Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 17 Feb 2016 (Wednesday) 23:07
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

80D is here

 
sploo
premature adulation
2,601 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 555
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Mar 18, 2016 16:29 |  #256

idkdc wrote in post #17939651 (external link)
Slightly off-topic, but have you ever noticed that ever of these words carry a connotation of perversion? I.e. pixel peeper, measurebator. I think pixel peeper was coined by Ken Rockwell too?

I'm both fully concious of, and quite happy with, the fact that being a pixel peeper is a perversion :mrgreen:

The important thing is to know you have a problem, and understand what is or isn't likely to be field relevant. A noticeable difference in the corners of a black and white test chart is often likely to be completely irrelevant in real world conditions.

OK, the problem is that they're not actually the same scene - i.e. they've been taken at different times. If you load both images into Photoshop, scale the 70D up and overlay them you can see that items have moved. There's also a different white balance on the two shots (which can affect perception of sharpness).

If you look at the black mosaic part of the label on the bottle of MUSCAT WINE VINEGAR the 80D looks quite a bit sharper. I.e. issues of depth of field and exactly where the items were placed will come into play. 80D on the left, 70D on the right:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


bumpintheroad wrote in post #17939764 (external link)
So far, looking at the limited samples, my enthusiasm is somewhat dampened. Perhaps my expectations were too high. I was hoping that the 80D would meet the 6D, but it seems clear that the 6D still has much lower noise and maintains much more detail at higher ISO.

Either way I need another body and there's enough improvement that the 80D makes sense vs the 70D. But I'm back to also considering a 6D in spite of its limitations.

As idkdc has noted: the 6D is a full frame sensor. As such it has more than twice the surface area, so it's not really a fair comparison against any APS-C sensor.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
52,163 posts
Gallery: 192 photos
Likes: 9037
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
Post edited over 5 years ago by CyberDyneSystems.
     
Mar 19, 2016 13:08 |  #257

sploo wrote in post #17939913 (external link)
I'm both fully concious of, and quite happy with, the fact that being a pixel peeper is a perversion :mrgreen:

"I'm a peeper, your a peeper, he's a peeper, she's a peeper, wouldn't you like to be a peeper too?"

-Dr. Peeper


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,601 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 555
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Mar 19, 2016 15:42 |  #258

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17940796 (external link)
"I'm a peeper, your a peeper, he's a peeper, she's a peeper, wouldn't you like to be a peeper too?"

I'd see a doctor about that.

-Dr. Peeper

Oh wait, you have :mrgreen:


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Immaculens
creeped by the TF....
Avatar
13,288 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Likes: 3433
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Southern Canada
     
Mar 20, 2016 07:37 |  #259

25 grams lighter vs 70D, yet I see it is larger by 1mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Ca​non-EOS-80D.aspx (external link)


Will immaculens.com (external link)

7Dmk II gripped | 5Dc | 100-400L IS II | 55-250 IS STM | 100L f/2.8 IS Macro | 15-85 IS | 50 f/1.8 STM | 10-18 IS STM
Learn to love to do well, and you shall. ~ C. Poseidon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
omer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,193 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 205
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Israel
Post edited over 5 years ago by omer.
     
Mar 20, 2016 12:12 |  #260

^ may be this is because there is less noise
But not much less unfortunately ;-)a


_______________
My Flickr (old) http://www.flickr.com/​photos/omfoto/ (external link)
_______________

R6 | 80D | 7D | M6 |RF24-105 STM|RF35 1.8| EF-S 15-85 |EF 70-300 L |Sig 150-600 C| Sig 10-20 | 50 1.8 |100 2.8 macro|28 F2.8 | efs24| efm 15-45| 270EX | 430EXII |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DJHaze596
Goldmember
Avatar
1,403 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 663
Joined May 2012
Location: Florida
Post edited over 5 years ago by DJHaze596.
     
Mar 20, 2016 12:50 |  #261

Why do they refuse to get the size of the Battery grip right? The 6D and 5D Mark III are perfect but the 70D, 80D and 7D Mark II Battery Grip are not the same size as the camera and sticks out where the batteries go. Anyone else find that rather annoying? :-)


Canon C200 | Canon EOS R | RF 24-105mm f4L
50mm STM | 70-200mm f2.8L II | 100-400mmL II | 400mm f2.8L IS USM
Previously Owned: 1DX Mark II | Canon 5D Mark IV | 7D Mark II | 1D Mark IV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
52,163 posts
Gallery: 192 photos
Likes: 9037
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Mar 20, 2016 13:03 |  #262

DJHaze596 wrote in post #17941899 (external link)
Why do they refuse to get the size of the Battery grip right? The 6D and 5D Mark III are perfect but the 70D, 80D and 7D Mark II Battery Grip are not the same size as the camera and sticks out where the batteries go. Anyone else find that rather annoying? :-)


Frankly, I'm not a fan of the 5D3 grip either. They took the time to re-orient the batteries side to side instead of front to back, and yet, did not change the front to back depth of the grip itself. There is plenty of leeway to reduce the shape to match, well, a good grip like on the 1D, but they left it full of empty space.

It is Obese!

Compared to the vertical grip part of ANY 1D regardless of how old, the 5D3 grip is horrid IMHO.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
3,223 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Oct 2014
     
Mar 20, 2016 14:58 |  #263

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17941921 (external link)
Frankly, I'm not a fan of the 5D3 grip either. They took the time to re-orient the batteries side to side instead of front to back, and yet, did not change the front to back depth of the grip itself. There is plenty of leeway to reduce the shape to match, well, a good grip like on the 1D, but they left it full of empty space.

