dc10tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 11 Posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8775 times:
I've been using a 60D for two years and been generally very happy with the results. I've done little in the way of aviation photography in that time however, where I'm pointing the camera at a relatively uniform sky. On some recent edits from the last 12 months or so I'm noticing that they are more grainy that expected, even with the ISO set at 100. Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?
Could it be down to the amount of in-camera sharpening being applied? Generally I leave the camera in the 'Standard' picture style. Should I be shooting in 'Neutral', or reduce the amount of sharpening in 'Standard'. The default setting here is 7 (whatever that means).
Maybe a sample photo or a portion of one would be useful so people can see the level of noise you're perceiving? How's the exposure on the ones where you're seeing noise at low ISO? A uniform blue sky, especially if there's any underexposure or where there's high contrast will tend to yield noise and if you're dialling in +7 in camera sharpening, that'll probably result in it being emphasised. I keep in camera sharpening set to +3 (default) on the 50D's as I'd prefer to control that in post rather than let the camera do it.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 12077 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8695 times:
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 2): I keep in camera sharpening set to +3 (default) on the 50D's as I'd prefer to control that in post rather than let the camera do it.
Same here, though I keep it to +4 in-camera. That's usually sharp enough for the RAW file, and any further sharpening is done on the resized JPEG.
Tim, are you shooting RAW? If so, whatever value you have your in-camera sharpening set to is rather academic, as you can change it in post anyway.
My 50D produces great, low-noise images at ISO100, 125, and 160, provided I don't underexpose. I haven't heard much about the 60D's noise performance, good or bad, but I'd assume with 18 MP on a 1.6x sensor will yield some noise, similar to the 7D.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
N243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1658 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8645 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 3):
My 50D produces great, low-noise images at ISO100, 125, and 160, provided I don't underexpose. I haven't heard much about the 60D's noise performance, good or bad, but I'd assume with 18 MP on a 1.6x sensor will yield some noise,
similar to the 7D.
That's what I'm suspecting may be the cause as well. When I switched from a 40D to a 7D, I found the latter to be much less forgiving of underexposure.
dc10tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8598 times:
Thanks for your responses guys. Here's one I have in the upload queue at the moment, which although isn't the worst I've taken recently in terms of grain, the sky is still grainier than I'd have liked:
I'll try reducing the in-camera sharpening and see if this makes a difference.
Edit: I forgot to add - I'm shooting in large jpeg, for no other reason than convenience.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3077 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 8434 times:
Sorry I missed you on your last trip to Manchester.
I use the neutral setting on my 50D, and also manually set the parameters to zero - effectively minimising the 'editing' that the camera does to a jpeg image. This way you maximise your control of jpegs in post-processing. Your photo looks pretty good to me, but you always have been a strict judge of your own images .
As ever, if you want me to look more closely at any particular image, feel free to send anything along.
Hope to see you again round these parts soon, and enjoy your trip to Russia.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 813 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 8370 times:
It seems the days of silky smooth images are gone, lost in the quest for ever higher pixel counts - at least with Canon sensors.
Even my wonderful 5D3 has a "texture" in blue skies at 100 ISO (barely discernible, but there) which didn't exist with my original 5D. Of course it is in a different league to the old camera at high ISO.
The old adage "there's no such things as a free lunch" holds true here. I was reviewing some old D60 images the other day, and they are stunningly 'clean'.
But I think some modification of technique can help compensate. With earlier DSLRs we learnt through trial and error that overexposure was the big taboo. Blown highlights just ruined images. So we tended to be conservative with exposures and boosted the shadows & midrange in PS.
With the 7D, I found this didn't work so well. Underexposure + PS boosting = serious noise problems. On the other hand, I think current Canons handle overexposure a little better, so I have found the being a little more generous in the exposure works pretty well and goes a long way to addressing noise issues.
Put another way, where I used to expose for the highlights, now I'm exposing for the shadows. What I don't know of course is whether this is due to different sensors or a change to Canon's metering. It would be interesting to compare a series of exposure readings from, say a 30D or 40D and compare it with the 60D.
I should stress that the difference in exposure is quite small - where I previously used -1/3rd exposure compensation I might now use +1/3rd.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8336 times:
Possibly a tad oversharp in parts but I can't see any blur. Certainly won't be haze as this spot is very close to the taxiway. This aircraft also arrives at around 1600 and it's been bloody cold at MAN at that time this past few months.
dc10tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8325 times:
Yes Mick, you are quite correct. Obviously I have no idea who screened that shot, but it was also rejected for "yellow/green cast". I'm not disagreeing with the rejection per se, and a colour cast is obviously fairly straightforward to correct, I just used this as an example of a "grainy" rejection, typifying the problem I have. The light conditions at MAN weren't brilliant last weekend (dare I say it as is often the case )
This shot was also rejected for grain, as well as low contrast:
In fairness I expected this one to be something of a punt. Taken, for those of you that know MAN, with a 24-105 lens from the Viewing Park, taking off from 23R.
It's interesting to hear the comments about sharpening, which takes me back a few years to when uploading my first images to this site. The TAP A320 on my home 17" LCD screen looks perfect in terms of sharpening, but on my work 19" screen looks soft. On the two laptops I use it looks horrendously oversharpened. So I'm aware of the differences between screens. Generally I prefer "larger and softer" images to many which are uploaded.