I compiled a 60D/70D/80D/7D2 feature comparison table

[nhz]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

Hi all,

I added several features missing from the original, most pretty minor though. Also added a 7D Mk II column, the comparison with the 80D is pretty intriguing. Enjoy!

https://jsbin.com/bizepi

very nice! Maybe you could add LCD resolution (haven't checked but I guess there has been some improvement over time and admittedly not a major decision factor).

For me just the tilt screen and the significantly lower weight seal the deal in favor of the 80D compared to 7D2. The only spec still missing is low ISO DR, if that is significantly improved (13.5-14 stops should be possible) I will buy the 80D (the lack of improvement in 70D kept me from upgrading to that camera). I'm expecting High ISO performance of 80D to be close enough to 7D2 that the difference doesn't matter to me.

 

[Sharlin]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

very nice! Maybe you could add LCD resolution (haven't checked but I guess there has been some improvement over time and admittedly not a major decision factor).

Thanks! Yeah, I did check that and believe or not all the four cameras use the quantitatively same 3-inch 1.04-megapixel LCD. However, the newer cameras seem to have ClearView II without air gap for better glare management, plus some sort of a smudge-resistant coating. These are for some reason not mentioned in the specification, only in marketing materials :/

 

[Sharlin]

Nice chart!

Is the 7D2 compatible with the GP-E2?

Thanks! Appears it isn't :/ Built-in only.

 

[LoneRider]

Hi LoneRider.
To me the touch screen is not a big deal, I have tried my friends 70D touch screen and most of the time I found I could make the adjustments as easily using the normal controls. Also I forgot it had touch screen most of the time though I'm sure using the camera more frequently would soon over come that issue.
I have the 7DII and the AF is fantastic in video / live view mode, and once you get used to the controls it is very customisable.
There is always an upgrade coming next year or next month or whenever, at some point you have to jump and accept that the next camera along may better your recent acquisition on some levels but look at all the shots you have got before the new body came along.

Cheers, Graham.

Graham,

Thanks, I looked for youtube video of someone using the 7D-ii for video, and could not find one. But as time went on I started to look towards FF, as I was not sure the 7D-ii was going to work well enough in lower light situations. As well, I want to play around with "depth of field" more with a FF sensor. So yeah, if I knew back then what I know now about the 7D-ii I might have gotten it. No doubt the 7D-ii is a big jump over my 7D.

Thank you,
Thomas

 

[K]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

I think Canon has decided to unlock some resources in 80D to become competitive with Nikon D500. If the D500 sell well, will stimulate Canon to make a 7D Mark iii with very advanced features.

I'm not so sure. The D500 is there to put a halt to all the Nikon defectors who can't fork out $6,000 for a flagship camera. Nikon has been losing users to Canon in this regard. For a long time now, Nikon has had nothing in this area. Users will put up with slightly inferior...but they can't put up with nothing.

Both companies have had a really slow upgrade cycle on these flagship crop cameras. I believe it is because they both felt the flagship DSLR was a dead concept with FF on the rise in that price bracket. Apparently, that isn't the case. The main draw of these flagship crops is the 10fps, build and pro-ish features.

Overall, these cameras don't really compete directly. These are for users who are already "in system" either Nikon or Canon.

Since the D500 announcement, I've been hoping the D500 puts pressure on Canon to release a 7D3, but I'm doubting that because they don't compete. It is hard to imagine someone dumping their system to go to the other side for what amounts to minuscule advantages. Only the most fanatical pixel peeper would cross the river for that, and this would be enthusiasts demanding the best with lot of money to spare. 99% of everyone else is not going to do that.

How many first time buyers are there of flagship level crop cameras? I would think that is a small percentage of buyers. I think buyers of a flagship crop would be those who want to upgrade to the best APS-C coming from entry level of enthusiast cameras...and mostly FF owners of 2nd tier pro bodies like the 5DX or D810 who want a "cheap" sports/wildlife camera that is blazing fast and has more reach. Throw in some event pros who want a pro-capable camera at the $2K or less price point. These are people who want strong body, dual cards, speed, handling, controls and other features of these bodies....but who can't spend $3K on the pro FF's.

Now, the 80D will dig into 7D2 sales. Those cameras now compete. At this point, if you don't need 2 card slots and 10fps isn't mandatory - the 7D2 offers little over the 80D. Many users within a camera system will rank IQ up high as a factor. Across systems, not so much. Within a system, you have the same glass and that is a big consideration for many, many reasons.

 

[weixing]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

I think Canon has decided to unlock some resources in 80D to become competitive with Nikon D500. If the D500 sell well, will stimulate Canon to make a 7D Mark iii with very advanced features.

I'm not so sure. The D500 is there to put a halt to all the Nikon defectors who can't fork out $6,000 for a flagship camera. Nikon has been losing users to Canon in this regard. For a long time now, Nikon has had nothing in this area. Users will put up with slightly inferior...but they can't put up with nothing.

Both companies have had a really slow upgrade cycle on these flagship crop cameras. I believe it is because they both felt the flagship DSLR was a dead concept with FF on the rise in that price bracket. Apparently, that isn't the case. The main draw of these flagship crops is the 10fps, build and pro-ish features.

Overall, these cameras don't really compete directly. These are for users who are already "in system" either Nikon or Canon.

Since the D500 announcement, I've been hoping the D500 puts pressure on Canon to release a 7D3, but I'm doubting that because they don't compete. It is hard to imagine someone dumping their system to go to the other side for what amounts to minuscule advantages. Only the most fanatical pixel peeper would cross the river for that, and this would be enthusiasts demanding the best with lot of money to spare. 99% of everyone else is not going to do that.

How many first time buyers are there of flagship level crop cameras? I would think that is a small percentage of buyers. I think buyers of a flagship crop would be those who want to upgrade to the best APS-C coming from entry level of enthusiast cameras...and mostly FF owners of 2nd tier pro bodies like the 5DX or D810 who want a "cheap" sports/wildlife camera that is blazing fast and has more reach. Throw in some event pros who want a pro-capable camera at the $2K or less price point. These are people who want strong body, dual cards, speed, handling, controls and other features of these bodies....but who can't spend $3K on the pro FF's.

Now, the 80D will dig into 7D2 sales. Those cameras now compete. At this point, if you don't need 2 card slots and 10fps isn't mandatory - the 7D2 offers little over the 80D. Many users within a camera system will rank IQ up high as a factor. Across systems, not so much. Within a system, you have the same glass and that is a big consideration for many, many reasons.

Hi,
As a 7D2 owner, I was quite interested to switch to 80D due to many F8 AF points, but there is one custom function that 7D2 had, but not on 80D (base on manual) that really stop me from switching:
The ability to assign "AF-ON" button as One-shot and "*" button as Servo-AF or vice versa. With this setup, I can use one-shot or Servo AF by pressing either button which is very importance to me.

Also, the level indicator in 7D2 viewfinder is easier to use than the 80D.

Have a nice day.

 

[xps]

Thanks for sharing!

As written some days ago, an member of our photoclub (who works for an really big German photographic equipment selling business chain) was able to take some shots with the new 80D. He is in the opinion, for the "normal" enthusiastic wildlife/birds... shooter the 80D will be the better option than the 7DII, especially if you go 100-400& 1.4x externder. He reported that IQ is visibly better, AF at F8 works fine and the overall performance is not so much worser than the one of the 7DII. Some special things are missing (Af cases).

He reported yesterday, the AF accuracy (as critiziced in recent Color-Foto Magazine) is better than the AF of the 7DII. They took shots on moving targets at an shooting range. They got more sharp pictures, especially when the target is stopping and starts moving again.

 

[nhz]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

I'm not so sure. The D500 is there to put a halt to all the Nikon defectors who can't fork out $6,000 for a flagship camera. Nikon has been losing users to Canon in this regard. For a long time now, Nikon has had nothing in this area. Users will put up with slightly inferior...but they can't put up with nothing.

Both companies have had a really slow upgrade cycle on these flagship crop cameras. I believe it is because they both felt the flagship DSLR was a dead concept with FF on the rise in that price bracket. Apparently, that isn't the case. The main draw of these flagship crops is the 10fps, build and pro-ish features.

Now, the 80D will dig into 7D2 sales. Those cameras now compete. At this point, if you don't need 2 card slots and 10fps isn't mandatory - the 7D2 offers little over the 80D. Many users within a camera system will rank IQ up high as a factor. Across systems, not so much. Within a system, you have the same glass and that is a big consideration for many, many reasons.

