Dpreview of the 80D

[Sporgon]

To be honest, most everything looks crap on overcast days when there is no sunlight because colors are muted. Or maybe those that shoot ISO 3200 and above don't like color very much? Would explain a lot.

Portraits of birds, photographs of flowers, some portraits and architecture...Flat/soft light can be very useful*. Are you just talking about landscapes and birds in flight? You're extraordinarily closed-minded. That's fine, you have that right, but again please don't pretend your personal view is universal, or even mainstream (it may be the latter, but nothing you've said so far demonstrates that).

*Ironically, all these people who say they want better shadow lifting capabilities are aiming for images with less contrast. One easy way to achieve that is to shoot when the light is softer.

+1

Sure, pictures of an overcast sky are usually not satisfying, but it's often much better to take pictures of some subjects lit by an overcast sky. There's a reason I carry a pop-open diffuser when I'm out shooting flowers.

But I suppose people lacking in creativity might have trouble seeing the benefits of soft lighting.

Here in lies the irony of the latest tech: a superior, more advanced product can encourage an inferior result. Instead of using sound techniques the photographer can simply satisfy himself by suppressing highlights, lifting shadows, but the output from this lasted tech will be inferior to muggins with his old out of date 5D using grads or backet and blend or reflectors or, or, or,,,,,,,so it goes on.

I began to fall into this trap myself, not from shadow lifting ability because I normally am increasing shadows, but from the high iso performance of the 6D compared with the 5DII. In building where I had to work quickly for my panoramic interiors I began to use the 6D at high iso and hand hold with IS. Its much easier to do a fast sweeping panoramic hand held when I don't want people moving in the frame. Now although the modern tech has meant that these results are competent they do not match the technical results I get from 100 iso on a solid tripod.

Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that in some minor niche areas a camera such as the D810 isn't better and more advanced than a 5DIII, or 5Ds, but everything has to be given a context, otherwise it becomes meaningless, and this is where a review site such as DPR is going off track IMO in order to try and find differences in the cameras to report on. The 5Ds shot that they did of the girl with fill flash taken half an hour after sunset into the western sky which then had shadows lifted in post was not given any context - apart from the exposure information that actually told the story. Anyone who was not better informed would read that and think that you get awful noise if you lift 5Ds shadows a stop or so.

Incidentally somewhere in this thread Rishi states in his defence that he wrote in DPR something like "the 80D has much improved DR over previous Canon cameras". Yet in the summary of pros and cons of the camera in the cons they say something like "less DR than rivals". Yes you can lift shadows four stops on the 80D but six stops on the Sonikon whatever. Context has gone out of the window. 6 stops. Jeez, many scenes haven't even got a 6 stop EV range.

Be a brave lad rishi and send me that raw file: [email protected]

 

[Orangutan]

Maybe we could change this thread from a list of complaints to a list of suggestions. What sincere, legitimate changes would you have DPR make to its procedures to improve the objectivity of their review? I'll start:

(quoting self)

No, our real-world comparisons are perfectly ETTR'd - there is not even 1/3 EV headroom. We bracket hundreds of shots and take the one that is just short of clipping tones we wish to preserve in the Raw file, as explained repeatedly every time we present our results.

I wonder if this is the problem. Perhaps in future reviews you could publish several of your bracketed shots so readers could decide for themselves which tones they would choose to preserve in the raw file.

 

[Mikehit]

Yes you can lift shadows four stops on the 80D but six stops on the Sonikon whatever.

That is something that is bemusing me at the moment. More and more reviews/comments talk about thing slike 'ah, but with the XXX camera you can lift shadows 6 stops with no noise but with YYY it is only 3 stops'.
My questions are:

- why would you ever want to (other than rectifying a complete penis-up at the time of the picture)
- if it is not a case of 'wanting to' then what does that comparison tell you about photography in the real world ?
- If it does tell you something, how often is it a real-world advantage ?

Or is it another case of desperately trying to find a difference so they have something to report on?

 

[3kramd5]

Low ISO is where the camera is meant to perform best.

