Canon 70d RAW Samples

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#42
I just did my own comparison of sample pictures over at dpReview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/10; it is a nice tool they have there).

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

So right now I'm pleased with what I have seen from the 70D. Of course, these were studio shots and real life is still a bit different. I'm also looking forward to the DXOMark results. Usually the Canons fare much worse there then in real life tests. But what is more important, good results in a synthetic test, or good pictures out in the field? It is like buying loudspeakers, the best test results with synthetic noise do not mean much, if the real music does not sound right.
 
Upvote 0
#43
aj1575 said:
I just did my own comparison of sample pictures over at dpReview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-70d/10; it is a nice tool they have there).

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

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

I don't know what you're looking at but the D7100 has less noise at low iso than the 7D. This is especially evident in lines K-L of the color thingy (columns 3-4 and 14 to 19).
 
Upvote 0
#44
Sensor & Electronics Cooling

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

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

OR:

Maybe a little orifice - similar to those found on steam irons used for ironing clothes have - bearing the inscription : "Pour LN2 Here -->" !
 
Upvote 0
#45
mountain_drew said:
I don't know what you're looking at but the D7100 has less noise at low iso than the 7D. This is especially evident in lines K-L of the color thingy (columns 3-4 and 14 to 19).
Click to expand...

I've seen it now. I did not look at low ISO samples that close, but you are right. The difference is ore evident in RAW than in JPEG. I also think the pokercard is also an interesting part to look at (queen, in the middle, a little bit in the upper half).
But still, it is quite obvious that the Canons pull ahead at higher ISOs, especially with JPEGs.
 
Upvote 0
#46
aj1575 said:
I've seen it now. I did not look at low ISO samples that close, but you are right. The difference is ore evident in RAW than in JPEG. I also think the pokercard is also an interesting part to look at (queen, in the middle, a little bit in the upper half).
But still, it is quite obvious that the Canons pull ahead at higher ISOs, especially with JPEGs.
Click to expand...

That appears to to be the case, yes. Low ISO performance has been important to me ever since I took a sky picture and I had to do some noise reduction on the clouds... at ISO 100!!
 
Upvote 0
#48
First, let me just say that I sympathize with everyone who wants as much high ISO performance as they can get. Low noise in low light is important to a lot of us. At the same time, I'm a bit surprised at the sour responses to "not that much of an improvement" in the 70D's noise performance.

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

Cheers...
 
Upvote 0
#49
Famateur said:
One last thought: Noise performance is important. We always want as high of image quality as possible, especially for a truly fantastic shot. Thankfully, we have pretty effective noise reduction tools available in post processing. So far, I haven't seen any similar tools for correcting missed focus nearly as well (sharpening might help a little for softness, but doesn't cut it for a truly missed focus), and I don't expect to any time soon. I'd much rather get a fantastic shot because my AF was fast and accurate and then have to apply a little noise reduction than to have another stop better ISO performance and have to throw out a shot because the AF couldn't keep up.
Click to expand...

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

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

BTW, there is no principal difference between trying to "remove noise" and trying to sharpen a soft image - it is all loss of high-frequency detail.
 
Upvote 0
#50
mountain_drew said:
That appears to to be the case, yes. Low ISO performance has been important to me ever since I took a sky picture and I had to do some noise reduction on the clouds... at ISO 100!!
Click to expand...

The biggest flaw of the 7D.

I just can't get excited about 1.6x "upgrades". If people want improved noise and DR, go full frame. It's there, within reach.
 
Upvote 0
#53
Pi said:
Speaking about fast - how fast is the new dual pixel AF on the 70D?

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Well, I guess there's the Lightfield camera, or whatever, but getting that technology into a capable DSLR probably ain't gonna happen any time soon. Canon should have a new sensor before then...right? :o
 
Upvote 0
#54
I think it makes sense that 70D is targeted for videographers while 7D is for still photos, especially fast action. So I hope 7D Mark ii has a new sensor WITHOUT Dual Pixel AF ::). This makes possible the most significant improvements in high ISO noise. Hopefully Canon listen to our prayers ...
 
Upvote 0
#58
vlim said:
the 70D looks much more better in terms of image results compared to the 60D or 7D... i like its sharpness :)
Click to expand...

Yeah as expected, it is crisper than the 7D in particular (7D had heavy green splitting, although we need to make sure that the pre-release RAW converters for the 70D are doing any anti-mazing processing if necessary before we are sure).
 
Upvote 0
#59
vlim said:
the 70D looks much more better in terms of image results compared to the 60D or 7D... i like its sharpness :)
Click to expand...

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

Plus since nobody saw that sharpness increase in previous studio sample shots vs. the 18mp sensor, it's possible Canon came up with some way to "enhance" the edge contrast even in raw, maybe in combination with the dual af pixels, it's a consumer camera after all so some "tweaking" is allowed.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GirlsAreBeautiful
From 5D Mark III to R5 Mark II - photographer review - first 1 month and a half - 12k shots
Replies
31
Views
3K
GirlsAreBeautiful
GirlsAreBeautiful
jasonrohrer
Which Canon DSLR works best for manually-focused EF lenses through the optical viewfinder?
Replies
37
Views
17K
jasonrohrer
jasonrohrer
S
135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2
Replies
24
Views
11K
Loswr
L
Canon Rumors
Interview: Canon engineers talk Canon EOS R development
Replies
84
Views
29K
SaP34US
SaP34US
C
R5 - What Canon can improve for pros.
Replies
32
Views
13K
AlanF
AlanF
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu