Canon EOS 7D - High ISO

[MarkChap]

Ok, so I was mucking about with AF micro adjust this evening, and grabbed a couple of high ISO shots just because I could.

Now I know there are purists out there who will want to tear me apart for poor testing parameters, techniques etc, but these will do as real word examples.
Straight off camera, no adjustments other than converted to JPG from RAW through bridge and Photoshop, so probably some default settings applied by them.
These are full frame images no cropping at all, first 2 are a bit dark, but I really couldn't go much lower than 1/30th, all hand held.
No Noise reduction applied at all

Enjoy

7D ISO 3200 1/30, 120-400 Sigma @ 400mm f5.6


7D ISO 6400 1/30, 120-400 Sigma @ 400mm f5.6


7D ISO 12800 1/30, 120-400 Sigma @ 400mm f5.6

[etherial]

I find that in real life I have no problem taking it to ISO3200 which is what it by default will allow itself to go up to. And then if need be I am comfortable at ISO6400 or higher if it means I get the shot. Massive step up from my 450D.

[wideangle]

What would you say you gain with the 7D compared to say entry level models such as the 450D over noise? The results above look really good.

[etherial]

I reckon at least 2 stops

[wideangle]

I reckon at least 2 stops

By that much? That is a lot of difference

[GJC]

I've found the 7D to be fantastic at Hi ISO. Here are a couple of shots taken with the 7D and Canon 100-400mm L IS lens. It was great to be able to keep the shutter speed up to allow for the long lens in a hand-held situation or better depth of field.

I have found it to be very satisfactory at 3200 and pretty good at 6400. At 12800 is gets pretty noisy, but certainly better than missing out on a shot because of camera shake.

The following images were taken with these settings:
ISO: 6400 | Exp. Time: 1/400s | Aperture: 7.1 | Focal Length: 400.0mm
ISO: 3200 | Exp. Time: 1/250s | Aperture: 5.6 | Focal Length: 400.0mm
ISO: 3200 | Exp. Time: 1/30s | Aperture: 5.6 | Focal Length: 400.0mm

[KALBO]

Hi. I have a 450D and yhep.. the ISO stops at 1600... BUT at 12800 with the 7D! Woww! NIce captures there by the way. Well done!

[Dwarak]

I have ordered for the 7d the pictures above are reassuring after I lost my 500d to water damage at noosa beach freak wave !!!!!

[wideangle]

Nice results, did you do any NR to the 6400ISO image?

[GJC]

Yep - I shoot in RAW and use Lightroom to process. I used both luminance and colour NR in Lightroom on that shot. Here's the shot converted straight from RAW - no NR.

I've come from a 350D - Wow what a difference. The 7D is about 3 stops better, i.e. my ISO 12800 shots with the 7D have about the same noise as the 350D at ISO 1600.

That said - the subjects in these shots are well lit and have a lot of contrast.

Here's are a couple of shots in lower light

ISO: 6400 | Exp. Time: 1/60s | Aperture: 4.5 | Focal Length: 100.0mm
ISO: 12800 | Exp. Time: 1/15s | Aperture: 4.5 | Focal Length: 100.0mm

[adilucca]

What I've found is that when I print the photos they look even better at high ISO than they do on the screen.

Like Mic, I too went from a 450D to a 7D. I couldn't believe the difference at high ISO. I would never go over 800 ISO before. Now I'm confident to go to 3200 ISO if needed.


Cheers
Alan

[rwg717]

The 12.800 ISO is showing the grit but about twice as good as the average P&S
At least you got the shot...pretty good and worth the experimentation when there's no pressure on to get a capture. Actually the series might have helped me a bit now I have seen the results I might push mine a bit harder...thanks for that
Richard

[wideangle]

So I take it then IS0 800 would be totally usable on the 7D going from the above results!

[GJC]

Yep - I used to use 200 or 400 ASA on my 350D for everyday shooting. On the 7D, I use 800 or 1600 without fear. I only really get down to 100 when I want a long exposure on purpose.

[wideangle]

Yep - I used to use 200 or 400 ASA on my 350D for everyday shooting. On the 7D, I use 800 or 1600 without fear. I only really get down to 100 when I want a long exposure on purpose.

I find 400ISO on the entry level SLR Canon's to be good if you shoot in ideal conditions, anything above starts getting a bit noisy. How does the 7D cope if you have a slightly underexposed shot and you need to bring lightness back to the image? How far can you underexpose before image degradation sets in?

[Tricky]

I think the 7D is slightly better at ISO1600 than my 40D was at 800... so around 1 to 1.5 stops better would be subjective view.

[JM Tran]

u guys should start printing out large format photos of medium to high ISO shots instead of comparing them on the computer - where it is much much more pronounced and less forgiving on the eye

I did a print at 640ISO at 45x30 inch, thats just over a metre wide - what noise?

the 7D's noise capability can rival the earlier generations of full frame cameras such as the 5D classic and 1DsMKII, going by the above results and my experiences.

[GJC]

At 800, depending on the amount of contrast in the shot, I can usually get away with 2/3 of a stop without noticing much. At +1 stop exposure adjustment you start to notice it.

I haven't really thought about why, but I can definately bend results more with my Canon L series 100-400 and Sigma EX series 10-20 lenses than with the Sigma 18-200.

As an example, here's a shot at:
ISO: 1600 | Exp. Time: 1/400s | Aperture: 7.1 | Focal Length: 400.0mm
Post processing exposure comp : +0.76

[NGP]

@ GJC.. I would recommend to use your 7D micro adjustment on your 100-400L.. it seems to front focus by about 15-20cm..

BTW Mark, when comparing/benchmarking high ISO images I'd recommend to correctly expose your images, rather then keeping all images at same settings.. under exposure will only suffer from more noise then a correct exposed image, especially in shaded/darker areas..

[MarkChap]

@ GJC.. I would recommend to use your 7D micro adjustment on your 100-400L.. it seems to front focus by about 15-20cm..

BTW Mark, when comparing/benchmarking high ISO images I'd recommend to correctly expose your images, rather then keeping all images at same settings.. under exposure will only suffer from more noise then a correct exposed image, especially in shaded/darker areas..

Yep fully agree, as I said, I was just mucking about, I didn't set out to test/compare/benchmark high ISO, took the first, hmmm, bit dark - upped the ISO until I got a fairly well exposed one (the last one) downloaded them and thought - hmmmmmmm.... for high ISO these are pretty damn fine, wonder if any one else is interested.

I am actually rather surprised that you are the first to "question" my testing methods