Can you point to any evidence that camera designers intend their products to perform better at one setting than another?

You could state perhaps that by some measures (e.g. dynamic range) cameras *do* perform better at low ISO (and by other measures, e.g. amplification, they perform better at high ISO). But to state they are supposed to perform better at low ISO is a huge stretch.

Let me find a brick wall to beat my head against.

"ISO 100" is meant to be where there is "no" amplification of the signal from the sensor.

At every ISO after that, the signal is amplified in one way or the other. Even Canon cameras with ISO 50 do that with software, not hardware.

Congratulations for almost explaining why (by some measures) cameras happen to perform better at low ISO, but I asked for you to point to evidence that they are "meant to."

Given all the effort expended to expand ISO ranges up, but not down, it seems very likely they are meant to perform well, if not best, at high ISO, even if physics preclude them from for example having their widest DR (which is again only one measure of performance) when set that way.

 

[Loswr]

Sure, pictures of an overcast sky are usually not satisfying

Then again, just because the sky is gray when you take the shot, doesn't mean you have to leave it that way...

 

[jebrady03]

I gotta admit... I'm a little disappointed in myself. I read every reply until about halfway through the thread, and then started scrolling and just scanning for posts by Rishi. I'm not sure why it took me so long but I'll do my best to recall and correct my mistake going forward when I know he's posting.

For the rest of you, here's what I propose... Since you all seem to have the money to buy high end gear, you should all, also, have sufficient money to buy a one way ticket to a central location, plus 10%. Bring your gear with you. Upon arrival, introduce yourselves to one another. Then... you should all get drunk snort a BUNCH of coke. No... wait... meth! Yeah. Do that. Then, when you're all RAGING on meth (actually, scratch that... go with bath salts!), begin to bludgeon each other with your gear and eat each other's faces. Lenses AND bodies are allowed. Bonus points to whoever brings a camera sling and uses it like a makeshift ball and chain! Whoever the sole survivor is, you get the cumulative "10%" I mentioned earlier to purchase a ticket and fly to an exotic locale of your choosing. Upon arrival and entry into the country, you'll be stripped of your passport and any form of money or communication, and driven out into the wilderness to fend for yourself. Should you manage to make it back to civilization alive, at that point, I have to assume, you'll realize that arguing with all of your fellow CR members was a complete waste of time and energy and that you'll never do it again. You'll then be welcomed back to CR.

Back to Rishi. Glad to see you around man. I really enjoy your posts. I also enjoy your balance of assertiveness and humility. You seem like a really good dude and although you're walking into the lion's den (covered in blood and shouting "look at me") just by using your real name and association to DPR, I really admire your desire to come here and educate AS WELL AS learn from the VERY vocal minority. It's incredibly ballsy and humble as well. The crew here isn't exactly unbiased. And in many, there's a battle raging within between being ignorant and outspoken; on any given day, one trait can win over the other in those individuals.

I sincerely hope you'll stick around and should you choose to do so, I look forward to your future posts!

 

[ritholtz]

There is no excuse for 80D to perform worst in focusing test through view finder which is a core DSLR strength.
I would like to see another source (Michael) to do the test and confirm this. If it is really the case with 80d, then no excuse of Canon. It is worst DSLR camera Canon made ( 1 frame in focus out of 16 frames). I remember DPR review on d7100 and 70d, Where they went with similar tangent like d7100 being class leading in AF test and 70d is not up to the task (not those blurry pics issue with center point). Then Michael did a epic comparison and showed us 70d actually did better than d7100 in AF test ;D ;D.

Checking out the summary of review on main page, feels like it is an advertisement for a6300. Don't get me wrong, I am also liking what I see from a6300. As and when Sony updates their kit lens (16-50 is actually very wide for kit lens) and throw in some cheap glass (looking at sigma to do those 17-50/70 lens), I am going switch to Sony. But that summary page is written by Sony marketing department.

Come on, it is not completely inferior to the a6300 on paper except for 4k video. 80d live view performance is good. 80d can focus better in low light in live view compared to a6300 ;D ;D. Regarding D7200 and 80D are both starting to look a bit old fashioned compared to to the current crop of 4K-capable mirrorless APS-C cameras (like the Sony a6300), who else is doing 4k other than Sony a6300??

d7200 is almost same as a6300 and d500 in terms of very high Iso performance. 80d is definitely not up to a6300 at very high iso performance. 80d is actually worst in high iso performance during video. In terms of video, Canon did worst with 80d.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

I´ve got the 80D since a few Weeks - and the Focusing via ViewFinder is working very Well.

So you should not waste much Time with "Test´s" .

Get out and use your Gear !

Bernd

 

[unfocused]

Yes you can lift shadows four stops on the 80D but six stops on the Sonikon whatever.

That is something that is bemusing me at the moment. More and more reviews/comments talk about things like 'ah, but with the XXX camera you can lift shadows 6 stops with no noise but with YYY it is only 3 stops'.
My questions are:

- why would you ever want to (other than rectifying a complete penis-up at the time of the picture)
- if it is not a case of 'wanting to' then what does that comparison tell you about photography in the real world ?
- If it does tell you something, how often is it a real-world advantage ?

Or is it another case of desperately trying to find a difference so they have something to report on?

I used to think like that, until I started looking into it.

Here is my understanding.

Let's say you are shooting a basketball game. You know you need to shoot at 1/800 of a second to stop any action. Your lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8. The traditional approach is to ratchet up the ISO to get to your minimum required shutter speed and aperture. But, when you do so, you know you are introducing noise into the image and eventually the noise will make the image unusable.

With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture but instead of changing the ISO, you leave it where it is and just underexpose. Then, in post, you can raise the exposure with less noise than if you'd increased the ISO.

Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable.

It is also why I'd like to see some comparisons between the two methods to see if the promised advantages really exist or not and if they are sufficient to make a difference in the real world. If it does work, it really would change the way we shoot and process our images.

 

[Sporgon]

Yes you can lift shadows four stops on the 80D but six stops on the Sonikon whatever.

That is something that is bemusing me at the moment. More and more reviews/comments talk about thing slike 'ah, but with the XXX camera you can lift shadows 6 stops with no noise but with YYY it is only 3 stops'.
My questions are:

- why would you ever want to (other than rectifying a complete penis-up at the time of the picture)
- if it is not a case of 'wanting to' then what does that comparison tell you about photography in the real world ?
- If it does tell you something, how often is it a real-world advantage ?

Or is it another case of desperately trying to find a difference so they have something to report on?

- to get a better quality image on a camera that has no meter or exposure controls of any kind
- some review sites have gravitated down into a cesspit of minutiae
- refer to first answer !

Yes, a review site will want to be able to differentiate, and as all the cameras are capable of producing superb results in challenging conditions, it's going to come down to lifting shadows six stops. Six stops ! Many normal scenes don't even have an EV range of six stops ! Transparency film, favoured by multitudes from 1950s to 2000 had a range of about eight stops maximum.

I've had my fair share of cars in my time, and have driven most of the racing circuits in GB. One thing that I came to realise was that the normal road cars that reviewers enjoyed testing the most were not the best ones for me to use on the roads day in day out. It's inevitable really, who wants to review a boring, soft car that gets the job done with ease and reliability day in day out ? Ring any parallel bells ?

 

[Sporgon]

Yes you can lift shadows four stops on the 80D but six stops on the Sonikon whatever.

That is something that is bemusing me at the moment. More and more reviews/comments talk about things like 'ah, but with the XXX camera you can lift shadows 6 stops with no noise but with YYY it is only 3 stops'.
My questions are:

- why would you ever want to (other than rectifying a complete penis-up at the time of the picture)
- if it is not a case of 'wanting to' then what does that comparison tell you about photography in the real world ?
- If it does tell you something, how often is it a real-world advantage ?

Or is it another case of desperately trying to find a difference so they have something to report on?

I used to think like that, until I started looking into it.

Here is my understanding.

Let's say you are shooting a basketball game. You know you need to shoot at 1/800 of a second to stop any action. Your lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8. The traditional approach is to ratchet up the ISO to get to your minimum required shutter speed and aperture. But, when you do so, you know you are introducing noise into the image and eventually the noise will make the image unusable.

With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture but instead of changing the ISO, you leave it where it is and just underexpose. Then, in post, you can raise the exposure with less noise than if you'd increased the ISO.

Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable.

It is also why I'd like to see some comparisons between the two methods to see if the promised advantages really exist or not and if they are sufficient to make a difference in the real world. If it does work, it really would change the way we shoot and process our images.

Are you suggesting that a post process lift gives less noise than on a decent high ISO performing camera ? Altering ISO on a Canon is so fast ......

 

[unfocused]

I used to think like that, until I started looking into it.

Here is my understanding.

Let's say you are shooting a basketball game. You know you need to shoot at 1/800 of a second to stop any action. Your lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8. The traditional approach is to ratchet up the ISO to get to your minimum required shutter speed and aperture. But, when you do so, you know you are introducing noise into the image and eventually the noise will make the image unusable.

With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture but instead of changing the ISO, you leave it where it is and just underexpose. Then, in post, you can raise the exposure with less noise than if you'd increased the ISO.

Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable.

It is also why I'd like to see some comparisons between the two methods to see if the promised advantages really exist or not and if they are sufficient to make a difference in the real world. If it does work, it really would change the way we shoot and process our images.

Are you suggesting that a post process lift gives less noise than on a decent high ISO performing camera ? Altering ISO on a Canon is so fast ......

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just repeating my understanding of what the reviewers are saying. I'd like to see examples. But, if true, I can see huge benefits.

I'm about the least technical person on this forum, but I'm guessing it comes down to two choices: 1) have the camera amplify the signal to match a target ISO (traditional method); or 2) bake more data into the raw file and then extract that data in post without introducing any noise caused by the camera's amplification of the signal.

 

[Loswr]

I used to think like that, until I started looking into it.

Here is my understanding.

Let's say you are shooting a basketball game. You know you need to shoot at 1/800 of a second to stop any action. Your lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8. The traditional approach is to ratchet up the ISO to get to your minimum required shutter speed and aperture. But, when you do so, you know you are introducing noise into the image and eventually the noise will make the image unusable.

With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture but instead of changing the ISO, you leave it where it is and just underexpose. Then, in post, you can raise the exposure with less noise than if you'd increased the ISO.

Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable.

I suggest you L ook harder.

The idea is with an 'ISO invariant' sensor, if you shoot at base ISO and push in post, there's no difference compared to having set a higher ISO for the shot. With a sensor that's not 'ISO invariant', you're better off exposing properly when capturing the image. In other words, there's no penalty for a proper exposure with any sensor, but there is a penalty for drastically underexposure with some cameras (most cameras, actually – all Canon, many Nikon including the new flagship D5, etc.).

So what you're calling 'brilliant and very valuable' is actually a conscious choice to make more work for yourself in post (pushing every shot) instead of just using the appropriate ISO for the conditions. It's a cool trick, but I bet that those who try it soon go back to changing their ISO in-camera.

 

[unfocused]

I used to think like that, until I started looking into it.

Here is my understanding.

Let's say you are shooting a basketball game. You know you need to shoot at 1/800 of a second to stop any action. Your lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8. The traditional approach is to ratchet up the ISO to get to your minimum required shutter speed and aperture. But, when you do so, you know you are introducing noise into the image and eventually the noise will make the image unusable.

With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture but instead of changing the ISO, you leave it where it is and just underexpose. Then, in post, you can raise the exposure with less noise than if you'd increased the ISO.

Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable.

I suggest you L ook harder.

The idea is with an 'ISO invariant' sensor, if you shoot at base ISO and push in post, there's no difference compared to having set a higher ISO for the shot. With a sensor that's not 'ISO invariant', you're better off exposing properly when capturing the image. In other words, there's no penalty for a proper exposure with any sensor, but there is a penalty for drastically underexposure with some cameras (most cameras, actually – all Canon, many Nikon including the new flagship D5, etc.).

So what you're calling 'brilliant and very valuable' is actually a conscious choice to make more work for yourself in post (pushing every shot) instead of just using the appropriate ISO for the conditions. It's a cool trick, but I bet that those who try it soon go back to changing their ISO in-camera.

Nevermind then.

I suppose it could still be useful in some situations, but not nearly as interesting as I had hoped.

 

[Refurb7]

Dpreview famously "proved" that the Sony A7R2 could focus in very low light as fast as a Nikon D750 or a Canon 5Ds. They did so by using the Sony with its native FE 35/1.4 lens, and using the Nikon and Canon with a Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens.

Wait ... read that again. Yes, they actually used the Sony with Sony's own lens and it's a wide angle. And they used the Nikon and the Canon with the harder-to-focus 50mm focal length from a 3rd party.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I used to think like that, until I started looking into it.

Here is my understanding.

Let's say you are shooting a basketball game. You know you need to shoot at 1/800 of a second to stop any action. Your lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8. The traditional approach is to ratchet up the ISO to get to your minimum required shutter speed and aperture. But, when you do so, you know you are introducing noise into the image and eventually the noise will make the image unusable.

With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture but instead of changing the ISO, you leave it where it is and just underexpose. Then, in post, you can raise the exposure with less noise than if you'd increased the ISO.

Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable.

I suggest you L ook harder.

The idea is with an 'ISO invariant' sensor, if you shoot at base ISO and push in post, there's no difference compared to having set a higher ISO for the shot. With a sensor that's not 'ISO invariant', you're better off exposing properly when capturing the image. In other words, there's no penalty for a proper exposure with any sensor, but there is a penalty for drastically underexposure with some cameras (most cameras, actually – all Canon, many Nikon including the new flagship D5, etc.).

So what you're calling 'brilliant and very valuable' is actually a conscious choice to make more work for yourself in post (pushing every shot) instead of just using the appropriate ISO for the conditions. It's a cool trick, but I bet that those who try it soon go back to changing their ISO in-camera.

Nevermind then.

I suppose it could still be useful in some situations, but not nearly as interesting as I had hoped.

I shoot high ISO pretty often. For years I have simply tried to raise the ISO as much as I could stand without terrible noise (1600 - 3200, occasionally more if it's super dark) and get a slightly under exposed image that I could push in post. I can tweak a lot of things but if I don't get the shot in focus, that can't be fixed.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Dpreview famously "proved" that the Sony A7R2 could focus in very low light as fast as a Nikon D750 or a Canon 5Ds. They did so by using the Sony with its native FE 35/1.4 lens, and using the Nikon and Canon with a Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens.

Wait ... read that again. Yes, they actually used the Sony with Sony's own lens and it's a wide angle. And they used the Nikon and the Canon with the harder-to-focus 50mm focal length from a 3rd party.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance

As we mentioned in many follow-up comments on that article - we followed up that test with on-brand 35mm primes on the Canon and Nikon bodies, and also using adapted Canon primes, as well as the very Sigma 50/1.4 we used in that test - on the Sony a7R II. We got the same result - but we didn't publish a whole separate article just for this. Perhaps we should have, to avoid these sorts of complaints.

Also, note that we didn't make claims of 'fast' or 'speed' -- the finding of that video/article was that the a7R II could PDAF down near -2EV to -3EV light levels with a fast lens, which was a surprising discovery (for us) and challenged widely held beliefs that on-sensor phase-detection gave up in low light. But only with fast lenses - with slower lenses, the a7R II falls well behind DSLRs, a point we clearly made and emphasized in that article.

Overall average speed of AF at lower light levels would of course be interesting to test, and it's something we're currently prototyping. Taking many many averages of AF attempts at lower and lower light levels. Like what Michael The Mentor does.

By the way, Michael The Mentor eventually came to the same conclusion about low light AF with the a7R II.

This also reminds me: that same article/video showed a Nikon D810 massively failing - interesting given the consistent complaints that DPReview is owned by Nikon here.

 

[3kramd5]

I used to think like that, until I started looking into it.

Here is my understanding.

Let's say you are shooting a basketball game. You know you need to shoot at 1/800 of a second to stop any action. Your lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8. The traditional approach is to ratchet up the ISO to get to your minimum required shutter speed and aperture. But, when you do so, you know you are introducing noise into the image and eventually the noise will make the image unusable.

With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture but instead of changing the ISO, you leave it where it is and just underexpose. Then, in post, you can raise the exposure with less noise than if you'd increased the ISO.

Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable.

I suggest you L ook harder.

The idea is with an 'ISO invariant' sensor, if you shoot at base ISO and push in post, there's no difference compared to having set a higher ISO for the shot. With a sensor that's not 'ISO invariant', you're better off exposing properly when capturing the image. In other words, there's no penalty for a proper exposure with any sensor, but there is a penalty for drastically underexposure with some cameras (most cameras, actually – all Canon, many Nikon including the new flagship D5, etc.).

So what you're calling 'brilliant and very valuable' is actually a conscious choice to make more work for yourself in post (pushing every shot) instead of just using the appropriate ISO for the conditions. It's a cool trick, but I bet that those who try it soon go back to changing their ISO in-camera.

Nevermind then.

I suppose it could still be useful in some situations, but not nearly as interesting as I had hoped.

Perhaps the biggest potential advantage is that if you underexpose in camera and lift in post, that push can be local (versus an ISO setting which is global). It may facilitate finer gradations within the highlights.

That being said, although I own an "iso-invariant" camera, I don't shoot that way.

 

[Refurb7]

Dpreview famously "proved" that the Sony A7R2 could focus in very low light as fast as a Nikon D750 or a Canon 5Ds. They did so by using the Sony with its native FE 35/1.4 lens, and using the Nikon and Canon with a Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens.

Wait ... read that again. Yes, they actually used the Sony with Sony's own lens and it's a wide angle. And they used the Nikon and the Canon with the harder-to-focus 50mm focal length from a 3rd party.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance

As we mentioned in many follow-up comments on that article - we followed up that test with on-brand 35mm primes on the Canon and Nikon bodies, and also using adapted Canon primes, as well as the very Sigma 50/1.4 we used in that test - on the Sony a7R II. We got the same result - but we didn't publish a whole separate article just for this. Perhaps we should have, to avoid these sorts of complaints.

Also, note that we didn't make claims of 'fast' or 'speed' -- the finding of that video/article was that the a7R II could PDAF down near -2EV to -3EV light levels with a fast lens, which was a surprising discovery (for us) and challenged widely held beliefs that on-sensor phase-detection gave up in low light. But only with fast lenses - with slower lenses, the a7R II falls well behind DSLRs, a point we clearly made and emphasized in that article.

Overall average speed of AF at lower light levels would of course be interesting to test, and it's something we're currently prototyping. Taking many many averages of AF attempts at lower and lower light levels. Like what Michael The Mentor does.

By the way, Michael The Mentor eventually came to the same conclusion about low light AF with the a7R II.

This also reminds me: that same article/video showed a Nikon D810 massively failing - interesting given the consistent complaints that DPReview is owned by Nikon here.

Ok, I see one has to read the comments to gather that you didn't make claims of "fast" or "speed", or that you redid the test to correct the basic flaw of using different focal lengths. (There are over 900 comments!)

Based on the title of the article ("Sony Alpha 7R II can match or beat DSLR low light AF performance") and statements like "The a7R II, when paired with a bright lens, can match or exceed the performance of the best DSLRs with respect to low-light AF ability" — it sure sounded like you were making claims about speed. I would guess that many photographers understood that to be a claim about speed (I did), as speed is a key aspect of AF performance.

 

[Loswr]

Perhaps the biggest potential advantage is that if you underexpose in camera and lift in post, that push can be local (versus an ISO setting which is global). It may facilitate finer gradations within the highlights.

Would drastically underexposing then locally pushing in post be advantageous over properly exposing (by which I mean not blowing highlights you want), then locally pulling in post?