Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.
Canon 7D Mark ii ISO Performance
Jun 4, 2016 23:17:31 #
I have been testing my newly bought Canon 7D Mark ii for almost 10 days by now
The autofocus system is good (not all these fancy options are applicable to me even though I shoot action)
I have a question please: is it me or this camera’s ISO performance sucks?
I start noticing the noise at 1600 which is understandable, but it get really annoying at 3200 ISO.
I have deleted all those shots at 6400 ISO. Simply couldn’t stand the noise at that ISO level in this camera.
I’m not one of those who tries to initiate useless comparisons between camera systems, but I feel that my Nikon D5500 (third the price) has a better ISO performance than this.
I hope it is me not the camera
Appreciate any thoughts.
Might be shipping it back to Canon.
The autofocus system is good (not all these fancy options are applicable to me even though I shoot action)
I have a question please: is it me or this camera’s ISO performance sucks?
I start noticing the noise at 1600 which is understandable, but it get really annoying at 3200 ISO.
I have deleted all those shots at 6400 ISO. Simply couldn’t stand the noise at that ISO level in this camera.
I’m not one of those who tries to initiate useless comparisons between camera systems, but I feel that my Nikon D5500 (third the price) has a better ISO performance than this.
I hope it is me not the camera
Appreciate any thoughts.
Might be shipping it back to Canon.
Jun 4, 2016 23:46:06 #
Jun 5, 2016 00:06:45 #
I have deleted all of the images with high ISO. Will try to shoot one and upload it tomorrow.
Thank you
Thank you
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.
Jun 5, 2016 00:09:11 #
Merlin1300 wrote:
? Post examples
Store originals.
Store originals.
I as well would like to see some examples. I shoot regularly at ISO 3200 with stellar results. I couldn't be more happy with this camera. The OP said he didn't want to start a comparison, and yet he compares it with his Nikon D5500. Unfortunately, I believe it is him, and not the Canon 7D MKII.
Jun 5, 2016 00:12:05 #
Hi,
I would highly appreciate an educated and objective feedback.
I haven't asked anyone here to provide any commentary on my photography skills.
If you have something useful bring it up or please go away.
Why don't you go ahead an show me your awesome photos at 3200 ISO since you are being very nice.
I would highly appreciate an educated and objective feedback.
I haven't asked anyone here to provide any commentary on my photography skills.
If you have something useful bring it up or please go away.
Why don't you go ahead an show me your awesome photos at 3200 ISO since you are being very nice.
Jun 5, 2016 00:58:02 #
Wesam wrote:
Hi,
I would highly appreciate an educated and objective feedback.
I haven't asked anyone here to provide any commentary on my photography skills.
If you have something useful bring it up or please go away.
Why don't you go ahead an show me your awesome photos at 3200 ISO since you are being very nice.
I would highly appreciate an educated and objective feedback.
I haven't asked anyone here to provide any commentary on my photography skills.
If you have something useful bring it up or please go away.
Why don't you go ahead an show me your awesome photos at 3200 ISO since you are being very nice.
Hi,
I don't really want to get into a pissin' match with you, however you were the one comparing a Nikon D5500 toCanon 7D MKII at ISO 3200 without any examples. I shall await your new, undeleted images to compare. I will grant you the fact I'm a Canon shooter and firmly believe the 7D MKII is one of the finest cameras on the market, so I am indeed somewhat prejudiced!
Have a great weekend.
Jun 5, 2016 01:12:22 #
Wesam wrote:
I have been testing my newly bought Canon 7D Mark ... (show quote)
Wesam, LoL, as far as I'm concerned EVERY camera I have EVER used...., the high ISO SUCKS!!!
I've used all the Canons including the 1Dx and the Nikon 810, and I see noise in all of then at 400 and at 1600, you just have to tolerate what you get if you need it. Just do what everybody else does, PS the bejeebees out of them and call it good.
If you need high ISO, then use it and tolerate it, if not then stay away from it.
Though I've never used it, supposedly MF is noticeably better if you wanna pay for it!!
Go back to your 5500 if you think it's better, but I'm sure it's not!!
SS
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Jun 5, 2016 01:17:22 #
No hard feelings here. I think the Camera is a bit over rated. But to be fair I haven't used for a serious shoot yet ( all testing so far) It.