It is Obese!

Compared to the vertical grip part of ANY 1D regardless of how old, the 5D3 grip is horrid IMHO.

5D4 update? :\


I like big cinema cameras and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,601 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 555
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Mar 20, 2016 18:41 |  #264

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17941921 (external link)
Frankly, I'm not a fan of the 5D3 grip either. They took the time to re-orient the batteries side to side instead of front to back, and yet, did not change the front to back depth of the grip itself. There is plenty of leeway to reduce the shape to match, well, a good grip like on the 1D, but they left it full of empty space.

It is Obese!

Compared to the vertical grip part of ANY 1D regardless of how old, the 5D3 grip is horrid IMHO.

Just went and checked mine (5D3 grip); yea, there is "wasted" space internally with the bottom/front jutting out... but that's shaped for you to hold it, surely? Any smaller and there wouldn't be a grip there for holding it in portrait orientation. It's a while since I've picked up a 1Dx, but I don't recall it feeling massively different.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
52,163 posts
Gallery: 192 photos
Likes: 9037
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Mar 20, 2016 19:08 |  #265

Well, it's obviously going to be matter of opinion/feel. But I have 1D bodies side by side next to 5D3 and the difference feels quite dramatic from here.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,775 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 978
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 21, 2016 08:43 |  #266

coolshot wrote in post #17902840 (external link)
Is 4k really important? I am a tech enthusiast, but I don't have a single 4k panel in the home. I have 3 LCD tvs in the house and 14 displays(including family tablets,laptops & phones). Short of someone buying midrange 4k tvs from Costco, how they watching 4k content?

Depends on what you're doing and what your real market is.

Back in the 70s, I was one of the "F/22 School" kids: Absolute maximum sharpness and quality, bleed into the developer, if you have to.

When my business was solely wall portraits, it was total color management, every link in the chain, all the way through...and still with the F/22 school thinking about image perfection.

But these days...I have to face the fact that many of my products will never be seen on anything more demanding than a tablet screen, and very often not more than a phablet.

"Let it go, let it go, let it go!"

Serious color management is practically out of the window. I decided that rather than agonize over the fact that my customers' viewing devices will be all over the color management map, I'd just brute-force color grading the way movies do: Warm when I want it warm, cool when I want it cool. If perfect color is necessary, it will be because that particular customer has the system necessary to take advantage of it.

I certainly have another SLR generation ahead of me before my YouTube products are likely to be seen on any more than an infinitesimal number of 4K screens, and probably a couple of cycles before there will be a customer expectation that would impact sales.

"Let it go, let it go, let it go!"


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,775 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 978
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 21, 2016 08:48 |  #267

Shooting wrote in post #17939010 (external link)
I guess I'm old school, but if I wanted video I'd get a video camera. Imagine, take out the video and there is room for extra dslr features.

Only if you also do away with Live View (and maybe not then). The old 40D--which had only Live View--was software hacked to provide video, proving that all the "video bits" were already in place. So crippling a camera to prevent video would not provide "room" for anything extra.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,775 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 978
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Mar 21, 2016 08:52 |  #268

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17913926 (external link)
Noise isn't just limited to high ISO. Noise can be present in the shadows of low-ISO images as well. This is why many photographers practice ETTR, because it maximizes your black exposure to reduce the need to push shadows in post. But the result is often lost highlight detail. With a lower noise floor you could expose for the highlights and push the shadows and still get clean results.

People often practice meat-ax ETTR by just blindly adding stops to the middle-gray based exposure they got from a meter. They have to determine RAW exposure by identifying the brightest highlight that must retain texture and raising exposure to just below the point that texture is being lost.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
4,034 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Likes: 604
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited over 5 years ago by mwsilver.
     
Mar 21, 2016 10:30 |  #269

Shooting wrote in post #17939010 (external link)
I guess I'm old school, but if I wanted video I'd get a video camera. Imagine, take out the video and there is room for extra dslr features.

First, there wouldn't be any more room for other features. Other than a switch to turn video on, it's all software. Second, while most of us here are primarily stills shooters, the idea of a camera being able to perform dual duty and capture professional quality video is very appealing. I discovered that several years ago when I started to make videos of concerts and shows for my son who is a working musician. When you consider the features and quality of the video, it adds significant value to an already outstanding feature set. If it's not your cup of tea, simply ignore it. However, don't be surprised if the time comes when you'll be happy it's there.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,790 posts
Likes: 770
Joined Jan 2010
     
Mar 21, 2016 11:41 |  #270

RDKirk wrote in post #17942968 (external link)
People often practice meat-ax ETTR by just blindly adding stops to the middle-gray based exposure they got from a meter. They have to determine RAW exposure by identifying the brightest highlight that must retain texture and raising exposure to just below the point that texture is being lost.

Well, that's a good policy, if it works and doesn't interfere with spontaneity. There is no reason that you should have to target a specific exposure index when you shoot. The only problems might be that you misjudge, or your converter is too dumb to understand a simple pull, or your camera is not linear in the base-ISO extreme highlights, and your converter is unaware or does not compensate correctly.

Why shoot at ISO 100, when your scene allows ISO 43?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

126,897 views & 146 likes for this thread
80D is here
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is aldobr80
923 guests, 256 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.