# Where has the post with the complaint about the 80D's IQ gone?



## haggie (Nov 18, 2016)

Eearlier I read a post from a guy (sorry, can't remember the posters name) who more or less said that he had had it with his 80D. The complaint was (IMOW) that the IQ was bad when lighting was poor.

I think it was in this subforum, but I cannot find it any more.
Has it been put in another subforum, perhaps with another title?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2016)

IIRC, it was a post by YuengLinger. My guess would be he deleted his own topic (which is included in forum permissions).


----------



## greger (Nov 18, 2016)

Neuro's right about YeungLinger being the original poster. If you can pm him you might find out where the post went.
Maybe he will read this post and respond here. I read it too with much interest on the problems being experienced with the 80D. I think the post was "I'm done with 80D". I got the impression that the 60D did better the 80D in what he was shooting and that he was on his second body. I was interested to find out the end result and am sorry to not being able to find the post. I'm sure other members can be more helpful.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 18, 2016)

haggie said:


> Eearlier I read a post from a guy (sorry, can't remember the posters name) who more or less said that he had had it with his 80D. The complaint was (IMOW) that the IQ was bad when lighting was poor.
> 
> I think it was in this subforum, but I cannot find it any more.
> Has it been put in another subforum, perhaps with another title?



Ok, I deleted it because the title was written in a moment of frustration with my second 80D. 

I sent back the 80D due to an overall dissatisfaction with the IQ in sunlight (not overcast, soft glowy light). The demand for samples was reasonable, but I looked at the images that I based my decision on, and knew that if I posted those, there would be lots of fuss about whether they were bad enough to reject the 80D altogether. In my opinion they were, but didn't want to get into lots of explanations about technique, shutter speed, focal length, and on an on.

I felt the camera struggled in light my 20D, 60D, and 5DIII handled well. In fact, most of the worst images, about 90% of what I shot, had already been deleted just due to culling.

So, my opinion is that for anything other than family fun or very well controlled lighting situations, the camera, because of IQ, is not for me. But to say that it is a failure is too harsh, and so I just deleted the complaint.

Working mornings and caring for two babies from mid-afternoon til midnight, I've decided to let it go. Would I ever give the 80D another chance? Maybe next year? Possible, but not likely. Just thought the IQ, especially with longer lenses (100-400mm) was not pleasing.

Just one consumer's opinions!


----------



## davidj (Nov 18, 2016)

That's a shame. There was a comment in there by Mount Spokane Photography (I think) about the M5 being slightly disappointing by having the features of a P&S based on a read through of the manual, and I was keen to see that thought elaborated.


----------



## greger (Nov 18, 2016)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31171.msg632821#msg632821

Here's a link to another post by YeungLinger that's worth reading.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 18, 2016)

The second body did not have the AI Servo issues the first one clearly did. Other than post out of focus images, there isn't much to show for the first body.

The second body had good AI Servo performance, and I set it different ways, including tracking where I chose the starting AF point. No complaint about it.

One technical issue I'm certain about--the histogram did not indicate blown-out areas when they were clearly present in DPP and LR. In fact, the histogram rarely got close to the right edge even when I was overexposing a bit. On the other hand, I could recover much more from the highlights than on my 60D, so that might have been part of a learning curve.

Just to try not to be too annoying or coy or vague, here are some samples. I only kept a few of my "non-keepers." It isn't normal to keep stuff that isn't up to par, but when I hit a critical mass of images that just did not satisfy, the impulse hit and I sent the camera back.

Next time, before posting something as controversial or momentous, I will be methodical, a little scientific in my approach. I feel I made the right decision to send it back, but I didn't gather enough data to put this into a negative review form. So, apologies for such a vague post, what amounted to a brief rant without the evidence.

To sum up--the two 80D's I tried were problematic, and, for me, not my camera. I really wanted it to work because of the fantastic ergonomics, specs, and video features.

Here are some that just didn't cut if for me. These are unedited, converted by DPP.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 18, 2016)

Here's a crop of one of the birds. ISO 400. Still no edits (other than the crop).

See the glare along the bottom of the throat? I don't like the way specular highlights are being handled at all. When the light is soft, it really doesn't show up, and, except for a bit more noise than expected after reading reviews, portraits are pleasing.

Sports or wildlife in harsher light, it just doesn't work for me.

Again, my standards should be the 20D and the 60D, but I have been spoiled by the 5DIII, and I might not be able to avoid some comparison to its noise, buttery transitions, and overall IQ.


----------



## jrista (Nov 19, 2016)

A true SNR curve in a digital camera has several domains.These domains are described by Photon Transfer theory, and are:

1) Read Noise Limited Domain
2) Shot Noise Limited Domain
3) FPN Limited Domain
4) Saturation Domain

Read noise is a temporally and spatially random noise that is fixed in amplitude.
Shot noise is a temporally and spatially random noise that grows in amplitude with signal strength: SQRT(S)
FPN, or Fixed Pattern Noise, is a temporally FIXED noise that is spatially random that grows linearly with the signal: SQRT((S*DSNU + S*PRNU)^2)

Saturation domain is where noise actually drops rapidly as pixels saturate, and variance diminishes to zero.

DSNU stands for dark signal non-uniformity, and is a "quality factor" that determines the rate at which FPN grows relative to dark signal. PRNU stands for pixel response non-uniformity, and is a quality factor that determines the rate at which FPN grows relative to the light signal. DSNU is often 10-40% for modern sensors, and PRNU is often around 1% for modern sensors, although it can be as high as 3%, depends on the design of the sensor. 

A photon transfer curve fully characterising the noise performance of a camera often looks like this:







The nature of FPN is intriguing, and also potentially annoying, because it grows with the signal. Once FPN grows enough to overpower shot noise (which is usually around the upper midtones unless FPN is particularly bad), you have reached your maximum SNR. Because FPN will continue to grow with the signal, any further acquisition of signal will no longer allow improvements in SNR. 

FPN due to PRNU is relative to the photoelectric signal. As such, there is a gain component, meaning the higher the gain, the faster FPN will limit your SNR, since the amplifier will be amplifying spatial variance as well. 

For the most part, this is not much of an issue for daytime photography, as PRNU tends to be low enough and signal strengths tend to be high enough that the human eye cannot really tell the difference. However, there are some cameras these days that have higher PRNU which might lead to SNR limitations early enough that they can be detected. It may well be that the 80D has higher PRNU, which leads to higher FPN which would limit SNR sooner. Additionally, low light photography that uses a high gain may experience limitations due to both PRNU and DSNU derived FPN sooner as well.

