High ISO Performance of Current DSLRs
Discussion
I'm going through a bit of a "head vs heart" dilemma over whether to upgrade my trusty 400d to a 7d. I've thoroughly enjoyed my 400d over the last 4 years - it's served me well, I've learnt a lot, I've invested prudently and thoughtfully in some reasonable glass and other toys that have improved both my enjoyment and the results and it's provided and continues to provide some fantastic images of my young family.
However, having made the potential mistake of handling a new 7D in a shop I really want one - even though I suspect that my desire is based more upon emotion than reason. I know that I'd appreciate that it would feel better to hold, that the controls would fall more easily to hand, the clever AF may help me to get some shots that I currently miss, the more dense sensor would let me crop more and that I'd enjoy exploring a lot of the features, particularly the ability to shoot video through a quality lens - but fundamentally I'm concerned that once the novelty has worn off I'll be a grand and a bit down and have a big, heavy camera that doesn't really take noticeably better pictures than the one I've already got.
Anyway, I have one very specific question that may help me make my decision. One of the areas where is appears that the 7D is clearly much better than my 400d and which I would really benefit from is the ability to control noise at high ISO - at 800 ISO or above the images from my camera look pretty noisy, far more so than those I see on the web at 3200 ISO or higher from people's 7Ds. So my question is - is this high ISO performance a consequence of a physcially better sensor or just better noise processing algorithms within the camera ? Can I do better with my 400d if I make more of an effort to do my own RAW post processing of low ligth images off camera or is the quality of the sensor the limiting factor ?
However, having made the potential mistake of handling a new 7D in a shop I really want one - even though I suspect that my desire is based more upon emotion than reason. I know that I'd appreciate that it would feel better to hold, that the controls would fall more easily to hand, the clever AF may help me to get some shots that I currently miss, the more dense sensor would let me crop more and that I'd enjoy exploring a lot of the features, particularly the ability to shoot video through a quality lens - but fundamentally I'm concerned that once the novelty has worn off I'll be a grand and a bit down and have a big, heavy camera that doesn't really take noticeably better pictures than the one I've already got.
Anyway, I have one very specific question that may help me make my decision. One of the areas where is appears that the 7D is clearly much better than my 400d and which I would really benefit from is the ability to control noise at high ISO - at 800 ISO or above the images from my camera look pretty noisy, far more so than those I see on the web at 3200 ISO or higher from people's 7Ds. So my question is - is this high ISO performance a consequence of a physcially better sensor or just better noise processing algorithms within the camera ? Can I do better with my 400d if I make more of an effort to do my own RAW post processing of low ligth images off camera or is the quality of the sensor the limiting factor ?
Seight_Returns said:
Can I do better with my 400d if I make more of an effort to do my own RAW post processing of low ligth images off camera .... ?
Don't think so. Same problem here on a 400D. Nothing you can do apart from buy a tripod.Took some RAW the other day in Rome, and noise reduction in the software just makes the image (if you look close up) more blotchy.
Good luck with the 7D though! Very nice. Handled one a few months but felt bits of it were rather technical, so I'd like to compare it against a 550D before I upgrade. (Or whatever the 7D/550D equivs are by then).
Seight_Returns said:
but fundamentally I'm concerned that once the novelty has worn off I'll be a grand and a bit down and have a big, heavy camera that doesn't really take noticeably better pictures than the one I've already got.
One of the areas where is appears that the 7D is clearly much better than my 400d and which I would really benefit from is the ability to control noise at high ISO - at 800 ISO or above the images from my camera look pretty noisy, far more so than those I see on the web at 3200 ISO or higher from people's 7Ds. So my question is - is this high ISO performance a consequence of a physcially better sensor or just better noise processing algorithms within the camera ? Can I do better with my 400d if I make more of an effort to do my own RAW post processing of low ligth images off camera or is the quality of the sensor the limiting factor ?
It's the sensor.One of the areas where is appears that the 7D is clearly much better than my 400d and which I would really benefit from is the ability to control noise at high ISO - at 800 ISO or above the images from my camera look pretty noisy, far more so than those I see on the web at 3200 ISO or higher from people's 7Ds. So my question is - is this high ISO performance a consequence of a physcially better sensor or just better noise processing algorithms within the camera ? Can I do better with my 400d if I make more of an effort to do my own RAW post processing of low ligth images off camera or is the quality of the sensor the limiting factor ?
I went from a Nikon D70 to a D3, and all I can tell you is that, with the ability to take photographs in low light without needing to resort to using a flash, it fundamentally changes your approach to what is possible with a camera, and when you might actually be able to take pictures which previously you wouldn't have even considered.
It's possible, with post-processing, to improve the noise properties of photographs, but even then I doubt the results would match what the sensors in cameras like the Nikon D3 and the Canon 7D are able to produce straight off the bat.
Even in normal light conditions, the image quality from the D3 is just epic when compared to my previous camera.
I have a 7D and reguarly shoot football matches. However, I'm heavily limited by my regular lens, a 70-200 F4 IS L. Great lens, but I really start to struggle in low light - really need the 2.8 tbh...
