# why do I have a large amount of noise on photos with new cannon 7D



## schultzphoto (Aug 28, 2012)

Hi, 
We just got a new cannon 7D last week and took it on vacation.  When we downloaded pictures, they have much worse noise especially at low light that our old outdated rebel xt.  The pictures look ok at regular magnification, but when zoomed in they look terrible. I did not get noise anything like this with my xt.  I downloaded some as raw and some as dng and they look the same.  Even shots at 100 iso were quite noisy at 1/3 second.  We enlarge these and put them in a gallery and I suspect they will look very amateur.  I called cannon & they said to use their software to download the pictures, and that this image sensor is more sensitive so might pick up more noise. We installed their software & it wouldn't load the pictures.  I guess I'll have to call them again.   I've downloaded thousands of pics with lightroom previously, so I don't think that's it & I know the image sensor is more sensitive, but everything I've read clearly says the 7D is a good camera and should have less noise than my old xt.  These are all tripod shots, mostly 100 iso & anywhere from fast shots (which are better) to long exposures in low light, downloaded to lightroom 4.  
Has anyone seen this?  I have seen some posts about high noise with 7d at low iso speeds.
Here are 2 random pictures. Untitled 16 is with the 7D.  I don't know if you can zoom at all, but there is significant noise on this picture.  They are both at 100 iso, 18mm and about 1/3 second.  Untitled 10 is with my old rebel xt.   Very little noise if you zoom.  Both are un-edited.  I don't see how I can have so much cleaner pictures with the rebel xt.
Thanks very much


----------



## erro (Aug 28, 2012)

I can't see any noise in either image, at those sizes.

No, we can't zoom. Can you show us a 100% crop? Or upload the full-size image somewhere?


----------



## clee01l (Aug 28, 2012)

While you are providing appropriate examples, do you have ALO or HTP (Canon’s Adaptive 
Light Optimiser or Highlight Tone Priority) set to on in the camera settings?  These are Canon's adaptive ISO special functions to be used only with Canon's properitary post processing software.


----------



## Jimmsp (Aug 28, 2012)

erro said:


> I can't see any noise in either image, at those sizes.
> 
> No, we can't zoom. Can you show us a 100% crop? Or upload the full-size image somewhere?



I see some pixelation in the sky, but that's it.

The 1st shot is quite a bit darker than the 2nd, so I would expect it to be noiser. I'd like to see the histograms as well.
If you could put a raw or 2 in dropbox, I'd be happy to take a look.

I have a 60D which has the same sensor as the 7D, and I'm pleased with shots at 100 iso.

Jim


----------



## schultzphoto (Aug 28, 2012)

*Why am I getting so much noise with my new cannon 7d*

Thanks alot for your responses.  We had the long exposure noise reduction set at off because it was taking so long to process 15min exposures.  The high iso noise reduction is set at standard.  I don't know about the other settings you are talking about, I'll have to check the manual. 
Here are 4 cropped photos.  10 is with the rebel xt, 100 iso,j 18mm, 1/3 second. The others are with the 7D. 16 is100 iso, 1/4 sec, 18 mm.  The squirrel is at 270mm, iso 250, 1/125, and the rock is iso 100, 27mm, 5.5 seconds.  
It just seems to me that compared to the old rebel xt pictures I'm used to that I have at least as much if not more noise.  In my research, everyone raves about the 7D and I read in multiple technicalreviws that you don't start seeing even a litttle noise until 800 iso.  I know there are many variables.  I guess I want to make sure I didn't just pay $1800.00  to get the same quality photos.  I'm not sure if I have unrealistic expectations but it seems all things being equal the 7D should give me much cleaner pictures than the rebel xt.

Thanks very much for your time


----------



## Jimmsp (Aug 28, 2012)

To some degree, you are still comparing apples and oranges.
The rebel shot is of a brighter target. The noise in each camera is dependent on the amount of light on the sensor.
The rebel sensor is pretty good. The 7d should be a bit better for the same amount of light.
I think it time to run a couple of controlled tests; if nothing else, it will help you decide if the 7D is misbehaving.

Shoot the same scene with exactly the same lighting. It would be best to mount each camera on a tripod. Be sure the scene includes some light and dark areas as well as some flat darker objects, such as in a room with one light on.
Shoot the same iso and time.
Acquire the raw shots and look at them side by side.
Look at the same bright area; look at the same dark subject that has less light on it; look in the shadows.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Aug 28, 2012)

Jim,

Excellent point. Without a controlled experiment, it's impossible to tell anything.