There are some sensors these days that have FPN so low that it does not overtake shot noise until just before the saturation point. Some cutting edge sensors may even have FPN so low that it never overtakes shot noise. As read noise and dark current levels get smaller and smaller, FPN will become one of the more significant sources of noise and limitations on SNR unless PRNU and DSNU are also reduced. Canon definitely seems to have improved their read noise with the 80D, which expanded it's dynamic range and overall quality. It may simply be that that is making the point where FPN becomes the limiting factor a little more stark than it was in the past. This limitation can occur right around the upper midtones, which is often one of the tonal ranges where we are most sensitive to noise as well. I think the 7DC was another Canon camera that had higher FPN and issues with noise in the midtones, and it turned a lot of people off. It may have also been a problem with the 5D III. The 5DS, 5D IV, 1D X II all seem to have much improved noise characteristics across the board.


----------



## haggie (Nov 19, 2016)

The reason I asked where this post had gone, was the fact that I recognized a lot of what Yuenglinger wrote about the 80D. 

I thought I just shared my experiences with the 80D. I have my 80D for little over 4 months now, as a replacement for my 3-years old 70D. I have used it a lot and in many lighting conditions. I shoot landscapes, buildings (interiors and exteriors), nature with an occasional BIF and airplanes every now and then.

I see a lot of improvement in the 80D’s image quality (IQ) over that of the 70D. And I can confirm what Yuenglinger wrote in his post about the 80D’s IQ in bright lighting (thanks for your reply, Yuenglinger). When the light is bright, I also see what Yuenglinger described in his reply above in the bird’s throat. Especially when additional sharpening is needed (and this is usually the case because the 80D’s photos are quite soft by themselves), this quickly gives bad results. 
I even got Topaz Denoise, but that does not help much, although it does a slightly better job (once you figured out all the settings).

When in bright light the subjects are such that these situations do not arise, I found that the images of the 80D give better freedom for post-processing in LR and/or PS than the 70D did. 

But I also noticed something else, and I thought that Yuenglinger referred to that in his initial post (hence my interest in it). But he does not mention it again, so I must have misunderstood.

In a situation of not bright lighting, the images of my 80D tend to get very ‘flaky’ and also more noisy. To elaborate: I do not mean ‘dark’ or ‘dim’ lighting, but ‘equal lighting that is not bright’ (like a heavy overcast or very uniform indoor lighting). 
The color noise is much less than in the 70D. But white noise is there in abundance then. 
Using Lightroom’s ‘Noise Reduction’ does not do much good: the noise only gets eliminated when the level of Luminance so high that the images become unnaturally soft and neither does Topaz Denoise. This is (far) worse than what I saw from another camera and the 70D did not have this to the same extend as my 80D does.

I can remember a photo added with a post of some time ago (it was of an F-35 flying by on a rainy day) where this phenomenon was visible (I looked for it, but cannot find it…..). 
I did not pay too much attention to it then. Only now I own the 80D I see its relevance.

Perhaps jrista’s clear description points to the cause of this and the design of the new sensor of the 80D is at the max what Canon engineers can do. I simply do not know enough about the materials and manufacturing methods used, but this being a new type of sensor for Canon I can only hope they have a steep learning curve.

To sum it up: I like my 80D a lot and when lighting is good, the IQ is okay. In general the 80D’s room for improvement in post-processing is quite a bit better than the 70D’s. That is: with the exception of the situation that Yuenglinger described and showed above. 
It is in uniform and slightly darker (but not dark!) lighting that I expected a similar improvement (based on the reviews and charts), but was disappointed to see images even become a bit flaky.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2016)

Extremely interesting replies and insights regarding perceptions of different types of noise. On a much simpler level of attempting to explain the 80D's limitations, a close friend who is a phenomenal bird photographer reminded me that in photography we always have trade-offs. If light and small are the priority, and we add in a ton of video capabilities, image quality for lenses over 200mm might be somewhat less attainable--which is why wildlife photographers are willing to pay for and drag around much heavier bodies.

More subjectively, I was finding during post processing that, in the more contrasty lighting, edges and fine detail did not have the typical photographic appearance of a print or older sensors. Attempting to sharpen and enhance the images sometimes is producing an almost illustrated look, as if edges were inked or penciled in. Yes, subjective, and at a 100% view (which is what many of us zoom into for sharpening, right?).

One more bird image, full size, unprocessed, and then a detail after my typical sharpening and enhancing. ISO 400, and this is one of the best of 100's of shots. I just could not get clean backgrounds when they were busy. The heron's beak and head seemed to go right into that illustrated type feel.

Finally, this is all incredibly subjective, as admitted, and many people will justifiably see me as being too picky, quibbling over what are decent results from a "Swiss knife" camera. Note that for family portraits in overcast light, I did get lovely results.


----------



## BasXcanon (Nov 19, 2016)

Hi YuengLinger,

Sorry for you that it doesn't have the IQ that you wished it had.
Have you tried the Highlightprotect option in your camera, and how about white balance between warm color and light priorities?
But you do realize your bird shot could have looked better if you the sun was behind you instead of an incoming from the right or left?

Now for your autofocus problems I would really like to know what your settings were.
I use the 80D myself, but don't do much action. But I can tell you that you should never use more af points than actually fit in your subjects. I only use single point af with centre average metering or 9 centre points with spot metering. 
You should not believe youtube videos reviews at all. 
*The 7DmII and 5DmIV all have a double digit processor that use some kind of algoritm to remember which auto focus point of the 60+ was locked when the mirror flaps up and gives it an priority in servo to the next shots as the mirror flips down, so the complete large zone metering with 60+ af points on the 7DmII is therefor 200% better than the 80D.*
I mentioned already on the forums here, you should really go for the 7DmII if you want birdies and wildlife and all.

Also I use 1st shot focus priority and 2nd shot focus priority in the C.FN2 settings. 
Which someone else mentioned here already. 

I can show you some shots I did with my settings on driving cars (60mph) with focus on license plates that show that it really gives usable results with this settings, just to show you it can give usable results.

I might mind you only 1% of the camera buyers get to know the camera till its full potential, you need more than 50.000 shots to make before you can operate your camera blindfold, so don't give up yet please.

