Canon 18mp cameras noise question

[Greg D]

I'm currently shooting with a 40d, most often with 17-55 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4L, usually at ISO 100-400 (mostly landscapes, nature, etc).  I have a B3 printer (Epson R1900), so don't print huge (but would like to go bigger someday).  I hadn't considered upgrading the camera recently, because I concluded that anything short of full-frame (which is out of my budget) would make little difference for my type of shooting.  However, I've read enough about the recent Canon 18mp cameras (7d, 60d, 550d/T2i) to believe that they're significantly better in terms of noise than my 40d, at least at high ISO.  But my complaint is with shadow noise.  Typical example - I shoot a waterfall or other whitewater scene; I have to expose to avoid burning out the water, which leaves shadows very dark.  I can pull detail out in LR, but it produces a good bit of noise.  Are these newer sensors going to be noticeably better in that situation?
Thanks for any advice.

[PierreVandevenne]

I own both a 5D MK II and a 40D (and about 20 other cameras for testing purposes ;-)) - I have a significant investment in Canon lenses and that kind of means I am trapped in the brand... I print on and Epson R2400, somewhat similar to yours in format. There's a slight difference in favour of the 5DMK II, but nothing spectacular. I have used a 7D but not done any meaningful comparison, there could be a small improvement over the 5D MKII in practice. But, but... and that's a bit painful for me to admit it, you may want to try the Pentax K7 - it will fit your budget and you may be nicely surprised by the result.

Also, if you are shooting standard exposures in well defined situations, you could try the dark frame substraction approach, either in-camera or in software.

[NikoJorj]

Typical example - I shoot a waterfall or other whitewater scene; I have to expose to avoid burning out the water, which leaves shadows very dark.  I can pull detail out in LR, but it produces a good bit of noise.  Are these newer sensors going to be noticeably better in that situation?

The progress in this area (dynamic range) have been quite errrrr... incremental by Canon, though banding (geometrical, square-patterned noise) problems have been diminished in the 7D.
The real progress comes now from the brand new Sony sensor of the K5 and D7000 (or D3x...) ; one may hope Canon goes the same route (a different electronic architecture of the sensor) to offer similar performance soon, but hope doesn't do all.

[stever]

i really see no noticeable difference in noise between the 7D and 40D (or 20D).  the 5D2 is better

i just re-printed some old 20D ISO 800 and 1600 images after re-developing in LR3 with noise reduction - that is noticeable - very impressed with LR3 compared to other noise reduction software i've tried in the past

[Greg D]

i really see no noticeable difference in noise between the 7D and 40D (or 20D).  the 5D2 is better

i just re-printed some old 20D ISO 800 and 1600 images after re-developing in LR3 with noise reduction - that is noticeable - very impressed with LR3 compared to other noise reduction software i've tried in the past

This good to hear - I've been using LR2, but just ordered the LR3 upgrade, so maybe that'll help.  I also hadn't thought about the dark-frame subtraction mentioned above.  I had thought about the D7000 and K5, but don't really want to switch.  I don't have a lot of lenses, but I like the ones I have.  Nikon's 17-55 2.8 and 24-105 (or 24-120 or whatever) are by most accounts not as good as the same Canons, and are more expensive.  So I don't really want to switch systems.

Thanks for the info and for anymore that's forthcoming......

[NashvilleMike]

I'd advocate staying put and NOT buying any new body at the moment (unless, of course, you can afford to swing for the 1d mk IV, which is fantastic). The reason I say this is that I think there has been a larger-than-incremental jump in sensor technology lately and this is seen in the Nikon D7000 and the new Pentax bodies - I can say with confidence after working on D7000 files and the files from a Canon 7D that the D7000 sensor plays in a different league and you can recover far "more" from the shadows, but all that means is that "at this moment in time" the D7000 sensor has an edge - because it is a bit newer - and if you think about it, the next generation of cropped frame bodies from Canon will most definitely be using the latest improvements in sensor technology too. Thus any money you spend right now would kind of be wasteful as you'd likely be "re-spending" again in a year when the body you really want comes out. Hopping around from system to system to chase the current "best body" in your price range doesn't make sense to me, given how often the baton of body superiority is tossed back and forth between the manufacturers.

The other option, if you really need something now, might be too look at a used 5d (the original). The full frame chipped cameras that aren't trying to win the resolution wars put upon us by the marketing departments are actually quite nice when it comes to pulling things from the shadows.

