4008
Saint Louis, Missouri, US
Stephen Melvin wrote:
I've said, repeatedly, that noise does not bother me. And it doesn't. Only pattern noise ("banding," as some put it) bothers me, and it bothers me quite a bit. I've seen nothing in these 7D samples to suggest the 7D suffers from pattern noise, and that's fantastic news.
That "digital dandruff" is very, very easily removed with Lightroom's noise reduction, with no loss of detail.
Perhaps it's because I've been shooting film since 1989 (well, before that, but that's when I bought my first SLR), but grain has never bothered me much at all. I've long enjoyed shooting in dark places, pushing the fastest available films as far as they would go. Based on what I've seen, the 7D outperforms any 35mm format film I've ever used. And some medium format film.
As for this being an "advertisement" for the 7D, the only person in this thread with any incentive to do that would be Stephen Eastwood, and all he's done is present his honest opinion, and some sample files he took. All the other posts are pent up excitement by long-frustrated Canon users, finally happy to see Canon release a camera that's more than a lukewarm upgrade of a previous model. +1
Canon really rolled out some impressive features here. This is a real upgrade for many. The camera, as far as Canon users go looks like one of those game changers. Finally they have upgraded the focusing system and that is what I am most excited about. Yes Stephen does work with Canon but he provides all the files he makes his conclusions from so its easy for anyone to check themselves. I personally am impressed with it.
Photographer
ASYLUM - Art Nudes
Posts: 13657
Washington, District of Columbia, US
I'll say that I, myself, haven't been impressed by most samples posted online.
Eastwood's shots with "Amy" are very impressive, as far as noise to detail is confused. The still life, less so. The Amy shots are very sharp, but the still life seems a bit soft, as if out of focus slightly or the lens used wasn't sharp, I dunno.
Going by Amy's shots, its a must buy for me. Going by various samples posted online, and his still life samples, I'm not so sold yet.
The camera's features are great, either way... but more important to me, if I'm buying a new body is the sensor being a major step up from my current camera (Rebel XTi).
Photographer
Stephen Melvin
Posts: 16334
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Jason,
You haven't been impressed with the samples? Why not? Sharpness? Noise?
One thing of note with Stephen's still life samples is that they were shot at f/10. At that pixel size (4.3 microns), diffraction starts becoming a significant issue at f/8, and that's assuming an 8x10" print.
If you're pixel peeping, you're probably looking at the equivalent of a 54" wide print. Try resizing the images to the same dimensions as your 400D to get a better comparison to what you're used to looking at.
I'm not really sure what your expectations are. The 7D certainly is a significant improvement from your 400D. Heck, the 30D I just put up for sale last night is significantly better than the 400D (which I also own). Much faster, more durable and better high ISO image quality. The 7D is significantly better than the 30D in the same regards.
Photographer
Sean Baker Photo
Posts: 8044
San Antonio, Texas, US
ASYLUM - Art Nudes wrote:
I'll say that I, myself, haven't been impressed by most samples posted online.
Eastwood's shots with "Amy" are very impressive, as far as noise to detail is confused. The still life, less so. The Amy shots are very sharp, but the still life seems a bit soft, as if out of focus slightly or the lens used wasn't sharp, I dunno.
Going by Amy's shots, its a must buy for me. Going by various samples posted online, and his still life samples, I'm not so sold yet.
The camera's features are great, either way... but more important to me, if I'm buying a new body is the sensor being a major step up from my current camera (Rebel XTi). If I might, I'll suggest that the scenes have very different lighting contrast to them, giving a greater 'sharpness' to the shots of Amy (her name is actually Amy, and she is an accomplished photographer in her own right, fwiw). You should be able to sharpen either to the same level in post before artifacting / loss of value. IIRC, I was finding that a Smart Sharpen at ~80% / ~1.8px was giving excellent results, but I could be wrong about the numbers.
|
