7D MkII vs 80D

Pippan wrote in post #18357422
Wow, thanks for all that info Sploo. Photons to Photos was one of the sites that led me to think pushing in post might be viable for the 80D. I got all excited by those tests and went out one night underexposing things way too much, and then discovered the horizontal banding thing when pushed too far . But as you say, 3-4 stops seems quite OK.

Without wishing to hijack this thread too much more, do you know why the 80D sensor maxes at 15,873 bits at ISO 100 and 200, but only 14,335 bits at higher ISOs than that (according to Rawdigger)? Seems like ISO 200 is some sort of cut-off level.

PS. I wish Photons to Photos would publish charts for the 100D! (I have one of those too)

Even the Sony sensors will break down with extreme pushes. Canon have improved, though they're not quite there with Sony yet.

For the actual binary values; there are deep technical reasons... that I couldn't hope to explain. We need John Sheehy for that

For the 100D; go to the P2Ps site and find the link to running the tests, to provide the data for analysis. That's where the 80D results came from (my wife's camera). Bill was helpful in explaining things so I'm sure he'd do the same for others.

AlanU wrote in post #18357434
Great info !!

I can see the science behind all of this but I would imagine a run/gun shooter is more concerned of "capturing the moment" with faster shutter speed in mind preventing motion blur. I think many events photographers would push the iso "in camera" and deal with noise in post.

Static scenery photography with monopod/tripods concentrating on composition I can see the luxury of shooting very low shutter speeds and reducing the ISO figures for the cleanest possible file. This type of photography is worlds different to fast moving subjects.

Oddly I do find I typically have better IQ with my 5dmk3 in events photography compared to my 80D.

With my shooting style I'd probably benefit with a 7dmk2 sensor in an 80D feature rich body

Does the "photons to photos" have a info on the Fuji sensors? I'm still more impressed with the X-T2 IQ over the 80D when it comes to available light shooting. Issue I have with fuji is flash photography for running and gunning (events) is still not something even remotely on par with Canon's system for AF accuracy.

My general process is to use manual mode (shutter speed and aperture controls the "look") and auto iso ensures I get a reasonable exposure (technically, it amplifies the signal seen by the sensor; it's not actually changing the exposure).

Obviously you can't shoot at f/8 and 1/2000 in low light and expect auto iso to sort you out, but within reason it allows focus on the artistic​ look rather than worrying about exact exposure.

For landscape shooting (on a tripod) then it is definitely iso 100 (if feasible) and adjust shutter speed for the exposure, for max DR.

For higher ISO images the 5D3 easily beats the 80D, but then its sensor is over twice the surface area, so it should.

lijoec wrote in post #18357465
Thank you everyone for all this work. You guys are light years smarter than me in this respect. I barely understand the functions on my camera. So this is what I think your results say. 7DII push the ISO in camera for best results , and 80D use lower ISO and fix in Lightroom for best results. The 80D would make learn different patterns of camera use then I currently use. Right now I use AP then adjust ISO to get desired shutter speed. 80D I'm low light that won't work!

Yes, though using an appropriate iso even on the 80D will give you noise benefits; it's just that there's less pressure to push your luck with highlight clipping.

The original 7D was a big problem in this regard; with a good exposure the images were great. Underexpose even a bit and things could look grotty if you had to push in post.

I understand the noise character on the 7D2 is very good, but it won't match the 80D for low ISO shadow pushes. I've not used one enough to know how well it performs otherwise.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18357475
My take-away in how I use the 5D4 for example, is that I no longer have to worry so much about ETTR and pulling down bright areas. The camera is now more forgiving. I don't want to get "lazy" or "more carefree" about my settings, I still want to get the ISO close to what I should be using for the conditions, but if my images are a bit dark, or I have shadows that seem to be something I would have binned before, now I can relax and deal with them later. Hopefully I am right.

That's exactly my take home with the 5D4.

Bassat wrote in post #18357496
Been reading along; this is interesting stuff. I have a real-world, low-light event to shoot tonight. At the last event at this location I was using a 60D. Parameters were generally around 1/200, f/5.6, 6400. This time I can take my 80D/70-200 f/4L IS (or 200 II). That gets me a bit more shutter speed.

I'm curious how those of you who know what you are doing would shoot this. Assuming I can get f/4 & 3200 or f/2.8 & 1600, how should I set up my camera to test pushing the 80D? How about dialing in f/4, 1/250 (or 1/320), & ISO 800, and pushing whatever I need in post for proper exposure? Do I dial in -2 (or whatever) EC to keep my shutter speed up? I think that my be easier than trying to manually keep the needle -2 manually. I will take a few shots at higher ISO (3200/6400) for comparison. I can't imagine needed a shutter any faster than 1/400.

You could do this, though unless you're doing it purely for testing then I wouldn't intentionally underexpose.

If you found that auto iso was clipping highlights you wanted then definitely dial in negative EC (as you know you can get away with pushing the rest of the image in post), but you are then "spending" your pushing headroom, so further lifting shadows may then be a problem.

Note that the big difference between the 60D and 80D will be seen when pushing from low ISO values. Comparing an iso 3200 to 25600 push will likely show less of a gap than a 200 to 1600.

OK so what's this translate in English ???

Nikon D500 and X-T2 are very similar. 80D and 5dmk4 not as good in performance??

Did you click the reference page that describes that chart? Not sure if helps any though...

http://www.photonstoph​otos.net …ge_Shadow_Impro​vement.htm

I think that chart shows that the Fuji and Nikon are much more ISO invariant, ie. you gain little by raising your ISO analog gain in shadow noise recovery vs the Canon bodies.

The 5D4 is more ISO invariant than the 80D because it has more of a straight line, meaning you gain little by raising the ISOs in that range. The 80D benefits in 1/3 ISO steps, some are better than others? The 80D chart is a bit strange to me, provided that the 5D4 and 80D seem to share the same kind of sensor tech?

I am sure I am probably translating that chart incorrectly though.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18357613
Did you click the reference page that describes that chart? Not sure if helps any though...

http://www.photonstoph​otos.net …ge_Shadow_Impro​vement.htm

I think that chart shows that the Fuji and Nikon are much more ISO invariant, ie. you gain little by raising your ISO analog gain in shadow noise recovery vs the Canon bodies.

The 5D4 is more ISO invariant than the 80D because it has more of a straight line, meaning you gain little by raising the ISOs in that range. The 80D benefits in 1/3 ISO steps, some are better than others? The 80D chart is a bit strange to me, provided that the 5D4 and 80D seem to share the same kind of sensor tech?

I am sure I am probably translating that chart incorrectly though.

I'm just looking at this camera chart like how car enthusiasts start discussing static compression vs dynamic compression with different bump stick (camshaft) combo's and VE (volumetric efficiency).

At the end of the day it's still a combo of "decent performing modern camera performance" and the actual photographer behind the view finder. I will not start spewing out nonsense like "it's the photographer....not the gear". We all know we are all appreciating how camera gear has evolved!!!

Every camera renders different. Some of my photos with my 80D sometimes fools me thinking I'm using my Fuji X-T2. However my 5dmk2 and 5dmk3 always looks like Canon files to me. The 80D still renders a more softer look (pixel spacing??) vs my Canon full frame.

The 80D may produce more flattering portraits due to pixel density creating a "easier on the eyes" look of the file. The 5dmk2 and 5dmk3 I own produce a more crisp digital look. I do not have any experience with the 5dmk4. I know my Fuji really produces incredible images on human subjects...arguably better than my canon gear with less post processing. Perhaps this is more of a subjective preference......

I can dial in up to -5EC on the 80D. I'll try several levels.

FWIW, I just tried a 5 stop push. I get cleaner ISO 25600 JPGs SOOC, than the really crappy ISO 400 pushed 5 stops (12,800). Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

Pippan wrote in post #18357429
I've been wondering about this myself so today I emailed Jim at Photo Ninja to ask what form the image is in when Photoshop does its thing after I've hit PS Done in Photo Ninja (having opened the file in Photoshop). Is it still raw data, or a jpeg, .psd or .dng, or something else?

He always replies promptly (just one of the things I love about this converter, great service), and said the image is transmitted back to Photoshop in rectangular pieces in a low-level internal binary format. Photoshop assembles the pieces into its internal representation in memory, and it isn't tied to any particular file format. I'm not sure exactly what that means but it doesn't sound like an RGB file.