I think you have a bit too limited definition of 'flagship camera', as if it is all about sports and super-fast wildlife. That's just a small percentage of the market IMHO. Maybe it looks like that because Canikon competes mostly on extreme High ISO performance, high framerate and tough build quality (Canon does this for all all their FF models except 6D, while Nikon has a more balanced approach with their FF cameras).

I would have no problem paying a lot of money for a very different APS-C 'flagship camera', one with primarily very good LOW ISO performance instead of extreme HIGH ISO performance. And not super-tough, weather sealed and heavy but compact and light while still having good build quality. APS-C is fine if they provide a few high quality SWA lenses. Just look at how e.g. a D7200 sensor beats all Canon FF sensors in DR at low ISO (the 5DS has much higher resolution, but apart from that model the D7200 has the same resolution too). Although I don't need many of the 'tough' features of a D500, it looks like a very interesting camera to me - the only reservations I have are the higher weight (still low compared to 7D2 though) and that low ISO performance might be a bit compromised (we don't know yet).

Agree that 80D now competes with 7D2 because it caters to a potentially much bigger group of users and it ahead on some specs. The only fly in the ointment might be that 80D sensor could be significantly weaker for medium-high ISO than 7D2 (above 800 ISO or so - but maybe the first reports about that aren't reliable).

 

[nhz]

Thanks for sharing!

As written some days ago, an member of our photoclub (who works for an really big German photographic equipment selling business chain) was able to take some shots with the new 80D. He is in the opinion, for the "normal" enthusiastic wildlife/birds... shooter the 80D will be the better option than the 7DII, especially if you go 100-400& 1.4x externder. He reported that IQ is visibly better, AF at F8 works fine and the overall performance is not so much worser than the one of the 7DII. Some special things are missing (Af cases).

He reported yesterday, the AF accuracy (as critiziced in recent Color-Foto Magazine) is better than the AF of the 7DII. They took shots on moving targets at an shooting range. They got more sharp pictures, especially when the target is stopping and starts moving again.

Clearly many experienced wildlife photographers have trouble getting really (reliably) sharp images with the 7D2 for moving subjects and there still is no good explanation for that. We need the 80D in the hands of more users, with different lenses and shooting conditions, to be sure of AF performance. If it can avoid the glitches of 7D2, whatever their real cause, that could be a major advantage. A higher frame rate is of little help if a large percentage of shots is just OOF ;-(

 

[xps]

Thanks for sharing!

As written some days ago, an member of our photoclub (who works for an really big German photographic equipment selling business chain) was able to take some shots with the new 80D. He is in the opinion, for the "normal" enthusiastic wildlife/birds... shooter the 80D will be the better option than the 7DII, especially if you go 100-400& 1.4x externder. He reported that IQ is visibly better, AF at F8 works fine and the overall performance is not so much worser than the one of the 7DII. Some special things are missing (Af cases).

He reported yesterday, the AF accuracy (as critiziced in recent Color-Foto Magazine) is better than the AF of the 7DII. They took shots on moving targets at an shooting range. They got more sharp pictures, especially when the target is stopping and starts moving again.

Clearly many experienced wildlife photographers have trouble getting really (reliably) sharp images with the 7D2 for moving subjects and there still is no good explanation for that. We need the 80D in the hands of more users, with different lenses and shooting conditions, to be sure of AF performance. If it can avoid the glitches of 7D2, whatever their real cause, that could be a major advantage. A higher frame rate is of little help if a large percentage of shots is just OOF ;-(

You are right. Better lower fps, but many more sharper images. The collegue tested it with his 100-400 II +1.4 extender and 300mm 2.8, 600mm L IS I. And the 80D seems to be better in AF at shooting moving subjects.

But he heared (rumor from others), that Canon (maybe) will release an updated firmware, as the AF system is capable of better performance. But he does not know, if this is true.

If you come from Germany, read the test in Color-Foto. I was astonished, that the AF has such "problems". I thought, this AF will be the best of the tested cams. But it was not. I read in another forum, the low fps rate of the silent shooting mode was the reason for this, but I do not believe this.

G

 

[K]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

Agree that 80D now competes with 7D2 because it caters to a potentially much bigger group of users and it ahead on some specs. The only fly in the ointment might be that 80D sensor could be significantly weaker for medium-high ISO than 7D2 (above 800 ISO or so - but maybe the first reports about that aren't reliable).