Hal


----------



## schultzphoto (Aug 28, 2012)

ok, I will do that
Thanks


----------



## schultzphoto (Aug 28, 2012)

*New comparison pictures of the high noise with my new 7D*

Ok, hopefully this is the last round.  These are cropped pictures as close to the same as I could get them, taken on a tripod at 100 iso 7omm, f13. Two are at iso 100 and 2 are at iso 800. The times varried between the cameras.  At iso 100 the 7D  took 20 sec and the rebel xt took 15. At iso 800 the 7D took 2.5 and the rebel xt took 1.6 seconds.  
1.  I thought the pictures looked similar at best and potentially more noise on the 7D. What do you think?
2.  Another question raised by this is why does the 7D take longer to take the picture all other things being equal?  I know it has 2 processors vs one in the xt.  Does that slow it down?  I thought the 7D would intuitively take a faster exposure with a more sensitive image sensor?  If it always takes a longer exposure, wouldn't it follow that overall you would be more likely to get a more blurry, less sharp image?  Additionally, I've herad that people love the 7D because it's so fast.
Am I missing something??

Thanks again


----------



## schultzphoto (Aug 29, 2012)

Ok, so here is a comparison of the 7d and rebel xt. This is on a tripod at 70mm and cropped.  Two are at 100 iso & two are at 800.  The time was different between cameras.  On the 100 iso, the 7d was 2.5 seconds & the xt was 1.6.  On the 800 the 7d was 20 seconds and the xt was 15.  I thought they looked the same or the 7d slightly more noise. 
1.  What do you think?  Shouldn't the 7d perform better than that?
2.  Why does the 7d take longer exposures when everything else is equal?  Shouldnt they be shorter or the same?  If it always takes longer exsposures, wouldn't it follow that the shots are more likely to be blurry and less crisp?  Am I missing something, or is there something not right about this 7d?

Thanks again


[Mod Note: I approved both posts, even tho' they're near duplicates, there are some differences in the text.]


----------



## Jimmsp (Aug 29, 2012)

Two comments.
On my screen, the "new camera" shots look less noisy than the "old camera". But I wouldn't mind examining more of the photo, both darker and lighter areas.

But with slightly longer exposure times, they should be, as they collected more light. But I don't think the time is that significant for these differences.
Next time, shoot in M mode.

Jim


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 29, 2012)

I'd agree, the old ones are much noisier than the new ones.  Were your noise reduction settings the same on both?  It might just be a question of what you've got used to.


----------



## Effeegee (Aug 30, 2012)

I have been following this thread because I find my 7D noisier than I want or expect and compare it enviously with full frame sensors let alone with an old 400D.  

When I look at this selection I wonder what to compare to isolate any 'noise' difference.  The shots differ as focus and content are slightly different, the jpeg file sizes are different so the RAW conversion, compression and the displayed result differ.  Which of these proves more or less important to the perception of noise?

A non-scientific observation of noisiness on my 7D has been that other issues including detail, focus, under and long exposure and over expectation of shadow detail all contribute to the perception of noisiness.  So while my personal judgement and perception might focus on the single issue of noise the reality is multi-faceted and further confounded by moving targets created by post-processing software developments and personal photographic development.  

I still marvel at the reality of ISO above 400 without grain remembering the less than vivid joys of pushing Tri-X!  But that was not called noise. Is this in part a vocabulary issue?


----------



## schultzphoto (Aug 30, 2012)

I borrowed another 7D from the dealer and took some comparison shots and both 7D's look the same, so it doesn't seem that mine is misbehaving.  Perhaps I had unrealistic expectations of pictures without any noise at all. I agree that it is multifaceted, complicated and somewhat subjective.  Now I have to decide if i want to keep the 7D or do something stupid like spend $3500 dollars on a 5D mark III


----------



## Jimmsp (Aug 30, 2012)

schultzphoto said:


> I borrowed another 7D from the dealer and took some comparison shots and both 7D's look the same, so it doesn't seem that mine is misbehaving.  Perhaps I had unrealistic expectations of pictures without any noise at all. I agree that it is multifaceted, complicated and somewhat subjective.  Now I have to decide if i want to keep the 7D or do something stupid like spend $3500 dollars on a 5D mark III



I can understand your situation quite a bit.
I had some of the same thoughts when I bought my 60D. I pushed the iso to 3200, and sort of expected "almost no noise". Then I made it worse by pixel peeping at 200% or even more.

I finally relaxed after I applied a bit of noise reduction, and then printed them.
Noise reduction via software is pretty good these days. LR is quite good, and I sometimes use Topaz deNoise when I want to push things (>2500 ISO plus cropping).
After I go back to normal viewing and/or printing, I find things are generally quite good.


----------



## schultzphoto (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm sure that's the case. I just don't want to make a $1700.00 mistake.  Sometimes it helps to get other people's perspective
Thanks alot


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Aug 31, 2012)

schultzphoto said:


> Now I have to decide if i want to keep the 7D or do something stupid like spend $3500 dollars on a 5D mark III



Even the Mk2's pretty clean...


----------

