# 80d vs. 7D MKII



## haggie (May 28, 2016)

At present I have the Canon 70D, which I use mainly for landscape and architecture. 
The 70D is OK for this although the dynamic range is not that great, which can give limitations in certain landscape photos. 

But last year I picked up bird and plane photography again, after many years. 
For birds and planes the 70D’s AF system is not bad, but I missed several good pictures due to bad AF – although I must say that if I had known the situation in advance, I could probably have made the shot with different AF settings. 

So I want a camera with a sensor with good dynamic range and an AF system that can quickly and accurately lock on and track fast and sometimes erratically moving objects. 
I am aware of the fact that erratically flying birds are the biggest challenge for any AF system to track (to acquire focus and then keep in focus), but planes usually have speeds that exceed the speed of birds and therefore also pose a challenge for any AF system (including the lens) to track them.

Because of this, I want to upgrade to another camera and I am in doubt about which is the best for my needs. 
I should mention that I make almost no videos, so that part of the specs is of no importance to me.
A FF camera is no option due to the lenses I already have (all EF-S). So I can choose between the 80D and the 7D MKII. The 7D MKII has a stellar AF system, but it’s sensor is not that good when a decent dynamic range is required. The 80D apparently has a better sensor than Canon has ever had (if I summarize correctly what I have read), but it’s AF system for tracking objects is not that good.

My plan was to wait for the test results of the 80D's sensor by DXOmark.com, so I could compare that to the results of the 7D MKII. Alas, on the DXOmark website for the Canon 80D someone asked why it was not tested yet, on which the following reply by some other visitor came. 
“_DXOmark have don't publish camera tests any more. I guess its not profitable. They just use the results for their software now. They didn't even bother to publicly announce that they don't publish camera tests any more_.” 
So apparently no more camera sensor tests by DXOmark, the only objective sensor test there was to my knowledge. 

So now I have a problem to make a good comparison between the 80D and the 7D MKII. I have seen some reviews that speak of a better dynamic range of the 80D, but I never see a test that is done with equipment so there is some element of objectivity. 
Some reviews say the 80D‘s dynamic range is far better than that of the 70D. Other reviews say it is better, but not by a huge margin (I read only one stop more). Other reviews say the 80D’s dynamic range is quite good ‘for a Canon’, which does not give much confidence about the 80D’s actual performance.

I hope that someone can help me with answers to the following questions that I have – so I can decide which of the two (80D or 7D MKII) is the best compromise for me.
1. Is there a test/review somewhere on the internet where the dynamic range of the 80D is tested in the same manner (preferably in the same test) as the AF system of the 7D MKII?
2. Is there a test/review somewhere on the internet where the AF system of the 80D is tested in the same manner (preferably in the same test) as the AF system of the 7D MKII – preferably where tracking moving objects is part of the test?

Thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 28, 2016)

There are several tests of the dynamic range 80D, compared to other cameras (dpreview for example), and I do not trust the DXO methodology anyway. The tests that I read, the DR in low ISO, seems to have a great improvement in 80D.

Moreover, no known reliable scientific tests on the AF system on different camera models. Only a few users who have used both cameras can opine about their personal experiences.


----------



## haggie (May 29, 2016)

Thanks for your reply, ajfotofilmagem.

I have read some more criticism about the results of DXOmark tests. But I often some bias of DXOmark against Canon and in favor of Nikon was implied, and therefore i did not take those critics serious. Especially because there seems to be consensus about the sensors in the Nikons and Sony's to have better dynamic range.

My thought was that a uniform measurement method comes closest to being objective, and if it is applied equally to all camera brands and types, then this would result in a sort of 'yard stick' for all to compare.

Can you explain what the issue is/was with DXOmark's measurments?


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2016)

Just a few personal observations from processing these files: I'd say the 80D has the edge when you nominalise them both to 20.2 mp. As regards the DR I wouldn't get hung up on that; both have more shadow lifting potential ( which is basically the context of DR these days) than most would require, but the 80D is better.

I'd say it comes down to whether you want the larger size, processing power & AF + build of the 7DII. I would no more trust an 80D out in the rain that I would a 6D.


----------



## haggie (May 29, 2016)

Thanks Sporgon,

you are right that the build quality and especially the weather sealing also is something to look at. Did not have that at the front of my thoughts yet.

My choice is in fact between either a modern sensor or a state-of-the-art AF system. 
Wanting both would steer me towards a FF body, and as I wrote that is no option for me. 

Shades are often quite hard when photographing airplanes - and the same with birds. 
When photographing airplanes, I saw that the dynamic range of the 70D (that is: the ability to get details back in the shadows) is not great. Quite quickly, noise shows its ugly face. There are some ways to reduce that in post processing, but that is quite limited because is quickly makes an unnatural end result.

Now that I give it some more thought, it is probably best to give preference to a good dynamic range instead of to the ultimate AF system. After all, even with the 70D I usually get at least one or 2 sharp photos in a burst. Increasing that number of sharp photos with a 7D MKII gives me more photos to work on, but they all will have hard shades if the weather is sunny. That means that I just have more-of-the-same exposures, because the sensors of the 70D and the 7D MKII are almost identical in dynamic range. Therefore, replacing my 70D with a 7D MKII would not give me any improvement in the image quality of my final results.

But with better dynamic range I can improve the shades better in post processing, resulting in a better end result. And therefore, this would result in an improvement.
This means that the 80D should be my preferred choice.

Now I think of it, that should have been clear to me much sooner.
Because in the end, the quality of the photo gets determined by the quality of the sensor in digital photography. So preference should go to the better sensor.


----------



## Orangutan (May 29, 2016)

haggie said:


> Now that I give it some more thought, it is probably best to give preference to a good dynamic range instead of to the ultimate AF system.



A good metering system (and learning to use it properly) is probably more important than DR. I'm also a casual bird shooter, and also use a 70D. In poor light or harsh light a tiny bit of DR won't help very often. If your exposure is off by two stops (either direction) a tiny bit of extra DR also won't help. 

When I look at my bird photos (either BIF or not), I'm most frustrated when the image is under-exposed or over-exposed by much more than the tiny DR difference of 80D vs 7D2. I suggest you start by looking at your photos in their unprocessed (neutral) state and see if your exposure is consistently correct before starting to look for a new camera.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 29, 2016)

*Planes in flight question*

It has been decades since I photographed airplanes in flight at airshows - back in the days of film and manual focus!

If I recall correctly, we would simply focus our lenses at infinity and fire away.

Has photo technology changed to the point that this technique no longer works?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 29, 2016)

haggie said:


> Thanks for your reply, ajfotofilmagem.
> 
> I have read some more criticism about the results of DXOmark tests. But I often some bias of DXOmark against Canon and in favor of Nikon was implied, and therefore i did not take those critics serious. Especially because there seems to be consensus about the sensors in the Nikons and Sony's to have better dynamic range.
> 
> ...


Because I do not trust DXO Mark?

The results are based on DXO normalized images to an output result with only 8 megapixel, and when compared cameras of different resolutions, this can be misleading. If you want an image output with more than 8 megapixel, can be misleading too.

The DXO measurements only consider the "maximum DR" possible, that only happens in the ISO base. That is, ISO100 on most cameras. If you intend to use your camera at ISO 100, measurements can be useful, but using high ISO these measurements can be misleading.

The DXO measurements assess the noise when it reaches a certain "arbitrary" amount that they consider acceptable. But no camera lets you adjust the ISO in fractional values as ISO1437 for example.

To lift the shadows, 80D is the best Canon option at this time. For his architectural work, for sure. For birds and planes, there is controversy.


----------



## haggie (May 29, 2016)

thanks for your remark, drmikeinpdx.
I too did a lot of airplane photography when I still had my A-1 and my T-90. With my FD 2.5/125 mm and my FD 4.0/80-200 mm I made great shots. The advantage of that type of 35 mm SLR was something that I never read, but in my opinion was fantastic. Even if you could not afford the most expensive Pro SLR-bodies, you could achieve Pro-results. If you just saved and bought the good lenses, and would use a professional film (who remembers: to be stored in the fridge te retain optimal color balance! 8) ). 
In that way you could get the same results as the pro, because the SLR-body (although it determined the ease of use, reliability etc.) had no real influence on the resulting photo.

With digital SLRs that is completely different. It gave manufacturers the possibility to differentiate and build optimised cameras for different situations. That is good. 
But it took away the possibility for enthusiasts to get 'pro-results' on a relative budget in the way I just described. That is bad.

That said, todays digital SLR's have an image quality that surpasses the old film, perhaps not always in 'atmosphere', but certainly in capturing details. And post-processing and printing is so much easier than spending hours in the darkroom for only a few prints. So, to be honest, I would not go back to that age.

And yes, I like to think that manual focussing was something that gave good results for fast flying aircraft too. Every pass of a plane I had at least 2 excellent sharp photos. Alas, modern digital cameras do not support manual focus in these circumstances. The lenses rotate very little for a given change in focus, so it is easy to 'overshoot'. And the digital SLR bodies do not have the split focussing screen of those days, which makes accurate but also fast focussing a real challenge. I can honestly say that I tried manual focussing with my 70D and that this is not good for my mood. 
So I think you can say that the old technique no longer works: it is simply no longer supported by the camera bodies and the lenses.


Thanks for your repy, Orangutan.
You are right with your remark that a properly exposed image is the base for everything else. 
Of course, my exposure is off at times, but that is not what I meant. In sunny circumstances the underside of a plane fuselage and wings gets several stops under-exposed. The same for the wings of a BIF. That is a fact I cannot change.
I have seen photos taken with a Nikon that seem to give more room to 'pull up' details in the shade than my 70D. That is required, because I cannot control the lighting when shooting airplanes in flight or birds in flight. Of course I could say "the light is too harsh, so I won't shoot photos today", but then I would miss many opportunities. So that is why I am looking for a different camera body. I hope this explains why I look for a better (Canon) body, i.e. a body with a better sensor.

