>>3904134Yes, and visible noise exists down at the base ISO. Does it ruin photos? No, but it's still there taking a toll.
These cameras have built-in noise reduction in the JPEG processor that reduces the visibility of noise at a small cost to fine details. There's a reason why high ISO JPEGs appear to lose detail rather than increase noise and that's because they're designed that way. That's post-processing. Looking at RAWs all the noise and finer details can be seen.
Use dpreview's studio comparison and compare the 7D's JPEG, RAW, and a D850 or 5Ds' JPEG/RAW at 800 ISO in the print size downsampled mode and pan around. You will see quite a difference in quality between cameras but mainly a giant difference in the visible noise between the 7D's JPEG and RAW images side by side.
>>3904135>No, it means that raising ISO doesn't get you a cleaner image in low light, just a brighter one.Using the correct ISO still gets you a cleaner image, it's just not very noticeable. Paid shills will say this isn't the case, but there's no way around it. There's no magic involved. It's just a great signal to noise ratio and enough bits in the digital space to allow for some post-processing.
ISO/Gain "invariance" is the holy grail for signal processing. It is fantasy. You'll see that even in reviews for "ISO invariant" cameras people state there are differences between ISO values and that's to be expected. They're just surprisingly small compared to other noisier cameras.
>It's perfectly capable of producing great photographs.People say the same about budget smartphones.
>You said it was incapable of producing great photos and that its price as "the cheapest camera in the lineup" meant it had worse IQ. The truth is, it wasn't even the cheapest. Nitpick all you want, it was always entry level and everyone knows it. It's good but isn't great. No amount of arguing and hoping will change that. It's a great value it just doesn't compete with great cameras.
