Canon 80D narrows gap to Sony

[.spider.]

Finally, Canon achieved a lower noise floor as you can see here. 

http://www.dpreview.com/news/7168986570/canon-shows-dynamism-eos-80d-breaks-new-ground-for-canon-low-iso-dr

The 80D beats the 5DS R but sadly there is still about 1EV difference between Sony's sensors. 

 

IMO a good sign that Canon starts to focus on image quality instead of fancy CMOS AF sensors. 

[ShadowCaptain]

So they are still behind, for the same money id hands down get an A6300 which has one of the lowest noise, shoots 4k (hopefully rolling shutter will be fixed soon) and many other advantages

 

Canon are still so far behind

[.spider.]

4 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

 

 

Canon are still so far behind

 

Yes

 

 

[ShadowCaptain]

20 hours ago, .spider. said:

 

Yes

and in almost every other regard

[AyeJayKay]

While I agree that Canon is behind on their body tech.. I still use my 70d with no complaints due to the wide selection of fast and cheap lenses both 1st party and 3rd party. Yes you can adapt but I prefer native.

[Swndlr]

On 3/24/2016 at 1:22 PM, ShadowCaptain said:

So they are still behind, for the same money id hands down get an A6300 which has one of the lowest noise, shoots 4k (hopefully rolling shutter will be fixed soon) and many other advantages

 

Canon are still so far behind

Grrrrrrr A7r fanboy

[ALwin]

7 hours ago, AyeJayKay said:

While I agree that Canon is behind on their body tech.. I still use my 70d with no complaints due to the wide selection of fast and cheap lenses both 1st party and 3rd party. Yes you can adapt but I prefer native.

Which makes perfectly sense.  There's more to a camera than just the specifications.

 

Just because Sony (and now the Nikon D5) can go up to insanely high ISO does not mean people use them.  For 99.99% of photographers in the world or for 99.99% of what photographers (including people who record video) do with their cameras in the real world, the capabilities of these cameras at the extreme end of their specifications are meaningless.

 

So what if a mirrorless camera is lighter and more compact, there are still many DSLR shooters in the world, and many professionals who use DSLRs.

 

Different camera people have different priorities, and so far what I've seen on this forum seems to be that only the inexperienced or those who are beginners are obsessed with specifications.  Yes technology can help, but having the best technology doesn't make you a better photographer or cinematographer.  Experience, vision, creativity counts a lot more.

[.spider.]

50 minutes ago, ALwin said:

 

 

Different camera people have different priorities, and so far what I've seen on this forum seems to be that only the inexperienced or those who are beginners are obsessed with specifications. 

You are so so wrong. This is NOT about specifications this is about IMAGE QUALITY! The noise floor directly affects the image quality, it is hard to believe that people do not understand that. 

 

[ShadowCaptain]

7 hours ago, Swndlr said:

Grrrrrrr A7r fanboy

Not really i only use sony because it currently suites my style and usage

there is a lot wrong with them still

[Swndlr]

2 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

Not really i only use sony because it currently suites my style and usage

there is a lot wrong with them still

Ik ik

 

[.spider.]

80D finally tested at DXOMark

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-750D-versus-Nikon-D5500___1076_1010_998

 

As you can see it is quite a big step in terms of dynamic range, but the SNR is still high.

Also noticeable is that the sensor's sensitivity dropped quite a lot at lower ISOs.

ISO 100 equals "real" ISO 64 

 

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, .spider. said:

80D finally tested at DXOMark

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-750D-versus-Nikon-D5500___1076_1010_998

 

As you can see it is quite a big step in terms of dynamic range, but the SNR is still high.

Also noticeable is that the sensor's sensitivity dropped quite a lot at lower ISOs.

ISO 100 equals "real" ISO 64 

 

I really don't see the point on looking on camera benchmarks. When I bought my camera I looked quite a bit on specs but after learning and so for about a year I'm only interested in seeing images that are created by the camera I would be interested in. To me it doesnt really show more than the specs of the camera and that I can get from the official site instead of some 3rd party site. Though this would be along side special features as portability and lens avalibality. (What I don't like about my Sony camera, mostly really expensive lenses if I want AF. There is only ONE budget option for a telezoom for example)

[.spider.]

4 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

To me it doesnt really show more than the specs of the camera and that I can get from the official site instead of some 3rd party site. 

So where can I see any information about for example the 80D's low light performance on Canon's website.

