Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise

[kirispupis]

I received my 7D2 last Thursday and immediately set out for wildlife to photograph. My primary interest is wildlife photography and I spend one hour in a park every day before going to work. I currently use a 5D3 with a 200-400/1.4x and a 6D as my backup body (mainly for landscapes).

Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3. On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.

What I found was that on the 7D2 there was still a noticeable lack of detail at ISO 1600 compared to ISO 3200 on my 5D3. Even worse, when I went down to ISO 800 there was still noticeable noise, though the images were certainly usable. This morning I spent some time photographing identical subjects with the two, and I came to the conclusion that the 7D2 simply would not work for me.

I am glad I bought it at unique photo - who said they'll take it back as long as the box is in good condition. I had hoped this would give me a bit more extra reach, but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors. Instead I intend to wait and see what Canon does with the 1Dx2.

Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400).
Predator by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

 

[djack41]

I am getting very good results at ISO 800 but exposing to the right is important.

 

[Marsu42]

Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3.

Reading a review would have saved you from the disappointment - ff still keeps a ~2ev advantage as the 7d2 has less banding and more dynamic range, but isn't a revolution concerning iso noise.

On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.

As you're in 200-400 territory, I imagine you expect the very best from your gear so ff is the only option.

Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400)

It's impossible to judge from a postprocessed, denoised jpeg, but if this is really the original size you cropped your 20mp crop sensor to 2mp and expect top notch iq? For this resolution the shots looks fine to me, if there's a problem it's not iso noise but a general lack of sharpness - either from wrong nr, cropping, atmosphere, lens shake, ...

 

[mrsfotografie]

but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.

This is why I'm telling myself not to fall into the 7D2 trap as I did previously with the 7D. If you are really discerning, and used to full frame quality, there's no 'budget' option to get good quality 'reach' I'm affraid.

 

[Sporgon]

but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.

This is why I'm telling myself not to fall into the 7D2 trap as I did previously with the 7D. If you are really discerning, and used to full frame quality, there's no 'budget' option to get good quality 'reach' I'm affraid.

I bet the 7DII is a better contender for 'reach advantage' than the original 7D was. To realise potential resolution you need the capable optics, pixels, light, magnification, stability. The trouble with the 'crop sensor for reach' is that you only gain one of these; pixels. Everything else remains unchanged. The improved sensor of the 7DII with higher QE might make better use of its 20 mp, assuming all other factors are efficient.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.

This is why I'm telling myself not to fall into the 7D2 trap as I did previously with the 7D. If you are really discerning, and used to full frame quality, there's no 'budget' option to get good quality 'reach' I'm affraid.

I also passed on it, its a fine camera but after going to FF, I don't think I would go back, not at least until they come out as refurbs. Maybe a 1D MK IV which does retain good detail at high ISO's.


The 7D Mark II is fine at low to medium ISO levels, but it is a crop after all, and for a really clean image, ISO 1100 or lower is best.

Its truly difficult to judge any small image uploaded to CR, or to Flickr where the images are modified during the upload process. I've seen some decent photos taken by professionals, but I also note the smeared look from over processing from owners attempts to take high ISO images and use too much NR.

Its actually better to use a extreme light touch on NR. The noise won't be visible at web sizes, but the detail will not look like melted wax.

 

[MichaelHodges]

but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors.

This is why I'm telling myself not to fall into the 7D2 trap as I did previously with the 7D. If you are really discerning, and used to full frame quality, there's no 'budget' option to get good quality 'reach' I'm affraid.

Agreed. The OP's issue sounds like my 70D. The crop cameras are fine for the best light, fashion, or sports. But for wildlife photography, the IQ is lacking. You need smooth, yet detailed fur and feathers. The Canon high mp crop sensors look rough and grungy compared to their FF offerings, even at lower ISO's.

 

[kirispupis]

In response to the replies, yes this is basically my dumb. I had owned the original 7D and had similar problems with it, but I had too much hope that this was a much better step forward. I seized on several positive reviews despite my own better initial judgment.

The sample image was mainly intended to show that I do in fact own the camera and am not a troll. The problem images will go in the delete pile...

 

[justsomedude]

In response to the replies, yes this is basically my dumb. I had owned the original 7D and had similar problems with it, but I had too much hope that this was a much better step forward. I seized on several positive reviews despite my own better initial judgment.

The sample image was mainly intended to show that I do in fact own the camera and am not a troll. The problem images will go in the delete pile...

Funny, I just did a video review of why I think the 7D2 is almost better suited for events when extra reach is needed, not birds/wildlife and detail. I can see where lack of clarity would be infuriating.

 

[Loswr]

Clearly it's a problem with the lens. You need a better one...







I, too, am passing on the 7DII. As I've stated previously, the main advantage of APS-C is lower cost. Having owned the 7D, moved to the 5DII for everything but birds/wildlife (because the AF of the 5DII wasn't up to the task), then moved to the 1D X and selling both the 5DII and 7D, I don't see going back to APS-C, except when the constraints of an outing preclude a full sized camera, and in that case the 7DII would also be too big (and that's where my EOS M comes into play).

 

[Sportsgal501]

I've also passed on picking up the 7D Mark II after a little more research and reading a few more reviews.
I'm going to pick up a full frame next year and picking up a Pentax K-5II's next week,for it's low light and it being a much lighter camera to haul around.

 

[justsomedude]

Sorry it didn't work out for you and your needs but I'm very happy with the results that I have been getting.

Sick shot!!!

 

[AprilForever]

I received my 7D2 last Thursday and immediately set out for wildlife to photograph. My primary interest is wildlife photography and I spend one hour in a park every day before going to work. I currently use a 5D3 with a 200-400/1.4x and a 6D as my backup body (mainly for landscapes).

Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3. On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.

What I found was that on the 7D2 there was still a noticeable lack of detail at ISO 1600 compared to ISO 3200 on my 5D3. Even worse, when I went down to ISO 800 there was still noticeable noise, though the images were certainly usable. This morning I spent some time photographing identical subjects with the two, and I came to the conclusion that the 7D2 simply would not work for me.

I am glad I bought it at unique photo - who said they'll take it back as long as the box is in good condition. I had hoped this would give me a bit more extra reach, but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors. Instead I intend to wait and see what Canon does with the 1Dx2.

Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400).
Predator by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

What's wrong with the image?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400).
Predator by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

What's wrong with the image?

There is nothing wrong with the picture, except that it is only ISO 400.

I'm sure 7D Mark ii is quite useful to ISO1600. If someone needs to print large size in ISO 3200, should choose full frame. But that does not make 7D Mark ii unusable at ISO3200 for publish an entire magazine page.

 

[Werz]

I don't think the problem is the 7D2 but the expectations for this camera are out of proportions. Personally I love it for what it is

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
Yes, The new and improve of my dear 7D MK II ( $ 1799 US DOLLARS) are not same IQ and Low noise( WHEN USE HIGH ISO ) as 1Dx or 5D MK II, But for me, I love 1,6 Lens factor ( ?) of extend my mm. of long range lens, and Best of the AF. for only 1/3 ( Cost) of Canon 1Dx.
Yes, My regular rifle( $ 800 Us Dollars ) are great for me, BUT NOT THE BEST as $ 15,000 US Dollars of the great Sniper Rifle.
Yes, If we know the ability of our equipment, and use them as 120% of their ability = Be happy.
No we are not the PRO as 15-20 % of CR. Member ( Who are the Great PRO in my Idea). Just be the best as our ability to use the full ability of our equipment = Heaven on earth.
Good Luck.
Surapon
PS, Last week, I shoot these Model Photos with my dear 7D MK II, and EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L IS MK I, Late evening from 5:00PM to 6:00 PM. Dim Light at the sunset time , Hand held shooting, F= 8.0 , SS = 1/25 sec. ISO = 100 at 135 mm.
The Last 2nPhotos = F= 2.8, SS= 1/125 sec, ISO = 400 for Back ground Blur.

