Posted by Ron McCombe on April 28, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Hi all
I have just bought a canon 7D, I like it very much and I thing it id far superior to the canon 5D is also own.
I seem to be getting more noise with the 7D I don't understand the settings within the camera. I find them confusing.
I shoot wildlife, can anyone suggest the best settings to reduce noise at the shooting stage? in a "settings for dummy's" type explanation
I have uploaded a picture as an example. I wouldn't have got the noise with the 50D at these settings.
I shoot in raw
It was early morning the light wasn't great, hence the f2.8 f stop. ISO 320 shouldn't cause the noise in the picture. So I am assuming I can set the camera to reduce the noise at the taking stage but don't know how to do this
Do you shoot RAW images or JPEG's? I'm not a Canon user, but on the Nikon side (and I'm assuming Canon is the same) all the noise reduction settings are for in-camera JPEG's, not the RAW images. With RAWs the noise reduction comes in during conversion or in post-processing (but again, I am assuming that Nikon and Canon are the same on this issue, so I stand to be corrected if I'm off-base).
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Lydia Dotto on April 28, 2010 at 9:53 PM
I have the 7D. It's my understanding that it doesn't matter what noise reduction you set in-camera if you shoot RAW. However, if you use Canon's RAW conversion software, DPP, it will apply any in-camera settings when it converts the RAW image. I know Adobe Camera Raw, which I use, doesn't apply these settings; I'm not sure about other RAW conversion software.
Generally, I prefer to deal with it myself in post-processing, rather than letting the camera or the software apply some arbitrary amount of noise reduction.
Posted by John Mumaw on April 28, 2010 at 10:10 PM
"Generally, I prefer to deal with it myself in post-processing, rather than letting the camera or the software apply some arbitrary amount of noise reduction."
Ditto.
Much more user control in the 'darkroom'.
This image is a good example of that, too. I wouldn't apply any noise reduction to the squirrel or tree, but would use it on the background only.
Hey Ron, I too have the 7D and I gotta say, more noise than I wanted as well. I say we need the Mark 111 or 4. I've come to that conclusion. I agree with John, if you have NR sotware. I use Noiseware Pro from Imagenomic.
Can anybody direct me to whare the noise is in this photo? To me the shot looks great, right down to the clarity of the toe nails holding on to the tree.
I do not see the noise.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Stephen - I think in this case it's simply the slight graininess/patchiness/speckled-ness of the background. I, too, don't see anything wrong with it though as is. I might smooth out just the BG though as John mentioned above.
I wouldn't have got the noise with the 50D at these settings.
Ron - Do you really think this? Even at this web-sized image?
I'd be surprised. (Note I haven't used a 50D or 7D, just read a bunch.) While the 7D is noisier in individual pixels (i.e. if you compare 100% views) it's also much higher res, so 100% views are not actually equivalent. An image scaled down to web-size should eliminate that issue and give a better comparison, and from everything I've seen, the 7D should not be noisier than the 50D.
(And that's why comparing equivalently sized outputs - whether that's a print, or final screen image - is more important for noise comparison than looking at blow-ups on screen. And why I'm a little concerned when I hear comments like "I'd get a 7D but then I'd have to buy more noise reduction software.")
Posted by Ron McCombe on April 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Hi Guys
May thanks for the comments.
If you look at the fauna gallery and see the picture of the squirrel, then look at the larger image you will see the grain even more.
Ron
Posted by David Bostedo on April 29, 2010 at 3:42 PM
One other thing I meant to ask, Ron - what was the post-processing flow? Certain things there (correcting underexposure, and sharpening among them) can really bring out certain noise structures. Was this image's exposure changed after the fact? Was it exposed to the right in the first place?
Posted by Brian Gatlin on April 29, 2010 at 4:28 PM
David's right--obvious questions pertaining to workflow include: what % of the original pixels is this (is it a large crop?), was it underexposed in the field, was the bg sharpened? These could have a lot to do with the noise.