Except for "...for outstanding performance in bright to dim light."

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/dslr/eos-80d

[ALwin]

27 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

I really don't see the point on looking on camera benchmarks. When I bought my camera I looked quite a bit on specs but after learning and so for about a year I'm only interested in seeing images that are created by the camera I would be interested in.

Many in this discussion would agree with you.  I already do.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00cvQA

[xQubeZx]

4 minutes ago, .spider. said:

So where can I see any information about for example the 80D's low light performance on Canon's website.

Except for "...for outstanding performance in bright to dim light."

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/dslr/eos-80d

I would look on the ISO range and see if it is a full frame or a cropped sensor. That should be enough for you to get an approx. on how good it would be in low light. A newer model will also perform better than a year old one most of the time. The article you linked would not have made me any wiser than I would have got from just looking at the specs on Canons own site. Thats how I feel at least. It feels like it is about how you look on GPU's and see say a GTX 760, then you know the GTX 960 will be slightly faster since it is newer but still perform about the same. While a GTX 770 would be better then the mentioned GTX760.

 

And still, "real" pictures would be much more interesting than both the spec sheet and dpreviews article.

 

[xQubeZx]

2 minutes ago, ALwin said:

Many in this discussion would agree with you.  I already do.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00cvQA

Well I would never trust any sites like that. I would read a honest review with a real world test with attatched pictures. When you are a student you really learn to do proper reaserch before buying anything because you can't afford to replace it or buy something new if the first wasn't like expected, always do several hours of reaserch before buying haha.

[.spider.]

3 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

I would look on the ISO range and see if it is a full frame or a cropped sensor. That should be enough for you to get an approx. on how good it would be in low light. 

 

The ISO range tells nothing.

The sensor size tells a bit but by choosing the right camera you could get a better performance.

 

[ALwin]

14 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Well I would never trust any sites like that. I would read a honest review with a real world test with attatched pictures. When you are a student you really learn to do proper reaserch before buying anything because you can't afford to replace it or buy something new if the first wasn't like expected, always do several hours of reaserch before buying haha.

Same with professional photographers, they don't look at benchmark scores to decide their next camera "upgrade".  Sure they may use the scores on DxO as some reference, but their primary decision making factors are not those scores and different individuals have different features they require in a camera.

 

Take DxO mark's scores for any camera with a big grain of salt.  They give you a good idea of how something performs, similar to people looking at PC components' performance benchmarks, but photography is different.  If you want to play a very realistic 3D game with 4K resolution and 120fps frame rates, you definitely need a high performance PC rig built to handle such demand.  With photography, it's your creativity and skill that determines how good the photo that you've taken looks.  If you want to be able to create better photos, you become better as a photographer.  Not buy a better camera.

[.spider.]

15 minutes ago, ALwin said:

Many in this discussion would agree with you.  I already do.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00cvQA

Marcus Ian , Nov 03, 2014; 05:59 a.m. on page 3 summarizes it perfectly.

Of course there are always naive people who think they can do everything with a pinhole camera, but after all they are just giving themselves a hard time.

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, .spider. said:

The ISO range tells nothing.

The sensor size tells a bit but by choosing the right camera you could get a better performance.

 

So you are trying to say a camera with an max ISO of 16000 will be better than a camera like the A7s ii with and insanly high ISO?

[ALwin]

10 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

So you are trying to say a camera with an max ISO of 1600 will be better than a camera like the A7s ii with and insanly high ISO?

You made a small typo here, it should be 16000.

 

And yes, apparently to some people it doesn't matter if a photographer wants a FF or Cropped sensor camera, mirrorless or DSLR, flip screen or not, etc..  What matters is the performance of the sensor.  (I write this statement with a very sarcastic tone.)

 

Photographers like Steve McCury or Anne Geddes must be producing shitty photos because the cameras they use are not the top performing cameras on DxO Mark.

[.spider.]

13 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

So you are trying to say a camera with an max ISO of 1600 will be better than a camera like the A7s ii with and insanly high ISO?

Nope I said it tells nothing!!!

650D ISO Max 25600(6400 without bit flipping)

450D ISO Max 1600

No big difference between them

 

650D ISO Max 25600(6400 without bit flipping)

D3300 ISO Max 25600(12800 without bit flipping)

Huge difference

 

Just looking at the ISO range is gambling and it tells you nothing!

Where as measurements are very detailed and accurate