# Canon 70d RAW Samples



## silvestography (Aug 3, 2013)

Seems that the Imaging Resource has some samples of 70d RAW images at all ISO's. Obviously we can't actually do anything with these files since RAW support for the 70d doesn't exist yet, but still exciting.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/canon-70dA7.HTM


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

silvestography said:


> Obviously we can't actually do anything with these files since RAW support for the 70d doesn't exist yet, but still exciting.



You're getting excited quite easily  ... I suspect raw support for the 70d will take about 1 month, for the 6d Capture One was faster then Adobe Camera Raw, so it's worth checking both. But to dampen excitement a bit, except for the dynamic range I'd be *very* surprised if there were any hidden positive surprises in the cr2.


----------



## japhoto (Aug 4, 2013)

If I recall right, Lightroom 5.2 RC supports the 70D already...


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

japhoto said:


> If I recall right, Lightroom 5.2 RC supports the 70D already...



You're indeed correct, they seem to be pressed by the 5.0 release as there even isn't a 5.1 - but it's only "preliminary" support for 70d which implies the optimizations that could make a difference to in-camera jpeg might not be in there yet.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/07/lightroom-5-2-rc-now-available-on-adobe-labs.html

... but it'd be still interesting if someone has the time and willingness to do a 60d-70d raw comparison with the links provided in the op.


----------



## racso (Aug 4, 2013)

Hi!
For what it's worth...
I downloaded DPP 3.13.20 with support for the 70D and compared the imaging-resources samples from 70D/7D @ ISO 3200.
The 70D actually shows less noise and according to the histogram about half a stop more DR, all lights being equal...
Take a look at the screenshot @ 100% pixel peeping! (70D to the left), at:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5310069/70d_7d.tif


----------



## silvestography (Aug 4, 2013)

racso said:


> Hi!
> For what it's worth...
> I downloaded DPP 3.13.20 with support for the 70D and compared the imaging-resources samples from 70D/7D @ ISO 3200.
> The 70D actually shows less noise and according to the histogram about half a stop more DR, all lights being equal...
> ...



Thanks for doing this! I was going to but I was too busy playing with the files...

What I found is that there's a bit less color noise in the midtones and shadows and what does show up looks a lot more like film grain. I also found that you can add a bit more NR to the files than I was able to with my t3i before it starts looking too soft. Obviously, I'm still interested in seeing some real world testing as well (in addition to how it performs at the 1/3 stop increment ISO's), but this is looking like a solid upgrade from my current camera.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 4, 2013)

racso said:


> For what it's worth...



Thanks for doing this indeed. Much appreciated. 

The 70D is noticeably cleaner in this comparison.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 4, 2013)

racso said:


> Hi!
> For what it's worth...
> I downloaded DPP 3.13.20 with support for the 70D and compared the imaging-resources samples from 70D/7D @ ISO 3200.
> The 70D actually shows less noise and according to the histogram about half a stop more DR, all lights being equal...
> ...



That's a ho-hum improvement in my opinion. 4 years and that's the only improvement Canon can do? Makes me glad I abandoned 1.6x crop altogether. The recent rumor that the 7D2 will likely get the same sensor as the 70D, is also a bit disappointment.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 4, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> That's a ho-hum improvement in my opinion.



It's a good improvement - just not the 1-2 stops improvement that switching to the 6D, for example, can provide 8).

Oh well. In case there have been any doubts, it should be clear by now that huge jumps 
in image quality between successive sensor generations are just not possible ... unfortunately.


----------



## silvestography (Aug 4, 2013)

Also, for those interested, here's a 100% crop comparison @ISO 3200 of the 70d and the d7100, which everybody's been dubbing the king of APS-C high ISO performance. 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xu53htrho7zc4lb/Screen%20Shot%202013-08-04%20at%202.45.22%20PM.png

Having a look around the image, here are my observations:
- 70d's grain looks bigger, but this most likely has to do with resolution and pixel pitch (70d's 4.11µm vs d7100's 3.9µm)
- d7100 exhibits more color noise in the shadows
- 70d is brighter by roughly 1/3 stop
- Both retain detail equally well (although the nikon looks sharper due to more MP and a better lens)
- The nikon is green (surprise surprise)

The point has been made that APS-C sensor tech is most likely reaching a plateau, and I agree. The take-home is that these two cameras are performing equally well, and just about as well as any crop camera is going to perform these days.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> The point has been made that APS-C sensor tech is most likely reaching a plateau, and I agree.



I was getting curious and took the pain to convert the raw samples with the (preliminary) ACR inside the LR 5.2 rc... and look in awe what nearly half a decade of crop sensor development has resulted in! Well, if you look closely you might see a small difference, but for my money iso 800 seems to remain the highest good setting:


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 4, 2013)

Also, if you enjoy a good laugh here's the newest crop sensor vs the good ol' ff from the 6d :-> ... the larger sensor nearly has a 2 stop edge, though probably not at the same dynamic range:


----------



## x-vision (Aug 4, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... and look in awe what nearly half a decade of crop sensor development has resulted in!



Well, if you look at the competition, the latest 24mp sensors from Sony and Toshiba are no different from the 70D. 
Also look at FF: how big is the difference between the 5DMKII (2008) and 6D/5DMKIII (2012)?

Sensor tech may not have reached a plateau but it has definitely reached maturity. For both APS-C and FF. 
So, enhancements are becoming more and more incremental rather than groundbreaking. 

Thanks for making these comparisons available, btw.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 5, 2013)

But how does it look like when comparing ISO 100?


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 5, 2013)

If you didn't say these were from the 70D, I couldn't tell the difference between that and a 7D. Nice work canon. 

:|


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 5, 2013)

heptagon said:


> But how does it look like when comparing ISO 100?



The differences for low iso are dynamic range, maybe a little sharpness depending on lens/sensor combination but esp. gradients and shadow post processing capability... in the plain color chart you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but feel free to download LR5.2rc yourself and post a comparison 



RLPhoto said:


> If you didn't say these were from the 70D, I couldn't tell the difference between that and a 7D.



There *might* be more headroom for noise reduction in the 20mp crop sensor, just like 5d2->5d3, but I didn't test that as it's not the final raw converter. But yes, the sensor isn't a reason to upgrade on its own.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 6, 2013)

x-vision said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > That's a ho-hum improvement in my opinion.
> ...



The Nikon D7100's sensor is still superior to the 70D's (in DR and noise...and resolution)...not that I like Nikon as a company or a system. But there you go..._it is possible_ to get a better crop sensor...by switching to Nikon...or even Sony.

Again, this makes me very disappointed in the future 7D2. It was supposed to be a "professional level" crop camera. Well, the sensor doesn't look like it will be professional level. It's a 2014 camera...5 years after the 7D's debut.

Obviously crop sensor performance will never be a priority for Canon...at least not before 2020 at this rate. I'm not even sure how seriously they have ever taken crop sensor performance, but it seems like it meant more to them before 2008, than it does now. And there will be 50 different "rebel" and "M" models using this sensor, as if it's some kind of magical device...YAWN...


----------



## David Hull (Aug 7, 2013)

x-vision said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ... and look in awe what nearly half a decade of crop sensor development has resulted in!
> ...


I understand why people are comparing these things on the top end of the ISO scale (a lot of people are concerned about low light performance) but I don't understand why people are expecting to see dramatic differences there. As you point out, there haven’t been any for quite some time. For people who want the best in low light performance, that is where FF shines.


----------



## jrista (Aug 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Also, if you enjoy a good laugh here's the newest crop sensor vs the good ol' ff from the 6d :-> ... the larger sensor nearly has a 2 stop edge, though probably not at the same dynamic range:



Thanks for the comparisons. Pretty excellent demonstration of the value of larger pixels at high ISO.


----------



## dash2k8 (Aug 8, 2013)

For those complaining about lack of a major upgrade in technology, I think the easiest solution is to just buy a 1DX and live merrily ever after. Face it, at 70D's price point, you're not going to get anything close to a 5D3. The target audience is enthusiasts. If you do this for a living, you're not supposed to even consider something with two numbers (xxD), right? IMHO the 70D's prelim images have shown that it is a great performer IN ITS CLASS.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 8, 2013)

More RAW samples from DPreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9

Overall, just subtle improvements over the 18mp sensor. 
Dynamic range (DR) is still behind Sony/Nikon (e.g. D7100) but ISO/noise is on par. 