That is an interesting report, here's my thoughts...

The 80D has a brand new sensor with on chip conversion. It *should* have better high ISO performance than the 7D2, even with its higher megapixel count.

There's also that crowd in the internet that says pixel size doesn't matter. I don't think so. I think it does matter. But even if it did, 20 to 24 MP isn't a huge difference like say 12 to 24mp is. What is a huge difference is that the 80D sensor is much newer and has a significantly improved technology for increasing DR and reducing noise. That is a more relevant factor. Not 4 more megapixels.

What, other than having 4mp less, does the old tech sensor of the 7D2 have to possibly allow it better high ISO performance?

I think absolutely nothing.


Thus, if it is true that the 7D2 has better high ISO - then there is 2 possibilities...


1. Canon 'tuned' these sensors differently and isn't a matter of technology. But this will certainly make the sensor geeks go crazy as they have said on this forum a sensor cannot be geared or tuned to have better performance in certain regards.

2. Canon is...uhhh I hate to say it...intentionally crippling the 80D's high ISO. Why? I have no idea. To leave something better about the 7D2's sensor and help keep it more relevant for sports/wildlife/event shooters? Maybe. That's a stretch, but Canon is capable of anything.


ALL that said,,,,I will wait to see more results and comparisons. However, if it is true the 7D2 has better high ISO....then at least one or two prevailing wisdom group-think internet facts go down the toilet. Because these folks making these claims cannot have it both ways as illustrated in my points in this post.

My opinion, if the 7D2 has better high ISO, I think #2 "crippling" is taking place. Because there is no way a lousy 4mp less two-year old sensor trumps on-chip ADC. And I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the greater processing capacity of the 7D2. While processing plays a much larger role than people give credit for, the 7D2 has it for processing 10fps. It doesn't reduce noise that much to beat out a 2 years newer sensor with ADC.

 

[Don Haines]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

Agree that 80D now competes with 7D2 because it caters to a potentially much bigger group of users and it ahead on some specs. The only fly in the ointment might be that 80D sensor could be significantly weaker for medium-high ISO than 7D2 (above 800 ISO or so - but maybe the first reports about that aren't reliable).

That is an interesting report, here's my thoughts...

The 80D has a brand new sensor with on chip conversion. It *should* have better high ISO performance than the 7D2, even with its higher megapixel count.

There's also that crowd in the internet that says pixel size doesn't matter. I don't think so. I think it does matter. But even if it did, 20 to 24 MP isn't a huge difference like say 12 to 24mp is. What is a huge difference is that the 80D sensor is much newer and has a significantly improved technology for increasing DR and reducing noise. That is a more relevant factor. Not 4 more megapixels.

What, other than having 4mp less, does the old tech sensor of the 7D2 have to possibly allow it better high ISO performance?

I think absolutely nothing.


Thus, if it is true that the 7D2 has better high ISO - then there is 2 possibilities...


1. Canon 'tuned' these sensors differently and isn't a matter of technology. But this will certainly make the sensor geeks go crazy as they have said on this forum a sensor cannot be geared or tuned to have better performance in certain regards.

2. Canon is...uhhh I hate to say it...intentionally crippling the 80D's high ISO. Why? I have no idea. To leave something better about the 7D2's sensor and help keep it more relevant for sports/wildlife/event shooters? Maybe. That's a stretch, but Canon is capable of anything.


ALL that said,,,,I will wait to see more results and comparisons. However, if it is true the 7D2 has better high ISO....then at least one or two prevailing wisdom group-think internet facts go down the toilet. Because these folks making these claims cannot have it both ways as illustrated in my points in this post.

My opinion, if the 7D2 has better high ISO, I think #2 "crippling" is taking place. Because there is no way a lousy 4mp less two-year old sensor trumps on-chip ADC. And I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the greater processing capacity of the 7D2. While processing plays a much larger role than people give credit for, the 7D2 has it for processing 10fps. It doesn't reduce noise that much to beat out a 2 years newer sensor with ADC.

There is a third and much more probable possibility.... One sensor design works better at high ISO and the other sensor design works better at low ISO.

Anyone who has been following this forum has heard the endless droning on (by all parties) about the eternal Canon vs Nikon vs Sony sensor debate and how the Canon sensors are inferior at low ISO yet are equivalent (or slightly better) at high ISO. So now Canon comes out with an on-chip A/D and OMG! it is better at low ISO and worse at low ISO.... there seems to be a pattern here

 

[midluk]

Or there is a new generation of DPAF which slightly reduces photon collection efficiency and therefore high ISO performance.

 

[IglooEater]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

There is a third and much more probable possibility.... One sensor design works better at high ISO and the other sensor design works better at low ISO.

Anyone who has been following this forum has heard the endless droning on (by all parties) about the eternal Canon vs Nikon vs Sony sensor debate and how the Canon sensors are inferior at low ISO yet are equivalent (or slightly better) at high ISO. So now Canon comes out with an on-chip A/D and OMG! it is better at low ISO and worse at low ISO.... there seems to be a pattern here

That answer seems too reasonable for the CR crowd.

 

[Don Haines]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

...
There is a third and much more probable possibility.... One sensor design works better at high ISO and the other sensor design works better at low ISO.

Anyone who has been following this forum has heard the endless droning on (by all parties) about the eternal Canon vs Nikon vs Sony sensor debate and how the Canon sensors are inferior at low ISO yet are equivalent (or slightly better) at high ISO. So now Canon comes out with an on-chip A/D and OMG! it is better at low ISO and worse at low ISO.... there seems to be a pattern here

That doesn't really make sense (but I do understand the logic.)

The problem is that it is not possible to do a straight test of on and off chip A/D conversion with everything else the same.

It does make sense and you are right about things not being the same....

It all comes down to what the designs are and how they are implemented. Canon has been using off-chip A/D units from (I believe) AMD. Advanced Micro Devices has been in business a LONG time.....I was buying their A/D and D/A chips back into the 1970`s... They do a very good job. I am sure that they design better devices than Canon or Sony or Nikon.

It is very possible that under some conditions, an off-chip A/D of superior design will work better than an inferior A/D that is on-chip. When you consider thermal noise, and that the sensor is the hottest chip in the camera, this becomes even more likely.

 

[nhz]

Re: I compiled a 60D/70D/80D feature comparison table

There is a third and much more probable possibility.... One sensor design works better at high ISO and the other sensor design works better at low ISO.

Anyone who has been following this forum has heard the endless droning on (by all parties) about the eternal Canon vs Nikon vs Sony sensor debate and how the Canon sensors are inferior at low ISO yet are equivalent (or slightly better) at high ISO. So now Canon comes out with an on-chip A/D and OMG! it is better at low ISO and worse at low high? ISO.... there seems to be a pattern here

Agree, in technology there usually is no free lunch - just a different compromise unless someone has radically different technology which isn't the case here. The same seems to apply to Nikon D5 based on the latest rumors.

IMHO especially Canon has been putting way too much emphasis on extreme High ISO over the last years, at the cost of low ISO; maybe 1/2 stop better at high ISO but several stops behind at low ISO compared to Nikon. Maybe that made sense catering mostly to sports, event, wedding shooters etc. but not everyone shoots in near dark, I'm pretty sure most of their users shoot 100-800 ISO most of the time ...

With the 80D there finally is a better balance between low and high ISO performance. At the same time, looking at e.g. Nikon D7200 you can see that both low and High ISO performance can be further improved, but maybe in that case the compromise is the lack of dual pixel AF (I don't really care about that), maybe compromised video (haven't checked because I don't really care about video either) and slow Liveview (that's more of a problem, especially if you need it for the most accurate AF).

 

[axtstern]

Suestion from my side please check if there are more details for the comparrison sheet.

From my point of view:
My 80D does not allow to take pictures while having movie mode activated. I was sure that my 60D was still able to do that. Has this feature already disapeared in the age of the 70D?

 

[Sharlin]

My 80D does not allow to take pictures while having movie mode activated. I was sure that my 60D was still able to do that. Has this feature already disapeared in the age of the 70D?

Already there, item "Still shooting" under Movie shooting. The feature is removed from the 80D for an unknown reason.

 

[axtstern]

THX for the info

 

[midluk]

My 80D does not allow to take pictures while having movie mode activated. I was sure that my 60D was still able to do that. Has this feature already disapeared in the age of the 70D?

Already there, item "Still shooting" under Movie shooting. The feature is removed from the 80D for an unknown reason.

The reason is likely: "We need some features to add to the 90D to sell more of those to 80D users."