7D MkII vs 80D

lijoec wrote in post #18356644
Is there anyway you can show us a shot that requires you to lift the shadows in post, a before and after type thing? I wonder if it's more of a 80d needs more post work? Thanks for your reply

I'm not sure if this is any help to you lijoec, but these images are from some tests I was doing soon after I got my 80D. Not real world but maybe interesting. The left hand image was shot at ISO 12800 and the right hand image was shot moments before at ISO 200 and lifted 5 stops in Photoshop. Both shot in raw with a 50mm STM and converted at the same neutral settings with noise reduction turned off. There's not much difference in noise, maybe slightly less in the lifted image but you may notice faint horizontal banding in the lifted image, especially a pink band near the top of the top row of grey squares. Still, I think it's not bad for a 5 stop lift of a Canon crop sensor.

Either the colors or brightness (or both) seem off from each? Was the same white balance, picture style, etc used? Something seems off in this comparison. Also, to really compare the noise, we would want to get down to at least an 80% crop to see the noise characteristics, would you happen to have those. A 5 stop push is pretty crazy for a Canon sensor that is for sure!

I might have to try the 7D2 just for giggles.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18356689
... A 5 stop push is pretty crazy for a Canon sensor that is for sure!

I might have to try the 7D2 just for giggles.

That... will go badly

sploo wrote in post #18356697
That... will go badly

Here is where I did a roughly 4 stop push. It wasn't terrible, but yeah 5 stops wouldn't be great at all. I think the 7D2 does pretty good sporting the old sensor design though.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17669799

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18356689
Either the colors or brightness (or both) seem off from each? Was the same white balance, picture style, etc used? Something seems off in this comparison. Also, to really compare the noise, we would want to get down to at least an 80% crop to see the noise characteristics, would you happen to have those. A 5 stop push is pretty crazy for a Canon sensor that is for sure!

I might have to try the 7D2 just for giggles.

Yes I'm not sure why it looks a bit off. WB was slightly different as the (extremely underexposed) ISO 200 looked too green when lifted so I used the dropper on that one. Below is what it looks like with identical light source profiles. And I hope I used Photoshop correctly (not very experienced with it). I did Image>Adjustments>Exposure and entered 5 in that box. Picture styles the same (Neutral, contrast -4 to get a reasonably accurate LCD histogram). Could the sensor be more sensitive to green at low light levels? Or just a difference in boosting between camera and raw converter?

I think the best way to raise your ISO 200 5 stops is first to do it in the raw file, and not use 3rd party software? I would have taken the ISO 200 through DPP and pulled the slider up 3. Beyond that, you have to use levels or brightness sliders to go the extra 2 I believe. I am curious how others would raise an image 5 stops personally, but the best way is from the raw itself, and not from the JPG.

lijoec wrote in post #18356644
Is there anyway you can show us a shot that requires you to lift the shadows in post, a before and after type thing? I wonder if it's more of a 80d needs more post work? Thanks for your reply

Took a quick gander at the 80D threads and I'll have to say a good percentage of the photos do not seem processed. Many appear to look straight out of camera jpgs. Straight out of camera jpgs from a full frame can look similar in average/poor IQ without processing. Canon isn't known to produce fantastic jpgs SOOC.

A good percentage of my photos do not need need to uplift shadows. However I'll have to say the 80D raw file feels extremely flexible in Lightroom. Back in the day owning a crop sensor 50d there was little play in pushing/pulling the exposure. The 7dmk1 in lightroom was better but I still was not pleased in the crop sensor performance. I purchased the 80D and was quite surprised how well the RAW file reacts in Lightroom. I'll have to say anyone jumping into digital photography is seriously spoiled in how good the crop sensors have evolved compared to the early years of the 20D-30D crop sensor bodies. IMO the 80D destroys the 1dmk3 in almost every aspect due to new tech (obviously).

IMO most casual soccer mom/dad's documenting field sports or any of their kids activities would be extremely pleased in the 80D's performance. In my particular case this is the reason why I purchased the 80D. However now I'm pleased in how it performs for more critical shooting.

