September 18, 2014, 04:02:53 AM

Author Topic: 7D - How bad is it? Really?  (Read 14192 times)

CanNotYet

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 04:26:05 AM »
I am thinking of upgrading to the current 7D (yes, tired of waiting for the new one) from a 30D, who have served me well. My limitations are in the high ISO areas, as 30D has a max of 1600 (which is BARELY usable for web). I usually try to keep it at 1000 or lower.

I do take pictures of indoor sports, so that is the reason for the upgrade. I also have an EF-S setup, so FF, though it would be awesome, is out of the question (and budget) for me atm.

I have seen the 7D getting bashed for bad high-ISO performance here, but I also realize that the standards on this forum is VERY high. Since I am not a professional, and probably never going to sell any of these pictures, my view of what is acceptable is somewhat lower.  :)

That said, I do not want to invest a large sum of money into a camera that has bad IQ over ISO 1000, as I already own one of those...

So, the question is: How bad is the 7D on high ISO (1000-6400)? Really?

canon rumors FORUM

7D - How bad is it? Really?
« on: January 23, 2013, 04:26:05 AM »

vbi

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2013, 05:01:59 AM »
I have taken mine up to 3200 and even 6400 as long as you expose to the right by between 1/3 and 1 stop so that you don't have to boost the shadows which is where noise is prevalent.
All politicians are scum
5D3, 5D2, 7D and too many lenses

dasgetier

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2013, 05:38:10 AM »
The ISO 1600 on the 7D is totally usable, whereas it was crap on my 400D (which should perform similarly to your 30D).

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2013, 05:54:03 AM »
bit of noise reduction in post and it is good...

K3nt

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • "No good photo goes unnoticed!"
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2013, 06:09:22 AM »
Feel free to check out the Tenpin Bowling thread in the Sports section of this forum. I routinely shoot certain events above ISO3200. Granted, it takes some post-proc to get it looking alright but it is ok I think. The shots I posted there are a 7D at 4000+ ISO. Should give you an idea what you can get out of it.  ;)
Flickr

Canon EOS 7D * 10-22mm EF-S * 50mm f/1.4 * 70-20mm f/2.8L IS USM MkII * Nissin 866Di MkII * 430EXII + accessories

beetle

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2013, 06:11:19 AM »
up to ISO 1600 no problem at all. Basically this is the value I have selected as a max for auto ISO. When I´m forced ISO 3200 works too. ISO 6400 is my limit.
5D3, 24-105, 85 1.8, 35 art or 50 art will be next

K3nt

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
  • "No good photo goes unnoticed!"
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2013, 06:14:15 AM »
One more thing... If you go to my flickr stream and checkout the Ballmaster 2013 set you'll see a bunch of images NOT edited, which will give you an idea of high ISO before the edits. Them images are only there for certain organizations to make their selections and then I'll do proper edits as they let me know which ones they want.
Flickr

Canon EOS 7D * 10-22mm EF-S * 50mm f/1.4 * 70-20mm f/2.8L IS USM MkII * Nissin 866Di MkII * 430EXII + accessories

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2013, 06:14:15 AM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3450
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2013, 06:17:23 AM »
Had a 7D and everything is great about it except the sensor. It's usable from 100-3200 and 6400 in a pinch. As long as you know the limits before you buy, the photos downsized to 10MP look fine to me.

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1478
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2013, 06:20:25 AM »
Not bad at all ... It is a very good camera actually with the ISO beyond 1600 becoming an issue only if you print large - should be OK for the web. The only reason it gets bashed up here is because people compare its high ISO performance to the 5d2 / 5d3.

Considering that you have a EFS setup, a 7D would be a great upgrade. Given the rumour that a 7D mark 2 or a 70D is on the horizon, you may consider to buy a used 7D for the moment and upgrade later.
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

87vr6

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2013, 06:21:50 AM »
but I also realize that the standards on this forum is VERY high.

Wrong. Most of the people on this forum are pixel peepers who don't enjoy photography. The 7D will be a huge upgrade over that 30D in exactly the areas you need it to be. Buy one and enjoy for years to come...

People forget that the man makes the tool, not the other way around... Catch my drift?

If not, I know someone who runs a very profitable business on a twice outdated camera, the Canon 5D... Seems to do just fine.

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2013, 06:41:11 AM »
If i was you i would save more cash for a FF body. The 7D is not that new anymore and probably gets replaced in 1 or 2 years or even this year. If you buy a modern Ff body then u can even use it for 10 years from now probably. With a bright lens u will probably never go much higher than ISO 6400 and thats really useable today already. Even Isos over 10k produce usable pics (check high iso thread here). I think ISO quality wont improve much anymore, next big thing might be DR but it will also take many years to notice the difference.
Plus the 7D is not really cheap too if u buy it new. Just save more and you will see a HUUUUGE difference over APS-C :)

tomscott

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Graphic Designer & Photographer
    • View Profile
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2013, 06:48:34 AM »
Similar to you went from a 40D ->7D to fill as I couldn't quite afford a 5D MKIII at the time.