*Car shots*



















*Holding Backbutton focus, no focus hunt on 1/60 shot*


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 19, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> More subjectively, I was finding during post processing that, in the more contrasty lighting, edges and fine detail did not have the typical photographic appearance of a print or older sensors. Attempting to sharpen and enhance the images sometimes is producing an almost illustrated look, as if edges were inked or penciled in. Yes, subjective, and at a 100% view (which is what many of us zoom into for sharpening, right?).


I remember when I had my old Rebel XT (8 megapixel), and how the contours of the objects seemed natural to me, not looking like oversharp.

I think the "per pixel" sharpness on the 24 megapixel cameras will inevitably be lower, and it causes the temptation to process the images with too much sharpness, generating nasty artifacts.

Would not that be the reason for your disappointment with 80D? The desire for a very high sharpness, when one has much more megapixel, can cause frustration.


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 19, 2016)

OK. I have a perhaps silly question (no flames please! : ). How will all of this sensor discussion relate to the Canon mirror-less line? The M5 is not really out in a lot of hands, yet. But it is said to have the same sensor as the 80D. I recently added an M3 to my kit. Clearly, it is not the same IQ as my 5Diii but I did not expect it to be. Frankly, the improvement over the original M1 is significant so maybe I am a bit forgiving. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 19, 2016)

I've found this to certain degree with the M3. The conversion profile on both DPP and ACR is far too aggressive IMO. I have been able to solve the problem to a certain degree by tweaking the curve profile before conversion.

I have found some of the files from the 5Ds / sr that I have down loaded to have similar characteristics. 

Same thing with the brittleness on sharpening, I have to make sure that there is absolutely no pre raw sharpening going on in the background. Even then the M3 can produce a brittle picture when reduced down to normal viewing size and sometimes I'm putting a 0.2 pixel gaussian blur over it to get the result I want.


----------



## jrista (Nov 19, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Extremely interesting replies and insights regarding perceptions of different types of noise. On a much simpler level of attempting to explain the 80D's limitations, a close friend who is a phenomenal bird photographer reminded me that in photography we always have trade-offs. If light and small are the priority, and we add in a ton of video capabilities, image quality for lenses over 200mm might be somewhat less attainable--which is why wildlife photographers are willing to pay for and drag around much heavier bodies.
> 
> More subjectively, I was finding during post processing that, in the more contrasty lighting, edges and fine detail did not have the typical photographic appearance of a print or older sensors. Attempting to sharpen and enhance the images sometimes is producing an almost illustrated look, as if edges were inked or penciled in. Yes, subjective, and at a 100% view (which is what many of us zoom into for sharpening, right?).
> 
> ...



Part of the issue here is dynamic range, contrast and bird photography technique. The single biggest issue I see in the photo you shared in this post is that the bird is BACKLIT! A backlit bird, or a backlit anything, is by far the easiest way to rip through every last scrap of dynamic range your camera has, and then some. Now in your image, you were lucky that there was some haze, which seems to have scattered more light and softened the background a bit so that the contrast of the scene was not ridiculously high. In the end, that actually gave you a fairly clean noise profile in the background.

However lacking that haze, you would have undoubtedly run into dynamic range limitations due to the brightness of the edges of the Heron where the sun hits it, and the darkness of all the other backlit objects. You need to make sure your subject is properly illuminated. In this case, I would have moved around the bird until the sun was over your left shoulder. That would give you a largely illuminated bird with some slight shading across the surface to enhance contours. With bright illumination like that, you should have far fewer issues with high contrast, especially ultra bright areas that ultimately force all the rest of the signal to drop into the lower midtones to shadows. 

The moment that does happen...when the bulk of your signal drops into the midtones, especially if there is high microcontrast, you are going to see more noise. This could be exacerbated by high FPN, as it is in the midtones that FPN will often start rearing it's ugly head, and if it does, no amount of additional light will really help improve SNR...and in the midtones, it can be annoyingly obvious. But the key is high microcontrast, which can make any amount of noise look worse. If you stretch these midtones, that will increase microcontrast, which will make the noise look that much worse. 

With nature photography, bird, wildlife, anything with a subject other than a landscape, you need to make sure you get your scene properly illuminated, and you will want to watch the microcontrast. Avoid backlit subjects.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 19, 2016)

I have noticed similar with the Canon 7DII. First the color noise from earlier sensors is almost gone. I find myself as a first step removing the default noise reduction Second the per pixel sharpness on Canon is slightly less than the 60D. The true is after shooting with a Sony for a while all Canon APS-C appear soft. I have come to believe that Canon has put an AA filter that is just too strong. 

I think you are finding the same two issues I have. At higher ISO's there is non color noise that difficult to get rid of that makes the image look soft on a per pixel basis. If you add in the softness that exists because of the overly strong AA filter then you simply cannot get back per pixel sharpness that existed on earlier sensors.

I do not like overly sharpened images. I found that I can get generally acceptable results when viewed full size. But I wish they had a weaker AA filter. So that sharpening would not need to be added.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2016)

I'm quite happy with the IQ from my 80D. Here are a couple of 100% crops of back-lit subjects taken with my 80D. Bee shot is at base ISO 100. Cat shot is at ISO 640. You can see what Lightroom edits I've done in the develop module.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2016)

Here's another back-lit shot with extreme highlight and shadow recovery + heavy contrast and sharpening as well. I think the file holds up pretty well. Any flaws in the image come down to lens properties, technique and post processing rather than the sensor IMHO.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 20, 2016)

jrista said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Extremely interesting replies and insights regarding perceptions of different types of noise. On a much simpler level of attempting to explain the 80D's limitations, a close friend who is a phenomenal bird photographer reminded me that in photography we always have trade-offs. If light and small are the priority, and we add in a ton of video capabilities, image quality for lenses over 200mm might be somewhat less attainable--which is why wildlife photographers are willing to pay for and drag around much heavier bodies.
> ...



jrista, thanks for the very helpful suggestions regarding the lighting for birds, and for pointing out that haze was a factor in the heron shot. I'm seeing that haze was a bigger factor than I accounted for. That said, there are things, with the same lens, I can "get away with" using a 5DIII, and to a lesser extent even the 60D, that I couldn't during my brief time with the 80D. If I had kept it, I probably would have learned the strengths and weaknesses, the necessary compromises.

Regarding AF, it was not an issue with the second body--please read my post again in this thread to see I actually praise it. The first 80D I bought and returned did have a faulty AI Servo function--using same lenses, techniques, and settings as on the second. AI Servo was defective on the first unit, meaning that I was certainly more critical overall with the second 80D, admittedly.