I've not used the 50D, but have to say that the 7D's noise performance is way better than the 40D. with the 40D, I was reluctant to go beyond ISO 400. On the 7D, I feel comfortable using ISO 1000 if I need it. I've gotten usable shots at ISO 2500.
Hmmmm. I too have not had noise issues with my 7D at ISO's way beyond 320. To me the entire image, while wonderful, is a bit contrasty. Contrasty images by their nature reveal more noise than others. Since you shoot RAW anyway, I think David is right on. You might try exposing more to the right in-camera, stopping short of clipping of course, to get more data to work with during the RAW conversion. Darkening a light RAW file will not reveal the same level of noise as lightening a darker image by the same amount. And of course, he's spot on regarding sharpening too. Otherwise, it's a mystery because IMHO and experience, 7D is superior to 50D and earlier as far as noise.
I upgraded from the Xti to the 7D and noticed that the Define 2.0 noise reduction software seems to d much better on the 7D photos than the Xti photos. I don't think it's the higher res because I examine the photos at 100% when doing noise reduction. I read somewhere that the 7D noise is easier to reduce in the digital darkroom, but I don't have that article/blog anymore.
Posted by Ron McCombe on April 30, 2010 at 2:58 AM
HI Guys
I'm finding this fascinating. I would normal shoot a picture with -1/3rd of a stop, two reasons for this.
If the light is not good, it gives me a little more shutter speed, and secondly (and not in this case) if there is any white on the subject it gives me more chance of getting better detail in the whites.
The noise problem is one I have never had with the 50D and now I have with the 7D, so there is another learning curve here for me
But many thanks for you comments, there is obviously o definitive answer to this
"And why I'm a little concerned when I hear comments like "I'd get a 7D but then I'd have to buy more noise reduction software."
Well since I owned a Rebel XT 1st, buying NR software was no issue at all. I've had the 7D since December and I finally got around to profiling it for Noise Ninja yesterday. Things do get a bet messy past ISO1600. IMHO the 7D has far less noise uncorrected @ 1600 than the XT did @ 800, in fact I don't consider photo's taken over 400 ISO with the XT to be of any use.
Posted by David Bostedo on April 30, 2010 at 1:51 PM
That mirrors the other info I've read Russell...the 7D actually being a bit better than the older Canon cameras. (Except the 1D and 5D lines.)
Ron - The best thing's you can do for low noise are to shoot at the lowest good ISO, and to Expose To The Right (or ETTR) - meaning that the histogram should appear as far to the right as possible. Even if it means over-exposing an image, I always to try expose so that I'm just barely avoiding blown highlights. Digital cameras are less noisy the brighter the signal gets, so pushing the image toward the brighter end will result in less noise captured. You can then lower the exposure in RAW software (it may not work quite as well with a JPG, but will work).
That's also why checking the histogram can be so important - in case you are underexposing and can push it to the right. I also tend to set -1/3 on my camera, because of its tendency to blow highlights. But I regularly check my histograms to see that I'm as far right as I can safely get.
But as you said, Ron, there are compromises. If you need the shutter speed, then you need a higher ISO or underexposure. No way around that.
As David said it's the 100% view. Per pixel noise may be more, but the image is rendered in more detail. So total noise is less. For people who don't print much there's little advantage to high pixel density.
I don't worry about fractional ISO settings anymore. I expose to the right on low contrast images, and keep shutter speed up off the tripod. A bit more noise is well worth it for added sharpness.
As far as noise reduction, it's better to leave some noise in than going after it all.
Very high ISO takes some planning as far as appropriate tradeoffs. Otherwise it's not worth worrying about.
Discussion
15 repliesI have just bought a canon 7D, I like it very much and I thing it id far superior to the canon 5D is also own.
I seem to be getting more noise with the 7D I don't understand the settings within the camera. I find them confusing.
I shoot wildlife, can anyone suggest the best settings to reduce noise at the shooting stage? in a "settings for dummy's" type explanation
I have uploaded a picture as an example. I wouldn't have got the noise with the 50D at these settings.
