A couple of 7D and 400mm f5.6 questions (1 Viewer)

[Roy C]

The settings looks reasonable in the EXIF albeit I would have used f5.6 and ISO 400 (would have given a much faster shutter speed but seeing you were on a tripod then 1/500 sec should have been easily enough) but that should not have made much difference. How come you set the ISO at 250 (again no big deal but just wondering). The Goldie shot almost looks like it has had a lot of Noise reduction which makes it look soft somehow! maybe it just looks strange because of the un-even light.
What processing are you doing in DPP apart from just converting to a jpeg??
To eliminate a lens problem have you tried shooting a stationary subject in good light on a tripod and using the self timer?

 

[kneonlight]

The settings looks reasonable in the EXIF albeit I would have used f5.6 and ISO 400 (would have given a much faster shutter speed but seeing you were on a tripod then 1/500 sec should have been easily enough) but that should not have made much difference. How come you set the ISO at 250 (again no big deal but just wondering). The Goldie shot almost looks like it has had a lot of Noise reduction which makes it look soft somehow! maybe it just looks strange because of the un-even light.
What processing are you doing in DPP apart from just converting to a jpeg??
To eliminate a lens problem have you tried shooting a stationary subject in good light on a tripod and using the self timer?

As I always seem to have problems with noise I thought that by keeping the ISO down it would help solve that. As it was on a tripod thought that 1/500 would be enough.

Ok in DPP on the Raw menu I added sharpness to 4. Colour saturation to 1 and Colour tone to 1. In the RGB menu I increased sharpness to 230 and left saturation at 104. I didn't do anything in the NR/Lens/ALO Menu

I have attached a picture I took just now. I put a magazine page on my fence and took a photo from approx 20 feet away using a tripod and self timer.
Data for this is below. I also carried out the Micro focussing adjustment that was advised and set it to +10 for this shot as there was a definite difference.

File Name IMG_2963.CR2
Camera Model Canon EOS 7D
Firmware Firmware Version 2.0.5
Shooting Date/Time 26/04/2014 17:04:21
Owner's Name
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/500
Av( Aperture Value ) 5.6
Metering Mode Evaluative Metering
ISO Speed 250
Auto ISO Speed ON
Lens EF400mm f/5.6L USM
Focal Length 400.0mm
Image Size 5184x3456
Image Quality RAW
Flash Off
FE lock OFF
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode AI Servo AF
AF area select mode Manual selection
AF Microadjustment 10
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB
Long exposure noise reduction 0:Off
High ISO speed noise reduction 0:Standard
Highlight tone priority 0isable
Auto Lighting Optimizer Disable
Peripheral illumination correction Enable
Dust Delete Data No
File Size 24516KB
Drive Mode Self-Timer Operation
Live View Shooting OFF
Satellite signal status
Latitude
Longitude
Altitude
Geographic coordinate system
Camera Body No. 1161914389
Comment

 

[Kevin Conville]

OK, a few things here.
The photo above is clearly underexposed. White is grey.
Read about how (as has already been mentioned a few times) most of the information available is in the brighter end of the register and how underexposure exacerbates noise issues.
Also, make sure you know how to read a histogram.

Next, quit using these queer ISO settings. Go with whole stops.
Here's an excerpt from Photography Stack Exchange about this well known issue:
"Analogue amplification (pre-digitization) is the best way to implement a variable ISO sensitivity. When you do so you are only amplifying the photon noise. When you amplify the digital data (i.e. by multiplying all the values by a fixed amount) you amplify the photon noise, the read noise and the quantization noise, leading to more noise overall!

Most Canon DSLRs only have analogue amplification circuits for the whole stops (100, 200, 400, 800 etc.), when you select one of the intermediate fractional values (520, 640 etc.) uses the closest analogue amplification stop and then uses digital multiplication to give the correct overall sensitivity. E.g. ISO640 is really ISO800 multiplied by 0.8, ISO500 is really ISO400 multiplied by 1.25 etc.

This is bad as you either end up using a higher analogue ISO and lose highlight headroom, or a lower analogue ISO and get more noise than necessary. For this reason I would advise against using the fractional stops on Cameras that support it."

I also suggest dumping AI focus for the most part. Use a single point focus, usually the center window. Now for the flat printed page it might not make a difference, but for three dimensional objects and complex scenes it certainly will. Focus on the eye.

I don't know what procedure you followed for your MFA of this lens/camera but the usual method includes using the "small" focus point setting, single center point focus, and some kind of scale set at a 45 degree angle with a spot that's easy to get consistent focus on. This enables you to judge front or back focus. I use a section of measuring tape mounted to a board. You should also know that when properly focused the photo will exhibit gradual 1/3 of OOF (out of focus) in front of the point of focus, and 2/3 in back of point of focus. Read about DOF (depth of field) attributes.

The photo attached depicts a resolution chart on the same plain as my point of focus. This gives me not only front to back focus information but allows me to quantify the focus/image quality with the res chart.

 

[Roy C]

I also suggest dumping AI focus for the most part. Use a single point focus, usually the center window.