Thinking about the 80D's IQ today, I'm beginning to think that we've now had a full decade of sensors, and perhaps some of us are developing preferences for their output. Film photographers love some types of film and would never want to use other types. Certainly with software we can radically alter a RAW file, but we are still starting with a base image that is sensor dependent. In my case I was very happy with the RAW files from the 60D and the 5DIII, but in comparison, the RAW output of the 80D was not to my taste. 

Being an imperfect photographer who will not wade into gator and moccasin infested swamps to get a shot of a heron with the sun behind my shoulder, I like a sensor that is a little more forgiving!


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 20, 2016)

Hi YuengLinger. 
Thank you for today's quote that gave me a laugh. 
I did wonder when you were being given all the lighting advice (move to change the angle of the shot) if any of them once thought that perhaps you were unable to change your location for whatever reason. Most if not all of us know that back lighting a subject is the least desirable situation, but we still need (really really want) to be able to get good photos in this situation. 
Also I thank you for your most candid responses to the questions posed to you here, it seems that you have been very open about the situation. 

Cheers, Graham. 



YuengLinger said:


> Being an imperfect photographer who will not wade into gator and moccasin infested swamps to get a shot of a heron with the sun behind my shoulder, I like a sensor that is a little more forgiving!


----------



## jrista (Nov 20, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi YuengLinger.
> Thank you for today's quote that gave me a laugh.
> I did wonder when you were being given all the lighting advice (move to change the angle of the shot) if any of them once thought that perhaps you were unable to change your location for whatever reason. Most if not all of us know that back lighting a subject is the least desirable situation, but we still need (really really want) to be able to get good photos in this situation.
> Also I thank you for your most candid responses to the questions posed to you here, it seems that you have been very open about the situation.
> ...



Well...I'm the type who would wade into gator and moccasin infested swamps to get proper sunlit a shot of a Heron!


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 20, 2016)

Hi Jon. 
We all know that there are some willing to play the odds for that perfect shot but I'm with YuengLinger on this one, in fact I'm not wading in to any water to get the shot unless it is crystal clear and preferably not cold either! ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



jrista said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi YuengLinger.
> ...


----------



## jrista (Nov 20, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Jon.
> We all know that there are some willing to play the odds for that perfect shot but I'm with YuengLinger on this one, in fact I'm not wading in to any water to get the shot unless it is crystal clear and preferably not cold either! ;D
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



Sure. That doesn't change the facts though. The distribution of the signal can change dramatically depending on the angle of light on the subject, as well as the surrounding scene. If you do not take that fact into account, you'll be constantly perplexed when one shot looks great and the next looks terrible. Even if you cannot actually change your position to subject enough, you should always try to get the best angle possible (and there is certainly more to it than just sunlight angle...there is also bird angle, head angle, relative position to background objects some of which you may not want in the scene, etc.) Getting good bird and wildlife shots requires a fairly expansive presence of mind so you can take into account all the factors...including light.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 20, 2016)

Hi Jon. 
I hope you have not misunderstood my post, I was not in any way intending to question your advice or information, I find your in depth technical information very interesting though I will confess a great deal of it goes clear over my head. My only intention was to raise the point that it is not always possible to reposition for a better shot. 
Goodnight gents. 

Cheers, Graham. 



jrista said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Jon.
> ...


----------



## ISO64 (Nov 20, 2016)

BIB

Stands for Birds in Backlight, sure recipe to cause most of the photographers to hit Delete button repeatedly. And if the backlit edge is made of thin, translucent feathers it will behave as a brightest object in the frame. Compare the neck to lower beak... Oh, and if this is not enough troubling, try postprocessing photo of a backlit crow taken at noon, on a lightly overcast day, straight up... :'(  :-[


----------



## haggie (Nov 20, 2016)

I want to thank jrista for his very informative replies in this thread, that I expect will (have to) affect my way of shooting with my 80D (without having to enter swamps, that is......  ).

What I read in the technical description of jrista's replies, I can follow and understand (I have a technical background in electronics). The thing is, that I do not have 'the whole picture' and therefore have difficulty making my own decisions based on this extremely relevant information about the possibilities and limitations that inevitably come with the technology of camera sensors.

Therfore I hope I do not act against the forum rules, but I would like to pose these 2 questions to jrista for further information.

1. Can you point me in the direction of more (technical) information about sensors (beit Canon's or in general) that describe their workings and the mechanisms, limitations and tradeoffs involved - thus leading to understanding the parameters you mentioned (and perhaps other parameters too)?

2. Can you point me in the direction of relating this to the consequences of these technical (scientific) description of camera sensors for photography, like the influence on the performance of these parameters from (micro) contrast, the amount of light, the type of lighting or whatever proves to be relevant?

I am aware these are quite 'heavy' questions and I appologise if I ask too much here.
I think this is the background I need to better results, both at the moment I press the shutter and in post-processing.

Thanks in advance. :


----------



## LesC (Nov 20, 2016)

haggie said:


> I can remember a photo added with a post of some time ago (it was of an F-35 flying by on a rainy day) where this phenomenon was visible (I looked for it, but cannot find it…..).
> I did not pay too much attention to it then. Only now I own the 80D I see its relevance.



That post was mine - it's here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30410.msg613233#msg613233

I'm embarassed to say that I've not used the 80D since then (tending to use my 6D as my 'main' camera & the 80D more for telephoto shots - airshows etc)

The reason I noticed the noise on the photos from the shoot that I posted _may have been_ because a) It was the 1st time I'd shot RAW only at an airshow & b) being a 25 MP sensor, at 100% the noise would be more noticeable than that of my other crop cameras - 18MP EOS 100d (SL1) & the 8MP 350D that I've also use at airshows.

I like to think I know what I'm doing (!) so I don't think it's my technique at fault & I don't believe my 80D is faulty and I don't have a problem getting rid of it in post production so I'm hoping my results were just due to the conditions at the time/expecting to much/previously shooting only jpeg at airshows. Or a combination of all three.

I really need to take some test shots under identical conditions to compare but I still have a nagging doubt that the 80D is not as good under dull conditions as some have reported.

However, looking at the noise show at 400iso for RAW files on the uniform grey areas on DP Reviews charts here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-80d-review/11 does show quite a bit of noise. Considering these were shot in a studio so presumably under optimum lighting conditions, perhaps my results under poorer conditions were par for the course.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 20, 2016)

Here is another image from the 80D at moderate ISO but shot under more severe back-lighting. Also note that the 135L is prone to veiling flare.


----------



## jrista (Nov 20, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Here is another image from the 80D at moderate ISO but shot under more severe back-lighting. Also note that the 135L is prone to veiling flare.



All things considered, that is the best backlit performance I think I've seen from a Canon camera thus far. OF COURSE there is going to be noise in the bird in such a situation...but i can tell you this. My 5D III performs significantly worse in the same situation. I get both horizontal and vertical banding, lots of color blotch, etc. in scenarios like that.

Canon has definitely made improvements here. There is no question about that. This is a situation that was well out of the realm of capability for Canon cameras not that long ago. It now seems that current generation Canon cameras, well at least the 80D and 5D IV (and probably 1D X II, although I've not processed any data from that yet), are capable of performing well in much more challenging situations.


----------



## jrista (Nov 20, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Jon.
> I hope you have not misunderstood my post, I was not in any way intending to question your advice or information, I find your in depth technical information very interesting though I will confess a great deal of it goes clear over my head. My only intention was to raise the point that it is not always possible to reposition for a better shot.
> Goodnight gents.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



I understood. I just thought it was important to note that having presence of mind about your light sources relative to subject and scene is an important aspect of photography. I just don't want people to think if they can't control the light, then it doesn't matter. There is almost always _something _you can do, even if you can't go wading into a deadly creature-infested swamp to nail the lighting perfectly. 

Bird and wildlife photography is in large part about having the presence of mind to quickly evaluate the setting and calculate whether you need to adjust your position or not (because of lighting, or any of the reasons I stated before). Sometimes it is not possible, but that shouldn't be license to ignore it all the time. It should never be ignored, even if you can't do anything about it. Sometimes the better option is to turn around and take a photo of the other Heron right behind you...already in perfect light.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 20, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > More subjectively, I was finding during post processing that, in the more contrasty lighting, edges and fine detail did not have the typical photographic appearance of a print or older sensors. Attempting to sharpen and enhance the images sometimes is producing an almost illustrated look, as if edges were inked or penciled in. Yes, subjective, and at a 100% view (which is what many of us zoom into for sharpening, right?).
> ...



First of all, I think most of these images where people are dissatisfied look fine. I think people tend to be far too picky and forget to look at photos as a whole rather than zoom in and find things to be dissatisfied with. 

Secondly, I agree completely with ajfotofilmagem. As pixels have become smaller, there have been sacrifices. I have no technical knowledge of this, but am often surprised that photos taken with my old 6 MP Canon (300D) look more natural than those I took with my SL1. While marketing - and the constant clamor from the gear heads - leads us to smaller and smaller pixels, our photos WILL look different as a result, it seems to me. When I upgraded from my 300D, I went to a 6D - not because I really wanted to go FF (I was quite satisfied with Crop) but because I wanted to keep the larger pixels. While other constantly clamor for more, more and more, I would really like to see an APS-C camera with about 12 MP. I think photographers would be quite happy with the IQ. Alas, it will never happen as long as the need for more MPs continues to dominate - despite the shortcomings of smaller and smaller pixels.


----------



## jrista (Nov 20, 2016)

dak723 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Pixel size doesn't really have anything to do with it. The small pixels of today are vastly superior to the large pixels of a decade or so ago. VASTLY superior. Read noise levels are becoming vanishingly small, in some cases dropping below 1 electron. Well capacities of pixels smaller than 4 microns are becoming larger than those of pixels larger than 4 microns from cameras only in the last five years. Dynamic range has expanded from 8-9 stops over a decade ago, to 14 stops or more today. Color accuracy has improved from 22 bits to 24, 24, 26 bits. 

There is absolutely nothing about a 30D that is superior to any camera today, even the worst performing Canon camera. Color is a highly subjective thing, and it's mostly been due to math anyway since before the 30D. It is easy enough to achieve any kind of color you want with just a little bit of fiddling with a RAW editor, and color preferences are easy to save as user profiles with modern RAW editors. Every other IQ factor has grown considerably in modern cameras. It's not even a contest. Canon has lagged behind the times, but they are finally catching up, and I am regularly amazed at the quality I see from the 5Ds. Especially in colors that Canon used to be a bit weak with before, such as yellows and oranges (Nikon always seemed to perform best for those colors in the past).


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 20, 2016)

jrista said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another image from the 80D at moderate ISO but shot under more severe back-lighting. Also note that the 135L is prone to veiling flare.
> ...


My example(s) were meant to challenge the notion that the 80D struggles/utterly-fails in difficult lighting conditions. I find that images out of my 80D are just fine when appropriate post processing techniques are applied.

My only issue with the 80D is the clunky in-field image review options (which I detail here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31325.msg636284#msg636284) that can hopefully be addressed in a firmware update.


----------



## jrista (Nov 21, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



I think you succeeded with your challenge. Not a chance I could get that shot with my 5D III without rabid banding or blotchy red noise in the bird. I really need to sell that and pick up the 5D IV.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 21, 2016)

jrista said:


> Color is a highly subjective thing, and it's mostly been due to math anyway since before the 30D. It is easy enough to achieve any kind of color you want with just a little bit of fiddling with a RAW editor, and color preferences are easy to save as user profiles with modern RAW editors.



Not to mention that when looking at OOC jpegs, you can create your own picture styles in DPP and save them into the DSLR as a jpeg alternative to Canon's own 'Landscape', 'Portrait' etc


----------



## dak723 (Nov 24, 2016)

jrista said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



No argument. Smaller pixels today have lower noise and more DR than the used to. Smaller pixels have definitely improved greatly over the years.

Unfortunately, your comments ignored the one issue that the above quotes are discussing. The question is: Do smaller pixels need more sharpening than larger pixels. That was the question - and my feeling is yes. But I don't know if this is true. If it is true, than it can indeed give photos a different look. If it is not true, than perhaps our perception of the difference between smaller and larger pixel photos is due to something else - or perhaps merely imagined.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 24, 2016)

dak723 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



The answer according to photozone is yes they do. 

"Why are the MTFs sometimes "better" on 21 megapixels compared to 50 megapixels ? There are two reasons for this. Lateral CAs are lower in terms of pixel widths at 21mp simply because the pixel density is also lower. Extreme CAs that may exist at 50mp are therefore less affecting the measurements at 21mp. Generally we are also using a certain degree of sharpening during the image conversion (just like in real life images) and because the 21mp results are "sharper" on pixel level they are relatively more receptive to (mild base-) sharpening."

The reason (according to me, and I think correct) is that smaller pixels give better resolution, i.e. showing fine detail, but large pixels give better acutance, I.e. sharper transitions between light and dark, which is what Imatest, used for MTFs, measures. I noticed this some time ago comparing lenses on a 5DIII with crop that the same degree of sharpening made the 5DIII images really pop compared with the crop. My own feeling comparing the 5DIII, 5DIV and 5DSR is that on FF 30 mpix is an excellent compromise.


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2016)

AlanF said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > No argument. Smaller pixels today have lower noise and more DR than the used to. Smaller pixels have definitely improved greatly over the years.
> ...



This is only true in a non-normalized context. To properly compare a 50mp camera to a 21mp camera, you must first downsample the 50mp images to 21mp. At that point, I have little doubt the 50mp would stomp all over the 21mp...sharpness, detail, image quality in every respect. 

There is nothing magical about pixel size. Larger pixels gather more light per-pixel and deliver less resolution. Smaller pixels gather less light per pixel an deliver more resolution. However, the TOTAL LIGHT gathered is THE SAME for a given SENSOR SIZE. You aren't gathering more or less light, not at all. You are simply divvying it up in different ways. Smaller pixels are always going to be better. You cannot gain resolution you never had when using larger pixels. However, you can effectively "bin" pixels and gain SNR by downsampling when using smaller pixels. 

Throw in better pixel technology with each new generation of sensors, and its really no contest. I'd take the 50mp camera every day over the 21mp, with only one exception: When I need high FPS, and the 50mp simply cannot deliver the necessary frame rate.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 24, 2016)

Jon
It is easy to argue and does appear to be logical that downsampling to the same megapixel size will give the same resolution, noise etc as on the less dense sensor. But, in practice, it does not appear to be as straightforward as that. I have done lots of comparisons of different lenses on a 5DS R, 5DIV, 5DIII and 7DII (plus some on 80D an 7D), and can write from experience. 
1. Transitions on a 50 MP sensor are smoother, and when downsampled have a different quality from those taken directly on a 20 or 30 mp sensor, may be not as crisp. The downsampling algorithms do not give the same results as direct measurements.
2. The 50 MP sensor is more sensitive to diffraction effects and lens defects. For example, my 300/2.8 II + 2xTC and 400mm DO II f/4 + 2xTC do not perform that well on the 5DS R but give very crisp images on 5DIV and 5DIII. The 5DIV gives much better results than a downsampled 5DS R image.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 24, 2016)

jrista said:


> To properly compare a 50mp camera to a 21mp camera, you must first downsample the 50mp images to 21mp.



I don;t understand why.
If someone owns the 5D3 then buys the 5DSR they don't think 'the 5D3 was 22MP, I am now using 50MP so I should downsample before creating my final output'.
They follow the same workflow and compare what they used to get.


----------



## hbr (Nov 24, 2016)

I own a 6D and a 7D Mark II. I have been toying with idea of purchasing the 80D and although it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the 7D II I am curious if the 24 mp sensor with the A/D converter on chip will give better IQ and reduced noise over the 7D II. I went to DPReview and studied their noise charts to compare the differences. They did not have a comparison with the 7D II but they did have a comparison with the 6D. Their charts appeared to show the noise levels looking much better than the 6D. Is this possible? Anyone with real life comparisons between these 3 cameras?


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2016)

AlanF said:


> Jon
> It is easy to argue and does appear to be logical that downsampling to the same megapixel size will give the same resolution, noise etc as on the less dense sensor. But, in practice, it does not appear to be as straightforward as that. I have done lots of comparisons of different lenses on a 5DS R, 5DIV, 5DIII and 7DII (plus some on 80D an 7D), and can write from experience.
> 1. Transitions on a 50 MP sensor are smoother, and when downsampled have a different quality from those taken directly on a 20 or 30 mp sensor, may be not as crisp. The downsampling algorithms do not give the same results as direct measurements.
> 2. The 50 MP sensor is more sensitive to diffraction effects and lens defects. For example, my 300/2.8 II + 2xTC and 400mm DO II f/4 + 2xTC do not perform that well on the 5DS R but give very crisp images on 5DIV and 5DIII. The 5DIV gives much better results than a downsampled 5DS R image.



#1 Seems highly subjective. Depends a lot on the algorithm used. There are lots of algorithms. Use one that preserves as much of the information as possible, such as Lanczos, and you should find the 50mp trounces pretty much everything, possible exception being the 43mp Sony sensor (as it lacks a low pass filter entirely rather than using a blur reversal approach, although Sony employs some spatial filtering in their BionzX chip that could hurt their sensor's performance.) 

#2 is absolutely false. Diffraction is an optical effect, it is what it is regardless of what the sensor pixel size is. Smaller pixels are not more sensitive nor succeptible to diffraction...they are simply capable of resolving a diffraction spot better than larger pixels. This is a common misconception about diffraction, one that endlessly circles around and around the internet despite the fact that it is just totally wrong. Diffraction cannot ever make smaller pixels perform worse than lager pixels. Physical impossibility.

This is actually a key factor in astrophotography resolution...we generally prefer to be *oversampled*, because objective measurements indicate that smaller pixels almost always produce higher resolution (measured as smaller stars, or to be more specific, smaller FWHM.) Ideal oversampling is when the pixels of the sensor are ~3.3x smaller than the best resolved spot that the optical system (which in astrophotography also includes the atmosphere) can deliver. Under ideal band limited conditions, we want to sample by 2x, which allows us to optimally reconstruct the original information perfectly with proper processing.

By terrestrial photographer standards, 2-3x oversampling to you guys would, based on the comments here, appear "very soft and blurry"...when in reality, under *measurement*, such data is actually better and resolving more detail. You guys just aren't familiar with the best techniques to make the most of oversampled data. Such as deconvolution...true deconvolution (NOT sharpening, sharpening is a totally different concept that is actually destructive in nature, whereas deconvolution is reconstructive in nature), using a PSF to reverse blurring caused by the lens...which can recover a significant amount of detail, and functions best when your data is *oversampled* (i.e. 50mp, 80mp, 100mp sensor), and worst when your data is undersampled (i.e. 21mp sensor). 

This is true for DSLRs, CCDs and CMOS cameas. Even with a low pass filter, one would have to be ludicrously strong on a small-pixel sensor to actually result in such significantly worse resolution that it was not as good as a sensor with larger pixels.


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > To properly compare a 50mp camera to a 21mp camera, you must first downsample the 50mp images to 21mp.
> ...



You misunderstand. To make an *effective comparison*, data must be normalized. I am not saying you have to downsample your images to use them. Although if you think about the most common distribution medium, the internet...normalization is generally implicit, as we share images so they fit on screen, which means they are downsampled, and most of the time we aren't sharing images at native size (certainly not these days...a 30, 40, 50 mp image doesn't fit on the average screen by any measure.) Even if you consider other common distribution medium...wedding albums and books, the affordable print, even larger sized prints...50mp is well more than necessary for an 11x24 or even a 20x30...so again, normalization is effectively imposed. Whether you use a 20, 30, 40, 50, or 100mp camera, if you share online or print anything smaller than a 20x30" print, the physical dimensions of the image are usually going to be roughly the same. 

Comparing non-normalized 5D III and 5Ds data to each other is comparing apples to oranges. The scale of the information is totally different. The noise and signal level of a 5Ds pixel represents a fraction of the noise and signal of a 5D III pixel. However if you combine the information from ~2.3 5Ds pixels...well now you have pixel noise and signals that are directly comparable to 5D III pixel noise and signals. The comparison now makes sense and can be understood.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2016)

jrista said:


> #1 Seems highly subjective.



As opposed to objective measurements like 'the 5DIII has unacceptable IQ'?




jrista said:


> By terrestrial photographer standards, 2-3x oversampling to you guys would, based on the comments here, appear "very soft and blurry"...when in reality, under *measurement*, such data is actually better and resolving more detail. You guys just aren't familiar with the best techniques to make the most of oversampled data. Such as deconvolution...true deconvolution (NOT sharpening, sharpening is a totally different concept that is actually destructive in nature, whereas deconvolution is reconstructive in nature), using a PSF to reverse blurring caused by the lens...which can recover a significant amount of detail, and functions best when your data is *oversampled* (i.e. 50mp, 80mp, 100mp sensor), and worst when your data is undersampled (i.e. 21mp sensor).



I always find it's better to empirically determine a PSF by imaging point sources of light at various depths through the focal range, rather than relying on a theoretical PSF, don't you? Oh, sorry, I forgot us guys aren't familiar with stuff like that. Who's Nyquist, anyway? Oh yeah, a horse. Didn't he win a race of some sort recently?


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > #1 Seems highly subjective.
> ...



When did I say anything about a *theoretical *PSF? I assume by that you mean a "synthetic PSF"? That would really be more of a configured Gaussian (or possibly Moffat or Lorentzian) spot, rather than a PSF. I use PSFs modeled from measuring actual point sources when doing deconvolution myself. That is the only way to get accurate enough deconvolution to avoid rabid artifacts and other issues that can arise during deconvolution.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 25, 2016)

jrista said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Thanks jrista for the clarification. Actually, I agree with you, but my terminology and frame of reference was a bit different which diverted my brain.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 25, 2016)

Can one get sharp images with the 80D?

I've attached a few screenshots in Lightroom where I zoomed in 300%:


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 25, 2016)

OK. I have a (for some might seem silly) question. Assuming I am doing a nighttime photo of the Milky Way or another astro-photography image, and assuming my options are a 14mm lens vs a 24mm lens with stitching, which would give me better IQ? I know that's a vague and broad question, but let's assume the same body and sensor is used with each lens and the same equivalent exposure and processing is used. Let's also assume that there are no DOF or focus variations between the two setups and both are done on a rock-solid set of legs. The only variable is the lens.

Seems to me that the total amount of information that is recorded is higher with a two-shot stitching exposure than a single shot single exposure after cropping makes them about the same. Therefore, would the two-shot stitched image (of course perfectly put togeter into a single image) have better resolution than a perfectly exposed single image? Or would any cropping make them about the same?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 26, 2016)

JPAZ said:


> OK. I have a (for some might seem silly) question. Assuming I am doing a nighttime photo of the Milky Way or another astro-photography image, and assuming my options are a 14mm lens vs a 24mm lens with stitching, which would give me better IQ? I know that's a vague and broad question, but let's assume the same body and sensor is used with each lens and the same equivalent exposure and processing is used. Let's also assume that there are no DOF or focus variations between the two setups and both are done on a rock-solid set of legs. The only variable is the lens.
> 
> Seems to me that the total amount of information that is recorded is higher with a two-shot stitching exposure than a single shot single exposure after cropping makes them about the same. Therefore, would the two-shot stitched image (of course perfectly put togeter into a single image) have better resolution than a perfectly exposed single image? Or would any cropping make them about the same?


Stitching results in a higher resolution file. Whether that translates into a more detailed representation of the subject depends on the quality of the lenses being compared, as well as what settings are being used.

FYI two shots with 24mm will not give you 14mm angle of view. Aspect ratio is 3:2 so you'd need a 20mm lens shot in counter-orientation, from which you can then trim to 14 or 15mm equivalent angle of view:


----------



## haggie (Nov 26, 2016)

What is the purpose of JPAZ asking the question about astro-photography in this thread?
There is no relation with the subject in this thread with that subject. 
Or is he just killing the interesting and informative replies about the 80D's IQ and IQ in general that keep coming?


----------



## JPAZ (Nov 26, 2016)

Gosh, sorry to make you think I was hijacking. Just a train of thought that came into my befuddled brain with all the discussion about picel sensitivity and density and because I do appreciate the knowlege of others. Have a great weekend.....


----------



## hbr (Nov 27, 2016)

YuengLinger,
Just trying to be helpful here so please take my random thoughts with a grain of salt.
For birding with my 7D Mark II I usually use my 400 mm f/5.6 L prime lens. That should be about the same as your 100-400mm lens wide open. With that lens, even in bright sunlight, there is noise in the photograph even at iso 100. There is virtually no noise in my pictures when I use my 70-200 mm f/2.8. Using the 400 mm on my 6D significantly has reduced noise. This leads me to believe that a crop sensor camera will always have more noise than a full frame camera settings being equal. I am not sure how DPAF affects the noise levels.

If you notice the black line in the right underside of the cormorant's throat and along the top of the heron's beak, I have found that is usually caused by chromatic aberration correction along with over sharpening. By reducing the sharpness of the photo I can usually get rid of that unless the CA is extreme. In both cases the CA was caused by blown out highlights.

IMHO the heron crop at 100% is way over sharpened. I usually keep the sharpening to a minimum during RAW processing and then do my final sharpening in the JPEG image.

Often I find the photos straight out of the camera to have too much contrast, so in RAW processing I usually have to reduce the brightness, contrast, shadows and highlights to get as much detail out of the blown out areas and then use curves to bring up the dark areas of the photo.

I have also noticed that if you can set the lens correction to a minimum, (assuming you are using this feature), you will decrease the noise by quite a bit. 

I do not know about comparing the photos to those of earlier camera bodies. but I don't think your photos looked too bad. The eyes of the cormorant were sharp and properly focused. As I said, I think the heron could be improved by reducing the sharpness.

Hope that helps.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2016)

haggie said:


> What is the purpose of JPAZ asking the question about astro-photography in this thread?
> There is no relation with the subject in this thread with that subject.
> Or is he just killing the interesting and informative replies about the 80D's IQ and IQ in general that keep coming?



Hey haggie HELP!!!, you are urgently needed over in this other thread, where the topic of a new Canon 85mm lens has degenerated into discussions of gapless microlenses and global shutters. Please put on your forum police sirens and get over there!!

: : :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2016)

Or maybe, since this is _your_ thread, you should just lock it or better yet delete it entirely before it goes further off the rails. 

By the way, welcome to the Internet!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 27, 2016)

WRT noise at ISO 100, what is the baseline for comparison?

Here are a couple of 300% crops at ISO 100. [size=14pt]*I don't have any complaints.*[/size]


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 28, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> WRT noise at ISO 100, what is the baseline for comparison?
> 
> Here are a couple of 300% crops at ISO 100. I don't have any complaints.



At first I was sure you were trying to be funny posting screen shots to make a point about IQ, but I'm beginning to wonder. :

Tried the 80D one more time, hopeful, open minded. Unfortunately, the last one I got had a sensor that appeared to be slightly misaligned, as lenses that were fine on other bodies had to be AFMA'd to high positive numbers. Not a single lens needed less than +6, I was as high as +17. (Right, not one in negative territory.) I'm guessing a little QC lapse here, as it seemed new, shipping and camera boxes were pristine...I've banged around bodies and not had this happen.

If you like your 80D, you can keep your 80D. Great on paper, adequate in person. I'd rather get close to the promised IQ in a smaller package, so...

Final result, Canon, is you've inspired me to explore the world of mirrorless, and I'm now taking a hard look at the Fuji X-T2. No, I wouldn't expect it to be excellent for shots of birds, but I really need something small, light, and with good IQ to have for family, travel, and the OCD photography I do every chance I get. 

Still love my full-frame Canon! But I'm not waiting around for Canon to release a mediocre mirrorless, then another one incrementally better, and so on.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 28, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > WRT noise at ISO 100, what is the baseline for comparison?
> ...



I thought he was posting screenshots to demonstrate noise at 100 ISO


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


I decided to post screenshots (which included the settings I was using) in order to be helpful. Settings like detail and masking if applied incorrectly will emphasize noise. Let me post another side-by-side comparison screenshot with "bad" settings to demonstrate the difference:


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 29, 2016)

davidj said:


> That's a shame. There was a comment in there by Mount Spokane Photography (I think) about the M5 being slightly disappointing by having the features of a P&S based on a read through of the manual, and I was keen to see that thought elaborated.



The M5 still retains the powershot firmware...that is the only thin g i am most concerned of. IMHO, it is creating problems that wouldn't exist if they just used the same rebel firmware the M1 did. And the UI is NOWHERE as fast as the m1. Stupid canon is stupid.


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 29, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I've found this to certain degree with the M3. The conversion profile on both DPP and ACR is far too aggressive IMO. I have been able to solve the problem to a certain degree by tweaking the curve profile before conversion.
> 
> I have found some of the files from the 5Ds / sr that I have down loaded to have similar characteristics.
> 
> Same thing with the brittleness on sharpening, I have to make sure that there is absolutely no pre raw sharpening going on in the background. Even then the M3 can produce a brittle picture when reduced down to normal viewing size and sometimes I'm putting a 0.2 pixel gaussian blur over it to get the result I want.




I found the m3 conversions to be, well, bizzare. I still have a couple of raws i use for reference every now and then: reminds me of the 6d in terms of low sharpness, and otherwise just kind of out to lunch with color and look. I felt like my rendering post techniques through 5 other canon bodies just dont work well with it at all.

Im glad i sent it back...all 3 of them.


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 29, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Can one get sharp images with the 80D?
> 
> I've attached a few screenshots in Lightroom where I zoomed in 300%:



Holey Moley that looks good. That is the sharpness i would expect out of ANY modern sensor + good lens combo.

That said, the low iso tonality and sharpness of my workhorse old T2i, continues to amaze me even to this day. My XSI is sharper by a good degree, but the t2i pictures just look BETTER.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Nov 29, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I decided to post screenshots (which included the settings I was using) in order to be helpful. Settings like detail and masking if applied incorrectly will emphasize noise. Let me post another side-by-side comparison screenshot with "bad" settings to demonstrate the difference:



The screenshots work for me. Thank you.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 6, 2016)

I've never had the need for really high ISO with the 80D. I've generally needed ISO 800 or less (Except with astro where I've been experimenting with shooting at ISO 5000). Anyway, I whimsically decided to see what ISO 16,000 looks like:



Canon EOS 80D at ISO 16000 by Omesh Singh, on Flickr

Here is a 100% crop which includes the settings I used:


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 6, 2016)

I forgot about the artficial light source... Initially just used the WB eyedropper. Here is a color corrected version:



Canon EOS 80D at ISO 16000 by Omesh Singh, on Flickr


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 7, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I forgot about the artficial light source... Initially just used the WB eyedropper. Here is a color corrected version:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon EOS 80D at ISO 16000 by Omesh Singh, on Flickr



Wow! I've not tried anything over 3200 with mine. Thanks for sharing.

I'd like to see your astro shots, too.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 8, 2016)

I've posted the Astro pictures over on another thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20392.msg638255#msg638255

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20392.msg638433#msg638433


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 8, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I've posted the Astro pictures over on another thread:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20392.msg638255#msg638255
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20392.msg638433#msg638433



I just viewed them, thanks. I may try my 70-200 the next time I have clear, dry air in a low light pollution place. And I definitely will try my Milvus 100/2.


----------