I shoot in raw
It was early morning the light wasn't great, hence the f2.8 f stop. ISO 320 shouldn't cause the noise in the picture. So I am assuming I can set the camera to reduce the noise at the taking stage but don't know how to do this
Can any one point me in the right direction
300mm f2.8 lens, f2.8 1/180sec, ISO 320
Many thanks
Ron
Do you shoot RAW images or JPEG's? I'm not a Canon user, but on the Nikon side (and I'm assuming Canon is the same) all the noise reduction settings are for in-camera JPEG's, not the RAW images. With RAWs the noise reduction comes in during conversion or in post-processing (but again, I am assuming that Nikon and Canon are the same on this issue, so I stand to be corrected if I'm off-base).
Cheers...
Brad
Generally, I prefer to deal with it myself in post-processing, rather than letting the camera or the software apply some arbitrary amount of noise reduction.
Much more user control in the 'darkroom'.
This image is a good example of that, too. I wouldn't apply any noise reduction to the squirrel or tree, but would use it on the background only.
I do not see the noise.
Ron - Do you really think this? Even at this web-sized image?
I'd be surprised. (Note I haven't used a 50D or 7D, just read a bunch.) While the 7D is noisier in individual pixels (i.e. if you compare 100% views) it's also much higher res, so 100% views are not actually equivalent. An image scaled down to web-size should eliminate that issue and give a better comparison, and from everything I've seen, the 7D should not be noisier than the 50D.
(And that's why comparing equivalently sized outputs - whether that's a print, or final screen image - is more important for noise comparison than looking at blow-ups on screen. And why I'm a little concerned when I hear comments like "I'd get a 7D but then I'd have to buy more noise reduction software.")
May thanks for the comments.
If you look at the fauna gallery and see the picture of the squirrel, then look at the larger image you will see the grain even more.
Ron
I've not used the 50D, but have to say that the 7D's noise performance is way better than the 40D. with the 40D, I was reluctant to go beyond ISO 400. On the 7D, I feel comfortable using ISO 1000 if I need it. I've gotten usable shots at ISO 2500.
I'm finding this fascinating. I would normal shoot a picture with -1/3rd of a stop, two reasons for this.
If the light is not good, it gives me a little more shutter speed, and secondly (and not in this case) if there is any white on the subject it gives me more chance of getting better detail in the whites.
The noise problem is one I have never had with the 50D and now I have with the 7D, so there is another learning curve here for me
But many thanks for you comments, there is obviously o definitive answer to this
Ron
Well since I owned a Rebel XT 1st, buying NR software was no issue at all. I've had the 7D since December and I finally got around to profiling it for Noise Ninja yesterday. Things do get a bet messy past ISO1600. IMHO the 7D has far less noise uncorrected @ 1600 than the XT did @ 800, in fact I don't consider photo's taken over 400 ISO with the XT to be of any use.
Ron - The best thing's you can do for low noise are to shoot at the lowest good ISO, and to Expose To The Right (or ETTR) - meaning that the histogram should appear as far to the right as possible. Even if it means over-exposing an image, I always to try expose so that I'm just barely avoiding blown highlights. Digital cameras are less noisy the brighter the signal gets, so pushing the image toward the brighter end will result in less noise captured. You can then lower the exposure in RAW software (it may not work quite as well with a JPG, but will work).
That's also why checking the histogram can be so important - in case you are underexposing and can push it to the right. I also tend to set -1/3 on my camera, because of its tendency to blow highlights. But I regularly check my histograms to see that I'm as far right as I can safely get.
But as you said, Ron, there are compromises. If you need the shutter speed, then you need a higher ISO or underexposure. No way around that.
I don't worry about fractional ISO settings anymore. I expose to the right on low contrast images, and keep shutter speed up off the tripod. A bit more noise is well worth it for added sharpness.
As far as noise reduction, it's better to leave some noise in than going after it all.
Very high ISO takes some planning as far as appropriate tradeoffs. Otherwise it's not worth worrying about.