I also think I have posted the wrong question here because noise is really a very subjective issue. What might be acceptable to you could be very noisy to me eyes. ( the same way I hate all these over processed photos that I keep seeing everyday while others think they are fine).
I have been shooting my cats in the backyard ( I shoot only wildlife and nothing else).
I'm a Nikon guy who moved to Canon so it will take me sometime to get over the comparison between the two systems.
I uploaded some of my Bengal cats test shot :)
thanks
Wesam
I also think I have posted the wrong question here because noise is really a very subjective issue. What might be acceptable to you could be very noisy to me eyes. ( the same way I hate all these over processed photos that I keep seeing everyday while others think they are fine).
I have been shooting my cats in the backyard ( I shoot only wildlife and nothing else).
I'm a Nikon guy who moved to Canon so it will take me sometime to get over the comparison between the two systems.
I uploaded some of my Bengal cats test shot :)
thanks
Wesam
Jun 5, 2016 01:20:30 #
Fair enough :) thank you for the educational statement. I didn't know that all cameras generate noise at a high ISO. I think I got a lot to learn ;)
thank you
thank you
Jun 5, 2016 03:39:07 #
Wesam wrote:
Appreciate any thoughts.
Appreciate any thoughts.
Hi Wesam. Have you checked your histogram whilst shooting. I try to keep it to the right with my 7DII. If the image is a little underexposed (on the left edge) then corrected in PP that is when I tend to notice that some noise is present.
Jun 5, 2016 04:56:34 #
Why a 7DII and not a D500? Wouldn't the D500 be the logical choice? You already shoot Nikon so you have lenses that work on D500 not 7DII. From what I've read, the D500 is better camera, newer technology and an awesome Sony image sensor.
I'm not biased either way, I own a 7DII and a D7200, and other Canon gear.
Shot taken with 7DII at night in the dark at ISO 3200...
I'm not biased either way, I own a 7DII and a D7200, and other Canon gear.
Shot taken with 7DII at night in the dark at ISO 3200...
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Jun 5, 2016 06:37:55 #
Wesam wrote:
I have been testing my newly bought Canon 7D Mark ... (show quote)
I agree with sharp shooter my 7d2 is a vast improvement on 7d as far as noise goes but I still try and stay away from high iso where light allows the best camera I have for high iso is my 6d better than 5d2 if I am shooting at night out comes the 6d , I must say I love my 7d2 I do have usable shots at 6400 iso but I try and keep it under a 1000 iso
Jun 5, 2016 06:39:11 #
...following...cause I shoot with the 7dII and love it and have so much more to learn.
Jun 5, 2016 08:46:41 #
I am a noise snob, hate it, just like I hated grain in film. I try to not shoot anything with my 7DII in excess of ISO 400 (probably over kill), so actually, it doesn't get out much. Much prefer FF 6D and 1DX, regardless of the extra reach of the crop sensor provides. That being said, I am sure there is good PP software out there that can better deal with noise than Photoshop. Perhaps we can get some suggestions here. I must say however, I have seen some amazingly good photography created with the 7DII.
Jun 5, 2016 08:57:45 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
7DII at ISO 16000...
SIXTEEN THOUSAND!
Sure, there's some noise. But the image is usable. Better than we ever got with 1SO 400 slide film.
The above was basically straight from the camera... RAW conversion in Lightroom with default level NR applied and some correction of the white balance (image was shot by a single CFL bulb).
After being reassured by the above and a few other tests, I shot an entire session at ISO 16000 and 8000 and had very little problem making 8x10 and even a little larger prints from the images. Some images that were underexposed weren't recoverable at the high ISOs.
Shoot RAW, avoid underexposure like the plague, apply some NR in post-processing (I use Noiseware).
800, 1600, 3200, even 6400... no problem at all.
SIXTEEN THOUSAND!
Sure, there's some noise. But the image is usable. Better than we ever got with 1SO 400 slide film.
The above was basically straight from the camera... RAW conversion in Lightroom with default level NR applied and some correction of the white balance (image was shot by a single CFL bulb).
After being reassured by the above and a few other tests, I shot an entire session at ISO 16000 and 8000 and had very little problem making 8x10 and even a little larger prints from the images. Some images that were underexposed weren't recoverable at the high ISOs.
Shoot RAW, avoid underexposure like the plague, apply some NR in post-processing (I use Noiseware).
800, 1600, 3200, even 6400... no problem at all.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.