And judging from several tests, the 80D could/should give me better lattitude to correct sub-optimal lighting of the subjects in my photos. It is sad it does not have the 7D MKII's elaborate AF-system. But then it would not doubt be more expensive than the 7D MKII is, so there is no sense for Canon to do so.

Thanks for your explanation, ajfotofilmagem.
I did not know that about the DXOmark method. Because for birds and planes I usually work at 400 ISO (800 ISO if I really must), I am more interested in that higher ISO performance. 
This means, I guess, that what I read at DPReview is more relevant than a DXOmark test would be.


----------



## Travelintrevor (May 29, 2016)

haggie said:


> Because in the end, the quality of the photo gets determined by the quality of the sensor in digital photography. So preference should go to the better sensor.



Greetings Haggie, 

So much more goes into determining the quality of the photo than the sensor. Light, color, composition, focus, etc. 

A great sensor can't make up for a missed photo so your reasoning/logic does not hold true for a myriad of situations. IMO, you are rationalizing your purchasing decision so you may need to slow down? 

The difference between the sensors in the 80D and 7D Mk II (and the D500 for that matter) are minor but the difference in everything else is huge. Are we to dismiss all those? If so, why bother adding those amazing functions? 

I can program in a minimum shutter and a maximum shutter (alon gwith ISO and f stop) in my 7D MK II; it has an amazing auto ISO function; in manual mode, I can change lenses that have different f stops and zoom in and out with variable aperture lenses AND still get the exposure I set at the start and so much more. 

I really enjoy my wife's T5i because of the flip touch screen but when I need speed, performance, etc. I reach for my 5D Mk III or 7D MK II. The sensor in the T5i has more DR (no banding in the shadows when pushing exposure) than my 5D MK III but I would never say it gives better quality photos.

Here are some examples of a pushed exposure. One is extreme, the other (in the second post due to file limitations) is more reasonable and the exposure was set for the highlights. 

If you need more latitude than these examples....then you may need a sony sensor. The 7D Mk II sensor is incredible and a huge step up from the 5D MK III. I have seen the 80D results and see no improvement. Of course I also see no significant difference between the D500 and the 7D Mk II either. I was ready to move to Nikon because of the D500 because of all the hype and then the results....well, I am still with Canon 

NOTE: NR was set to 37 in LR for the fake pecker shot. I missed focus slightly but had no way of checking since the screen was black in bright sunlight. As an aside, the Sigma 50-100 is a joy to shoot with! Works great on a FF from 85mm-100mm


----------



## Travelintrevor (May 29, 2016)

my second part:
Note: any softness when viewing at 100% is because I was being a dork and shot this at 1/125 at 600mm...doh!
Talk about not using a camera and it's functions correctly....also, no sharpening applied.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 29, 2016)

The advantage of Sony EXMOR sensors typically only holds between ISO100 and 400. At ISO 800 and above, ceases to be such an advantage.

I recommend it for its intended use, use the dpreview comparison tool to "push shadows" for 2 or 3 stops with the ISO you usually use. I would ignore the push 5 stops, which would make midtones be poor anyway.


----------



## weixing (May 29, 2016)

*Re: Planes in flight question*

Hi,


drmikeinpdx said:


> It has been decades since I photographed airplanes in flight at airshows - back in the days of film and manual focus!
> 
> If I recall correctly, we would simply focus our lenses at infinity and fire away.
> 
> Has photo technology changed to the point that this technique no longer works?


 I think the problem is there is no 100% crop view in film, but there is in digital image... as a result, "the DOF on screen become smaller than DOF in most printout" especially when you view at 100% using a lower PPI monitor... a bit of out of focus or motion blur become very obvious. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## AlanF (May 29, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The advantage of Sony EXMOR sensors typically only holds between ISO100 and 400. At ISO 800 and above, ceases to be such an advantage.
> 
> I recommend it for its intended use, use the dpreview comparison tool to "push shadows" for 2 or 3 stops with the ISO you usually use. I would ignore the push 5 stops, which would make midtones be poor anyway.



I use iso640 as the norm on my 7DII for bird photography. DR is very similar for most APS-C sensors at that ISO so I don't take much notice of other sensors. Quick and accurate focus is the most critical factor. I didn't like the lack of centre spot focus on the 70. It's very important for locking on to small birds against a crowded background.


----------



## haggie (May 29, 2016)

What _Travelintrevor_ and _AlanF_ are really saying, is that I should not give prefference to image quality so easily. In effect: my assessment about the importance of image quality being most important is not that absolute. I did not know the functions mentioned in both replies, e.g. 'centre spot focus'.

To be honest, now I am really in doubt. In the thread titled "_Canon 80D RAW files available for download. DR improved_", in this same sub-forum, I read several observations that seem to confirm my initial preference for optimal image quality over speedy AF. Seeing the examples _Travelintrevor_ posted, I do not. That is definitely a lot better than my 70D allows for!

So I think it is best if I look into the 7D MKII a bit further than the tests and reviews I read on the internet. I wil just get the Instruction Manual from the Canon site and have a thorough look at it.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2016)

I don't think people understand this topic very well. The 80D has more low ISO DR. As ISO climbs the 7D2 actually goes ahead slightly.

