Canon EOS 80D Talk [CR1]

[Sporgon]

I was processing some old 5D files on my latest computer and it was so sweet. Ping, and it was done. The files I've seen from the 5Ds have been better than I expected - even at small enlargement and with any lenses, but is the compromise of much greater storage space and slower processing worth it for those that shoot hundreds of frames at an event ? I'm still not sure.

Would the majority of xxD users really want 34 MP ? I'd be surprised. Half makes me wonder if Canon isn't putting a little misinformation out there.

 

[gsealy]

I look at the 70D as an advanced, upscaled Rebel. I have a 650D (T4i Rebel) and I use the heck out of it for all sorts of things even though I have other more expensive Canon cameras. But the 70D is a step up from it. I have been impressed with the videos shot with the 70D and the DPAF truly has been a game changer. I always recommend the 70D to friends of mine because it seems to be so versatile, has fairly good quality, and yet not too expensive. I do think that many posters have the right idea in that a lot more MP in a 80D is not as useful and valuable as better ISO performance. The 70D has been marketed by Canon as a video/movie creation machine. So it seems to me that it would be best to be able to create great video in more varied conditions. It is harder to get rid of noise in video than it is in a single photograph. So why not reduce the noise in the first place so that consumers can shoot better indoor birthday parties and other events?

 

[ahsanford]

If true (this is a CR1 after all), I see this as a major step up in prominence for the 80D. Consider, the 70D was more of a tech showcase as the first DPAF camera, but it sat clearly behind the (later-released) 7D2 in virtually every respect: burst, build quality, AF system, etc. It was a very solid but not best in class product.

But if this 80D announcement turns out to be true: it is almost like saying the 7D2 is to the 1DX the same way the 80D is to the 5DS. The 80D will become the high detail rig for APS-C while the 7D2 will be the all-action rig.

Though, perhaps Canon might do this not to stand out detail-wise over the 7D2 so much as have a clear as day MP count spec bump (whether we want it or not) over the new 24 MP Rebels. Perhaps Canon would do jack up the 80D resolution simply to substantiate it's asking price over the Rebels.

- A

 

[9VIII]

Did everyone just skip over this section of the interview yesterday?

MM: What is your need or preference in terms of higher pixel numbers or a higher sensitivity?

DE: Hmm, that's a fair question. I kind of want both, too. So maybe two cameras, but most of the time I don’t do a lot of fine-art photography where I'd feel the need for a lot of resolution. My shots are honestly more just snapshots and things these days. And more often, I wish that I had cleaner images at very high ISO -- so available light in a restaurant, out after dark -- more often I want that than a lot of megapixels. But on the other hand, if I’m on vacation and shooting landscapes, I want lots of pixels then. If I had to choose just one, though, I would maybe have a 12-megapixel camera with very big pixels.

MM: That is very nice. Please buy both. <laughter>

We all know Canon is going to produce high megapixel cameras, but it sounds like everyone here is shocked and disgusted when one is rumored, I bet you all hate the A7RII and think the positive press around the Samsung NX1 is just hogwash...
Ok you probably actually do, but at least it shouldn't be surprising.

My body is ready.
Give me ALL THE MEGAPIXELS!!!


(Edit: It makes more sense to quote the whole thing in one shot)

 

[9VIII]

But if this 80D announcement turns out to be true: it is almost like saying the 7D2 is to the 1DX the same way the 80D is to the 5DS. The 80D will become the high detail rig for APS-C while the 7D2 will be the all-action rig.

Yes, that was my first thought.

 

[[email protected]]

Canon has strategic interest in the market moving to higher MP

If Canon can pull it off without loosing too much in noise/image quality, it is very much in their interests to push the required megapixel perceptions.

I'll side-step the debate as to whether more pixels are good or bad (they're good for me), but just point out that with Canon's data transfer rates allowing for 10 frames per second on their second-tier cameras, Nikon cannot compete yet in this realm.

If they are able to build demand for 50mp cameras that shoot 8 fps - which is roughly double the data rate of the 7D2, Nikon could be sunk in sports/action/wildlife. If they build demand for 120mp cameras shooting 3.5 fps, then Nikon has difficulty in a dozen other fields.

So, while I like more megapixels, Canon's interests are best served pushing them on us regardless of utility.

This also has implications for mirrorless considerations. Competitors may see video frame grabbing or rapid mirrorless virtual shutters as an answer to their inability to capture many frames per second in an SLR, the compromise being low megapixel files. To the degree Canon sells high MP as a benefit, it delays that trend's acceptance.

 

[Ardo]

and if it were APSH?
more mpx are needed for competition with smartphone, lvl entry DSLR (next generation Canon XXXD ) need to stay ahead

sorry for my english

 

[ahsanford]

I, for one, have always questioned the value in having so many price points in SLRs:

XXXXD = Budget
XXXD = Rebel
XXD = Enthusiast
7D = Prosumer (for the reach/AF/burst obsessed)
6D = Prosumer (for the FF IQ obsessed)
5D = Pro
1D = Flagship

And I think we'd all agree that the bold items above are necessary for Canon as a business, but I've often thought that the XXD line is a bit of an odd duck that Canon might not necessarily need. I realize there are a boatload of enthusiasts on this site that would disagree with me, but ask yourself:

• Will people leave Canon if there isn't an $1,100-ish mid/high-level crop option between the the Rebels and the APS-C 'pro' 7D2?
  
• 
  Does Canon sell a great deal of XXD rigs? Many more serious starting photographers upgrading over their first Rebels these days are likely getting a 7D2 or possibly a bargain 6D (whose price really plummeted).
  
• It used to be that the XXD was a Rebel + top LCD and back wheel ergonomics + AFMA + slightly higher burst. But the Rebel 760D has ever-so-slightly walked upmarket into some of those features.
  
  

I just wonder how badly Canon needs an 80D to fit a price point, to help sell more EF glass, etc. One could argue that 4 APS-C price points aren't needed and the 80D might be a project to skip in favor of something else (a dedicated astro rig at a juicy markup, a low MP FF rig expressly for low-light & video a la the a7S line, etc.).

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

34mp in apsc… that can't be anything but bad :-\

Bad for photos, good for Canon sales and profits. Zillions of consumers will bite, thinking it will actually somehow make their photos better.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon has strategic interest in the market moving to higher MP

If they are able to build demand for 50mp cameras that shoot 8 fps - which is roughly double the data rate of the 7D2, Nikon could be sunk in sports/action/wildlife.

Nikon is losing the APS-C wildlife crowd because Canon offers a top-line 'mini-1DX' product line that is rather beastly from an AF, burst and build quality perspective and Nikon does not offer a similar price point camera. It's as simple as that.

For whatever reason, and this is no knock on a fine D7200 rig, Nikon would rather offer Budget / 'Rebel' / Enthusiast in APS-C and call it good. Canon sees the 7D line as a big white lens pullthrough opportunity and continues to support a 'pro' APS-C rig, and it's absolutely the right call.

So data throughput is important, but I believe Canon dominates this segment simply because they chose to show up and compete.

- A

 

[9VIII]

...Zillions of consumers will bite, thinking it will actually somehow make their photos better.

And in certain situations they'd be right.
Just because a camera isn't made for you doesn't mean it's useless.

Quite frankly having this discussion about the 80D is kind of silly, that's well above "consumer level", if you're going to pretend to look out for consumers you should be complaining that there isn't a 12MP Rebel.
Not to mention if you want low light performance looking to a crop sensor is just a waste of your time. You can have a 6D for the same amount of money. The low light crowd is well served, high density sensors are actually something new as opposed to serving the same crowd that Canon has been tightly focused on for nearly a decade now.

 

[LonelyBoy]

34mp in apsc… that can't be anything but bad :-\

How many would have said that about 20-24mpx a decade ago?

 

[ahsanford]

34mp in apsc… that can't be anything but bad :-\

How many would have said that about 20-24mpx a decade ago?

That might have been due to Canon jamming 18 MP sensors into every APS-C body for (seemingly) a decade. :

- A

 

[endiendo]

I don't understand the people complaining about too big files..
hey, when you buy a 2000$ camera with one or more 800$ lenses.. what is the problem when you need a few harddrives of a few To for.. say 250 $..
and. what is the problem to buy a decent top-computer (core i7, 16 gb ram, 256 gb ssd) that costs 1200 $ (without screen) ?

Many have a total of 4000 or 5000 $ photo equipment.. and complaining about buying 300$ - 10 To storage ? hey, come on guys...

If you are not happy with that, stay with a 8 Mpx point and shoot.. and only jpg..

 

[9VIII]

I don't understand the people complaining about too big files..
hey, when you buy a 2000$ camera with one or more 800$ lenses.. what is the problem when you need a few harddrives of a few To for.. say 250 $..
and. what is the problem to buy a decent top-computer (core i7, 16 gb ram, 256 gb ssd) that costs 1200 $ (without screen) ?

Many have a total of 4000 or 5000 $ photo equipment.. and complaining about buying 300$ - 10 To storage ? hey, come on guys...

If you are not happy with that, stay with a 8 Mpx point and shoot.. and only jpg..

The issue is that when a professional comes home with thousands of photos, transfer and processing speed is of critical importance. I've read that a lot of people actually store every single photo that they keep, some of them with redundancy, and are basically perpetually buying hard drives.
So double the file size could mean wasting eight hours a week waiting for transfers/processing instead of four, and spending $1,000 a year on hard drives instead of $500 a year (I have no idea what the actual figures are, but hard drives haven't come down in price for the last five years, so I know the situation isn't good).
From a business perspective large files are a horrible thing.

But that doesn't change the rest of my points, that we already have great cameras for professionals, and a 34MP 80D would be something entirely new, and there is a market for it.
People around here just like to imagine that Canon is going to put the 5Ds sensor in every body from here on out so that they can rage about it.

 

[rrcphoto]

We’ve received a lot of mentions in regards to a replacement of the EOS 70D, which was announced in July of 2013. None of the specifications lists we’ve received seem all that likely, so we’re writing those ones off.</p>
<p>What we do know is we should expect a big megapixel increase over the 20.2mp of the Canon EOS 70D. We’ve been told by a good source that the camera will likely sit between 28 – 34mp when the final specs are decided upon.

I get a sneaking suspicion that canon feels they made a sensor breakthrough in this upcoming sensor generation.

canon very rarely releases a camera with worse image quality, even though per pixel quality may be at par. if they feel they can make the jump from 24-> 32mp and maintain the per pixel, that's good news. means per image will most certainly increase because of it.

I have no qualms about more pixels - bring them on!

for those that complain .. learn how to process digital images.

 

[Etienne]

I don't understand the people complaining about too big files..
hey, when you buy a 2000$ camera with one or more 800$ lenses.. what is the problem when you need a few harddrives of a few To for.. say 250 $..
and. what is the problem to buy a decent top-computer (core i7, 16 gb ram, 256 gb ssd) that costs 1200 $ (without screen) ?

Many have a total of 4000 or 5000 $ photo equipment.. and complaining about buying 300$ - 10 To storage ? hey, come on guys...

If you are not happy with that, stay with a 8 Mpx point and shoot.. and only jpg..

Processing time is a bigger problem than storage space.

Also ... higher resolution should be able to deliver lower noise images at downscaled size of a low mpixel sensor. Downscaling reduces noise, and noise reduction software causes a loss of detail, so having extra resolution should give a better image even when converted to say 18 MP. The big problem is if the noise is patterned. That is impossible to correct

 

[rrcphoto]

I don't understand the people complaining about too big files..
hey, when you buy a 2000$ camera with one or more 800$ lenses.. what is the problem when you need a few harddrives of a few To for.. say 250 $..
and. what is the problem to buy a decent top-computer (core i7, 16 gb ram, 256 gb ssd) that costs 1200 $ (without screen) ?

Many have a total of 4000 or 5000 $ photo equipment.. and complaining about buying 300$ - 10 To storage ? hey, come on guys...

If you are not happy with that, stay with a 8 Mpx point and shoot.. and only jpg..

The issue is that when a professional comes home with thousands of photos, transfer and processing speed is of critical importance. I've read that a lot of people actually store every single photo that they keep, some of them with redundancy, and are basically perpetually buying hard drives.
So double the file size could mean wasting eight hours a week waiting for transfers/processing instead of four, and spending $1,000 a year on hard drives instead of $500 a year

you must have nothing better to do in life.

I pop a card into the computer and go walk away and do other things.

if your computer can't handle a 32MP raw, I suggest upgrading.

hard drives cost around $50/TB nowadays. so if you're spending $500 now on hard drives, that would be around 10TB or data per year, which conservatively is around 300,000 raw images per year.

if you are professionally shooting 1000 images per day, you have bigger challenges than simply hard drives.

and can probably afford the increase of resolution.

or you shoot mRAW.

 

[rrcphoto]

I don't understand the people complaining about too big files..
hey, when you buy a 2000$ camera with one or more 800$ lenses.. what is the problem when you need a few harddrives of a few To for.. say 250 $..
and. what is the problem to buy a decent top-computer (core i7, 16 gb ram, 256 gb ssd) that costs 1200 $ (without screen) ?

Many have a total of 4000 or 5000 $ photo equipment.. and complaining about buying 300$ - 10 To storage ? hey, come on guys...

If you are not happy with that, stay with a 8 Mpx point and shoot.. and only jpg..

Processing time is a bigger problem than storage space.

Also ... higher resolution should be able to deliver lower noise images at downscaled size of a low mpixel sensor. Downscaling reduces noise, and noise reduction software causes a loss of detail, so having extra resolution should give a better image even when converted to say 18 MP. The big problem is if the noise is patterned. That is impossible to correct

yes - for some they just skip this step - take a higher resolution image, NR it using credible software and then downscale it - you'll have a much better image.

luckily the banding demons have been vanquished.

 

[verysimplejason]

Just do it Canon... I care less on the specs unless it's really a breakthrough thing but I'm just waiting for 80D so that 70D can be sold at a lower price.