80D noise performance posted on DPR

[Aglet]

I have to say the new 80D's noise performance is, for a Canon, pretty impressive.
It's even a little ahead of a MFT body you can get for about half the price.
So I'd deem that "good enough" - Finally!
Too darn expensive at the moment tho, won't likely swap any of my older EOS bodies for one of these until the price plummets.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

In Lightroom, there is a slider for pushing the shadows from 0-100%.
Don't know how many DR stops that is but when pushed to 100%, shadow noise from both the 80D and the A6300 is very similar.

The slider in the basic panel for shadows is adaptive to every individual image. The amount of shadow lifting changes depending on the scene. It's impossible to say how many stops it pushes because of this.

The slider for shadows in the tone curves is not adaptive and applies the exact same level of shadow lifting no matter what the image contains. That would probably be a better benchmark for figuring out the actual pushed value.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

Just my 2c: I know maybe a dozen or more enthusiast/advanced amateurs who do landscape and all but one use crop.

Entirely fair. Especially if long hikes are involved, I'd be doing the same.

I made the plunge to FF in 2012 and did not regret it. I made the move for a boatload of reasons, but in the landscaping front, I felt the FF UWA lenses were simply higher class than the crop ones. (As much as there are sharp UWA lenses for crop out there aplenty, not all of them are particularly well built and only a few are sealed).

But everyone invests their photography dollars differently. Some landscapers might value amassing a wide portfolio of glass, timelapse hardware, filtering options, etc. than pony up for a FF rig.

- A

True. The options for really good UWA lenses on crop cameras is really pathetic. There's always some sort of compromise to sharpness, speed, angle of view, flare, chromatic aberrations, etc. My favorite crop lens so far in terms of UWA is the Sigma 8-16. Pretty good, but still suffers from being slow in aperture, and it suffers from blobby purple flare galore in some cases.

It would be nice to see some f2.0 UWA lenses for crop cameras, or at the very least some more f2.8 lenses, so the camera can at least match an f4 FF lens.

 

[pj1974]

Just my 2c: I know maybe a dozen or more enthusiast/advanced amateurs who do landscape and all but one use crop.

Entirely fair. Especially if long hikes are involved, I'd be doing the same.

I made the plunge to FF in 2012 and did not regret it. I made the move for a boatload of reasons, but in the landscaping front, I felt the FF UWA lenses were simply higher class than the crop ones. (As much as there are sharp UWA lenses for crop out there aplenty, not all of them are particularly well built and only a few are sealed).

But everyone invests their photography dollars differently. Some landscapers might value amassing a wide portfolio of glass, timelapse hardware, filtering options, etc. than pony up for a FF rig.

- A

I find it interesting how various people speculate about FF (35mm) vs APS-C (crop).

My favourite genre of photography is landscape, and I use 2 x APS-C cameras – the 7D and 350D. But I also do a whole lot of other types of photography – wildlife, macro – as well as ‘events’ (e.g. camps, the occasional party, street, etc). I do not …yet… own FF, and who knows, maybe I never will.

The 80D’s improved DR at low ISOs, better noise control, etc compared to most (if not all) other current Canon APS-C sensors is very welcome. Though to be honest, I know the most appreciated photos are not ones that people pixel peep over.

I previously owned the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 UWA, which was very well built and wonderful IQ… pretty sharp corner to corner. (It had some AF inconsistencies, but for UWA it didn’t matter, I effectively used it as manual focus / MF). I considered the Canon 10-22mm, and a few other lenses back then. A few years back I upgraded to the Sigma 8-16mm which improved on the Sigma 10-20mm in every way.

My analysis of many FF UWA zooms (and even many primes) has me really appreciating how sharp many APS-C lenses are in the corners in comparison. Many UWA zooms these days present great choices for APS-C owners. While not all are weather sealed, I would state many are decent enough in quality – that the discerning multi-purpose photographer finds APS-C matched with UWAs really a good balance for landscape.

I provide informal photography training, including organising outings for people to get together, learn and practice. Of all these events I have organised over the years, only 2 people have had FFs. (1 x Nikon D800 and 1x Canon 1DsmkIII). A breakdown of the other types of camera would be something like this: Canon DSLRs (35%), Nikon DSLRs (35%) and a remaining 25% Point & Shoot / bridge cameras… a variety of brands. Have only had 1 Sony mirrorless.

I agree with what Dilbert wrote above. Many people do not buy/use one camera for purpose X, and then have/use another camera for purpose Y. APS-C bodies … and particularly lenses, are much more affordable to reach ‘the very high quality’ level. Plus, getting that extra reach is very welcome (e.g. on Saturday I was getting ‘closer’ images at a zoo with my 70-300mm on my 7D, than the 8 people who had FF cameras and 100-400mm / Nikon 200-400mm cameras).

Nothing against, FF… maybe one day I will own a FF DSLR (or mirrorless)- but at this stage, my APS-C camera really suits me well. I look forward to seeing how the 80D early adopters find it, and will definitely read many reviews… consider if I might buy it…. Well done Canon.

(And thanks all for reading my long post!)

Regards…

Paul 8)

 

[ahsanford]

Just my 2c: I know maybe a dozen or more enthusiast/advanced amateurs who do landscape and all but one use crop.

Entirely fair. Especially if long hikes are involved, I'd be doing the same.

I made the plunge to FF in 2012 and did not regret it. I made the move for a boatload of reasons, but in the landscaping front, I felt the FF UWA lenses were simply higher class than the crop ones. (As much as there are sharp UWA lenses for crop out there aplenty, not all of them are particularly well built and only a few are sealed).

But everyone invests their photography dollars differently. Some landscapers might value amassing a wide portfolio of glass, timelapse hardware, filtering options, etc. than pony up for a FF rig.

- A

I find it interesting how various people speculate about FF (35mm) vs APS-C (crop).
[truncated]

Good thoughts. Paul and Dilbert make a fair point that people use their rigs a jillion ways, and Crop and FF don't necessarily lock you out from entire types of photography.

And I always forget -- there already is a killer UWA lens out there for crop! The EF 11-24mm is effectively a 18-38mm zoom on crop, which is perfectly suitable for landscapers. That's a totally reasonable combo. :

In all seriousness, I've heard crop landscapers speak highly of Tokina lenses for UWA purposes -- here's a read from one I follow at another blog on that topic:
https://www.slrlounge.com/tokina-11-20mm-f2-8-dx-review/

- A

 

[pj1974]

Just my 2c: I know maybe a dozen or more enthusiast/advanced amateurs who do landscape and all but one use crop.

Entirely fair. Especially if long hikes are involved, I'd be doing the same.

I made the plunge to FF in 2012 and did not regret it. I made the move for a boatload of reasons, but in the landscaping front, I felt the FF UWA lenses were simply higher class than the crop ones. (As much as there are sharp UWA lenses for crop out there aplenty, not all of them are particularly well built and only a few are sealed).

But everyone invests their photography dollars differently. Some landscapers might value amassing a wide portfolio of glass, timelapse hardware, filtering options, etc. than pony up for a FF rig.

- A

I find it interesting how various people speculate about FF (35mm) vs APS-C (crop).
[truncated]

Good thoughts. Paul and Dilbert make a fair point that people use their rigs a jillion ways, and Crop and FF don't necessarily lock you out from entire types of photography.

And I always forget -- there already is a killer UWA lens out there for crop! The EF 11-24mm is effectively a 18-38mm zoom on crop, which is perfectly suitable for landscapers. That's a totally reasonable combo. :

In all seriousness, I've heard crop landscapers speak highly of Tokina lenses for UWA purposes -- here's a read from one I follow at another blog on that topic:
https://www.slrlounge.com/tokina-11-20mm-f2-8-dx-review/

- A

Yes, that Tokina is a great lens, ahsanford, particularly for lower light situations as it is f/2.8. It's sharp and well built. Though the Canon 11-24mm is a king lens (.. ha ha... overkill for a APS-C!)

Actually, there are many good options for APS-C UWA zooms available nowadays. When I first got my 350D, there were many fewer options.

I decided to go with the Sigma 8-16 as my preference is for as wide as I can (it is 12.8mm FF equivalent) - and with great sharpness and contrast across the frame (which it does!)

Here are 2 reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/8-16mm-f4.5-5.6-dc-hsm/review/

Regards,

Paul 8)

 

[Aglet]

My analysis of many FF UWA zooms (and even many primes) has me really appreciating how sharp many APS-C lenses are in the corners in comparison. Many UWA zooms these days present great choices for APS-C owners. While not all are weather sealed, I would state many are decent enough in quality – that the discerning multi-purpose photographer finds APS-C matched with UWAs really a good balance for landscape.

+1
I have really good ladnscape results from crop bodies and UWA zooms; often with better corner performance than what I was getting with bigger and pricier FF rigs.
I now use 14-24mm on a FF Nikon and will be added a 7-14mm for MFT when I want to travel really light.

Recent MFT bodies have had better low ISO sensor performance than Canon crop bodies, up until the new 80D, so are quite adequate even for the fussier pixel-peepers among us.

 

[Warren21]

As someone who currently owns a T4i and EOS M (pretty much the same camera sensor & IQ), the 80D is definitely my number one consideration for my next crop body.

The question then becomes, what do I buy between the 6D and 80D, when my only FF lenses are the 40mm 2.8 STM and 50mm 1.8 STM... And, is it worth even investing in a 6D when the 6DII is rumoured later this year? I really want to try an 80D but I feel it's foolish to spend the same money on it when I can get an FF instead. They're the same price here in Canada.

 

[ahsanford]

As someone who currently owns a T4i and EOS M (pretty much the same camera sensor & IQ), the 80D is definitely my number one consideration for my next crop body.

The question then becomes, what do I buy between the 6D and 80D, when my only FF lenses are the 40mm 2.8 STM and 50mm 1.8 STM... And, is it worth even investing in a 6D when the 6DII is rumoured later this year? I really want to try an 80D but I feel it's foolish to spend the same money on it when I can get an FF instead. They're the same price here in Canada.

That, my good man, is the seed of many, threads on this forum: should my next new body stay in crop or move to FF? My short answer: it really depends on what you shoot, if you plan to keep your old crop gear afterwards, and how much money you have to spend.

To me, FF principally gets you better low light performance and shallower DOF (for a given aperture) compared to crop. Crop gives you reach, keeps size and weight down, and it costs less money (all things considered -- crop has the option to buy affordable EF-S lenses, FF does not).

In the specific question you raised, an 80D is bristling with features (DPAF, strong video, better AF, DPAF, tilty-flippy screen, higher burst) whereas the 6D1 is the 'gateway drug' body to get you hooked on what an FF sensor can do.

But not knowing what you shoot and how you shoot it, it's hard to say which is a better call for you.

- A

 

[Warren21]

That, my good man, is the seed of many, threads on this forum: should my next new body stay in crop or move to FF? My short answer: it really depends on what you shoot, if you plan to keep your old crop gear afterwards, and how much money you have to spend.

To me, FF principally gets you better low light performance and shallower DOF (for a given aperture) compared to crop. Crop gives you reach, keeps size and weight down, and it costs less money (all things considered -- crop has the option to buy affordable EF-S lenses, FF does not).

In the specific question you raised, an 80D is bristling with features (DPAF, strong video, better AF, DPAF, tilty-flippy screen, higher burst) whereas the 6D1 is the 'gateway drug' body to get you hooked on what an FF sensor can do.

But not knowing what you shoot and how you shoot it, it's hard to say which is a better call for you.

- A

Totally know what you mean. I do a little bit of everything.

I just discovered photography about a year ago and have quickly discovered it's something I'd like to turn into a profession/career. I'm leaning more toward weddings/portraits in that sense, and as such FF is a no-brainer. I still have much to learn, but I feel I have mastered my T4i and know it's limitations pretty well. It's been a great beginner camera, and realistically I'll probably keep it as a second body.

Some of the aforementioned limitations are pretty frustrating though. Things such as no AFMA, being limited to around 1600 ISO for usable shots and the viewfinder is really tiny too.

My only real reasons for wanting to stay with crop is that my lenses are currently:

EF-S 10-18 IS STM
EF-S 24 STM
EF 40 STM
EF 50 1.8 STM
EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM -- really love this lens.
EF-S 18-55 IS STM
EF-S 18-135 IS STM
EF-S 55-250 IS STM

I've got a pretty solid kit in terms of EF-S lenses and I doubt there is much of a resale value in selling them off. The 18-55 STM is the only one I don't really care for, but I got it for free.

I feel like the 80D would only help me get even more from the equipment I already have. With the 6D I'd want to get nicer glass to go with it, but I'd be stuck with my 40/50 for a long while, at least until I get a 70-200 F/4 L IS, which is a lens I've debated buying first before switching to FF.

 

[ahsanford]

I do a little bit of everything.

I just discovered photography about a year ago and have quickly discovered it's something I'd like to turn into a profession/career. I'm leaning more toward weddings/portraits in that sense, and as such FF is a no-brainer. I still have much to learn, but I feel I have mastered my T4i and know it's limitations pretty well. It's been a great beginner camera, and realistically I'll probably keep it as a second body.

[truncated]

My only real reasons for wanting to stay with crop is that my lenses are currently:

[truncated -- many EF-S lenses and two EF lenses]

I made a crazy jump from a T1i to a 5D3 in 2012 and absolutely loved it, but that was a cake-and-eat-it-too upgrade in which everything got categorically better. I felt like I had replaced my Honda with a Mercedes.

What really sold it for me (besides, well, everything) was a 5D3 rental tryout coupled with my already having bought two EF f/2.8L zooms. Both Ls felt more naturally balanced on the beefier body, and, critically, the 24-70 f/2.8 had a wide enough wide end on FF that I thought better suited me.

You have a tough call to make. But as an enthusiast and not a pro, I need to step back and let the pros on this forum speak up. But definitely rent before you buy on major decisions. That's a best practice that has never let me down.

- A

 

[Aglet]

.. But definitely rent before you buy on major decisions. That's a best practice that has never let me down.

FWIW, I've found I could buy, use/try for quite a while, and resell, for much less than renting for a couple weeks.
Canon gear has a knack for holding resale value very well.

 

[nhz]

I find it interesting how various people speculate about FF (35mm) vs APS-C (crop).

My favourite genre of photography is landscape, and I use 2 x APS-C cameras – the 7D and 350D. But I also do a whole lot of other types of photography – wildlife, macro – as well as ‘events’ (e.g. camps, the occasional party, street, etc). I do not …yet… own FF, and who knows, maybe I never will.

The 80D’s improved DR at low ISOs, better noise control, etc compared to most (if not all) other current Canon APS-C sensors is very welcome. Though to be honest, I know the most appreciated photos are not ones that people pixel peep over.

...

I provide informal photography training, including organising outings for people to get together, learn and practice. Of all these events I have organised over the years, only 2 people have had FFs. (1 x Nikon D800 and 1x Canon 1DsmkIII). A breakdown of the other types of camera would be something like this: Canon DSLRs (35%), Nikon DSLRs (35%) and a remaining 25% Point & Shoot / bridge cameras… a variety of brands. Have only had 1 Sony mirrorless.

I agree with what Dilbert wrote above. Many people do not buy/use one camera for purpose X, and then have/use another camera for purpose Y. APS-C bodies … and particularly lenses, are much more affordable to reach ‘the very high quality’ level. Plus, getting that extra reach is very welcome (e.g. on Saturday I was getting ‘closer’ images at a zoo with my 70-300mm on my 7D, than the 8 people who had FF cameras and 100-400mm / Nikon 200-400mm cameras).

Agree with your post and the one from Dilbert and a few others. I shoot landscape and nature/wildlife/macro images, and while FF seems attractive for the landscape photography (mostly because of better lens options and because the FF cameras offer some extra options that I value) APS-C can be a suitable compromise because it smaller, lighter, cheaper and in theory only a bit more than one stop behind in noise etc. (and a Nikon D7200 would still be better than a 6D at low ISO ...). Even though I have the money for a separate FF system, I don't want to carry all that gear and prefer one camera for 'everything'.

Reading the forums like DPR or fredmiranda one could get the impression that almost every 'pro' or serious enthusiast uses an FF camera (or at least a 7D2) with lenses costing the equivalent of a small car. However, these users (some of them excellent photographers without a doubt) are not representative for the average user.
I have met quite a few local wildlife enthusiasts lately; none of them used a FF camera and very few use the really expensive big guns; mostly it is Canon Rebel and xxD series cameras with relatively affordable long L lenses (4/300IS, 5.6/400 etc.). Maybe the US is different because there are more people with way too much money there ;-)

Landscape photography certainly has more FF users but still, I'm pretty sure they are a minority. Sometimes when I spot people with expensive FF rigs I get the impression that they are equivalent to the photographers I would meet in my historic hometown many years ago, walking around with the latest Hasselblad with a chunky piece of Zeiss glass in front and clearly wondering what to do with their camera ;-(

Despite the improvements in APS-C SWA zooms over the years I still think there is a need for 1-2 high quality SWA primes, if possible with large aperture (for DOF control) and not too big/heavy, like a really good f/2.8 15mm. Lately there is quite some action in FF SWA primes but nothing interesting for APS-C :-(

As to the 80D, it clearly is a more general purpose camera than the 7D2 and as such it should appeal to a large audience, including some of those who would consider a 7D2. But I'm disappointed that the sensor quality is still significantly behind D7200 (especially at low ISO), a camera that is more or less a direct competitor in features and about 300 euros cheaper over here ... for my landscape photography that extra 1.5 stop DR on the D7200 is pretty big (that's more than the gain in noise/DR performance by going to FF ...).

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think it's certainly a step forwards for Canon. The 80D isn't a camera which I'd buy, but I'm certainly looking forwards to seeing this sensor design tech flowing into other cameras in Canon's range. I think the future is bright for cams like the 5D4 / 5D4R and 1DXII.

 

[scyrene]

In Lightroom, there is a slider for pushing the shadows from 0-100%.
Don't know how many DR stops that is but when pushed to 100%, shadow noise from both the 80D and the A6300 is very similar.

The slider in the basic panel for shadows is adaptive to every individual image. The amount of shadow lifting changes depending on the scene. It's impossible to say how many stops it pushes because of this.

The slider for shadows in the tone curves is not adaptive and applies the exact same level of shadow lifting no matter what the image contains. That would probably be a better benchmark for figuring out the actual pushed value.

That's really useful to know, thanks!

 

[IglooEater]

Just my 2c: I know maybe a dozen or more enthusiast/advanced amateurs who do landscape and all but one use crop.

Entirely fair. Especially if long hikes are involved, I'd be doing the same.

I made the plunge to FF in 2012 and did not regret it. I made the move for a boatload of reasons, but in the landscaping front, I felt the FF UWA lenses were simply higher class than the crop ones. (As much as there are sharp UWA lenses for crop out there aplenty, not all of them are particularly well built and only a few are sealed).

But everyone invests their photography dollars differently. Some landscapers might value amassing a wide portfolio of glass, timelapse hardware, filtering options, etc. than pony up for a FF rig.

- A

To be fair to my point, I forgot to mention that every landscaper I know would love to go FF. But $ is the No 1 reason they don't. I myself might someday if I can find away around losing apparent focal length for bif.

 

[wsmith96]

Totally know what you mean. I do a little bit of everything.

I just discovered photography about a year ago and have quickly discovered it's something I'd like to turn into a profession/career. I'm leaning more toward weddings/portraits in that sense, and as such FF is a no-brainer. I still have much to learn, but I feel I have mastered my T4i and know it's limitations pretty well. It's been a great beginner camera, and realistically I'll probably keep it as a second body.

Some of the aforementioned limitations are pretty frustrating though. Things such as no AFMA, being limited to around 1600 ISO for usable shots and the viewfinder is really tiny too.

My only real reasons for wanting to stay with crop is that my lenses are currently:

EF-S 10-18 IS STM
EF-S 24 STM
EF 40 STM
EF 50 1.8 STM
EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM -- really love this lens.
EF-S 18-55 IS STM
EF-S 18-135 IS STM
EF-S 55-250 IS STM

I've got a pretty solid kit in terms of EF-S lenses and I doubt there is much of a resale value in selling them off. The 18-55 STM is the only one I don't really care for, but I got it for free.

I feel like the 80D would only help me get even more from the equipment I already have. With the 6D I'd want to get nicer glass to go with it, but I'd be stuck with my 40/50 for a long while, at least until I get a 70-200 F/4 L IS, which is a lens I've debated buying first before switching to FF.

I'm in your shoes, but a little further along in the transition as I now have a 6D. With your desire to pursue weddings and portraits, and using an 80D, I would recommend adding/upgrading some of you kit with a 60mm macro and a 70-200 f2.8 mk ii.

The 17-55 and 70-200 will cover you during wedding day and the and 60 would cover portraits. Unfortunately that 70-200 is expensive, but worth the money. The 60 can be found used or refurbished for a good price.

I do understand the desire to go FF for your style of photography. If you are not opposed to canon refurbished products, I bought a 6D for $899 last November from them. The sales are there - just have to wait for them. For the shooting that I do, I miss the articulated screen and my 6D seems to focus slower than my 60D. YMMV.

 

[ahsanford]

To be fair to my point, I forgot to mention that every landscaper I know would love to go FF. But $ is the No 1 reason they don't. I myself might someday if I can find away around losing apparent focal length for bif.

Unless you *need* FF for either access to a higher quality U-UWA FF lens or are shooting astro, one could argue that you'd do just fine with a crop rig for landscapes. I know I'm reversing my course a bit here, but if you are shooting landscapes on a tripod at ISO 100, FF isn't doing you any any huge favors. Further, 'nicer' crop cameras have a lot of the same ergonomics / menus / top LCD panel / bracketing options / HDR capture that my 5D3 has now.

And as far as glass goes, the selections of U-UWA lenses for crop has improved dramatically. Back when I was shooting crop, it was a host of '6 out of 10' lenses, but as I wanted reliable first party AF for use as a wider walkaround, it really was the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM or bust for me. Now, there are more options.

- A

 

[tron]

To be fair to my point, I forgot to mention that every landscaper I know would love to go FF. But $ is the No 1 reason they don't. I myself might someday if I can find away around losing apparent focal length for bif.

Unless you *need* FF for either access to a higher quality U-UWA FF lens or are shooting astro, one could argue that you'd do just fine with a crop rig for landscapes. I know I'm reversing my course a bit here, but if you are shooting landscapes on a tripod at ISO 100, FF isn't doing you any any huge favors. Further, 'nicer' crop cameras have a lot of the same ergonomics / menus / top LCD panel / bracketing options / HDR capture that my 5D3 has now.

And as far as glass goes, the selections of U-UWA lenses for crop has improved dramatically. Back when I was shooting crop, it was a host of '6 out of 10' lenses, but as I wanted reliable first party AF for use as a wider walkaround, it really was the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM or bust for me. Now, there are more options.

- A

The 10-22 is a very nice lens. I had enjoyed it with a 40D back at 2008. Unfortunately this set was stolen (among other lenses). Then I switched to FF since I had many FF lenses from the analog EOS era...

 

[jblake]

I am not sure why so many people think think you must be able to push shadows to +5 EV.

I have never pushed shadows more than +1.5EV or so in ACR.

If you look at the "Raw DR: Exposure Latitude Image comparison tool" on the DPReview site, you will see that there is no difference between the D7200 and the 80D up to +2EV. And even at +3EV, the difference is moot.

+3EV is way more than I will ever push any camera's shadows. I currently own the 7D2 and have owned the 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, 6D, 70D, D7100, D800E and the D750; never needed to push shadows on any of those bodies anywhere near +2EV, but that is just me.