One thing to note is that the 70D renders colors the same way as the 6D.
Probably both are using new color filters compared to previous models.
As a result, colors are actually more accurate (albeit appearing somewhat less punchy).


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 8, 2013)

The big advance that none of you has mentioned, is the dual pixel focussing system, which for those of you who use live view, and/or take video, this could be a godsend.
Combine this with the rear touch-screen, where you can just touch where you want the exact focus point to be, and you can get great video out of it, without the hassle of manual focus.
Let alone Wi-Fi etc.

For many of its intended customers (and I don't include professionals here), the touch-screen, good autofocus for live view and video will be what drives them towards the 70D.
Ultimate pixel-peeping ability is not high on many people's list, although they want good quality, and half of these wouldn't even know what ISO is anyway.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 8, 2013)

x-vision said:


> More RAW samples from DPreview:
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9
> 
> Overall, just subtle improvements over the 18mp sensor.
> ...



Actually the 6D scored the lowest ever for a DSLR on the metamism index score at DxO for natural daylight shooting which would imply the most color-blind, least color discrimination of any DSLR.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 8, 2013)

x-vision said:


> More RAW samples from DPreview:
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/9
> 
> Overall, just subtle improvements over the 18mp sensor.
> ...



Actually the 6D scored the lowest ever for a DSLR on the metamism index score at DxO for natural daylight shooting which would imply the most color-blind, least color discrimination of any DSLR. Not by a little either. Although it is a tricky thing and perhaps some colors are more important than others and who knows where the color filter made it what.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 8, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Also, if you enjoy a good laugh here's the newest crop sensor vs the good ol' ff from the 6d :-> ... the larger sensor nearly has a 2 stop edge, though probably not at the same dynamic range:



FF also has 2.56x time the light collecting surface area so it's no surprise it does much better when you are not reach limited.

As for the probable modest gain at high ISO as some of us have said the cameras are already so good there that it's very hard to make them a ton better without making using active cooling or something, some totally new tech, and even then the mid-tone SNR can't be improved much although they shadows and DR could go up a lot I guess, but with today's tech that seems tricky/expensive/heavy/messy (active cooling pipes burst ). People forget how amazingly efficient they are at photon capture already, more than half way to perfection (according to laws of physics) so there really isn't any room for 3-4 stops better or anything at all like people are asking for. If they could radically reduce read noise even more you could expand DR which is pretty low at high ISO, but it seems, as I said, that it might be tricky without costly/heavy stuff like active cooling or something. Not sure.

I guess does have a little room there for SNR as they are at the top but with more color-blind color filters, if they get a bit more efficient they could strengthen color filters again so you could maybe tighten those up a bunch and get another 1/2 stop better SNR.

At low ISO Canon has a LOT of room to get better though and it's perfectly possible on that end since everyone else has already done it. You have to be willing to invest in a new design and sensor fab, so far Canon seems to refuse.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 8, 2013)

Bennymiata said:


> The big advance that none of you has mentioned, is the dual pixel focussing system, which for those of you who use live view, and/or take video, this could be a godsend.
> Combine this with the rear touch-screen, where you can just touch where you want the exact focus point to be, and you can get great video out of it, without the hassle of manual focus.
> Let alone Wi-Fi etc.
> 
> ...



The dual pixel AF was mentioned and praised in other threads, but this thread was title RAW image samples so....

but yeah the dual pxiel AF does look cool


----------



## x-vision (Aug 8, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Actually the 6D scored the lowest ever for a DSLR on the metamism index score at DxO for natural daylight shooting which would imply the most color-blind, least color discrimination of any DSLR.



Heh. Canon keeps doing that. Really annoying. 
So, that's how the 6D achieves its high ISO performance. 
Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## jrista (Aug 8, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if you enjoy a good laugh here's the newest crop sensor vs the good ol' ff from the 6d :-> ... the larger sensor nearly has a 2 stop edge, though probably not at the same dynamic range:
> ...