If your more serious you'd want 2 memory card slots from the 7Dmk2. Paid work you'd probably appreciate the features. If the 7Dmk3 comes out with the 80D sensor (hopefully better), touchscreen and rapid fire performance that should be the "prosumer" Canon should be selling right now!!! This is where the Nikon D500 is again one step ahead of Canon. Please note I'm a Canon user too!!!

This is the appeal of the 80D for my application. I can lock focus on extremely fast moving amusement rides, good DPAF for video and almost full frame image quality. Please note I still think my X-T2 surpasses IQ of my 80D by a good margin. However the 80D AF performance is better than my Fuji. For majority of my casual shooting my Fuji is the body I lug around due to better IQ (than my 80D) and excellent SOOC video with fuji presets (1080 or 4k) and better lens selection for crop sensor than Canon. Canon needs to make a 24mm equiv fast prime!!

This is where you must carefully select your tools for your exact application in photography. The 80D is an extremely universal body that is "jack of all trades" and does a fine job in virtually everything. This is why I own the 80D. Also it is like I own a camera with a build in "1.6 TC"

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18356778
I think the best way to raise your ISO 200 5 stops is first to do it in the raw file, and not use 3rd party software? I would have taken the ISO 200 through DPP and pulled the slider up 3. Beyond that, you have to use levels or brightness sliders to go the extra 2 I believe. I am curious how others would raise an image 5 stops personally, but the best way is from the raw itself, and not from the JPG.

I would just do it in the Adobe RAW converter, either ACR, or in LR. Either way that offers +-5EV on the exposure slider. The other advantage of using the Adobe converter is that it offers sliders across several other ranges of luminance. You have Highlights and Shadows, as well as White and Black point sliders in the basic panel of the RAW converter when using Process Version 2012.

Here is a quick example, but not from an 80D, but my lowly 50D. I shot the first shot at ISO 3200, the maximum non expanded setting of the camera. I shot it in Av mode, with no EC, then used those exposure values in manual for an ISO 100 shot, which is 5 stops difference. I then processed in LR, using the following settings:

WB; Tungsten
Clarity +25, Vibrance +20.

Sharpening Amount 75, Radius 1.0, Detail 0, Masking 100.

Zero Luminance NR

Chromatic NR Amount 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50. The NR settings are the Adobe original defaults.

I also had Remove Chromatic Aberration selected. This is the ISO 3200 result.

Plus I had output sharpening set to Screen/Standard.

Nice test, and yes, it only took about 2 stops or so on my old 50Ds to start showing banding, especially if I was in the upper ISO ranges. It was frustrating, and when the 7D came out, it was a joy at the time, because it was much more forgiving. I have only bought 1 camera at its release, and that was the 7D. I really disliked my 50D bodies, and couldn't get rid of them fast enough. Not sure why, when it really was just a higher resolution 40D, so I have no logical reason why I liked the 40D and never liked the 50D? Strange...

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18356778
I think the best way to raise your ISO 200 5 stops is first to do it in the raw file, and not use 3rd party software? I would have taken the ISO 200 through DPP and pulled the slider up 3. Beyond that, you have to use levels or brightness sliders to go the extra 2 I believe. I am curious how others would raise an image 5 stops personally, but the best way is from the raw itself, and not from the JPG.

I tried initially with DPP and Photo Ninja but could only raise exposure by 3 on either of them. I thought other sliders might not raise exposure evenly so went for Photoshop. I don't think it was a jpeg in Photoshop though. I opened the raw with Photoshop using Photo Ninja as a plug-in raw converter but I'm not sure what form it is when Photoshop works on it.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18357015
Nice test, and yes, it only took about 2 stops or so on my old 50Ds to start showing banding, especially if I was in the upper ISO ranges. It was frustrating, and when the 7D came out, it was a joy at the time, because it was much more forgiving. I have only bought 1 camera at its release, and that was the 7D. I really disliked my 50D bodies, and couldn't get rid of them fast enough. Not sure why, when it really was just a higher resolution 40D, so I have no logical reason why I liked the 40D and never liked the 50D? Strange...

