Example photos of Digic 6 v Digi8 (or Digic 7) that show the NR differences?

Has anyone got a link to, or can add images (of the same subjects) that shows the difference in NR on the older v newer DIGIC processors?

Best examples for instance, of the DIGIC 6 noise levels vs DIGIC 8 noise levels set to photograph the same thing? Close-ups rather than landscapes).

Curious for when I upgrade... I'm using an old 40D just now but want an articulated screen, so undecided whether to get something like a 760D or a 200D or 250D, as 3 possibilities...

Have you checked out dpreview.com review of either body and the Studio Comparison scene where you can enter the two bodies and compare?

Timphoto wrote in post #19064548
Have you checked out dpreview.com review of either body and the Studio Comparison scene where you can enter the two bodies and compare?

No Tim, good idea.

It's the noise of course that I want to see if I was to use either at say 400 or 800 ISO, or even beyond. Functionwise the cameras would be as good as each other, but it's for keeping a bit of the that background beyond macro subjects that help make the image look balanced, and what the sNR looks like there.

Cheers m8.

Paul.

Most of the improved NR they talk about with newer digic processors have to do with the processed jpg and not the raw (speed and algorithm). JPG is always being generated with every shot you take, so processing power and speed is important in that regard.

Raw improvements are mostly due to sensor improvements.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19064607
Most of the improved NR they talk about with newer digic processors have to do with the processed jpg and not the raw (speed and algorithm). JPG is always being generated with every shot you take, so processing power and speed is important in that regard.

Raw improvements are mostly due to sensor improvements.

So either a 760 or 200 would be fine then over the old 40D.

Tbh, it's having an articulated screen that I want - getting to ground level is harder on my knees and ankles than of late, and a flat screen like the 40D has means composition from 4 inches away from a subject is really hard. Tilting a screen is a godsend!

Paul.

I can tell you that the 80D has a good sensor and articulating screen.
First of the XXD range to have the 'new' Canon sensors, as did 5D4, 1DX2.
Better shadow recovery and the noise is more random than previous sensors.

Choderboy wrote in post #19064872
I can tell you that the 80D has a good sensor and articulating screen.
First of the XXD range to have the 'new' Canon sensors, as did 5D4, 1DX2.
Better shadow recovery and the noise is more random than previous sensors.

Another vote for the 80D - I've been very happy with mine for macro shooting. I often lift shadows so the improved dynamic range is very noticeable.

What about a used 6d ii? Full frame, articulating screen.

The amount of photography I get up to now is greatly reduced from back in the day.

I'm going for a 760D - it's smaller and lighter than the 40D, and a decent price second hand, and the Digic 6 processor will be more than sufficient for my usage.

If I take 10 photo's a week, it will be a surprise, so no point in splashing a lot of money out - and the 250 or 200 series seem to be a bit on the miniature size for my hands so.

24m pixels is plenty too.

I'm sure I'll be happy enough.

Thanks for the input folks, it's been read and appreciated.

Paul.