80D is here

idkdc wrote in post #17939651
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

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.

evelakes wrote in post #17939753
At 800 ISO Left 80D Rightside 70D

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FrF2​Xc 800 ISO canon 80D (leftside) canon 70D (rightside) by richard evers, on Flickr

80D
http://www.imaging-resource.com …LLRES/80DhSLI00​800NR0.HTM

70D
http://www.imaging-resource.com …LRES/E70DhSLI00​800NR0.HTM

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:

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17939764
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.

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

"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

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17940796
"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.

Oh wait, you have

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

^ may be this is because there is less noise
But not much less unfortunately

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?

DJHaze596 wrote in post #17941899
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.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17941921
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? :\

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17941921
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.

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.

coolshot wrote in post #17902840
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!"

Shooting wrote in post #17939010
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.

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17913926
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.

Shooting wrote in post #17939010
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.

RDKirk wrote in post #17942968
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?