Now I found the high ISO incredible compared to the 40D, not amazing but useful and most important useable. Up to 3200 is was ok whereas on the 40D banding and noise were awful. With a little noise reduction the images cleaned up really nicely.

What I found really frustrating was the quality where it counts. 100-400 was noisy and noticeably so, unless the conditions are spot on. 100-400 is where I most used my 40D as thats where it performed best but the 7D didn't.

You also need really good glass to resolve that sensor so you either need L glass or high end EF-s like the 17-55mm or 15-85mm.

But the 7D is an incredible camera overall, handling, performance, features and especially the AF I was blown away with it in comparison to the old 9 point system. The high res screen is so much better too, cant describe the difference it just makes your images look like they should whereas with the old ones you weren't that sure whether the image was completely sharp. FPS great, video good. Overall a brilliant camera and a real worthy upgrade. But it is showing its age.

The thing is were not sure if there will be a MKII when it will be in consumer hands and if current price trends go it will be a good 1/3 more expensive. At the moment you can buy a 7D from Digital Rev for a little over £750 which is a bargain really.

So for you I think it will be a great upgrade. Such a huge gap in the tech for you that it will be a huge noticeable upgrade. I was just after something of better quality as I do use it commercially, and wanted something that would last me a few years. Bought a 5DMKIII and haven't looked back the difference is amazing 6400 is like 1600 on a 7D. But I do miss the reach the 7D gives you, with a 70-200mm F2.8 and a 2x extender and the crop factor your at 640mm, to get the same with a 5DMKIII you need to spend a lot more or carry more lenses.

Kept the 40D which I still love and will keep forever although its a bit battered.

5D MKIII, 16-35mm F2.8 II L, 24-70mm F2.8 L, 24-105mm F4 IS L, 100mm F2.8 IS L, 70-200mm F2.8 IS II L, 50mm F1.8, 2x Ex, 580EX
BU: 40D,17-55mm F2.8 IS
www.tomscottphotography.co.uk

tomscott

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 578
  • Graphic Designer & Photographer
    • View Profile
    • Tom Scott | Photography
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2013, 06:56:12 AM »
I went to the Porsche museum in October and took the 7D with me as one of the first big shoots I did with it. All of these were shot at 1000ISO bar a few. Here are a couple of faves quality is great A1 prints would be no problem


IMG_8268 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_8275 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_8281 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_8290 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_8341 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_8418 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_8427 by tom_scott88, on Flickr


IMG_8541 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Have a look at the set

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomscottphotography/sets/72157632460914809/with/8357973387/
5D MKIII, 16-35mm F2.8 II L, 24-70mm F2.8 L, 24-105mm F4 IS L, 100mm F2.8 IS L, 70-200mm F2.8 IS II L, 50mm F1.8, 2x Ex, 580EX
BU: 40D,17-55mm F2.8 IS
www.tomscottphotography.co.uk

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2013, 06:56:12 AM »

tortilla

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2013, 06:58:33 AM »
So, the question is: How bad is the 7D on high ISO (1000-6400)? Really?

That depends on your post processing routine, how large you intend to print, and how high your standards are. I wouldn't ask anyone - best thing is, get high ISO JPGs or better raws from the internet and do your post processing on them and make your own decision.

I bought a 7D myself last week, and I'm very happy with it. ISO 6400 is totally usuable for 8x5 inch prints (raws, JPGS I haven't tested yet).

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 941
    • View Profile
Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2013, 07:03:21 AM »
but I also realize that the standards on this forum is VERY high.

Wrong. Most of the people on this forum are pixel peepers who don't enjoy photography. The 7D will be a huge upgrade over that 30D in exactly the areas you need it to be. Buy one and enjoy for years to come...

+1!

I upgraded from 40D to 7D - on the first day it became available. I shoot quite a lot in low light situations - concerts, theaters ... where flash is not allowed. I routinely go to ISO 3200.

As long as the exposure is to the right ... only very little NR is needed. I use Lightroom 4 native NR for both lumi and chroma noise - and only a little.

ONLY if you pull up the shadows by more than 1 EV, banding and ugly noise in Hi-Iso will become a problem. In those instances I occaisonally use Topaz 5 Denoise in "Raw, Medium" setting.

Overall, the 7D was my first DSLR ever, that never left me wanting for more. In my opinion, it was and still is the only recommendable APS-C DSLR from Canon. I may eventually move to FF, but only once a really good successor to the 5D 3 [in terms of sensor performance, specifically DR] will ever be released.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D - How bad is it? Really?
« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2013, 07:03:21 AM »