Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

[jrista]

You're definitely right about the right side of my 17-55. For whatever reason it only really shows at certain apertures and focal length combos. I've kind of learned to deal with it over the years. I wouldn't mind sending it in sometime... I was always just a bit worried that it would come back _worse_ in some other way ;-)

Definitely send it in. Canon's repair service is superb, and pretty quick. I had to send my 100-400 L in once, turnaround time was about 6 days including a weekend. They returned my exact lens (same serial #), and it was in perfect condition...not a problem with it once it came back.

 

[friedmud]

I posted last week to get advice on getting a 7D now... and got some truly wonderful responses about how I should take the plunge... and I did.

I got it last night and took some photos around town today. While I was shooting around town I thought the PQ looked GREAT... I could definitely see improvements in the evaluative metering over my XSi... and shouldn't even have to mention the HUGE improvements to AF over my XSi.

Everything was going great... until I got home and loaded up those photos in LR3... and saw a ridiculous amount of high frequency noise ALL over the place... even when shooting at ISO 100-200!

Hi Derek,

I think I may have been one of the ones who recommended the camera to you last week. I'm a little surprised you're having such a problem. While I do think the 7D is a tad noisy at low ISO, I found for myself that ISO 160 seems to be great. I'm not exactly sure what Canon says about the 7D, and whether it differs from their other cameras in any way...however I've heard two things about it:

1. The 7D, unlike other canon DSLR's, has ISO 80 as a base, making ISO 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ideal.
2. The 7D IS a bit noisier than their other DSLR's (not surprising given its pixel density), and ISO 160 a -1/3 stop pull from ISO 200, resulting in a slight deamplification of the image, lowering noise, but also slightly lowering DR. (Additionally, ISO 125, 250, etc. are pushed from the previous native setting, which contributes to their CONSIDERABLE noise...avoid +1/3 ISO stops at all costs!)

This video is a helpful demonstration: http://vimeo.com/10473734

Either way you slice it, you should try ISO 160, 320, 640 and see how you like the results. I have not noticed any huge issue with using those ISO's, and if there is any loss in DR, its never been a problem for me. Additionally, remember that the 18.1mp of your 7D is 48% MORE detail than the 12.2mp of your XSi. At 100% pixel peeping, your looking at noise at a much finer level of detail thann the XSi. If you scale the 7D image down to the size of an XSi image with some standard bicubic, the additional noise should be mitigated against, if not entirely normalized with, your 450D. I've also found that Lightroom 3.5's NR does a pretty good job at reducing noise, and when I print at home with a Canon PIXMA Pro 9500 Mk II @ 13x19", the noise is usually invisible (and some noise is always a bit beneficial for printing smooth gradients, like a fade into shadow or a sunset sky.)

Wow - good information on ISO 160, 320, 640.... I'll definitely give that a shot tomorrow (and this weekend).

Even when I scale the photo down to XSi size I'm still having trouble with the noise... but I do understand what you're saying about comparing the XSi to the 7D. I haven't actually done that comparison yet... but I'm still somewhat disappointed in the performance the 7D has put in so far.

Good to hear about the prints... I have the same printer myself. I'll do some prints from my shots this weekend to see if everything looks ok.

 

[wockawocka]

It's commonly known that there is low ISO noise, and lots of it.

Great features, crap sensor.

If IQ is paramount buy a used 5D mk1, but unless you get a 1D series you can't have both I'm afraid.

 

[jrista]

Looking at your sample photos, I don't see any problem. There are two ways I think most people display their work: at very small scale on a computer screen (roughly 4x6" overall area, give or take, say 750-900px wide/tall screen size), or at moderate scale in a print, say 8x10 - 13x19, possibly 17x22 at the upper end. Its a rarer photographer that blows their work up to immense size in print.

In both of the more common formats, the amount of noise I see in your sample photos should NEVER be a problem from any practical standpoint. If you scale your photos down to a reasonable viewing size on a computer screen, you would need noise on the level of the 7D's ISO 3200 for it to really begin to be a problem, and LR is pretty good at reducing ISO 3200 noise to more reasonable levels. If you print at 13x19, you will probably find that a bit of noise is actually a welcome addition, as it really helps normalize tonal gradents in a print.

