I don't see the point to go back in sensor tech with a new camera first and I imagine that tech would be more similar with latest dslr 90D Canon introduced back then and propably better in many sections.Why 90d?
80D have 24MP, 90D 32MP.
I don't see the point to go back in sensor tech with a new camera first and I imagine that tech would be more similar with latest dslr 90D Canon introduced back then and propably better in many sections.Why 90d?
80D have 24MP, 90D 32MP.
That's a good point about going backwards with the MP with the R10 compared to the 90D. The 90D did get a few 7D like features with the Joystick, I think they done that because they already decided they were not going to release a 7D mk III. I think the R10 may go back to around 80D level again to differentiate itself enough from the R7.I don't see the point to go back in sensor tech with a new camera first and I imagine that tech would be more similar with latest dslr 90D Canon introduced back then and propably better in many sections.
Hang on. Those white balance multipliers are massively different. Are you sure you took those multipliers from files that were taken in the same lighting condition with the same white balance setting on each camera? Even completely different sensors would not have white balance multipliers vary so widely in the same lighting conditions. But different lighting would explain the variance.If memory serves, the 80D was the first APS-C sensor where the ADC was on chip, giving it much better DR over the 70D and 7DII.
All that being said, if you look at the color response to it compared to other 24MP APS-C sensors from Canon, the 80D WB multipliers have RGB 1.75, 1, 1.75, the M6 has 1.45, 1, 1.35, the M100 has 1.49, 1, 1.37, the 2000D has 2.08, 1, 1.75, etc. Despite that they're all APS-C and roughly 24MP, the different measured white balance multipliers seems to indicate that they're not all exactly the same sensor.
Why is it? I’ve never had a Camera with IBIS before and my pictures are fine. It’d be a nice addition but is in no way a crucial feature.
Hang on. Those white balance multipliers are massively different. Are you sure you took those multipliers from files that were taken in the same lighting condition with the same white balance setting on each camera? Even completely different sensors would not have white balance multipliers vary so widely in the same lighting conditions. But different lighting would explain the variance.
Take two shots with your 80D. One with tungsten light balance setting and one with shade white balance. Then compare the white balance multipliers with each other.
Simple. Those are very old cameras, and I'm looking to upgrade - in the same small aspc form factor.But, your current M bodies don't have IBIS either, so why would that stop you replacing them with a successor without it? If they are intending to keep the form factor (and $s) comparable to the M series, then IBIS is unlikely. Some of the competitors do (of course) have IBIS, but it's always a compromise on image quality / $s / features, no matter what body we're talking about.
It is nice to have IS. Agree. But it is not a 'real problem'."No way crucial.." to you.
No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
Shutter shock/slap is a real thing that really impacts pictures, especially on small, light bodies like the later M series and denser, small pixel pitch ASPC sensors. It's been the same problem on the M3, M50, and the M62. I negated the issue on my original M1 with a korean made Phottix large metal grip. No such item is available for the m50 at all. I have the m62 in a smallrig cage for the same effect.
Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.
If there's anyone out there that knows the challenges of small mirrorless without IS, trust that it's me. The last few M bodies I have had have been the most unreliable (and broken) cameras ever for me. I have used them on zero shoots because I just can't trust them.**
** I was able to successfully use the m62 with a EF 24-105 attached for a assignment. Worked great for a few hours, however it's never been able to repeat that success. AF fails + shutter slap all over the place. Trust me, it stinks![]()
Calling myself out on this one. The T6i predates the 80D by a year.The 80D predates the M50 and, as far as I know, all the other 24mp APS-C Canon cameras. So yes, its sensor was newly developed at the time.
It's not just Canon:Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.
Yeah just hold the camera steady lolIt is nice to have IS. Agree. But it is not a 'real problem'.
"No way crucial.." to you.
No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
True. But in case you are being sarcastic, here are the obvious other choices: Use a higher shutter, use a tripod, use higher Iso, and use a wider aperture. You will get by!Yeah just hold the camera steady lol
Those white balance multipliers are what DXOMark measured for a standard CIE 5000K light source. They use the same standard light source when measuring all cameras, and the numbers they publish are what you have to have to get a neutral white with that light source. My own experience with the cameras I have on hand mirrors that. The different 24MP class APS-C sensors from Canon do indeed have different white balance multipliers per camera line.Hang on. Those white balance multipliers are massively different. Are you sure you took those multipliers from files that were taken in the same lighting condition with the same white balance setting on each camera? Even completely different sensors would not have white balance multipliers vary so widely in the same lighting conditions. But different lighting would explain the variance.
Take two shots with your 80D. One with tungsten light balance setting and one with shade white balance. Then compare the white balance multipliers with each other.
While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?True. But in case you are being sarcastic, here are the obvious other choices: Use a higher shutter, use a tripod, use higher Iso, and use a wider aperture. You will get by!
OK, thanks for the explanation.Those white balance multipliers are what DXOMark measured for a standard CIE 5000K light source. They use the same standard light source when measuring all cameras, and the numbers they publish are what you have to have to get a neutral white with that light source. My own experience with the cameras I have on hand mirrors that. The different 24MP class APS-C sensors from Canon do indeed have different white balance multipliers per camera line.
Nope, IBIS only offers you the ability to lower your shutter speed, you can still take the image at higher ISOs without IBIS. If that shot it THAT important to you then buy a body with IBIS."No way crucial.." to you.
No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
Shutter shock/slap is a real thing that really impacts pictures, especially on small, light bodies like the later M series and denser, small pixel pitch ASPC sensors. It's been the same problem on the M3, M50, and the M62. I negated the issue on my original M1 with a korean made Phottix large metal grip. No such item is available for the m50 at all. I have the m62 in a smallrig cage for the same effect.
Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.
If there's anyone out there that knows the challenges of small mirrorless without IS, trust that it's me. The last few M bodies I have had have been the most unreliable (and broken) cameras ever for me. I have used them on zero shoots because I just can't trust them.**
** I was able to successfully use the m62 with a EF 24-105 attached for a assignment. Worked great for a few hours, however it's never been able to repeat that success. AF fails + shutter slap all over the place. Trust me, it stinks![]()
That's not a sound argument, because many, if not most Canon lenses already have IS, which usually does the bulk of the work for stabilisation on IBIS bodies, the IBIS typically adds something like one or two stops on top of that, and IBIS is less effective at stabilising longer focal length lenses. It's not like lens stabilisation has been absent for the last decade or two or more and IBIS makes that big a difference!While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?
At one time, these were all called "crutches" by some people who learned without them and felt they were unnecessary if you knew what you were doing.
Some people are perfectly happy setting up a tripod or adjusting their shutter, aperture, and ISO. Others are willing to let the technology help them get the shot. Neither way is wrong, neither way makes you a "better" photographer, and neither way guarantees better pictures.
Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?