But so what? More DR at low ISO doesn't give you better IQ. It only does if you push shadows. That's it.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 29, 2016)

haggie said:


> What _Travelintrevor_ and _AlanF_ are really saying, is that I should not give prefference to image quality so easily. In effect: my assessment about the importance of image quality being most important is not that absolute. I did not know the functions mentioned in both replies, e.g. 'centre spot focus'.
> 
> To be honest, now I am really in doubt. In the thread titled "_Canon 80D RAW files available for download. DR improved_", in this same sub-forum, I read several observations that seem to confirm my initial preference for optimal image quality over speedy AF. Seeing the examples _Travelintrevor_ posted, I do not. That is definitely a lot better than my 70D allows for!
> 
> So I think it is best if I look into the 7D MKII a bit further than the tests and reviews I read on the internet. I wil just get the Instruction Manual from the Canon site and have a thorough look at it.



I think that Alan F is getting at the point that good/excellent AF is a/the major priority for the likes of birds etc. Personally I totally agree! My first consideration when buying a camera is it's AF performance and versatility (I currently use a 7D2 and 1DX) only then do I worry about other factors. Naturally image quality is very important but the best sensor in the world won't get to a decent bird shot if the AF isn't up to the job.
I have not personally tried the 80D but it does appear to have a pretty capable AF system so it is well worth a look and may well be the best compromise for you. On the other hand the 7D2 has a very good AF system and drives even the big white lenses nearly as well as a 1 series - but it has an older design sensor.
I would point you at the 7D2, but that is only my opinion, you really need to try them both for yourself before you part with your pennies!


----------



## pj1974 (May 30, 2016)

Just adding my 2 cents worth. Not just in this thread (and indeed in many other threads and photo forums), I see time and time again, people exaggerating small differences as if they were ‘poor’ vs ‘excellent’.

While there are differences in AF and sensor between 7D2 and 80D, the absolute differences are not as night and day as many people make them out to be. Compared to digital images possible a mere 15 years ago, we are truly spoiled. 

Both cameras have very capable AF, with the 7D2 slightly better for challenging birds in flight. The 80D is probably 90% as capable.
Both cameras have awesome sensors, with the 80D slightly better for low ISO image post processing. The 7D2 is about 90% as capable.

For a balanced opinion, there are many other features that should be considered depending on the potential user’s photographic style and needs (ergonomics, connectivity, cost, build quality, etc).

And even more important than the rather minute differences between AF and sensor capability, is the photographer’s skill level, and willingness to practice and improve. 

Regards, everyone

Paul 8)


----------



## tlieser (May 30, 2016)

I was caught between 80D and 7DMk2. 

To me it looks like the 80D has no real/great advantage in image quality (DR at low ISO and higher resolution) compared to the 7DMk2.

What made me buy the 7DMk2 was the usability. With the 7DMk2 I can use manual mode with Auto ISO and exposure compensation all controlled with one hand without taking the camera off the eye. The ergonomics are simply better.

The same is true for the build quality -- the 80D feels "plastic", I wouldn't want to be out there shooting a Rugby game in the rain with this one.


----------



## Otara (May 30, 2016)

I have both.

They are both great cameras, but for wildlife the 7dii is best for me because it has af expansion and spot AF, both very useful options that the 80 doesnt have. Also I have never been caught by the buffer clearing with the 7Dii, and the faster frame rate is nice too. Its pretty much permanently attached to my big lens. 

For video, portability and ISO 100 shooting, I prefer the 80D.


----------



## K-amps (May 30, 2016)

tlieser said:


> I was caught between 80D and 7DMk2.
> 
> To me it looks like the 80D has no real/great advantage in image quality (DR at low ISO and higher resolution) compared to the 7DMk2.
> 
> ...



Depends on your application.... e.g. I have been trying to get my girls to shoot more often and the touch screen on the 80D, got them very excited, they were fighting to take turns... this has never happened with the HS500, the 5d3 or the a6000. That alone was a deal sealer for me. I am very happy with the 80D purchase, I am not missing the 5d3 much.


----------



## bluemoon (May 30, 2016)

try this:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos6d&attr13_3=canon_eos1dxii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&attr126_2=highres&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.007324776064271861&y=0.11706430075214996

to me, 7Dmk2 all the way, even at low ISO. It might have better ability to push DR, but when nailed right, 7Dmk2 certainly seems to look cleaner.
Ultimately, investing in a full frame would make more difference between any two APS-C sensors.

pierre


----------



## tron (May 30, 2016)

bluemoon said:


> try this:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos6d&attr13_3=canon_eos1dxii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&attr126_2=highres&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.007324776064271861&y=0.11706430075214996
> 
> to me, 7Dmk2 all the way, even at low ISO. It might have better ability to push DR, but when nailed right, 7Dmk2 certainly seems to look cleaner.
> ...


The important thing for the case of APS-C against FF is not when we can get closer with FF and frame the image as we wish. It goes without saying that in these cases FF wins easily.

The issue is when we cannot walk closer and have a specific lens (so we are Focal Length limited).