Just my .02

-m

[walter.sk]

I tend to agree with the advice to wait for a Canon with improved sensor technology.  However, your comment about shooting in high contrast situations, such as having to retain the highlights in waterfalls and then having to brighten the very much darkened shadows makes me suggest shooting a bracketed sequence for HDR processing, which works very well for such a situation.  And no, the HDR results do not have to look weird or overdone; if you want a more traditional photographic look you can achieve it.

And, unless even the new sensors have a greatly increased dynamic range, they will not solve the problem of how to squeeze a scene's dynamic range onto the sensor when the contrast exceeds the capability of the sensor to capture it in one exposure.

[Greg D]

I tend to agree with the advice to wait for a Canon with improved sensor technology.  However, your comment about shooting in high contrast situations, such as having to retain the highlights in waterfalls and then having to brighten the very much darkened shadows makes me suggest shooting a bracketed sequence for HDR processing, which works very well for such a situation.  And no, the HDR results do not have to look weird or overdone; if you want a more traditional photographic look you can achieve it.

And, unless even the new sensors have a greatly increased dynamic range, they will not solve the problem of how to squeeze a scene's dynamic range onto the sensor when the contrast exceeds the capability of the sensor to capture it in one exposure.

I like the advice to wait, too .  And I certainly don't want to jump brands - not a loyalty thing, just happy with my lenses and not eager for the inevitable money loss that would entail.  I'm also not eager to stack bracketed shots in post-processing, but it looks like I'd better come to grips.  I've done all my pp in LR only for the last 3 years or so - the only Photoshop I own is version 6.0!  So I guess that's where to put my money, huh?  Any LR plugins or other programs just for this purpose, or is it better to go ahead and get Photoshop?

[NikoJorj]

Any LR plugins or other programs just for this purpose, or is it better to go ahead and get Photoshop?

LR/Enfuse. You can merge only 2 images but they can be quite far apart (at least 3EV).
There's ZeroNoise otherwise, but it has no LR integration.

[JohnKoerner]

i really see no noticeable difference in noise between the 7D and 40D (or 20D).  the 5D2 is better

Time for new glasses pal




.

[Ken Bennett]

I have 40D bodies at home, and 1D Mark IV bodies at work. Of course there is no comparison between the two, the 1D4 is immensely the better camera, but it's $5K versus about $500 used, so that's to be expected.

Last month I borrowed a 7D from Canon Professional Services for a quick test, just to see what I might get if I upgraded my personal gear. Some thoughts:

1. Image quality from the 7D is much better than the 40D. I can use the 40D to 1600 with a lot of work, the 7D is at least a stop better in my eyes. That is, 1600 is easy, 3200 is fine with some work. (The Mark IV is still in another league.)

2. The 7D is a better all-around camera IMO than the 40D. The AF system is much improved (finally!), the body is solid, and the vertical grip feels just as solid, unlike the 40D which flexes way too much. Shooting speed is fast, and the 7D handles well and is easy to use with the other current cameras. The AF was dead-on even with the fast primes wide-open.

Overall I was very impressed with the 7D. I could shoot with these every day at work, no problem. The only real downside for me is the 1.6x crop factor and the lack of fast wide lenses for this series of cameras. But as a set with a 5D II the 7D would make a nice combo.

[Policar]

I have a rebel xt and a t2i.  The t2i is a better camera in virtually every way, but the jump in image quality isn't that huge with my cheap lenses.

At 200 ISO in raw, noise is comparable at 100%, advantage to the t2i since it has more pixels.  At like 1600 ISO and beyond the t2i's advantage is even greater but there's this weird pattern it takes on.  Clearly there's some NR at work, which mostly reduces chroma noise.  But it does work.  The images aren't as "smooth" as I've seen from Nikons but noise isn't offensive looking, whereas the xt shows some blobs of color when you push 1600 ISO shots.  A stop better is a good estimate, I think, but it's a subjective difference, to some extent, and the advantage may be even greater when shooting JPEGS (which look great out of the t2i).  

If you can, borrow a 7D and see if you like it, but my guess is the difference won't be worth it.  At low ISOs, all Canons seem to have noise buried in the shadows (apparently due to noisy circuitry or something I don't understand).  I have to say the 7D is a very nice camera in general, though, and the t2i isn't shabby for the money, for that matter.  Once the 5D3 comes out you can probably sell the 17-55mm zoom (heresy, I know) and pick up a 5D2, which is amazing, for not much more than you'll get for the lens.

If you're not shooting at 100 or 200 ISO, get a tripod and a polarizer.  I also personally don't mind water burning out if it's blurred from long shutter speeds.