Noise on Canon 7DMkii
Nov 19, 2014 11:23:31 #
foathog wrote:
I worry that all those buttons may cause me to miss a shot.
I wear a pullover. No worry about buttons!
Nov 19, 2014 21:16:23 #
brianmen wrote:
I took this shot this morning. The first 2 are cropped from the complete shot shown in picture three.
These heads have been processed identically except for No 1 which has Topaz light noise reduction applied. You are welcome to form your own opinion on how the new camera is on noise. The setting was ISO6400 2000sec f9
The full bird had more processing and I upped Topaz noise reduction to moderate and took out that annoying branch running into the head.
These heads have been processed identically except for No 1 which has Topaz light noise reduction applied. You are welcome to form your own opinion on how the new camera is on noise. The setting was ISO6400 2000sec f9
The full bird had more processing and I upped Topaz noise reduction to moderate and took out that annoying branch running into the head.
I guess I'm blind, but I can't see a difference between the two, and the full bird is magnificant! But with that camera, I think you could've upped the ISO even more!!
Nov 20, 2014 19:42:36 #
ecar wrote:
To what end? Unnecessarily increasing the ISO is counter-productive and would soften the image even more..... But with that camera, I think you could've upped the ISO even more!!
Nov 21, 2014 07:36:30 #
Peekayoh wrote:
To what end? Unnecessarily increasing the ISO is counter-productive and would soften the image even more.
To push the technology and see what it can do.
Nov 21, 2014 08:01:44 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Not when it makes things worse than it could have been.To push the technology and see what it can do.
It only makes sense to push the ISO when there is no alternative.
Nov 21, 2014 08:07:39 #
Peekayoh wrote:
Not when it makes things worse than it could have been.
It only makes sense to push the ISO when there is no alternative.
It only makes sense to push the ISO when there is no alternative.
It is about learning the potential of new equipment.
In case you missed it, this is a thread about a new camera with reported great high ISO performance.
It is posted in the Main Photography Discussion area not in Photo Analysis.
If someone wants to explore that, this is the appropriate place. It is inappropriate to criticize someone for doing so as that discourages discussion and exploration.
Nov 21, 2014 09:12:37 #
Peekayoh wrote:
Not when it makes things worse than it could have been.
It only makes sense to push the ISO when there is no alternative.
It only makes sense to push the ISO when there is no alternative.
dsmeltz wrote:
Yes and my point from the beginning is that this image is not indicative of any sort of exceptional highISO performance. When the light is good, as it was in this case, there is no point in increasing the ISO unless your intention is to degrade the image..... In case you missed it, this is a thread about a new camera with reported great high ISO performance. .....
The way to assess highISO performance is when the lack of available light makes it impossible to use the desirable Aperture/Shutter combination.
Nov 21, 2014 09:34:02 #
Peekayoh wrote:
I'm picking up on this only because the title led ... (show quote)
^^^PERFECT!!! :thumbup:
Nov 21, 2014 09:39:06 #
Peekayoh wrote:
Yes and my point from the beginning is that this image is not indicative of any sort of exceptional highISO performance. When the light is good, as it was in this case, there is no point in increasing the ISO unless your intention is to degrade the image.
The way to assess highISO performance is when the lack of available light makes it impossible to use the desirable Aperture/Shutter combination.
The way to assess highISO performance is when the lack of available light makes it impossible to use the desirable Aperture/Shutter combination.
^^^THIS.
Of course, it should made clear that no one REASONABLY expects Canon Fanboys to actually UNDERSTAND your point here P; they are "Blinded by the light"; revved up like a deuce and caught-up in the hype. ;)
Nov 21, 2014 10:30:56 #
ecar wrote:
I guess I'm blind, but I can't see a difference between the two, and the full bird is magnificant! But with that camera, I think you could've upped the ISO even more!!
Peekayoh wrote:
To what end? Unnecessarily increasing the ISO is counter-productive and would soften the image even more.
My comments were about the question raised regarding a valid comment stemming from one individuals observation that they did not see a difference and would want to see it pushed further. That was the end to which the suggested change was directed. The question was To what end? I was simply answering THAT question.
As to the other comments by those who have not added to the content of the discussion Well I try to ignore trolls.
Nov 21, 2014 11:20:19 #
dsmeltz wrote:
To what end? Unnecessarily increasing the ISO is counter-productive and would soften the image even more.
dsmeltz wrote:
I guess I didn't make myself clear so I'll try again. If the OP were to increase the ISO by one stop to iso12800, the resultant image would be more degraded by noise than the one posted. I hope that we all know that! By saying "to what end?" I'm simply asking, what's the point.My comments were about the question raised regarding a valid comment stemming from one individuals observation that they did not see a difference and would want to see it pushed further. That was the end to which the suggested change was directed. The question was To what end? I was simply answering THAT question.
As to the other comments by those who have not added to the content of the discussion Well I try to ignore trolls.
As to the other comments by those who have not added to the content of the discussion Well I try to ignore trolls.
Just to be doubly clear about this, pushing the iso when there is plenty of available light is no test of a camera's low noise capability. Any camera will do better in those circumstances. The only real test of low noise capability comes in really poor light and when you can only get the shot by raising the iso.
Nov 21, 2014 11:48:42 #
Peekayoh wrote:
I guess I didn't make myself clear so I'll try aga... (show quote)
Not disagreeing with that.
Just that you were not actually addressing the comment you were responding to nor was your comment it in line with the nature of this thread (until hijacked), which was about noise on the 7DII that used an image to illustrate and not about a critique of a picture.
Nov 21, 2014 15:02:29 #
Peekayoh wrote:
To what end? Unnecessarily increasing the ISO is counter-productive and would soften the image even more.
OK. Don't have mine yet, but it's suppose to be the best ISO camera ever made. ISO up to 16000. I'd be curious with what it can really do. Would it really have soften the pic?
Nov 21, 2014 18:28:33 #
ecar wrote:
"best ISO camera ever made"? Sorry but you've been sadly misled. For instance, the entry level Sony A6000 easily bests the 7DMkII in ISO performance. I don't think the Canon is targeting a low light audience rather, it's strength lies in the AF system.OK. Don't have mine yet, but it's suppose to be the best ISO camera ever made. ISO up to 16000. I'd be curious with what it can really do. Would it really have soften the pic?
Nov 21, 2014 23:58:20 #
^^^And let's not even MENTION the Sony A7S with it's top ISO of 409,600... :lol:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.