Since I do have the 7D2 can you please elaborate "when nailed right, 7Dmk2 certainly seems to look cleaner"?

Do you refer to focus (which is a "must" of course) or to proper lighting? When the subject is well - lit for example quality is very good. When there are shadows not so much.


----------



## Sporgon (May 30, 2016)

bluemoon said:


> try this:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos7dii&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos6d&attr13_3=canon_eos1dxii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=1600&attr16_1=1600&attr16_2=1600&attr16_3=1600&attr126_2=highres&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.007324776064271861&y=0.11706430075214996
> 
> to me, 7Dmk2 all the way, even at low ISO. It might have better ability to push DR, but when nailed right, 7Dmk2 certainly seems to look cleaner.
> ...



These patches don't always give the true, practical picture. Try reducing the 80D to 20 MP and it improves somewhat.


----------



## haggie (May 30, 2016)

Bdunbar79 wrote: “_But so what? More DR at low ISO doesn't give you better IQ. It only does if you push shadows. That’s it_.”. 
As I wrote in my start of this thread: that is exactly what I need and what I am looking for.  

All replies pointing out that there is more to the 7D Mark II than the DR of its sensor, make a valid point (of course  ). Johnf3f wrote: “_I think that Alan F is getting at the point that good/excellent AF is a/the major priority for the likes of birds etc. … Naturally image quality is very important but the best sensor in the world won't get to a decent bird shot if the AF isn't up to the job_”.
You are very right: an out-of-focus image from a sensor with a DR of 20 stops is of no use. Clearly.
But it is not that I do not get enough in-focus shots. This means that although I would not mind having all great features of the 7D Mark II 8) , I can do without them. Together with the fact that I can afford to occasionally miss a shot, I do not have to improve my number of keepers. To be honest, the main reason for the out-of-focus shots that I do have, is usually that I did not recognize a changing situation in the environment that impacted my AF-settings (like lighting, relative speed, size of the plane, color or tone of the plane, changing background, etc.). 


As I wrote before, when shooting airplanes you cannot control the lighting - or even come back later (like with architecture and landscape). You have to take what you get. 
So when the sky is not evenly clouded, the harsh sunlight in combination with the geometry of airplanes will result in quite some underexposure of the underside of the fuselage and wings. 
In such circumstances the raw photos will have deep shadows. It is clear that in such circumstances it is paramountto to set exposure with post-processing in mind. This requires knowing your equipment. That has all been pointed out, and rightfully so. But still, the deep shades are what you inevitably get and must be dealt with in post-processing.

Noise as a result of pushing the shades ‘too much’ in post-processing is quickly visible on smooth metal surfaces – like wings or other surfaces of an aircraft! 
So I conclude that for my type of photography, avoiding noise in shades is critical. This means that a bit more latitude as a result of a bigger DR of the sensor, would allow for a better result in post-processing.

Hence my need for a sensor with better DR. I can be more specific after giving it some more thought based on several replies above: I need better DR in particular from 400 to 800 ISO.

The things I have read about the DR of the 7D Mark II are sometimes very good and at other times not that good. However, not one of them is clearly less true. There is simply too much variation from poster to poster and from website to website to be undisputed enough to base my judgement on. The 80D seems to have a sensor with better DR – although there also is some variance in the amount by which it is better. 

To finish, in another thread I have read that the 7D Mark III (three) might come sooner than the normal cycle would suggest because of competition from both the 80D and the likes of the Nikon D500 (although the latter is much more expensive, so I am not sure if that is really fair to say). 
At first I thought it could be wise to wait for that new 7D Mark III, hoping I might get both the better DR of the newer generation of sensors Canon appears to produce now, and the better AF-system, ergonomics and ‘action photography features’.
But that I will not do. Because no doubt the camera after that will be even better… and so on.

So the 80D it will be!

Thanks for all replies and useful information. It helped me get a clearer picture   of my own needs


----------



## soldrinero (May 30, 2016)

haggie said:


> Hence my need for a sensor with better DR. I can be more specific after giving it some more thought based on several replies above: I need better DR in particular from 400 to 800 ISO.



Just to put some data out there, I'm attaching the DXO comparison (I know, I know...) between the 7D Mk II and the Nikon D7200, generally regarded as the best APS-C sensor since God gave the Exmor to Moses, possibly excepting the new D500. At ISO 400-800, the difference in DR is essentially 1 stop. The 80D hasn't been tested by DXO yet, but its DR will not be more than the D7200, so at most 1 stop better than the 7D Mk II at the ISOs you care about. Does that one stop matter? That's entirely up to you to decide, but it's good to have a quantitative benchmark.

Here's the link for the comparison: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7200-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II___1020_977


----------



## Mikehit (May 30, 2016)

haggie said:


> There is simply too much variation from poster to poster and from website to website to be undisputed enough to base my judgement on. The 80D seems to have a sensor with better DR – although there also is some variance in the amount by which it is better.



To which the obvious conclusion is: if there is so much dispute the differences are so small as to be irrelevant. Check that one off your list and make a decision based on other factors.


----------



## AlanF (May 30, 2016)

soldrinero said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > Hence my need for a sensor with better DR. I can be more specific after giving it some more thought based on several replies above: I need better DR in particular from 400 to 800 ISO.
> ...



The data have been out there for some time now on Bill Claff's site. There is nothing between the 80D and 7DII in dynamic range above iso 318.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


----------



## Otara (May 30, 2016)

Yep as stated above I found quickly, the real benefits for the 80D are at 100 ISO. After that, nada really, even at 200 there isnt much in it.

Soon as Im doing wildlife or anything where high shutter speed/AF speed/af options/fps becomes important, I use my 7D2 - the additive effect is pretty big for me even if any single thing isnt so big. An aircraft is a pretty different thing to say, a swallow when it comes to missed shots so it really depends on your intended subject how much that extra speed matters.

I agree that the more contradiction you see the more likely theres nothing really in it - but also very few people are silly as me to buy both given the closeness in spec to really experience the difference so there is a signal to noise issue clouding things as well. Both are fine cameras, but there are enough niggles I dont see them as entirely equivalent. I expected to sell my 7D2 and instead have kept it and for wildlife thats my goto. Anything more carry around/people the 80D. 

Otara


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 30, 2016)

haggie said:


> As I wrote before, when shooting airplanes you cannot control the lighting - or even come back later (like with architecture and landscape). You have to take what you get.
> So when the sky is not evenly clouded, the harsh sunlight in combination with the geometry of airplanes will result in quite some underexposure of the underside of the fuselage and wings.
> In such circumstances the raw photos will have deep shadows. It is clear that in such circumstances it is paramountto to set exposure with post-processing in mind. This requires knowing your equipment. That has all been pointed out, and rightfully so. But still, the deep shades are what you inevitably get and must be dealt with in post-processing.



I am FAR from an expert on Aviation photography! However I don't seem to have much of a problem with exposing for the underside of aircraft with either my 7D2 or 1DX. I use Manual + Auto ISO and both of these cameras allow exposure compensation within Manual mode with Auto ISO. The bottom line is that you can easily get the exposure you want (or very close to it) without even taking your eye from the viewfinder. My exposure compensation is activated by the SET button and adjusted by the Main Dial. So on a slow pass (eg a Lancaster) it is quite easy to get 4-6 different exposure levels without moving off the subject, chimp while it is turning and have the right exposure on the return run.
After a little practice, you can forget about the chimping and just dial in roughly what you need without thinking or looking away from the viewfinder. This makes sure that you get every possible chance to get the best exposure and minimises post processing.
This very first time I tried this function I was able to get 4 different exposure levels in a single circuit of a Buzzard in a thermal - that's just not going to happen with an 80D. 

You may not consider this important, having used it on a variety of subjects (especially birds in flight) I consider it to be a top priority.

Only you can decide which is the better camera for you, try both before you spend your pennies!


----------



## Otara (May 31, 2016)

Just checked and can do the same on the 80d, changing the set button to hold down for exposure combination while using the top dial. The screen goes blank but in the viewfinder it works fine.

Very handy tip for either, thanks for that.


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

Otara wrote "_Just checked and can do the same on the 80d, changing the set button to hold down for exposure combination while using the top dial. The screen goes blank but in the viewfinder it works fine._ ".

Thanks very much for checking this and letting us all know. 
I will give it a try - but I have to get my 80D first


----------



## tron (May 31, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> haggie said:
> 
> 
> > As I wrote before, when shooting airplanes you cannot control the lighting - or even come back later (like with architecture and landscape). You have to take what you get.
> ...


Thanks for the tip with SET button (I had set it to change ISO but didn't use it frequently). I was putting the camera in Av mode, then changing EC and putting it again in M mode. Not a great deal since I always favored +1/3 or +2/3 but there are these cases where you have to change it quickly when birds fly against the sun. Also there were 2 cases I had forgotten to switch back to manual! 

Birders though suggest to use completely manual exposure to avoid all these. And we can always use Auto Bracketing with high speed continuous shooting (which I tend to forget it exists).


----------



## Mikehit (May 31, 2016)

The problem with Av/Tv is the varying background as a bird/plane fly past agsint sjy, then trees, then hills etc.

This is where manual comes in. 
Have you tried the 'sunny f16' rule? A trick from the days of film - if you have the aperture set to f16, then on a bright cloudless day the shutter speed is 1/ISO.
So at ISO 400 you have f16 with 1/400 sec
Or ISO 400 with f8 and 1/1600 sec
etc

This means that as the bird/plane flies across the landscape it will be 'averagely' exposed no matter what the background.
If you know the subject is particularly reflective (a wet waterbird or silver jet) you can set faster shutter speed (maybe ISO400, f8, 1/8000 sec).


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 31, 2016)

Otara said:


> Just checked and can do the same on the 80d, changing the set button to hold down for exposure combination while using the top dial. The screen goes blank but in the viewfinder it works fine.
> 
> Very handy tip for either, thanks for that.



I didn't know that, I live and learn. 

It is a great feature which I use a lot and it's good to hear that Canon have incorporated it on the 80D.

To the OP: I got that one wrong so please ignore. However whichever camera you decide on it will prove very useful.