I agree about not using AI Focus but he as not used it in either of the two EXIF he has show!!!!!

 

[kneonlight]

Thanks. I'll try the MFA again tomorrow if I get a chance. The site I found describing how to do it said to use a magazine page - hence the image!

Apart from being under exposed is the sharpness as expected or should I take a different shot and if so of magazine page or something else? Roy has said that something isn't right and I am keen to do everything I can to check the lens.

 

[kneonlight]

I agree about not using AI Focus but he as not used it in either of the two EXIF he has show!!!!!

I never use AI Focus!

 

[Kevin Conville]

I agree about not using AI Focus but he as not used it in either of the two EXIF he has show!!!!!

The info associated with the printed page pic shows focus mode to be AI Servo Mode. I'll skip the exclamation points.

This is what DPP info shows when in One-Shot AF:


AF Mode One-Shot AF
AF area select mode Manual selection

 

[Roy C]

Next, quit using these queer ISO settings. Go with whole stops.
Here's an excerpt from Photography Stack Exchange about this well known issue:
"Analogue amplification (pre-digitization) is the best way to implement a variable ISO sensitivity. When you do so you are only amplifying the photon noise. When you amplify the digital data (i.e. by multiplying all the values by a fixed amount) you amplify the photon noise, the read noise and the quantization noise, leading to more noise overall!

Most Canon DSLRs only have analogue amplification circuits for the whole stops (100, 200, 400, 800 etc.), when you select one of the intermediate fractional values (520, 640 etc.) uses the closest analogue amplification stop and then uses digital multiplication to give the correct overall sensitivity. E.g. ISO640 is really ISO800 multiplied by 0.8, ISO500 is really ISO400 multiplied by 1.25 etc.

This is bad as you either end up using a higher analogue ISO and lose highlight headroom, or a lower analogue ISO and get more noise than necessary. For this reason I would advise against using the fractional stops on Cameras that support it."

Disagree with this - it was certainly the case held on older Cameras a while back but I subscribe to the widely held modern theory that Canon DSLR's have the least noise when using ISOs in multiples of 160. 160, 320, 480, 640, ... I certainly used these a lot when I had a 7D and was shooting landscapes/macro and the files were certainly clean IMHO.

Here are just a couple of threads discussing this HERE and HERE

When I had the 7D and 400/5.6 I almost always used it in Auto ISO mode which invariably returned a non native ISO and I would challenge anyone to spot that the images were shot with an intermediate ISO.

Being able to use Auto ISO (which often throws up intermediate ISO's) with this combo is of great benefit to the bird snapper as it is one less thing to worry about in the field - makes hand holding a non IS lens like the 400/5.6 a breeze by using TV mode and auto ISO, just dial-in the shutter speed you want and shoot away (only thing to worry about is EV comp but that is another story).

 

[Roy C]

The info associated with the printed page pic shows focus mode to be AI Servo Mode. I'll skip the exclamation points.

This is what DPP info shows when in One-Shot AF:


AF Mode One-Shot AF
AF area select mode Manual selection

Canon Cameras have three different AF modes, one shot, AI focus and AI servo - AI Focus is not the same as AI servo, they are two different modes Kevin!

 

[Roy C]

Here are just a few shots taken with the 7D and 400/5.6 combo all shot at the intermediate ISO 1000. OK nothing startling with regards to noise but well usable IMO.

 

[Roy C]

A few more 7D + 400/5.6 images all shot at intermediate (queer) ISO settings.

 

[Kevin Conville]

Canon Cameras have three different AF modes, one shot, AI focus and AI servo - AI Focus is not the same as AI servo, they are two different modes Kevin!

In this case it's a distinction without a difference, IMO. AI Servo effectively acts the same as AI Focus when the subject is more is less stationary.

 

[Kevin Conville]

Disagree with this - it was certainly the case held on older Cameras a while back but I subscribe to the widely held modern theory that Canon DSLR's have the least noise when using ISOs in multiples of 160. 160, 320, 480, 640, ... I certainly used these a lot when I had a 7D and was shooting landscapes/macro and the files were certainly clean IMHO.

That is interesting. I'll have to test that for myself.
If multiples of 160 are the best action, the OPs choice of ISOs are still the odd one out.
I suggest he read about what I mention -and- what you're saying.

 

[Roy C]

In this case it's a distinction without a difference, IMO. AI Servo effectively acts the same as AI Focus when the subject is more is less stationary.

Sorry, must disagree with you again, they are not the same IMHO, AI Focus suck's and I would not not use in any circumstances (not even sure why Canon even offer it). Whereas for birds I have been using AI servo all the time for years now (even for perched birds).
I have tested AI servo against one shot for AF accuracy on static subjects hundreds of times, taking numerous shots of the same subject with both methods and have found no difference whatsoever in the AF accuracy.

The big advantage to using AI servo all the time is that you are always ready for a flyer should it come along. I use it in conjunction with back button focusing - here you have pseudo one shot, AI servo and manual focus all at you fingertips without having to change a single setting or menu press.