 

[digigal]

Sorry things are not working out with the 7DMII for you. For me, with the limited opportunities I've had, it has outperformed my 7D in so many ways that there is no way I would change. Certainly, I'd like the low noise level of a 1DX but that's not going to happen with a crop sensor. But the noise, I think, is much better handled in this camera if the picture is well exposed or exposed to the right. It's a keeper for me for large prints. Attached are 1:1 Crops of a hand held picture I took of a hummingbird at ISO 4000--the first is out of the camera into Lightroom with no adjustments and the second is with noise reduction and sharpening, etc. I think the feather detail is just fine at ISO 4000 especially considering this was handheld and shot with my 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x TC.
Can't wait to use this camera on some owls in Canada in January!
Catherine

 

[kirispupis]

Here are some sample images to illustrate my frustration. Note that these images from an artistic standpoint suck - but were an attempt to take a photo of the same subject under the same realistic lighting conditions with both cameras. Both images are near 100% crops and have absolutely no noise reduction or PP from the RAW images.

The first one is from the 5D3 at ISO 1600. The lighting was very poor at this time, but the details are fair. A similar shot of a more interesting subject could probably be salvaged.
6O6C8809.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The next is of the same subject with the 7D2 at ISO 800. The detail on the faces is much rougher. The pattern just below the head (the eye is slightly OOF) is less defined than the 5D3 image.
388A0341.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I do have other images at ISO 800 that are better. You are correct that pushed to the right the results are better, but I often do not have this convenience in Seattle.

Here is a mink I took during the same shoot about two minutes after these shots. I took it with my 5D3 at ISO 1600 and it was still too dark so I had to boost up the exposure quite a bit. I then did some PP and cleaned up the noise. The resulting shot still has nice details. There is no way the 7D2 would have done the same.
6O6C8788-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

 

[privatebydesign]

I am no crop camera apologist, but to me the differences are small, couple that with the fact that the 7D MkII shot light is flatter, either a few minutes later or on a more shady part of the water, and if they are both close to 100% then you are enlarging the 7D MkII image nearly twice as much, makes me think you might not be comparing this as evenly as you think.

 

[digigal]

Here are some sample images to illustrate my frustration. Note that these images from an artistic standpoint suck - but were an attempt to take a photo of the same subject under the same realistic lighting conditions with both cameras. Both images are near 100% crops and have absolutely no noise reduction or PP from the RAW images.

The first one is from the 5D3 at ISO 1600. The lighting was very poor at this time, but the details are fair. A similar shot of a more interesting subject could probably be salvaged.
6O6C8809.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The next is of the same subject with the 7D2 at ISO 800. The detail on the faces is much rougher. The pattern just below the head (the eye is slightly OOF) is less defined than the 5D3 image.
388A0341.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I do have other images at ISO 800 that are better. You are correct that pushed to the right the results are better, but I often do not have this convenience in Seattle.

Here is a mink I took during the same shoot about two minutes after these shots. I took it with my 5D3 at ISO 1600 and it was still too dark so I had to boost up the exposure quite a bit. I then did some PP and cleaned up the noise. The resulting shot still has nice details. There is no way the 7D2 would have done the same.

The mink picture looks quite nice but I think if you look at the histogram of the first two pictures in Lightroom you would find that they are quite underexposed which will markedly increase the noise. The only way to overcome that if you are shooting in the deep shadows and have your lens open as much as you can is to increase the ISO and I would say that the exposure of the first two could be improved and the noise moderated by ramping up the ISO. At some point there is a limit where increasing the ISO gives more noise than the severe underexposure does. I would assume the 5DMIII would win in that situation but I have no experience with it.
Catherine