----------



## K-amps (May 31, 2016)

pj1974 said:


> Just adding my 2 cents worth. Not just in this thread (and indeed in many other threads and photo forums), I see time and time again, people exaggerating small differences as if they were ‘poor’ vs ‘excellent’.
> 
> While there are differences in AF and sensor between 7D2 and 80D, the absolute differences are not as night and day as many people make them out to be. Compared to digital images possible a mere 15 years ago, we are truly spoiled.
> 
> ...



+1 Both the 7d2 and 80D are great bodies. If you have a hard time choosing between one or the other... wait for the 7d3 :-D


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

In reply to what Mikehit wrote about a trick (I call it experience 8) ) from the film days, I want to add a bit of a nuance.

I use a rule like the one Mikehit mentions too. And in my experience that works well - but only when the sun is (almost) right behind you. And with photographing birds you can usually find a good position where sun and wind allow you to get the right circumstances.

However, when photographing airplanes you have only limited choice where to position yourself. The runway (and flight area) is pretty fixed ....... 
Then when the sun is not more or less directly behind you, photographing a pass of an airplane requires additional compensation for the exposure to be as accurate as possible to give an optimum starting point for post-processing. Then the method as described earlier by johnf3f is the best solution, I expect. I never tried it, but it sounds so 'natural' that I expect far better results than what I used to do myself in that lighting situation.


----------



## bluemoon (May 31, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> bluemoon said:
> 
> 
> > try this:
> ...



Interesting! I thought they were so close in size and did not bother to adjust. Once I did that, the difference is much smaller even though 7Dmk2 still holds a very slight edge.

pierre

EDIT: sorry, I checked it under normal light. Once changed to low light the difference is still significant.


----------



## bluemoon (May 31, 2016)

tron said:


> bluemoon said:
> 
> 
> > try this:
> ...



sorry, I should have mentioned that the comparison tool is showing the noise rather than DR ability.
As far as looking cleaner, to me the image from the 7Dmk2 seems to be about half a stop, or just slightly more, cleaner than the 80D. Considering that the birding is often in sub optimal light conditions, a sensor that works better in low light would be my preference. Make sure you select low light when comparing the images as the difference is more pronounced that way.

pierre


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

Thanks, bluemoon and tron.
So for noise in the photo itself, the 80D is a bit better than the 7D Mk II.

But added noise in the shades in particular, as a resulted of post-processing will be quite a bit more for the 7D Mark II than the 80D. Because there seems to be agreement about of the better dynamic range of the 80D's sensor. The amount in which the 80D's sensor is better is not so clear: I read between 1 to almost 2 stops better.

So that means that the 80D is better from the sole viewpoint of dynamic range needed to push the shades in my photos of flying birds and planes in harsh sunlight.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 31, 2016)

When in ISO100 you earn over a full stop at the DR 80D, and meet your need for architecture.

In the case of birds and airplanes, where they usually use ISO800 or higher, the advantage disappears 80D.


----------



## bluemoon (May 31, 2016)

haggie said:


> So for noise in the photo itself, the 80D is a bit better than the 7D Mk II.



from what I can see, 7Dmk2 is better when it comes to noise (opposite of what you stated), not by much, but it is visible. That would mean that all the images (at high ISO and low light as we are discussing here) which are correctly exposed and do not need DR adjustment will look better with a 7Dmk2. This might mean something to you or, not. It means a lot to me as many of my images have very little light.

pierre


----------



## haggie (May 31, 2016)

bluemoon wrote "_That would mean that all the images (at high ISO and low light as we are discussing here) which are correctly exposed and do not need DR adjustment will look better with a 7Dmk2_".

The situation I describe in this thread is for photography of birds and planes in flight,especially with little clouds - so rather harsh light. Then the underside of wings and fuselage is quite dark. And then the camera's sensor must have a good dynmic range to be able to push the shadows and still not get much ADDED noise. That is why I conclude that "_the 80D is better from the sole viewpoint of dynamic range needed to push the shades in my photos of flying birds and planes in harsh sunlight_".


----------



## AlanF (May 31, 2016)

haggie said:


> bluemoon wrote "_That would mean that all the images (at high ISO and low light as we are discussing here) which are correctly exposed and do not need DR adjustment will look better with a 7Dmk2_".
> 
> The situation I describe in this thread is for photography of birds and planes in flight,especially with little clouds - so rather harsh light. Then the underside of wings and fuselage is quite dark. And then the camera's sensor must have a good dynmic range to be able to push the shadows and still not get much ADDED noise. That is why I conclude that "_the 80D is better from the sole viewpoint of dynamic range needed to push the shades in my photos of flying birds and planes in harsh sunlight_".



If you restrict yourself to iso 200 or less and want to push the shadows, then stick with the 80D. I use iso 640 or more for birds and flying objects and over-expose by 2 stops when shooting against the sky so I don't have to push shadows.


----------



## haggie (Jun 1, 2016)

AlanF wrote "_I use iso 640 or more for birds and flying objects and over-expose by 2 stops when shooting against the sky so I don't have to push shadows_". 

I also use between ISO 400 and 800 (max!) often when photographing birds and planes. The situation that you describe can only be when the sky is clouded - and clouded evenly. 

Where I shoot that is often the case also. And as I wrote before, then I have no issues with the results from my 70D.

But there are also many occasions where there are no clouds, or with a partially clouded sky. In these circumstances, the difference between the highlights (the upper part and partly the side of the plane and/or bird, depending on the time of day) and the shadows (underside of fuselage and wings) is far greater than what you apparently experience. The difference between them is easily 5 or 6 stops then. 

And it is this situation that I have been describing. In these circumstances (and they are quite common), you cannot avoid pulling the shades in post-processing or be left with a photo without any detail in the shades. 
And this is where I am seeking for improvement in a new camera. And I know I am not the only one looking for better dynamic range in Canon's cameras.....  

From several replies I understand that the 7D Mk II's sensor is better at higher ISO than the 80D's sensor. If it were just for birds and airplanes, then the 7D Mark II would be the obvious choice for me. 
But as I wrote before, I also do a lot of landscape, architecture and vacation photos with this camera. That makes the choice quite difficult for me. So I am still left with deciding if the 80D gives a noticeable improvement in dynamic range to justify spending € 1300.


----------



## kevl (Jun 3, 2016)

After struggling over which to use as a second body in my bag for a couple of months I ended up going with the 7DII. 

Frankly the feature set and ease of control makes this camera a joy to use. I love the images my 5DIII makes but I miss the 7D every time I use the 5D. The pro body on the 7DII makes up for any tiny image quality improvement the 80D may have, easily. 

Also having dual cards saved me at an awards ceremony on the first job I brought the 7D to. I was checking how much space was remaining on the CF card and I acidentally formatted it loosing something like 100 client specified images. Thankfully as full panic gripped me I remembered having put my 64GB backup SD card in the body. I hadn't lost anything. This paid for the increased cost of the body immediately. 

As a working photographer, now that I've had the 7DII in my hands for a month I can't imagine trying to work with the 80D. The 7D fits right in with the rest of my gear and I don't even have to change my thinking much when I use it from when I use the 5D. 

Hope this helps someone!


----------



## Act444 (Jun 4, 2016)

> Frankly the feature set and ease of control makes this camera a joy to use. I love the images my 5DIII makes but I miss the 7D every time I use the 5D. The pro body on the 7DII makes up for any tiny image quality improvement the 80D may have, easily.



Interesting...

Somehow I wonder if mine was one of the ones that had "issues" because honestly, I was NEVER impressed with it...and trust me, I WANTED to like the thing...I really did...but it let me down enough times that I finally had to let it go last week. 

On the few shots where focus and conditions were right, I generally liked what I saw - decent performance by crop sensor standards. 

I'm not sure another crop-sensor DSLR is in my future - I've the M10 which is great - but if I later determined I absolutely HAD to have one, I probably would go for the 80D (on sale).


----------



## haggie (Jun 4, 2016)

kevl wrote "_As a working photographer_ ..." and "_After struggling over which to use as a second body in my bag for a couple of months I ended up going with the 7DII_".
As a professional photographer needing a second camera body I can understand you have chosen the 7D Mark II, and you did that on a number of reasons that do NOT include image quality. Then your choice makes snse, clearly. The 7D mark II has a lot of functionality for shooting fast and customizing for specific situations, and yet have quick control in the field.

But many others (a) are not professional photographers and (b) cannot spend the money for 2 high-end camera bodies. These photographers have to include image quality into the comparison. After all: getting great images is the whole aim of the game.  

Many of this last group of camera buyers even put image quality at number 1. And that also makes sense: it is not that the 80D has pre-historical ergonomics .... 
So with an 80D you might indeed miss on some opportunities in hectic situations, where the 7D Mark II has the advantage of (far) better egonomics and HMI. But that is compensated because the 80D will get you quite a higher image quality, in particular at lower ISO.

And for the higher ISOs: although you sometimes read that the 7D mark II has better IQ at high ISO than the 80D has, that seems to be not entirely true. AlanF already wrote: "_There is nothing between the 80D and 7DII in dynamic range above iso 318_." referring to results shown at www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm .


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 4, 2016)

haggie said:


> And for the higher ISOs: although you sometimes read that the 7D mark II has better IQ at high ISO than the 80D has, that seems to be not entirely true. AlanF already wrote: "_There is nothing between the 80D and 7DII in dynamic range above iso 318_." referring to results shown at www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm .


The statement of AlanF, and the graph on the link that he cites, refers exclusively to the DR, and no about noise. Therefore does not apply to noise in correctly exposed image.


----------



## haggie (Jun 4, 2016)

In reply to ajfotofilmagem's remark : nor AlanF nor I said otherwise.

But since you bring up the subject of noise: the better the DR of a camera, the less noise there is in the final image after post-processing. 

For instance when pushing the shades in a photo of an airplane in bright sunlight, when the underside of the wings and fuselage are underexposed (in bright sunlight that usually is a fair amount of underexposure). This is the situation where everything about the 7D Mark II excels .... except for the DR of its sensor.


----------