I've never had anything to complain about with 7D prints, although admittedly I have not had mine much longer than you have had yours. My previous 450D had pretty terrible noise at or above ISO 800, and I've had a couple very large multi-foot prints created from some of its photos. The high noise level at ISO 800 and 1600, which is a fair bit worse than the 7D's ISO 100 noise, is slightly visible...the worst part about it is that it affects some of the fine detail in such a large print at high PPI. To be honest, I've never expected an APS-C sensor to perform well enough for such enlargements, even with the amount of work I tend to put in optimizing the TIFF images I send out to be printed. I have been holding out for a 5D III to take care of my more extreme need to print 4 feet by 3 feet, and I suspect it will service that need superbly. The 7D fills a different need, and allows me to capture shots of birds and wildlife in action far better than either the 450D did or the 5D might. I usually print those shots at smaller sizes, and the noise is never a problem.

 

[Cannon Man]

you mentioned about shooting with apertures 7-12, the calculated DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) for the 7D is f/6.9 so it means that when you go to apertures 8,9,10... you lose sharpness and image quality. the 5DII has a DLA of f/10.2 and it sucks more light in because its full frame.

And i recommend buying a sharper lens so you won't have to apply sharpening at all..
That way you can keep all the IQ and hence get better images. tilt shift lenses are great because you can shoot landscapes with larger apertures and with a bigger depth of field.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My first 7D seemed noisy to me as well, even at ISO 800. I received it in the first batch made. I returned it. This summer, I bought a second one, a refurb from Canon using the CLP, and it is better, but not comparable with my 5D MK II or 1D MK IV for high ISO. its usable with a ton of NR.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

1. The 7D, unlike other canon DSLR's, has ISO 80 as a base, making ISO 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ideal.

Do you have a source for this? It doesn't jive with what I've read:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=784514

Of course sensorgen.info shows the "marked" normal ISOs are quite different from the stated:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=784514

@ friedmud: Have you tried auto ISO for a comparison? ISO 400 in the same situations? What you describe sounds a little bit like noise from underexposure.

Also, you should check the Highlight Tone Priority setting: Turn it off, if it is on.

 

[te4o]

I have been wondering about all those people coming here to ask for a confirmation of a purchasing decision - where everyone on this forum shouts "buy now" - see, this is a result of listening to other people...
To a small population of patient unlucky Canon victims it is obvious that even the "best ever" 5D2 has terrible pattern noise if pushed at ISO 100-200 with sharPening or exposure push. We ARE WAITING for better days and use the old stuff like 30Ds and 40Ds and work around their insufficiencies like in an old marriage. Because the 5D c or 2 are still TOO EXpensive for what they can offer!
You just sPent 1500$ on a new "bride" to realize it is not better than the old ones...
Many users just don't want to see the noise on Canons current sensors - they are the happy ones. Try to teach yourself...

 

[dtaylor]

* Pixel peeping means greater magnification for the 7D image.

* Finer pixels also means that the 7D's noise is "sharper" than noise from lower resolution cameras even after you equalize the pixel dimensions and viewing conditions. It's not necessarily more noise and it's not necessarily apparent in even the largest prints, but it seems more obtrusive while pixel peeping. (Same thing with the D3x vs D3s.)

* I regularly make 24" and 30" landscape prints. I use sharpening, and sometimes also use NR. The prints are tack sharp, full of detail, and show no noise. In fact, I've made a few 20" portrait prints shot at ISO 800 and they are gorgeous.

* I've even got some 20" prints from cropped 7D images, surfing shots, at ISO 400. No noise on the print.

That said, there's a little noise even at low ISO while pixel peeping. But pixel peeping is like looking at a 60-70" print from a couple feet.

With all of that out of the way...your first sample does look like it has more noise then I would expect. Did you nail the exposure, or underexpose and adjust in post?

 

[dstppy]

Ok - here's one that has just received minor sharpening (what I would do for any shot coming in at ISO 200)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6480510009_df4a26af47_o.jpg

And here's another that I've tried my hardest to "fixup" with sharpening and NR:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6480518429_3cd975c2a1_o.jpg

I'm with the others that suggest seeing if you can try out another 7D.

I have a 60D and I just don't see noise like this in daylight pictures as you've seen here.

 

[Loswr]

My 7D will beat the crap out of any 5D you care to pick, at the image level...

The 5D will have lower ISO noise across the board...and that's pretty relevent to the issue the OP describes.

Looking back over friedmud's original thread, s/he stated something in this thread that was left out of the request for purchase advice, "I am mainly a landscape photographer..." I suppose someone here should have asked that question previously (and there was a reference to shooting 'out in the Japanese countryside' in the original thread), but no one did, and the OP had EF-S lenses and stated having no interest in a 5DII/III.

Still, armed with the info that the primary use was landscape photography, I would not have recommended the 7D. Don't get me wrong - I think the 7D is a great camera. But if I'm going out to shoot landscapes, I'll grab my 5DII every single time.

 

[Gothmoth]

and now please let us hear the guys who want a 36MP 1Ds.....

what mircales do you expect from a new sensor when going to a photoside size near the 7D sensor....?

 

[CowGummy]

I too agree with those that are suggesting sending it back, or at least comparing to other 7D models. The noise on that first image looks too high for my liking. And given the kind of money you've spent on this camera I too feel you ought to be expecting excellent IQ, and the low iso noise is clearly getting in the way of your enjoyment.

However, I also agree with neuro - I thought the same thing when reading your initial post where you state you are mainly a landscape shooter. The 7D is a very good camera - no doubt. But landscape shooting was never going to be it's strongpoint. Full frame will usually handle landscapes more successfully.

 

[RayS2121]

I was never impressed with the 7D noise levels at whatever ISO. Both in landscape and in macro this would be very noticable if the performance is not bang-on. It is possible there is some unit to unit variation, I am not sure. I have seen terrible flickr images and counted them as those from a terrible photographer only to see most of their images are awful, even a horrible photographer is bound to take an occational clean shot . Other people's images seem ok on the other hand. Unless you can play with it at the shop with a few units in hand, this seems rather a toss up. I will say however, I love the AF improvements.

 

[catz]

Ok - here's one that has just received minor sharpening (what I would do for any shot coming in at ISO 200)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6480510009_df4a26af47_o.jpg

And here's another that I've tried my hardest to "fixup" with sharpening and NR:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6480518429_3cd975c2a1_o.jpg

I'm with the others that suggest seeing if you can try out another 7D.

I have a 60D and I just don't see noise like this in daylight pictures as you've seen here.

Me too. My 60D sucks in many ways compared to my 5D mark II.
In same lighting conditions one picture taken with 5D and another with 60D and the difference is huge when I edit it on Aperture. The 5D picture (in addition to video) is much better in terms of noise, detail and latitude. I can push the 5D RAW images much further than the 60D RAW images ever. And it is not about the lenses either, I can use the same L-lens in both and the results with 5D are just from another planet than with the 60D.

Many reviews were stating that 60D would have had identical video and comparable still image quality, but after purchasing the second body I saw the truth by myself. It is not about the picture styles either. The latitude simply can not be found from the 60D. 60D images may look at first sight more "shiny, vivid and saturated" at low resolution (not 1:1 resolution because 60D images at that resolution have lots of camera phone like noise on it which really annoys me) when taken out of the camera than the 5D images, but after processing, the truth is that 60D images are crap and the 5D images have so much information that it is almost unbelievable at times. And the 5D mk II is many years old camera.

And yeah, the video: 60D video is so crappy and aliasing and latitude and detail lacking (even in good lighting conditions, with studio lights and all) that it almost hurts my eye while I find the 5D mk II video usable.

When 5D mark III comes, I will probably sell my 60D and use the mk II as second body.

 

[RayS2121]

The noise problem in higher pixel density sensors is one reason why Canon has probably gone back to the drawing board as professional photographers will *never* put up with this, nor will they dole out $7000+ for that kind of performance. Regardelss of the vocal protestations from the enthusiasts wanting more and more MP, looking at the actual marketing strategy of Canon.... lower priced, higher pixel density, smaller sensors for enthsiasts, and all "1" series have been lower MP. I assume Canon, who is making the money and marketing this, knows something about who wants what.

 

[friedmud]

Very interesting to see all of the replies. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me... but I'm left wondering where to go. On paper the 7D looked like the ideal camera for me: it's got the "pro" features I want in an EFS package. But now it seems like not only can I not upgrade to the 7D... but the 60D and T3i are out (same sensor).

I suppose I'm just going to have to continue with my XSi for now.

As for not mentioning that I'm a landscape photographer... that was definitely an omission on my part. After reading everything about this camera I don't fault the people that told me to snag it... there are _many_ happy customers with this camera. I just think it's not right for me.

I think that "catz" post is the most relevant to my situation. I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them. If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me. What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.

As for "pixel peeping". I don't think that's what I'm doing. Anyone who looked at those photos I posted should be disgusted. I didn't do _any_ exposure adjustment at all and just a tad bit of sharpening (not even close to as much as I typically would for a landscape shot). The exposure is spot on... fully covering the range in every channel (yay evaluative exposure on 7D! My XSi would have trouble doing that with even this shot ;-)

If I try to crop this photo down _at all_ I can see the noise with the full photo being displayed (ie not zooming in) on my 27" iMac. And that's doing a pretty small amount cropping (like only including the whole church). If I go any further, like just the front half of the church... it looks like I took this photo at ISO 800+! How anyone shooting landscapes would think that is acceptable is beyond me. I've cropped ISO 100-200 photos from my XSi _way_ down and been satisfied with the results (and I didn't have to apply any NR at all!).