Active cooling doesn't necessarily have to involve a liquid coolant. A TEC (ThermoElectric Cooler, or Peltier) could be used as an electronic heat pump, along with a copper heat plate and heat pipes to draw heat off and release it at areas along the body. It would add some weight, but it could also improve SNR at high ISO by a useful amount. I am not saying you could cool the sensor to -80C or achieve 90% Q.E...but you could probably improve Q.E. into the 70% range, and reduce dark current noise by an order of magnitude or two. The difference wouldn't be immense, but I think it could be useful, and visibly improve IQ at high ISO. I don't think that would mean we suddenly see usable ISO 102k or anything like that...but ISO 25.6k and 51.2k might become viable for real-world stuff, publication online and in print, etc.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 13, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > More RAW samples from DPreview:
> ...



Not sure why you posted this twice. I think the correct term is "metamerism index". Not sure why the 6D would measure poorly in the test, other than DXO performed it, and the 6D is not made by Nikon. Certainly the color in the images presents no problems, in any available light that I have used it in.


----------



## Pi (Aug 13, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the 6D scored the lowest ever for a DSLR on the metamism index score at DxO for natural daylight shooting which would imply the most color-blind, least color discrimination of any DSLR. Not by a little either. Although it is a tricky thing and perhaps some colors are more important than others and who knows where the color filter made it what.
> ...



I have to agree with LetTheRightLensIn. The metamerism index, if I remember correctly, is a possible measure of how close the color vision of the camera is to the human one, in certain light. It is hard to say what the difference, say, between 70 and 80 in reality is, and one number does not say it all, but it is a fact that this number has been declining since the 5D. The higher QE compensates for that to some extent. 

One possible explanation is that the CFA filters optimized for colors/spectrum that "matter", as LetTheRightLensIn said. Here is a link to an article which looks well written to me, but I read only parts of it:

http://dougkerr.net/pumpkin/articles/Metameric_Error.pdf


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


Heat pipes also work well at moving heat away, but cooling definitely beats heat pipes. We have several pieces of lab gear that use peltier devices for cooling on the analog inputs. You can watch the input noise drop as the equipment warms up and the analog input section cools off.

Problem is, pelt ire devices cool one side and heat the other, for a net gain in thermal energy. You would need some way of dumping the heat outside the camera body.... It would be hard to have a weather sealed body with air vents.


----------



## jrista (Aug 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Canon has thinned out their color filters over previous models, which can be seen in shades of one color, such as red, green and so on, it is no coincidence that some perceive colors more nuanced in the old 5D OR 1DSMK3 cameras with the steeper filter



It is also no coincidence people prefer the 5D III's color. Many even prefer it over the D800. A weaker filter can be compensated for in post with a little bit of color tone curve tweaking (which is easy enough to do with one of the various color profile creators (i.e. I use my X-Rite ColorChecker Passport software to create custom color profiles)). Clearly, the color reproduction on the 5D III is astounding...just look at what some wedding and landscape photographers have done with it. Even if the native color purity is not as pristine as with prior Canon sensors, it doesn't really seem to matter all that much in the end.


----------



## jrista (Aug 13, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Peltiers are pretty awesome. One of my early water-cooled computers used a couple of peltiers to cool a dual CPU Pentium 800mhz system. The peltiers were cooled by water via copper water blocks. They do produce a lot of heat (they are an electronic device themselves), but the cold side can get REALLY cold! I think a small peltier in a camera that cooled the sensor (and maybe another that cooled the DIGIC chips) could probably be effectively cooled via a heat pipe system. The camera body would probably get rather warm, though...


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 13, 2013)

Copper is a better conductor of heat than aluminum, but seems like either could be used to conduct heat from inside a camera, to outside, if it was important to do so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> Peltiers are pretty awesome. One of my early water-cooled computers used a couple of peltiers to cool a dual CPU Pentium 800mhz system. The peltiers were cooled by water via copper water blocks. They do produce a lot of heat (they are an electronic device themselves), but the cold side can get REALLY cold! I think a small peltier in a camera that cooled the sensor (and maybe another that cooled the DIGIC chips) could probably be effectively cooled via a heat pipe system. The camera body would probably get rather warm, though...



I have several Zeiss microscope imaging cameras in the labs that use Peltier-cooled image sensors to reduce noise during long exposures. The camera is a bit smaller than a G-series PowerShot (but costs more than a 1D C), and is a sealed unit with no air vents - the heat is transferred out via the aluminum case (anodized in Zeiss' signature blue color), which does have a set of chunky 'cooling fins'.


----------



## jrista (Aug 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Peltiers are pretty awesome. One of my early water-cooled computers used a couple of peltiers to cool a dual CPU Pentium 800mhz system. The peltiers were cooled by water via copper water blocks. They do produce a lot of heat (they are an electronic device themselves), but the cold side can get REALLY cold! I think a small peltier in a camera that cooled the sensor (and maybe another that cooled the DIGIC chips) could probably be effectively cooled via a heat pipe system. The camera body would probably get rather warm, though...
> ...



How hot did the heat sink get? Too hot to touch, or just warm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> How hot did the heat sink get? Too hot to touch, or just warm?



Just warm, not too hot to touch. It's a small sensor, though - a 2/3" CCD with 1.4 MP, meaning a pixel pitch in the 6D/5DII range. But Zeiss uses some clever tricks to increase resolution. There are no microlenses, meaning the pixels have a 'sweet spot' - by translating the sensor in sub-pixel movements as a 2x2 or 3x3 array, a 6 MP or 13 MP image can be generated. There is a Bayer CFA in the color version of the camera, but full-pixel movements allow each pixel to be imaged through each CFA color. So, you can get anything from a fast-acquisition 1.4 MP color-interpolated image (actually, even faster if binning is used) to a longer-to-acquire 13 MP image with full color-channel resolution. Granted, that sort of thing only works with non-moving subjects - but fixed tissue tends not to move...


----------



## jrista (Aug 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > How hot did the heat sink get? Too hot to touch, or just warm?
> ...



Yeah, it would be a little creepy if your tissue started...twitching!  

Pretty small sensor, for sure. I guess a FF sensor and TEC would probably produce a fair bit more heat, but with heat pipes that heat could be distributed and released at various areas of the camera body. Personally, I'd love to see it happen. You wouldn't necessarily need to supercool. Twenty degrees of cooling would have a very substantial effect on dark current, which should help higher ISO settings. 

I guess the only real drawback would be the power draw...I had to buy a separate specialized power supply capable of supplying a minimum of 13.8 volts to power the TECs I used on that old computer.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 14, 2013)

There are audio power amplifiers with solid finned copper heatsinks...of course they are priced accordingly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Not sure why you posted this twice.



because it would annoy you ;D

(or maybe because the site sometimes does weird things....)



> I think the correct term is "metamerism index". Not sure why the 6D would measure poorly in the test, other than DXO performed it, and the 6D is not made by Nikon. Certainly the color in the images presents no problems, in any available light that I have used it in.



Wow, seriously, because DxO tested it and it is not a Nikon? Raving fanboy much? How about because they changed the color filters and made them even less peaked?

Anyway the differences are very complex, they can even get better for some colors while worse for others, etc. etc. although the one simple thing is that the RAW processor has to boost some channel saturations more so it tends to be a trade of improved luminance noise for worse color discrimination and chroma noise.


----------



## Strobe the globe (Aug 22, 2013)

Thanks for this.


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 27, 2013)

I just did my own comparison of sample pictures over at dpReview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/10; it is a nice tool they have there).

I compared the 70D with the D7100, the D600 and the 6D. I mostly looked at JPEG, but did also some RAW comparison. There was no surprise at low ISO, the pictures looked almost the same, hard to tell the difference, though the two FF's had a little advantage. At higher ISO the difference became bigger, and there where also some surprises. The winner to my eyes is the D6, it has the fewest noise and the most details, both in RAW and JPEG. Looking at the RAWs, the D600 is the second best, a little bit ahead of the 70D, and the D7100 falls behind. Switching to JPEG changes the result a little bit. The 70D catches up to the D600; the 70D shows less noise then the D600 in some areas, but the D600 stays a litle ahead in the details (no surprise, but I expected a much bigger difference; FF against APS-C). The D7100 marks the end again with JPEGs at high ISO.

So right now I'm pleased with what I have seen from the 70D. Of course, these were studio shots and real life is still a bit different. I'm also looking forward to the DXOMark results. Usually the Canons fare much worse there then in real life tests. But what is more important, good results in a synthetic test, or good pictures out in the field? It is like buying loudspeakers, the best test results with synthetic noise do not mean much, if the real music does not sound right.


----------



## mountain_drew (Aug 27, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> I just did my own comparison of sample pictures over at dpReview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/10; it is a nice tool they have there).
> 
> I compared the 70D with the D7100, the D600 and the 6D. I mostly looked at JPEG, but did also some RAW comparison. There was no surprise at low ISO, the pictures looked almost the same, hard to tell the difference, though the two FF's had a little advantage. At higher ISO the difference became bigger, and there where also some surprises. The winner to my eyes is the D6, it has the fewest noise and the most details, both in RAW and JPEG. Looking at the RAWs, the D600 is the second best, a little bit ahead of the 70D, and the D7100 falls behind. Switching to JPEG changes the result a little bit. The 70D catches up to the D600; the 70D shows less noise then the D600 in some areas, but the D600 stays a litle ahead in the details (no surprise, but I expected a much bigger difference; FF against APS-C). The D7100 marks the end again with JPEGs at high ISO.
> 
> So right now I'm pleased with what I have seen from the 70D. Of course, these were studio shots and real life is still a bit different. I'm also looking forward to the DXOMark results. Usually the Canons fare much worse there then in real life tests. But what is more important, good results in a synthetic test, or good pictures out in the field? It is like buying loudspeakers, the best test results with synthetic noise do not mean much, if the real music does not sound right.



I don't know what you're looking at but the D7100 has less noise at low iso than the 7D. This is especially evident in lines K-L of the color thingy (columns 3-4 and 14 to 19).


----------



## Fleetie (Aug 28, 2013)

*Sensor & Electronics Cooling*

Peltier cooling is a good idea except.... Kiss "GOODBYE" to battery life. You can't just switch the peltier cooler on for the duration of the exposure. It has to be given time to cool things down - during which time the camera's battery takes a beating.

It's a shame, for it's the perfect solution otherwise. Apart from dew issues, which I'm sure could be resolved with the ingenuity a company the size of Canon could muster if it wanted to.

OR:

Maybe a little orifice - similar to those found on steam irons used for ironing clothes have - bearing the inscription : "Pour LN2 Here -->" !


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 28, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> I don't know what you're looking at but the D7100 has less noise at low iso than the 7D. This is especially evident in lines K-L of the color thingy (columns 3-4 and 14 to 19).



I've seen it now. I did not look at low ISO samples that close, but you are right. The difference is ore evident in RAW than in JPEG. I also think the pokercard is also an interesting part to look at (queen, in the middle, a little bit in the upper half).
But still, it is quite obvious that the Canons pull ahead at higher ISOs, especially with JPEGs.


----------



## mountain_drew (Aug 28, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> I've seen it now. I did not look at low ISO samples that close, but you are right. The difference is ore evident in RAW than in JPEG. I also think the pokercard is also an interesting part to look at (queen, in the middle, a little bit in the upper half).
> But still, it is quite obvious that the Canons pull ahead at higher ISOs, especially with JPEGs.



That appears to to be the case, yes. Low ISO performance has been important to me ever since I took a sky picture and I had to do some noise reduction on the clouds... at ISO 100!!


----------



## vlim (Aug 28, 2013)

Other raw and jpeg samples from a french website posted yesterday...

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1661/reflex-canon-70d-bruit-electronique-12.html


----------



## Famateur (Aug 28, 2013)

First, let me just say that I sympathize with everyone who wants as much high ISO performance as they can get. Low noise in low light is important to a lot of us. At the same time, I'm a bit surprised at the sour responses to "not that much of an improvement" in the 70D's noise performance.

Here's the way I see it (and it's just my opinion):

[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon focused on AF performance over noise performance in the last round of sensor development. It was a HUGE improvement and arguably revolutionary. The new sensor spanks competitors for live view AF performance and is a welcome and truly significant advancement for me.


[*]People have complained that this amazing new sensor tech is only good for video enthusiasts. What about mirrorless? Slap a Dual Pixel AF sensor in the EOS M, and suddenly it's highly competitive in that segment. Add a fast and quality EVF, and people will be drooling (or, based on responses I'm replying to, maybe they'll just complain about noise performance).


[*]While developing Dual Pixel AF, Canon managed to increase resolution by 2MP while splitting each pixel into _two _photodiodes while still managing to _improve _ISO range by a half or maybe even full stop. That seems pretty cool to me.


[*]I would expect Canon will be able to now shift their development focus to noise performance. Based on Canon's apparent success in AF performance when focusing on AF performance, I'm excited to see what will be created when the focus is on noise performance. 


[*]I'm sure I'm not the only one that was pleasantly surprised that the 70D packs a lot of features _for its segment_. It has 7FPS with a decent buffer? Inherits the 19-point all-cross-type AF system? This is getting close to 7D (APS-C _flagship_, for now) territory. Plus WiFi? Plus articulating touch screen? Plus AFMA? Plus pleasantly reasonable launch price? All this on top of what looks to be excellent live view AF performance. Sure, they've held back other features to define its class, but it seems to be an all-around great _enthusiast _DSLR.
[/list]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that Canon focused on AF simply because they're out of ideas for reducing noise or don't care about noise performance. I personally doubt it. Yes, they've had to try to please the noise people with JPEG noise reduction improvements (e.g. 700D, SL1) while focusing on AF development, and those "improvements" don't mean anything to people shooting RAW, but perhaps Canon is simply focusing on one thing at a time and doing that one thing very well. Maybe I'm just easily pleased.

One last thought: Noise performance is important. We always want as high of image quality as possible, especially for a truly fantastic shot. Thankfully, we have pretty effective noise reduction tools available in post processing. So far, I haven't seen any similar tools for correcting missed focus nearly as well (sharpening might help a little for softness, but doesn't cut it for a truly missed focus), and I don't expect to any time soon. I'd much rather get a fantastic shot because my AF was fast and accurate and then have to apply a little noise reduction than to have another stop better ISO performance and have to throw out a shot because the AF couldn't keep up.

As always, I'm only N=1. Other opinions will certainly (and rightfully) vary. Just wanted to articulate a little bit about why I'm pleased with the latest round of sensors from Canon and optimistic about the next round.

Cheers...


----------



## Pi (Aug 28, 2013)

Famateur said:


> One last thought: Noise performance is important. We always want as high of image quality as possible, especially for a truly fantastic shot. Thankfully, we have pretty effective noise reduction tools available in post processing. So far, I haven't seen any similar tools for correcting missed focus nearly as well (sharpening might help a little for softness, but doesn't cut it for a truly missed focus), and I don't expect to any time soon. I'd much rather get a fantastic shot because my AF was fast and accurate and then have to apply a little noise reduction than to have another stop better ISO performance and have to throw out a shot because the AF couldn't keep up.



Speaking about fast - how fast is the new dual pixel AF on the 70D?

For people like me, with zero interest in video, the Canon priorities are disappointing. I could not care less about dual pixel AF. LV AF works well enough for me when I need it, and I rarely do.

BTW, there is no principal difference between trying to "remove noise" and trying to sharpen a soft image - it is all loss of high-frequency detail.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Aug 28, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> That appears to to be the case, yes. Low ISO performance has been important to me ever since I took a sky picture and I had to do some noise reduction on the clouds... at ISO 100!!



The biggest flaw of the 7D.

I just can't get excited about 1.6x "upgrades". If people want improved noise and DR, go full frame. It's there, within reach.


----------



## pedroxha1 (Aug 28, 2013)

Moving to the 6d is what I'll likely do, as I'm fairly used to MF and I have a proper focusing camcorder if I don;t wish to.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 28, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> The biggest flaw of the 7D.
> 
> I just can't get excited about 1.6x "upgrades". If people want improved noise and DR, go full frame. It's there, within reach.



Unless you need extra reach.