I do like my 50D, but that is coming direct from a 20D. I recall that there were quite a lot of folks who thought the 50D was too noisy compared to the 40D. maybe it's something about that sensor. It was a 50% increase in pixel count after all. At the moment I would seriously consider selling some spare body parts for a 5DIV, but £3499, including a free grip, plus £599 for a Sigma 24-105 Art is way too much; not to mention the Canon L at over £1000. Oh and the £249 for the Sigma 1401 1.4× converter for the 150-600. Trouble is I don't think anyone would want any of my spare parts. Considering I take two of those capsules a day, plus an Oramorph chaser.

Pippan wrote in post #18357025
I tried initially with DPP and Photo Ninja but could only raise exposure by 3 on either of them. I thought other sliders might not raise exposure evenly so went for Photoshop. I don't think it was a jpeg in Photoshop though. I opened the raw with Photoshop using Photo Ninja as a plug-in raw converter but I'm not sure what form it is when Photoshop works on it.

If you didn't use ACR, and that seems to be the case if you used Photo Ninja instead, then PS was working on RGB data, either 16 or 8 bit, depending on Photo Ninja, I don't know about it, I have never used it. So you have lost that big advantage of working with the RAW camera data. At the best it seems that Photo Ninja can do three stop of "exposure" so you would have had to add at least two stops to the RGB, and at worse if you had not added any to the RAW all five stops. These tests are always done using the RAW data, since it is there that you are working with the same data that the camera would use when doing "Digital ISO".

Alan

AlanU wrote in post #18356897
Took a quick gander at the 80D threads and I'll have to say a good percentage of the photos do not seem processed. Many appear to look straight out of camera jpgs. Straight out of camera jpgs from a full frame can look similar in average/poor IQ without processing. Canon isn't known to produce fantastic jpgs SOOC.

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=183​56897&i=i172687097
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Awesome picture sir! That is one of the best 80D pictures I've seen here! And what you said about the users, was kind of what I was driving at.
My thoughts are being the 7DMII came out first, most of the more experienced users jumped on that one, leaving new users and multi camera users to buy the 80D. So when looking at the pictures here the 7DMII users have more experience post process and the 80D users with experience posting more with their primary camera( my guess full frame) .

BigAl007 wrote in post #18357067
If you didn't use ACR, and that seems to be the case if you used Photo Ninja instead, then PS was working on RGB data, either 16 or 8 bit, depending on Photo Ninja, I don't know about it, I have never used it. So you have lost that big advantage of working with the RAW camera data. At the best it seems that Photo Ninja can do three stop of "exposure" so you would have had to add at least two stops to the RGB, and at worse if you had not added any to the RAW all five stops. These tests are always done using the RAW data, since it is there that you are working with the same data that the camera would use when doing "Digital ISO".

Alan

Hmm ... my purpose was really to show lijoec that 80D files can be lifted a long way without too much detriment but I agree that it'd be better to use the raw data. It appears my old version of Photoshop (CS5.1) can't convert 80D files with ACR.

Here is my 7D2 test. ISO 200, pushed 5 stops compared to ISO 6400. Used raw through DPP, made sure the NR sliders were the same values in both, and ran the exposure up 3, and the histogram the rest of the way 2 stops.

Here is what they looked like before the equalization (top is the 5 stop underexposed ISO 200, bottom is ISO 6400), then how they compare to each other. The left side color swatches are the ISO 200 pushed 5, and the right side is ISO 6400 in camera. I am sure there is a better way, but I wanted to make sure I used DPP as much as possible to equalize.

Here is a 100% crop of the inner block of colors just to help give a better idea. I think one can push the 7D2 3 stops with no real issues, 4 stops is max, and 5 stops, you get the below. This is why you don't underexpose the older sensor'd bodies and then pull them up later vs ETTR using the correct ISO, you will have to deal with these artifacts at some point.

Pippan, if you would like to share your two raw files from the 80D, I will do the same type of comparison for you. It takes some time, but seems worth it.