Anyway, to help get around this I have to up the ISO.
This one was shot at 5000.
Now, there was a fair bit of noise in the shot, and it has been run through noiseware, but I think it's pretty impressive, not perfect but for the first match of the season I'm happy.
The only trouble with doing it this way, is that you can end up with shots with less definition in them, because noiseware always degrades a sharp image. The art is try to get the exposure bang on, then you're not forcing it in PP which is where you get extra noise from.
Recent ISO improvements have definitely moved the digital photography game on in leaps and bounds.
Anyway, to help get around this I have to up the ISO.
This one was shot at 5000.
Now, there was a fair bit of noise in the shot, and it has been run through noiseware, but I think it's pretty impressive, not perfect but for the first match of the season I'm happy.
The only trouble with doing it this way, is that you can end up with shots with less definition in them, because noiseware always degrades a sharp image. The art is try to get the exposure bang on, then you're not forcing it in PP which is where you get extra noise from.
Recent ISO improvements have definitely moved the digital photography game on in leaps and bounds.
minky monkey said:
recalluk said:
Nick M said:
I went from a Nikon D70 to a D3
Now THATS an upgrade 
Very nice, I played with one a while back (felt dirty playing with a Nikon... lol) Very nice bit of kit, all the buttons are in the wrong places for me, but I couldn't help but be impressed by it.
Figured it was a chance to get my hands on some 'proper' camera gear and, I have to say, I don't regret it for one moment !! It has allowed me to take photographs which wouldn't be feasible without a lot more faffing about with a 'lesser' camera, and it almost pushes you to try and find ways of exploiting its low-light capabilities.
Couple that with the great image quality and the fact that it's built like a brick outhouse and I can see me hanging onto it for some time to come - it would need to be another fundamental 'step change' in camera technology to prompt me to upgrade in the future.
All this talk about noise makes me laugh when I look at some of my old prints made from Tri-X pushed to 3200ASA or trannies on Ektachrome pushed to 640ASA - thats not grain - its bleedin' art.
I take the view that you don't resolve that much detail in your vision in subdued light - especially as you get older - and the loss of detail is commensurate with how you actually see it at the time.
I have a 7D and it is a huge impreovment over the 300D but whether its worth the investment is another matter.
I take the view that you don't resolve that much detail in your vision in subdued light - especially as you get older - and the loss of detail is commensurate with how you actually see it at the time.
I have a 7D and it is a huge impreovment over the 300D but whether its worth the investment is another matter.
I went from a 400d to a 7d and for similar quality the new one is worth 2-3 stops in low light. It is not in the same league as a 5d2 and the accursed Nikon is still the prince of darkness, but in relative terms the 7d punches its (financial) weight.
Personally I find the greatest benefits for what I shoot come from the new AF system and I also find that I frame things much better with the glorious viewfinder. The size of the thing is also much more comfortable in my hands (mileage may vary for others of course) and basically I just find it more enjoyable to shoot.
I must confess that it is priced beyond my photographic ability though, so it came out of the toy budget without trying to make any tangible cost justification... There will surely soon be a 60d which might make a more logical purchase for you otherwise?
Personally I find the greatest benefits for what I shoot come from the new AF system and I also find that I frame things much better with the glorious viewfinder. The size of the thing is also much more comfortable in my hands (mileage may vary for others of course) and basically I just find it more enjoyable to shoot.
I must confess that it is priced beyond my photographic ability though, so it came out of the toy budget without trying to make any tangible cost justification... There will surely soon be a 60d which might make a more logical purchase for you otherwise?
Edited by DiscoColin on Thursday 5th August 19:14
The Nikon D700 is really excellent. Pictures of the moon and suchlike very easy - and the auto ISO setting actually works - means you can get away with small light cheap lenses instead of paying an arm and your firstborn for a lens - its a step change in lens requirements for that reason.
I shifted from a 350D to a 7D.
350d isnt quite as good as the 400D for low light, ISO 800 was fairly rough.
I know the 5d2 is a stop or more better in low light but the 7D is so good that it doesnt matter so much unless your shooting ISO 3200+ all the time.
Remember with a lot of pixels 100% views can look crap but the whole image may look excelent - I find the 7D to be noisy looking at ISO 400-800 compared with what I would think it should be doing, over 800 its great...
Heres one shot at ISo 3200 but -1EV and pushed a stop ( Auto ISO), so effectivly ISO 6400, carefully processed with topaz denoise (which seems the best noise reduction software atm). This realy looks very clean to me and hugely usable.
350d isnt quite as good as the 400D for low light, ISO 800 was fairly rough.
I know the 5d2 is a stop or more better in low light but the 7D is so good that it doesnt matter so much unless your shooting ISO 3200+ all the time.
Remember with a lot of pixels 100% views can look crap but the whole image may look excelent - I find the 7D to be noisy looking at ISO 400-800 compared with what I would think it should be doing, over 800 its great...
Heres one shot at ISo 3200 but -1EV and pushed a stop ( Auto ISO), so effectivly ISO 6400, carefully processed with topaz denoise (which seems the best noise reduction software atm). This realy looks very clean to me and hugely usable.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff