# 50d vs 80d



## reef58 (Jan 6, 2017)

Has anyone owned both of these? I sold my 50d to get a 7d2. I have never been happy with the IQ and especially noise performance from the 7d2. The 50d was better. My 7d2 is at Canon Service now. If there are no noise improvements I am considering buying an 80d. I am curious on how it compares to the 50d if anyone knows.

Thanks


----------



## jeanluc (Jan 6, 2017)

I don't have an 80d, but I do have an m5, which has the same sensor. I used a 50d previously and am 
familiar are with it.

The IQ from that sensor is greatly superior to the 50d. In fact, the m5 even using just efm lenses is in general a great system, unless you need blazing speed a la 7d2. I would consider just moving to the m system for your apsc shooting. The speed is good enough for casual wildlife, the dual pixel af rocks even at night, the noise is very very minimal at night up to ISO 800 and the ergonomics are dslr like. 

I recently took it to Hawaii and was planning on taking my 5d4 when I'm back there. With the size and weight advantage, now I have some thinking to do, that's how good I think it is.

Just a thought.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 6, 2017)

For shooting at ISO 100, underexposed and raising shadows, 80D is the best of the three.

For shooting at ISO 1600 with correct exposure, 80D seems the same as the 7D Mark ii, considering a 7D Mark ii without any defect.

To view images with the same output size, 80D will have sharper images than the other two.

For pixel peeping, always viewing at 100%, where each camera has its image in different size, the cameras with more megapixel cause a misleading perception of "less sharper".


----------



## machao (Jan 6, 2017)

I am wondering the same thing.
I shoot a lot of live music events and I want to update my camera for a better high ISO quality. I borrowed my friend's 7D mark II and it didn't do it for me. I am planning on purchasing a camera by the end of April for a big event I want to shoot early May. As 6D mark II doesn't seem to be released by then, I am considering 6D, 7D mark II or 80D. Reading rumors about 6D mark II, I don't see the urge of waiting for 6D mark II. 
I used to shoot film, so I have decent EF lens collection and the only EF-S I own are 10-22 and 17-85. If I get 6D, I am keeping my 50D as I love the image quality.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## wisselink (Jan 6, 2017)

I used to own a 40d. Iso 800 was still usable for me as long as it was well exposed, i only went higher i there where no other option but above 800 the IQ went down fast. Next camera i got was the original 7d, it felt like a huge improvement, especially the colours didn't go crazy so fast if i went higher in the iso's. I have to say my raw work flow improved as well, but still the difference was big. What i read on the internet when i bought the 40d is that the 50d is pretty close to the 40d with the noise performance. I can only expect the 7d2 to be better than the 7d. 

Can you tell at what ISO you shoot with both cameras? Do you shoot raw or jpeg? If you do jpeg what are the jpeg settings in camera, if you do raw which program do you use to process the raw files and what are the noise reduction settings on the program? The noise improvement/ IQ improvement you want is that at low or high iso? Do you want the improvement in the noise/grain or in the dynamic range or in the colour depth (Could be al of those of course) 

Maybe these questions can be helpful to find why the 50d looks better than the 7d2. Sorry for al the questions but i guess if the 50d looks better than the 7d2 the 80d will not help as well. 

I hope i can help you, maybe there are some people with more experience with the specific models than can be a help as well.


----------



## reef58 (Jan 6, 2017)

jeanluc said:


> I don't have an 80d, but I do have an m5, which has the same sensor. I used a 50d previously and am
> familiar are with it.
> 
> The IQ from that sensor is greatly superior to the 50d. In fact, the m5 even using just efm lenses is in general a great system, unless you need blazing speed a la 7d2. I would consider just moving to the m system for your apsc shooting. The speed is good enough for casual wildlife, the dual pixel af rocks even at night, the noise is very very minimal at night up to ISO 800 and the ergonomics are dslr like.
> ...



The crop body is for wildlife. For everything else I use full frame. I don't want to use a mirrorless although I am not a good wildlife photographer I am not casual. I did buy an Olympus em10 for grab and go.

Interesting comments on the sensor. It must be my 7d sensor is out of whack. The 50d certainly had less noise at similar ISO. 

Thanks


----------



## reef58 (Jan 6, 2017)

wisselink said:


> I used to own a 40d. Iso 800 was still usable for me as long as it was well exposed, i only went higher i there where no other option but above 800 the IQ went down fast. Next camera i got was the original 7d, it felt like a huge improvement, especially the colours didn't go crazy so fast if i went higher in the iso's. I have to say my raw work flow improved as well, but still the difference was big. What i read on the internet when i bought the 40d is that the 50d is pretty close to the 40d with the noise performance. I can only expect the 7d2 to be better than the 7d.
> 
> Can you tell at what ISO you shoot with both cameras? Do you shoot raw or jpeg? If you do jpeg what are the jpeg settings in camera, if you do raw which program do you use to process the raw files and what are the noise reduction settings on the program? The noise improvement/ IQ improvement you want is that at low or high iso? Do you want the improvement in the noise/grain or in the dynamic range or in the colour depth (Could be al of those of course)
> 
> ...



The ISO is dependent upon the scene of course. I may be shooting birds at ISO1600 to keep up my shutter speed. Unfortunately I deleted about 3k images yesterday. I should have saved some samples. One thing I noticed that does not make sense to me is the issue seems to crop up (no pun) with the 400f5.6 lens even at ISO less than 1000. I reviewed some photos taken with the 70-300l and they look much better. Maybe I am going crazy.


----------



## machao (Jan 6, 2017)

wisselink said:


> Can you tell at what ISO you shoot with both cameras? Do you shoot raw or jpeg? If you do jpeg what are the jpeg settings in camera, if you do raw which program do you use to process the raw files and what are the noise reduction settings on the program? The noise improvement/ IQ improvement you want is that at low or high iso? Do you want the improvement in the noise/grain or in the dynamic range or in the colour depth (Could be al of those of course)


Thank you for your input. As I shoot at a local bars with poor lighting, I have to shoot at ISO 3200 and up to shoot at 1/15 or faster to capture the band without motion blur. I shoot RAW, use DPP4 and Lightroom 5. It's not like it is unacceptably noisy and it looks great on social media for the up and coming band to promote themselves, but I want the picture quality to be better.

Maybe I want to go full frame for nostalgic reason. I started with my dad's Canon FT, bought AE-1 PROGRAM myself when I was 10, then moved on to T-90 and EOS A2. I feel at home looking through my friend's 5D mark III view finder and the image matches what is in my head, but the body is too big and too heavy for me. Maybe I am still not used to APS-C sensor size, but if I have to invest money into a new camera, I want to have a wow factor.


----------



## reef58 (Jan 6, 2017)

machao said:


> wisselink said:
> 
> 
> > Can you tell at what ISO you shoot with both cameras? Do you shoot raw or jpeg? If you do jpeg what are the jpeg settings in camera, if you do raw which program do you use to process the raw files and what are the noise reduction settings on the program? The noise improvement/ IQ improvement you want is that at low or high iso? Do you want the improvement in the noise/grain or in the dynamic range or in the colour depth (Could be al of those of course)
> ...



I guess everyone is different, but I just had the 5d4, 6d and 7d2 in hand at the same time. I did not find much difference in size or weight. They were in the same class. I did find the image quality best in the 5d4 and actually liked the touch screen when I remembered to use it.


----------



## Labdoc (Jan 6, 2017)

80D is a great camera. Like a baby 5D MKIV. It has DPAF and AF at f8. I use it as a backup camera and for all my telephoto work. Mine got accidentally tossed out of a moving vehicle and suffered only a scratch. IQ is good and images at 1600 ISO acceptable to me. Coupled with a quality lens it does perform very well. 

You can't go wrong at that price point with the 80D and I think you would see a big improvement over the 50D.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 6, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> For shooting at ISO 100, underexposed and raising shadows, 80D is the best of the three.
> 
> For shooting at ISO 1600 with correct exposure, 80D seems the same as the 7D Mark ii, considering a 7D Mark ii without any defect...



This.

The consensus of reviewers is that the 80D sensor does not perform any better at higher ISOs, than the 7DII or 70D.

I've used the 7D, 7DII, 5DIII and now the 1DX II. My opinion is that the 7DII was significantly improved over the original 7D at higher ISOs. It was not quite as good as the 5DIII at high ISO, but not far off. The 1DX II is the best, but at higher ISOs we are talking marginal differences. If you are distance limited and need to crop the image, the 7DII can perform nearly as well as a 1DX II, at 3200 and below.

The key to higher ISOs with Canon, I believe, is to avoid underexposure. Pushing shadows seems to invite noise, while a properly or just slightly overexposed (1/3 stop) image does much better. Of course it is a trade off and when you are trying to squeeze the most out of a low light situation, you can't always afford that extra little exposure.

Just my opinion.


----------



## reef58 (Jan 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > For shooting at ISO 100, underexposed and raising shadows, 80D is the best of the three.
> ...



This is a good point. In reviewing the few images I saved from the 7d2 I see the ones on the darker side look really noisy regardless of the ISO setting.


----------