It seems to be just what ACR does, it effectively squirts the RGB triplets into the editor window as binary data, without the need to actually create a file on disk. I guess it all depends on how Adobe allocate memory for the image arrays. There are several different ways you can do that, and of course memory management in Win 10 and OSX are rather different to the last time I was coding image processing software, using C under DOS 6 . DOS was great for that, since it pretty much allowed you to address any area of memory you liked. If you wern't careful it was very easy for you to allocate a huge two dimensional array, and overwrite parts of the OS . Which would crash the whole computer, or not, in a relatively random way.

Alan

AlanU wrote in post #18357608
OK so what's this translate in English ???

Nikon D500 and X-T2 are very similar. 80D and 5dmk4 not as good in performance??

Hosted photo: posted by AlanU in
./showthread.php?p=183​57608&i=i247708442
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18357613
Did you click the reference page that describes that chart? Not sure if helps any though...

http://www.photonstoph​otos.net …ge_Shadow_Impro​vement.htm

I think that chart shows that the Fuji and Nikon are much more ISO invariant, ie. you gain little by raising your ISO analog gain in shadow noise recovery vs the Canon bodies.

The 5D4 is more ISO invariant than the 80D because it has more of a straight line, meaning you gain little by raising the ISOs in that range. The 80D benefits in 1/3 ISO steps, some are better than others? The 80D chart is a bit strange to me, provided that the 5D4 and 80D seem to share the same kind of sensor tech?

I am sure I am probably translating that chart incorrectly though.

I'd say your assessments sound right.

Many Canon sensors show that 1/3 stop wavyness as some iso settings are either pulls or pushes of the next (or previous) full stop. It's one of the reasons for the historical advice to use ISOs that are a multiple of 160 on Canon bodies. It doesn't apply to all, but I think the 5D2 in particular does.

Bassat wrote in post #18357625
I can dial in up to -5EC on the 80D. I'll try several levels.

FWIW, I just tried a 5 stop push. I get cleaner ISO 25600 JPGs SOOC, than the really crappy ISO 400 pushed 5 stops (12,800). Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

The jpeg engine on modern Canons is very good, with pretty decent noise reduction.

A 5 stop push is, err, pushing it.

You are pushing a raw not a jpeg of course?

AlanU wrote in post #18357624
I'm just looking at this camera chart like how car enthusiasts start discussing static compression vs dynamic compression with different bump stick (camshaft) combo's and VE (volumetric efficiency).

At the end of the day it's still a combo of "decent performing modern camera performance" and the actual photographer behind the view finder. I will not start spewing out nonsense like "it's the photographer....not the gear". We all know we are all appreciating how camera gear has evolved!!!

Every camera renders different. Some of my photos with my 80D sometimes fools me thinking I'm using my Fuji X-T2. However my 5dmk2 and 5dmk3 always looks like Canon files to me. The 80D still renders a more softer look (pixel spacing??) vs my Canon full frame.

The 80D may produce more flattering portraits due to pixel density creating a "easier on the eyes" look of the file. The 5dmk2 and 5dmk3 I own produce a more crisp digital look. I do not have any experience with the 5dmk4. I know my Fuji really produces incredible images on human subjects...arguably better than my canon gear with less post processing. Perhaps this is more of a subjective preference......

In head to head testing (same scene, camera mounted to a lens that itself is fixed to a tripod) the 5D4 produces significantly sharper files than the 5D3. At least, that's my experience. Possibly a less aggressive AA filter.

For the 80D, remember that a shot on a crop sensor is taking a sample from a smaller region of the image circle that is projected by the lens; so in order to then produce a print of the same size you are physically enlarging that sample of the smaller area by a larger amount than the same shot taken on a full frame sensor (by 1.6x). Effectively you're looking at the lens' artefacts 1.6x closer (or larger, whichever you prefer).

sploo wrote in post #18357793
The jpeg engine on modern Canons is very good, with pretty decent noise reduction.

A 5 stop push is, err, pushing it.

You are pushing a raw not a jpeg of course?

I can be so stupid sometimes. Of course I was pushing an OOC JPG. Will reshoot in a minute.

Bassat wrote in post #18357825
I can be so stupid sometimes. Of course I was pushing an OOC JPG. Will reshoot in a minute.

Easy trap to fall into, I look forward to your test results!

This is a good thread, fun technical discussions and tests, no real fanboy comments, it is refreshing.