Here is a screenshot of what I'm seeing on my screen: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6482020907_8689f39356_o.jpg

Bottom line: $1,500 for RAW files that you can't "push around" at all and having to apply NR at ISO 100-200 is completely unacceptable to me.

Like I mentioned, I'm still going to give it a go this weekend and see what the results are... but at this point I'm not expecting it to be good...

Thanks again for everyone taking the time to reply! This has been extremely insightful!

 

[EYEONE]

Very interesting to see all of the replies. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me... but I'm left wondering where to go. On paper the 7D looked like the ideal camera for me: it's got the "pro" features I want in an EFS package. But now it seems like not only can I not upgrade to the 7D... but the 60D and T3i are out (same sensor).

I suppose I'm just going to have to continue with my XSi for now.

As for not mentioning that I'm a landscape photographer... that was definitely an omission on my part. After reading everything about this camera I don't fault the people that told me to snag it... there are _many_ happy customers with this camera. I just think it's not right for me.

I think that "catz" post is the most relevant to my situation. I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them. If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me. What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.

As for "pixel peeping". I don't think that's what I'm doing. Anyone who looked at those photos I posted should be disgusted. I didn't do _any_ exposure adjustment at all and just a tad bit of sharpening (not even close to as much as I typically would for a landscape shot). The exposure is spot on... fully covering the range in every channel (yay evaluative exposure on 7D! My XSi would have trouble doing that with even this shot ;-)

If I try to crop this photo down _at all_ I can see the noise with the full photo being displayed (ie not zooming in) on my 27" iMac. And that's doing a pretty small amount cropping (like only including the whole church). If I go any further, like just the front half of the church... it looks like I took this photo at ISO 800+! How anyone shooting landscapes would think that is acceptable is beyond me. I've cropped ISO 100-200 photos from my XSi _way_ down and been satisfied with the results (and I didn't have to apply any NR at all!).

Here is a screenshot of what I'm seeing on my screen: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6482020907_8689f39356_o.jpg

Bottom line: $1,500 for RAW files that you can't "push around" at all and having to apply NR at ISO 100-200 is completely unacceptable to me.

Like I mentioned, I'm still going to give it a go this weekend and see what the results are... but at this point I'm not expecting it to be good...

Thanks again for everyone taking the time to reply! This has been extremely insightful!

The 7D is a fine camera. I put my RAW files through quite a bit and they look great. I have a few issues with some of the things but I've learned to eliminate the issue or work around it. I think there could be something wrong with your 7D. But I wouldn't write off the entire 7D line for your use. It's the best crop body out right now. Period.

 

[Loswr]

Reportedly, the 7D has a pretty strong AA filter, meaning it's require more sharpening in post, which affects noise.

I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them. If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me. What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.

I find that with a lot of work, I can manage to get 7D files post-processed to the point where the IQ is close to those from my 5DII...but that's straight out of the camera from the 5DII.

FWIW, the 5DII has the same C1-C3 custom settings. A hotshoe bubble level works great, that's what I use with my 5DII.

May I ask...why are you dead-set against the 5DII? Is it your EF-S lens collection? What lenses do you have? I had the 10-22mm and the 17-55mm with my T1i, and then 7D. When I got my 5DII, I sold the 10-22mm...for $50 less than I had paid for it (new from Amazon) after a year of use - and that was before the early 2011 price increases, if I sold it today I'd make a profit based on current used prices. I kept the 17-55mm for us with my 7D, since that serves as a backup camera (as your XSi would, presumably).

 

[awinphoto]

Hey Derek... I've shot with the 7d professionally since it's release and still have it as my second shooter... I see your situation with the noise... A couple things that come to mind off hand... given the high MP and sensor density, things to consider is what in-camera sharpening do you have the camera set at and what in camera noise reduction do you have the camera set at... too high of a sharpening setting and too low of a NR will product higher noise than needed. Secondly what do you normally output the files to? Print? Online? Normally I almost always aim to have my photos printed (or judged based off of prints...). I've had my 7d printed up to 16x20 and even seen 7d's being printed at 20x30... typically in print, all that noise becomes detail and your prints look great... I also warn that the base large file is for outputting at 300dpi a 11x17 print... I'd suggesting print a test print and check noise... If it still bugs you at that time, check your settings and or send your camera in...

For what it's worth, I dont do a lot of landscapes but I do my fair share of architecture and I find shooting around F8 gives more than enough DOF for this camera and also gives the sharpest results with my L lenses (well 5.6-8).