----------



## Famateur (Aug 28, 2013)

Pi said:


> Speaking about fast - how fast is the new dual pixel AF on the 70D?
> 
> For people like me, with zero interest in video, the Canon priorities are disappointing. I could not care less about dual pixel AF. LV AF works well enough for me when I need it, and I rarely do.
> 
> BTW, there is no principal difference between trying to "remove noise" and trying to sharpen a soft image - it is all loss of high-frequency detail.



About speed, I guess it all depends on your needs. I use the articulating screen quite often on my camera so I can get good angles of my kids without having to constantly drop to my belly (still can't run alongside their bikes or next to them at the beach from my belly yet  ). Live view AF on something like the G12, Rebel series or 60D just can't keep up with my "subjects" in those situations.

So for you, it's ho-hum (and rightly so, if you don't use it), while for me, it's a really big deal. The videos I've seen so far demonstrating the 70D's live view AF are pretty impressive in this respect. Bummer for you that, if the next round focuses on ISO noise successfully, you've had to wait for another sensor generation. I feel a little guilty getting to enjoy the AF advancements while you wait. 

Agreed about noise and sharpening. I just don't have a tool* that will take a badly missed focus and bring it "back into focus", whereas if I have a noisy image, I have some remedy (albeit not perfect).

Anyway, here's hoping the next generation of sensors has some revolutionary ISO-noise-reducing tech!

*Well, I guess there's the Lightfield camera, or whatever, but getting that technology into a capable DSLR probably ain't gonna happen any time soon. Canon should have a new sensor before then...right?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 28, 2013)

I think it makes sense that 70D is targeted for videographers while 7D is for still photos, especially fast action. So I hope 7D Mark ii has a new sensor WITHOUT Dual Pixel AF :. This makes possible the most significant improvements in high ISO noise. Hopefully Canon listen to our prayers ...


----------



## vlim (Aug 29, 2013)

Bryan has the 70D in his hands 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=7680


----------



## vlim (Aug 29, 2013)

the 70D looks much more better in terms of image results compared to the 60D or 7D... i like its sharpness


----------



## jrista (Aug 30, 2013)

vlim said:


> the 70D looks much more better in terms of image results compared to the 60D or 7D... i like its sharpness



Agreed, it is very sharp, but doesn't exhibit much in the way of aliasing. Quite a bit sharper than the 7D, too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

vlim said:


> the 70D looks much more better in terms of image results compared to the 60D or 7D... i like its sharpness



Yeah as expected, it is crisper than the 7D in particular (7D had heavy green splitting, although we need to make sure that the pre-release RAW converters for the 70D are doing any anti-mazing processing if necessary before we are sure).


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 30, 2013)

vlim said:


> the 70D looks much more better in terms of image results compared to the 60D or 7D... i like its sharpness



I'd be very hesitant to draw a final conclusion from these b&w res charts w/o knowing the tradeoff, either more aliasing or noise.

Plus since nobody saw that sharpness increase in previous studio sample shots vs. the 18mp sensor, it's possible Canon came up with some way to "enhance" the edge contrast even in raw, maybe in combination with the dual af pixels, it's a consumer camera after all so some "tweaking" is allowed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

low ISO banding definitely seems better than with the 7D

acutance appears to be better than the 7D as well


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 30, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> vlim said:
> 
> 
> > the 70D looks much more better in terms of image results compared to the 60D or 7D... i like its sharpness
> ...



It could be real though. It could be a change in the AA filter and/or also the greens in the CFA might be so extremely split as they on the 7D so RAW converters can get better acutance out of the files without running into mazing issues. If you compare 7D files developed with the original beta RAW support in ACR or even Canon's own DPP they have a bit better acutance than when using release versions of ACR or later DPP versions. But the earlier RAW converters also left 7D files riddles with "mazing" artifacts all over which is why they had to be changed.


----------



## Pi (Aug 30, 2013)

jrista said:


> Agreed, it is very sharp, but doesn't exhibit much in the way of aliasing. Quite a bit sharper than the 7D, too.



Everything on the left of the 32 mark is aliasing (the converging lines on the top). Other sensors do that, too, to a different extent.


----------

