7D - How bad is it? Really?

[awinphoto]

As any professional photographer, and you will notice that photographers standards and expectations are different than clients standards and expectations... most noise, within reason, goes un-noticed by most clients...  That and crisp razor sharp focus... That being said, what the 7d is good and bad are totally up to user interpretation...  In certain situations, I wouldn't blink of bringing the ISO to 1600, even 3200 if the light was bad.  I've shot higher than that for paid shoots for different situations with success, it just matters how you light the subject, what method of NR you use, and what's your tolerance.  On my 5d3, on a wedding last year in really bad lighting situations, I was able to bump my ISO up to 20,000 and exposed it just right so even on large prints, you would be tasked to find any bad noise.  If your really worried about noise, try out a 7d, borrow one, rent one, whatever... test it for yourself to determine what your willing to live with and what you are not. 

[paul13walnut5]

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. 

To be fair, some of the standards on this forum aren't that high.  Don't confuse who has spent the most or posts most frequently or whatever with ability.

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...

I shoot stills with my 7D at 1600 comfortably and 3200 at a push.  The key is in shooting RAW and being subtle with the sharpening and noise reduction.  I find applying any NR first works best, then applying as little sharpening as possible, LUMA NR for lower ISO images where required, slight luma and heavier CHROMA NR for higher ISO.

The 7D is mostly maligned by folk who never bothered to set up the AF or cannot work RAW properly.  One or two of the dissenters might have got a duff cam, but in my experience for the most part folk just bought a camera that was designed for personal set up, and never bothered setting it up.

The kind of folk, who in the first part of my answer, think that buying a more sophisticated camera makes you a better photographer.

If you compare photos of resolution charts with those from a 5D3 or 1DX then the 7D isn't as good.  Handy for those who shoot resolution charts and can afford a 5D3 or 1DX.  Which many folks can't.

Within your budget, with your lenses and for your application the 7D is the camera to go for.  Just be prepared to crack the manual.  It'll really sing if you add a fast aperture USM lens (something like an 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2.0)
 

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

If you are confident using RAW you'll get great images at 1600, good images at 3200, and 6400 is probably more akin to what your current camera is giving you.

Bear in mind that super-high ISO is a relatively recent trend.  I remember the noise from Fuji 1600 print film, to the point where I'd usually restrict myself to 800 or lower.  So it's changed days.

The only arguement I can think of to get you to hold off from buying a 7D just now is that there is a new model pending, you might be in line for a bargain on the 7D if you can wait a while.

In the meantime, get to grips with RAW, as it makes the absolute best of the 7Ds images.

[RickSpringfield]

Run out and buy the 7D right now!  Honestly.  Don't worry about the high ISO this and the Full Frame that.  What you will gain is a camera you can't even kill by freezing it in a block of ice (seriously ... check out the digitalrev 7D durability test whoa):

http://youtu.be/RCT-YMgjm9k
	Small | Large

7D shoots after being set on fire
7D shoots after being frozen alive
7D shoots after falling down the worlds tallest stairs

Without a doubt one of the toughest builds out there.  Not that you'll need it except for maybe to fend off all of your fans who will flock to you just to see what camera that is;... I guess it could come in handy for that
 

[sandymandy]

I don't think most of the people that replied really cared to read the original post. He's NOT looking to upgrade to full frame.

Sorry my bad, but why would somebody not want to go FF? Anyway, If not FF then get 7D, best aps-c at the moment.

[paul13walnut5]

@sandymandy

but why would somebody not want to go FF?

Performance for cost (6D and 5D2 are very different cameras to the 7D)
Cost alone
They already have a range of EF-s or DC lenses
They find the effective increase in reach useful

[papa-razzi]

I agree with all the other posts.  The 7D is a great camera, and ISO 1600 is very usable, with 3200 ok in certain situations.

However, my experience with the 7D taught me it is not just ISO in isolation (i.e. ISO 1600 or 3200 is always acceptable) - the amount of light is also very important.  For example, if I have reasonably good light, but need a high ISO to push the shutter speed up for sports, then the noise is not too bad.  However, if the ISO is pushed up because I have very poor lighting, then the noise at the same ISO (say 1600) will be too much for me.

For what you describe as your uses, the 7D should work just fine.

[insanitybeard]

@sandymandy

but why would somebody not want to go FF?

Performance for cost (6D and 5D2 are very different cameras to the 7D)
Cost alone
They already have a range of EF-s or DC lenses
They find the effective increase in reach useful

Yep, cost is the main factor preventing me from going FF!

[digital paradise]

ISO 12,800 and NR using CS6



ISO 1600



a crop





Other fun stuff with it

[tortilla]

Sorry my bad, but why would somebody not want to go FF?

You tell us. According to your signature you shoot APS-C by yourself 

[digital paradise]

BIF











Another Crop



Click on it to see it at full size

[RLPhoto]

Another thing that factors to help NR in post is having very good lenses. When you have a sharp lens to start with, at High ISO, adding Heavy NR won't affect the sharpness of the photo too much.

But if you combine a duff lens, with high ISO, and Heavy NR... Expect ugly results.

[tomscott]

Great pics. Shows how much of a fantastic camera it is in the right hands.

Thats correct as the 7D is in a price gap that is very affordable compared to the FF equivalent but is aimed toward more advanced/pro shooters and the attitude amateurs have toward glass. Therefore many marry the camera with poor glass. Just because it is EF-s putting the cheap inexpensive glass on it will be detrimental. But many think cameras are more important, especially some that aren't photo buffs but like having the best.

This was always my qualm with Canon and its 18mp sensor as all the recent XXXDs and 60D have it too. Unless quality glass is used to resolve that pixel density then yes the camera wont perform well in terms of IQ. Give it high end lenses and the camera sings, but then it does have its drawbacks. There is always a compromise, add more IQ and it creates a slower camera at a higher price point. The 7D hits the spot pretty well, as long as you are willing to hunt for the light and spend some time editing the RAW files in post.

I enjoyed the 7D but it wasn't quite what I wanted and needed for my work, although I wish I had kept it and used it with my 5DMKIII.

[pardus]

7Dmki will be a fantastic camera for you. I upgraded from a 40D a couple years ago primarily to shoot my sons hockey game as the 40D and 70-200mm 2.8L still wasn't enough for poorly lit hockey rinks. most arenas you need to shoot 3200 iso at 2.8 and 1/500. I have since bought a 5D mkiii which is even better at the low light but still use my 7D as well for hockey as the reach is better. I would say wait a couple weeks to see if there is an announcement for mkii version at the japan show coming up, but if you really need it now go for it.

this shot was 1/500sec; f/4.0 iso 3200 focal length 108mm
(shot as jpg, cropped and saved for web in photoshop at 90 quality) but otherwise unedited.

[Bombsight]

The 7D is a pleasure to use. It's a great camera. However, the high iso noise performance is not comparable to full frame camera's.

Images shot at iso 3200 and 6400 (please shoot RAW) need processing to reduce noise (Adobe Camera RAW does a great job) but are very usable unless (1) the images are underexposed or (2) you intend to print the images large.

For me the 7D has always delivered. Even at high iso's.

That is the plain & simple truth of it all.

[paul13walnut5]

No offence to Pardus, this excellent image shows the detail and saturation possible even at high iso's with a 7D, I would say that set up for RAW and with the slightest of post-processing a lot of the background noise (unobtrusive in this JPEG, but there in the shadows) could be easily removed.

I think, as this and the earlier images posted show, any fears of poor image quality are largely ill founded.

I would augment my earlier comments by saying that good glass is important (what lenses do you have just now? the 85 f1.8 and 100mm f2 make brilliant short sports lenses on the 7D) and camera set up is important (tweak the AF, shoot RAW)

The latest cameras in the best of hands are better, but for the money, in fact at any price, the 7D can be a formiddable sports camera.