50D upgrade to 7D

[kazwiltshire]

<p>I have begun to use my 50D alot and now am becoming a bit frustrated by the noise i get at even 200 iso. I feel the need to upgrade soon so my question is....would the 7d make a noticeable difference in my images re noise etc. I have a 50mm 1.4 /17-55 2.8/ 60mm and a 10-22mm. I have seen countless debates re the 5d2 against the 7d and as i have crop lenses feel i would probably stick with these for the time being unless i find the extra cash. <br>

I would really apprechiate some advise/opinions.<br>

Thanks Karen </p>

 

[robert_overbeck2]

<p>I was/am in the same boat. Went to a nearby camera store armed with a compact flash card. Took a couple shots with the same lens and same subject. For me the noise difference was negligible. Both cameras are pretty bad. The upgrade may be worth it for the focus, build, flash or other things, but I think for the noise you would be disappointed.<br>

You could check DXOmark for a sensor comparison.</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Hmm, heavy noise at ISO 200? Are you underexposing or pulling shadows in PP a couple stops? If "Auto Lighting Optimizer" is enabled it totally hoses your images and brings out noise until the cows come home. It sucks. Turn it off. I used a 50D for nearly 2 years and ISO 200 was very clean if properly exposed, even in 12x18 landscape prints. If 50D ISO 200 isn't good enough for you, forget about the 7D. You need to get a FF camera and shoot ISO 100 all the time.</p>

<p>Assuming equal RAW processing, the cameras are about the same from ISO 100-400. At ISO and above, the 7D is better, mainly because there is less patterned artifacts (e.g., banding). Plus the 7D has a slight resolution advantage so can take more aggressive noise reduction at high ISO. So while an ISO 3200 night street scene is indeed noisy from both cameras, the 7D cleans up more easily if you know how to use a noise plug-in.</p>

<p>Using default JPEG or DPP NR (at RAW conversion), 7D files look smoother than 50D files but realize some detail is lost due to strong NR.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>If I didn't upgrade to the 7D I would have probably upgraded to the 50D. The 50D is a great camera, sort of like the 30D but with more pixels. Actually it's supposed to be sharper than the 7D and this has been confirmed by experts. I think it has something to do with the anti-aliasing filter.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Karen, If you want low noise at a reasonable price, consider a 5D "original" used. See my post and sample 7D image here:<br /> <a href="00YbcZ">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00YbcZ</a></p>

<p>(also read the post there by puppy face)</p>

<p>Remember this: Noise, seen when pixel peeping at 100% size on the monitor, is not a big problem.</p>

<p>Noise is really only a serious issue when it affects print quality or causes images to be rejected from stock photo agencies, as it does (the latter) with my 7D. If you must have low noise a 5D original is a good choice.</p>

[robert_overbeck2]

<p>Whatever your relation to noise (Only "pixel peepers" see it, doesn't show up in print, expose to the right, kill it in post, etc.), the 7D isn't much better than the 50D. I would have bought one in a minute if it had been. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I'm concerned there is something wrong w/ the settings, on my 50D, noise was imperceptible @200 iso, even at 100% of course I shoot RAWS all the time with all the silly 'features' off, If you have significant noise at 200iso, you're doing something wrong. properly exposed, the unit was capable of producing very useable imagery up well beyond 800iso (noise started to become noticeable after 400iso). After post processing, the 7D was slightly better, but only <em>very</em> slightly...</p>

[mark from thailand]

Completely agree with Puppy Face & Robert.

 

I have a 7D and do not notice noise at ISO 200 but I would be surprised at a huge difference to the 50D. The 7D does

not rate exceptionally well / better than 50D for noise management, as far as I know.

[damian_tinsley]

<p>Years ago I did some work on a 20D and noise and frankly could barely tell the difference between 100 and 200. 200 is my default setting now.</p>

<p>I regularly shoot theatre productions and need to go to 800 for these, unless particularly well lit in which case sometimes it's possible to get away with 400. Depending on the lighting guy it can be a struggle and the last one I shot was all at 1600 with slow shutter speeds and a bout f1.8 - f2.8 throughout. I still found th results surprisingly good (and more than enough for the 12x18 wall prints after a litte NR applied through RAW.</p>

<p>The results wouldn't have stacked up against a landscape at 100iso but I'm very surprised at anyone having difficulty accepting noise in a DSLR at 200iso. </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Noise at 200 ISO - 50D or 40D - is a conversion/processing issue, pure and simple.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You could check DXOmark for a sensor comparison.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which will tell you <em>precisely nothing</em> worth knowing about any camera - in fact, it's it's not just <em>unhelpful</em> information, it's positively <em>harmful </em>because of the daft inferences people draw from it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 7D isn't much better than the 50D. I would have bought one in a minute if it had been.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But the 50D is<em> fine</em> at 200 ISO, Robert, as is the 7D. If you find otherwise - well, you're the common factor in that equation.</p>

[kazwiltshire]

<p>Thanks Guys, i wouldnt have put myself in the pp bracket but perhaps I'm expecting too much of my camera and even an upgrade to 7d. I'm still learning all the time so yes i probably do on occasions under/over expose as do most people i guess. I never used to find my 50d a problem perhaps as my photography developes I'm becoming too critical and or does a sensor begin to degrade?Do sensors start to degrade or is it a simple working not working scenario?. I recon i shoot at least 1000 images a week and the camera is 18months old....<br>

Damian I use the 50d in the studio to great effect at 100iso and no noise. I know I'm controlling the envioment but when i use it outside on a clear day when 200 iso should be good i do see noise and I'm sorry but i find it irritating...there perhaps I'm a pp?<br>

Maybe i should cut my losses and go for the 5d2? Let the debate continue!</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Both cameras have a lot of noise, if noise is the reason for upgrading don't. You make want to down grade to a lower mega pixel camera less noise at the same ISO.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Karen it might be interesting to see some of the shots that you think are too "noisy". I checked the shots on your portfolio here at photo.net, and I'm not seeing signs of excessive (quite frankly ANY noise) so you probably have some other examples to make your point. People have jumped all over you here, perhaps a little prematurely but those of use with a lot of Canon experience would rightly be surprised by the bold "too much noise" statement, at that ISO</p>

<p>We have bought several Canon crop-frame bodies, currently we have a 50D and a 450D. I do believe there are more expensive cameras with less noise at higher ISO levels, but on the 50D unless I underexpose a shot the noise is quite acceptable up into 800 or eve 1200 ISO. It also makes a difference how large I'm printing/viewing shots, of course.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I have been shooting a 50D for a couple of years, and with proper exposure, it is low in noise at ISO 200 -- so low that I often leave it there rather than switch to 100. The complaints about noise with this camera arise from faster ISOs. I'd wager that this is a problem of how you expose or process the images. Avoid underexposure, to start, as underexposing sharply decreases the ratio of signal to noise.</p>

[robert_overbeck2]

<p>Keith, didn't mean to step on your Canon APS-C toes, but DXOmark's noise ratings on the cameras I've owned haven't been far off (at least up to 800 which I rarely go to). Across brands is trickier, but Karen is comparing Canon to Canon. </p>

<p>I don't have a problem with noise at ISO 200 on the 50D, nor did I say I did.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Karen,</p>

<p>I will mention that since upgrading Lightroom and Photoshop to the latest versions last year the RAW files made at higher ISO with my 50D have been greatly improved in terms of noise and other aspects of image quality. I don't hesitate to use ISO 1600 if needed, the NR and sharpening of the Adobe RAW processor has improved that much.</p>

<p>The 7D is a nice camera and you won't be disappointed with many of it's features but the difference in the IQ of the 50D and 7D isn't that great with correct PP.</p>

<p>Of course if you just shoot JPEGs then use DPP and save yourself some money if you are not inclined to use LR 3.3 or CS5.</p>

 

[kazwiltshire]

<p>Ok heres am image i shot for a local parks dept, for me the shadows have noise or am i just too critical? Now that I'm getting paid work I'm ultra sensitive to the image quality. Yes i accept I'm not techically a great photographer and dont completely know the ins and outs of all my camera's settings,perhaps this is more the issue here?<br>

Would the 7d or the 5d2 give me a better image?</p><div></div>

[kazwiltshire]

<p>The darker green has noise, i swear it does :-)<br>

I alway shoot in raw and use Aperture to process the files.</p>

 

[dean_schreuder]

<blockquote>

<p>frustrated by the noise i get at even 200 iso</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you kidding me? ISO 200 is too noisy for you? What are you trying to do? Crop down to someone's eye ball when they were shot from 100 yards away with a 17mm lens?! Give me a break!</p>

<p>I own both a 50D and a 7D and I regularly shot both of them at ISO 2000 and above (no I didn't accidentally add an extra zero, I really meant 2000) and I still get very clean, usable images from them!</p>

<p>If you are that anal about noise, then there is not one camera on this planet (film or digital) that will satisfy you!</p>

[kazwiltshire]

<p>Bit harsh Dean?!? I am quite new to all this hence my anal questions....</p>

 

[dean_schreuder]

<p>Sorry, I didn't mean to come across that harshly but I'm still a bit astonished at how many people worry about noise too much... My philosophy is, if the final picture looks good, who cares? Because no one, I mean no one is going to be looking at your photos with a magnifying glass... Well, except for maybe the other people who are overly anal about things like noise.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>At the resolution you have posted, it is really hard to tell if there is much noise. I don't see much.</p>

<p>What I suggest is open the original unedited image and check the histogram. If the top of the density curve is not near the top of the graph, you are getting more noise than you need to, regardless of how much there is. No camera is going to substitute for correct exposure.</p>

<p>If you look at reviews of cameras, you will see that they differ in noise primarily at higher ISOs. As several of us have pointed out, the 50D is fine at 100 and 200, so if you have having a problem, you need to work on technique. Also, if you have an image with lots of range so that some areas are dimly lit and hence noisier, you can easily do a little noise reduction. LR3 has good noise reduction, and I use it fairly often, although almost always with images shot at higher ISOs. I have Noise Ninja for the bad ones, but with my 50D, I almost never need to use it.</p>

<p> </p>

[kazwiltshire]

<p>Point taken Dean just funning with you good ol' british humour, just shown my husband who I'm trying to convince i need an upgrade....he just laughed at me and couldnt see much reason for concern in the noise dept. Perhaps i do try to crop in a little too much.<br>

Hey ho ...no new camera for me then :-) </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>Is this shot cropped from a larger photo? When I put it into a viewer, it doesn't seem very sharp, and I'm wondering if you are cropping way down to get just a piece of the photo. It's not so much noise, as it just isn't in focus as far as I can tell. The exif data is saying that it's shot at f4.5, so you've got quite a narrow DOF at that close range to the subject. </p>

[matthijs]

http://www.photo.net/photo/7510471

 

This is a noisy shot.

 

But I love it all the same.

 

And in print it looks better

 

Technical details: jpeg from a 400D at 1600 ISO using a 50/1.8 wide open. According to the peepers an "impossible

shot".

 

So it depends on what you want for end result.

 

Have fun, Matthijs.