Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Fay
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎11-23-2014

Re: 7D Mark II

Here are 3 pictures taken inside the National Aviary in 2 different areas. All of them are taken with the Mk II with the Canon 100-400 and ISO is 4000. There has been no cropping or correction made to the images. They were taken within 30 minutes of each other with natual light. I also had an off camera flash available, but can't tell from the data if I actually used it.

 

The first is a finch http://www.rfyphotos.com/p850884880/h19d04730#h19d04730 at f 5.4 at 285 mm

The second is an ibis http://www.rfyphotos.com/p850884880/h19d04730#h202bebd at f 4.8 at 160 mm

The third is a warbler http://www.rfyphotos.com/p850884880/h19d04730#h86567ff at f 5.4 at 260 mm

 

Any thoughts or ideas would be helpful.

VIP
Posts: 11,104
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: 7D Mark II

"Any thoughts or ideas would be helpful."

 

I may have missed it but you guys are shooting RAW?  And your color space is AdobeRGB?  You are using ACR to process?

I never shoot anything without those settings anymore.  There just isn't any reason to shoot jpg any longer.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 4,952
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: 7D Mark II


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Any thoughts or ideas would be helpful."

 

I may have missed it but you guys are shooting RAW?  And your color space is AdobeRGB?  You are using ACR to process?

I never shoot anything without those settings anymore.  There just isn't any reason to shoot jpg any longer.


Why Adobe RGB? I thought the conventional wisdom was that Web sites and most printers are set up to use sRGB and that as a practical matter, Adobe RGB is useful only on printers that have been specially set up for it.

 

A RAW file isn't specific to a given color space, is it? I.e., you should be able to generate a TIFF or JPEG in either sRGB or Adobe RGB without losing any information that the gamut is capable of representing. Right?

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA
VIP
Posts: 11,104
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: 7D Mark II

Bob from Boston,

You are right!  A RAW file has no color space. The ACR converter is where the RAW file get a color space assigned. I should have made it clear that this conversion is done by the converter. If you are shooting specifically for printing, AdobeRGB offers more range and versatility in the images taken.

Actually, to get the full benefit of shooting RAW, the output of the RAW converter should be set to a wide gamut format for transfer into Photoshop. If you're using ACR, you can also set it to 16 bit Pro Photo RGB.  sRGB is 8 bit and restricts you to the color range that can be printed or even viewed on screen.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Fay
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎11-23-2014

Re: 7D Mark II

I only shoot in Raw using the AdobeRGB color space and process with ACR. I just sent it to the web as jpeg because that was what was needed for the website.

 

Fay

VIP
Posts: 11,104
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: 7D Mark II

"I only shoot in Raw using the AdobeRGB color space and process with ACR."

 

Smiley Happy

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV, even less and less other stuff.
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,735
Registered: ‎02-28-2013

Re: 7D Mark II

[ Edited ]

@RobertTheFat wrote:

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Any thoughts or ideas would be helpful."

 

I may have missed it but you guys are shooting RAW?  And your color space is AdobeRGB?  You are using ACR to process?

I never shoot anything without those settings anymore.  There just isn't any reason to shoot jpg any longer.


Why Adobe RGB? I thought the conventional wisdom was that Web sites and most printers are set up to use sRGB and that as a practical matter, Adobe RGB is useful only on printers that have been specially set up for it.

 


Most printers, yes, but that's because there are a whole lot of cheap printing shops out there (CVS 1 hour, Costco, Snapfish, Shutterfly, etc).  But a high end print shop is going to use AdobeRGB or ProPhoto.

 

Of course, using it really doesn't mean squat if you don't have a wide gamut display capable of displaying AdobeRGB, calibrated, and you profile both the monitor and the printer/paper you're using, embed it in the final picture, soft proof, and then send it off to a high end print lab (or have a good inkjet at home, like a Pixma Pro or something along those lines).

 

But I think a lot of people just know that AdobeRGB is a wider gamut than sRGB, and therefore 'better'.  And the majority use it without having all the details above, rendering it kind of useless.  Of course, most of the photos end up on the web, where it's only displaying in sRGB anyway.

Fay
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎11-23-2014

Re: 7D Mark II

[ Edited ]

But the question remains. The pictures I liked to. Are they grainer/noisier than I should expect with the Mk II? Or am I being unrealistic? I will gladly send a raw file to someone that can answer those questions.

 

Fay

Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,735
Registered: ‎02-28-2013

Re: 7D Mark II


@Fay wrote:

But the question remains. The pictures I liked to. Are they grainer/noisier than I should expect with the Mk II? Or am I being unrealistic? I will gladly send a raw file to someone that can answer those questions.

 

Fay


Not unrealistically so.  There are too many variables involved to say exactly how much (or how little) noise should be in a photo; but those are in the ballpark of what I would expect from a crop camera at ISO 4000 without any NR applied in post.

Fay
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 18
Registered: ‎11-23-2014

Re: 7D Mark II

Drats. The pictures shown earlier in the thread looked so much better. Fay

powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement