# EOS 80D RAW noise - some thoughts/observations



## LesC (Jul 31, 2016)

Having in the past been lazy & shot RAW+jpeg with the purchase of the 80D thought it was about time to shoot RAW only.

On my first outing with the 80D to an airshow (RIAT), looking at my shots via Faststone viewer I was rather pleased with them even at 100% however I'd failed to realize at first that what I was seeing is I presume an embedded jpeg preview as when viewed in Photoshop or Lightroom the noise is very visible at 100%.

Admittedly the shots that showed the most noticeable noise were of grey planes against a uniform grey sky but even others still exhibited quite a bit of noise. At first I was somewhat disapointed considering the 80D was reported to have reasonably low levels of noise.

When I began to think about it some more though:

Obviously a 25MP shot at 100% would be the equivalent of an enormous print & even on the worst examples, at 50% the noise was all but invisible so in practical terms not a problem & easily removed in post processing.

I then compared these shots and some test shots I'd made in better lighting conditions with those taken on an 18MP EOS 100D and when viewed at 100% there was little difference in noise between the two despite the larger file size of the 80D

Jpeg files have noise removed as part of the in camera processing.

Finally I compared some Jeg & RAW files from my 6D - with the 6D there really is little difference between the two viewed at 100% showing how good the noise levels on the 6D are.


I guess the conclusion I get from all of this is that a RAW file from a 25MP cropped sensor will always exhibit a degree of noise and if it doesn't show at normal viewing sizes, I shouldn't worry too much!

One shot along with a portion of 100% crop for info (although even posting here has lessened/smoothed the effect of the noise on the 100% crop):


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2016)

Greys often result in underexposures. Skies do show the noise more readily. Combine the two and noise will be more obvious. Noise is always there, its just easier to see in some photos.

Raw shots need noise reduction, a huge amount is built into the in camera jpeg processors. The advantage of RAW is that you can balance the amount of NR versus sharpness, or even apply it locally to offending areas.


----------



## Daan Stam (Jul 31, 2016)

at what iso were those pictures taken?


----------



## LesC (Jul 31, 2016)

daaningrid said:


> at what iso were those pictures taken?



ISO 400


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 31, 2016)

LesC said:


> daaningrid said:
> 
> 
> > at what iso were those pictures taken?
> ...



ISO 400 and we're already seeing color blobs in the grey?! Hmmm

Anyway, RAW images receive zero noise reduction or processing when removed from the card unless they're imported in a fashion that allows for it. I personally just reduce color noise and leave noise reduction alone unless the shot truly needs something special performed.


----------



## KfirGuy (Aug 10, 2016)

Your experience is not dissimilar to what is prompting me to begin looking into a new body after 4.5 years with my 7D. I shoot primarily aviation (admittedly I refrain from going out on days as grey as RIAT was whenever possible) 
but I have also found the amount of "low" ISO noise I have to deal with simply astounding. Granted, I know that low ISO blue sky noise has been a known 7D issue for quite some time, but I was hopeful that the 70/80D and/or 7DII 
might have made some serious strides in that direction. 

I will have to keep considering I reckon!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 10, 2016)

KfirGuy said:


> Your experience is not dissimilar to what is prompting me to begin looking into a new body after 4.5 years with my 7D. I shoot primarily aviation (admittedly I refrain from going out on days as grey as RIAT was whenever possible)
> but I have also found the amount of "low" ISO noise I have to deal with simply astounding. Granted, I know that low ISO blue sky noise has been a known 7D issue for quite some time, but I was hopeful that the 70/80D and/or 7DII
> might have made some serious strides in that direction.
> 
> I will have to keep considering I reckon!


RAW images, which were converted into JPEG without any noise reduction, always show some graininess. The Canon 80D shows little improvement in ISO1600, but the chroma noise is greatly improved between ISO 100-400, compared to the old 7D.


----------



## KfirGuy (Aug 11, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> RAW images, which were converted into JPEG without any noise reduction, always show some graininess. The Canon 80D shows little improvement in ISO1600, but the chroma noise is greatly improved between ISO 100-400, compared to the old 7D.



That is good to hear, I'll admit I spend a lot of time within that ISO range (100-400) just based on shooting on sunny days where at all possible. I've been considering both the 70D and 80D (along with the 7DII) as potential purchases, and it sounds like all of them would deliver a slight improvement in IQ at these lower ISOs.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 11, 2016)

KfirGuy said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > RAW images, which were converted into JPEG without any noise reduction, always show some graininess. The Canon 80D shows little improvement in ISO1600, but the chroma noise is greatly improved between ISO 100-400, compared to the old 7D.
> ...


In fact, to push shadows at ISO 100, the improvement is very large in 80D.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/7168986570/canon-shows-dynamism-eos-80d-breaks-new-ground-for-canon-low-iso-dr/2


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 11, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> KfirGuy said:
> 
> 
> > That is good to hear, I'll admit I spend a lot of time within that ISO range (100-400) just based on shooting on sunny days where at all possible. I've been considering both the 70D and 80D (along with the 7DII) as potential purchases, and it sounds like all of them would deliver a slight improvement in IQ at these lower ISOs.
> ...



Indeed, with the exception of the 1DX2, the 80D as of now has by far the _greatest low-ISO dynamic range_ of all Canon DSLRs, crop or full-frame.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Aug 13, 2016)

I just got a ADD(80D) a few weeks ago and I'm actually quite disappointed in mine....

Very noisy over 800iso

focus far more accurate on my M3 than on my ADD with ADD in live view mode.

I cant really see where the extra DR is compared to my M3, when I push the shadows in LR at 400iso (to the max) they look virtually identical...both are equally noisy.

compared to my 6D, well there is no comparison really...

Maybe my AF is faulty but I was under the impression that with live view the focus would be as good as it can get, and well there is no comparison between it and my M3 ..the M3 is just so much sharper...and thats with the potentially image degrading EF lens adapter on as well, using the same lenses, settings and apertures etc etc....

So at the moment I'm very tempted to get rid of my ADD

The problem is that I just don't see where the 'new better sensor' is especially compared to my M3, with its supposedly inferior sensor...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 13, 2016)

You're seeing better autofocus with Hybrid CMOS AF III than the latest generation of Dual Pixel? Hmmm....there's something not right about that immediately and I would have questioned that out of the box. Dual Pixel is virtally flawless and quick, unlike any of the Hybrid CMOS systems.



Ivan Muller said:


> I just got a ADD(80D) a few weeks ago and I'm actually quite disappointed in mine....
> 
> Very noisy over 800iso
> 
> ...


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 13, 2016)

Ivan Muller said:


> I cant really see where the extra DR is compared to my M3, when I push the shadows in LR at 400iso (to the max) they look virtually identical...both are equally noisy.



Take a look at the chart here. ISO 400 is the inflection point below which read noise has traditionally dominated in Canon sensors so the DR has plateau'd. At ISO 100 the 80D has more DR than the 6D. At ISO 400 and above even older Canon sensors are almost as good as the competition - there's not much to be gained there.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Aug 13, 2016)

Thanks I had a look at the chart.....I haven't compared 100iso and such just because I have gotten so used to shooting at 400 to 1600 with my 6d....even commercial jobs with nary a care or worry about noise....

For now I have a huge image sharpness problem with my 80 d and I think I may have a faulty camera or I am doing something really stupid!


----------