 

[Kevin Conville]

Disagree with this - it was certainly the case held on older Cameras a while back but I subscribe to the widely held modern theory that Canon DSLR's have the least noise when using ISOs in multiples of 160. 160, 320, 480, 640, ... I certainly used these a lot when I had a 7D and was shooting landscapes/macro and the files were certainly clean IMHO.

Here's a thread that has some pretty interesting opinions on this.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1229464
The thrust of it being, as I read it, that jpeg shooters benefit from the expose and pull a 1/3 stop benefit that 160 ISO increments provides. RAW shooters exposing to the right do not.

For RAW folks whole stop increments ETTR is better. This would help to explain why this hasn't materialized in my world.

 

[Roy C]

That is interesting. I'll have to test that for myself.
If multiples of 160 are the best action, the OPs choice of ISOs are still the odd one out.
I suggest he read about what I mention -and- what you're saying.

Kevin, I have found that any intermediate ISO is fine for normal size viewing/printing, maybe if you were printing an image at billboard size there maybe a difference, don't know as I have never tried it.

I have never bothered about the 160 multiple for bird photography as I have always let the Auto ISO do its thing (which invariable returns a non full stop ISO) . But for landscape stuff with the 7D when shooting on a tripod I always used ISO 160 in preference to ISO 100 - gave a slightly cleaner image IMO.

BTW even if you have your Camera set for full stop ISO's only when you use Auto ISO the Camera will override this and use 1/3rd stops as well.

 

[Roy C]

Here's a thread that has some pretty interesting opinions on this.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1229464
The thrust of it being, as I read it, that jpeg shooters benefit from the expose and pull a 1/3 stop benefit that 160 ISO increments provides. RAW shooters exposing to the right do not.

For RAW folks whole stop increments ETTR is better. This would help to explain why this hasn't materialized in my world.

It is all very well reading about all this theory stuff but at the end of the day it is what you get/experience yourself in the field that counts. I used to believe all this stuff about intermediate ISO's until I actually tried them myself.
I have been shooting nothing but RAW (and exposing to the right) for years now and like I say, I can see no disadvantages whatsoever in using intermediate ISO's. The one big advantage is that you can use Auto ISO which is the best thing since sliced bread for bird shooters when operating in varying light levels IMO - one less thing to worry about in the field.

BTW everyone of the sample images I posted on this thread were taken in RAW, exposed to the right and used intermediate ISO's - maybe not up to your standard but good enough for me.

EDIT: I think we will have to agree to disagree on just about everything Kevin :-O

 

[kneonlight]

Although it varies on the circumstances I often use TV mode, set the shutter speed to what I want and put it on ISO auto.

Roy - the shots you put an here are so much sharper than anything I have ever been able to manage even in ideal conditions. I appreciate this is probably down to technique and post processing skills but is there a pic I could post on here that you could look at to see if the lens is as sharp as it should be?

I can take a pic of a stationary object (text? flower?) using a tripod. If you let me know what settings to use I can post it on here to see if the outcome is as expected. (if you wouldn't mind looking at it for me?)

 

[Roy C]

Although it varies on the circumstances I often use TV mode, set the shutter speed to what I want and put it on ISO auto.

Roy - the shots you put an here are so much sharper than anything I have ever been able to manage even in ideal conditions. I appreciate this is probably down to technique and post processing skills but is there a pic I could post on here that you could look at to see if the lens is as sharp as it should be?

I can take a pic of a stationary object (text? flower?) using a tripod. If you let me know what settings to use I can post it on here to see if the outcome is as expected. (if you wouldn't mind looking at it for me?)

Glen, when you shoot in RAW you are getting just that - RAW data. RAW images always look flat and soft(ish) straight from the Camera so you need to be able to process them to get them looking good. Until you have learned how to process a RAW image to get the best out of it I would suggest that you try shooting JPEGs to see how you get on.
Just as a tester to make sure that your lens is OK why not try shooting something like a cornflake/cereal box, outdoors in good light from around, say 15 metres (use tripod and self timer), use one shot if you like and Make sure you check the exposure (see below about the histogram)

Remember that when it comes to exposure the Cameras histogram is your friend, keep glancing at it to check that you are correctly exposing (make sure you have the 'blinkies' warning turned on) - if you had done this with the magazine shot you posted you would have seen that the right hand side of the histogram was way off of the right hand edge (so well underexposed as Kevin pointed out).
Attached is the histogram from the magazine shot - I have shown in red just how much the shot was underexposed, you should aim to get the right hand side of the curve as far to the right as you can (without clipping).

 

[Kevin Conville]

I have tested AI servo against one shot for AF accuracy on static subjects hundreds of times, taking numerous shots of the same subject with both methods and have found no difference whatsoever in the AF accuracy.

I'm not going to dispute your findings and it's clear it's working out for you. I'm trying to imagine for myself if I would have been able to get these images without single point focus. I deal with branches and leaves a lot.

EDIT: I think we will have to agree to disagree on just about everything Kevin :-O

That may be true B