bernardly: What's wrong with DxoMark—are they sleeping? How long are they going to take to review this camera's sensor performance? There is not even a stub preview page for the 80D on their site, for shame.
They are confused to a point that they are immobile, they actually have to create new sentences for the performance of the 80D & its just too hard !! Originality of words hurts their heads !! They are resting hoping for complete sentence construction after a long long rest - next week maybe !! ;)
sh10453: To each their own, but I never liked or cared for the circular bokeh at all.I find such circles to be very distracting.
Beyond 'broadcasting' those 'bubbles' as art in/of themselves, can't say I like the bokeh.
But as the descrip says, 3 groups of 3 lens, so these are likely a bit better/sharper than the orig, but have fun with that bokeh.
Nothing to see here, move along, move along ! ;)
Timbukto: Solutions to non-existent problems that are somewhat successful in the camera industry. Low MP sensors with no anti-aliasing filters. Solves the huge problem of applying tasteful sharpening in post in preference towards forced stair-stepping, moire, aliasing artifacts. If we are talking science and technology, then it needs to be admitted that images captured with AA filters intact actually *increase* fidelity.
Also audiophile industry has numerous successful products that solve non-existent problems.
Not angry just that it seemed the earlier response did not get the reference. And I explained the MC ref, most ppl barely have heard of that vs the many other silly other silly overpriced under perfroming brands!
Bought some pure silver non shielded 22 gauge wire @ $15 a foot for running from input RCA conns to circuit board of an amp, not worth it but where do you get pure silver wire from but high end overpriced audio shops ?? The 99.99999 copper wire was almost the same price !!
The moral of the story is - you see a fool with money - someone will sell the fool some expensive nonsense !!
To support the above with actual tested science, many a year ago Monster connect cables were tested against 'off the shelf relatively plain inexpensive' cables using frequencies (conditioned signals such as square waves, saw-tooth and even white noise) to test the 'bandwidth' limits & such between them.
To summarize, ONLY the cables that had poorly grounded/shielded connections or very pathetic gauge (very small gauge) were actually inferior to the vastly more expensive Monster Cables, so the $10 cable tested as well as the $150 MC cables !!
Matter of fact some cheap cable did BETTER than did MC !!
So I simply mentioned a brand that is fairly well known, and was/is part of the hocus-pocus world of 'golden ears' (or is it Harry Potter?) or for this exact subject 'Golden Eyes'.
Photography is so similar to the audiophile crowd, more concern for h/w than the actual subject of the hobby - music or photos !!
Did you say ultra expensive Monster Cable products - how dare you !! ;)
With this 5-axis IBIS, I wonder why not offer the full color mode shifting or even double.multiple exposure for higher rez shots ?
Is it a degree of 'preordained' movement (pixel shift for color) vs IBIS which I Assume is using feedback from sensor to prevent overcomp movement ?
Anyone know ?
Coyote_Cody: I still find it disappointing that Canon will NOT put IBIS in some models of their cams, especially since some models will never have L lens and may never have IS lens, such as the M or Rebel/xxxD cams - even a half ass version of IS, not the nice IBIS this or some Sony's have !!
Real greedy A'holes Canon !!
Incompetent AF in some cams, M's for one and no IBIS to name just 2 shortcomings !
Makes a user want to switch !!
Missed the point huh John C Tharp ???????
I still find it disappointing that Canon will NOT put IBIS in some models of their cams, especially since some models will never have L lens and may never have IS lens, such as the M or Rebel/xxxD cams - even a half ass version of IS, not the nice IBIS this or some Sony's have !!
brownie314: I just can't see how Canon can sell more big black plastic boxes when there is competition like the A6300 around. Yes, I know they are still the sales leader - and DT is still leading the R primary race - that doesn't mean he is the smartest choice - he is just shouting the loudest.
darngooddesign, I have to put my glasses ON to see LCD, otherwise I see quite well - old eyes do NOT like close up small things-have you not noticed that yet? !!!!!==As noted, size is NOT an issue if you always have a 500mm 6 pound lens on it, but a city dweller taking shots of ppl do not need that of course, birders do !
And the size of a cam has NEVER been my issue beyond wanting one to fit in my shirt pocket, which NO ILC mirrorless does, had to resort to P&S !!
So you really are just 'completely convinced' on this POSSIBLE 'fad' called 'mirrorless cam', but then there are some sizable 'mirrorless cam' no smaller than a 'real' DSLR, no? !!
I also do not have small girly hands, small buttons are PIA and a 2 pound cam is still a trivial weight + lens for most of us.
So carrying a small cam with a f2.8 70-200mm lens is as 'inconvenient' on a rigorous hiking/biking trip as is a cam the size of a lens cap w/ same lens, no? !!
1 size does NOT fit all !
Coyote_Cody: Hard to fathom why Canon can not do 4kHD in this cam.
80D is large enuf for the heat (heatsink), and if the A6300 as small as it is can do full or almost full sensor 4kHD, why not the 80D ??
Wonder if a marketing issue or a purely tech inability issue or BOTH ?
I believe that all cams use the main DSP(s) and ancillary video chips to augment the complete video processing.
For years now it seems Canon has weak/slow DSPs (TI the maker) as several of their cams have 2-3 processors (why ML is hard to port to 7D/II) - with FPS equal or only barely greater than cams with a SINGLE DSP !!
I would assume 80D has a single DSP ?
I honestly prefer a OVF, as the A6k I tried has a higher rez EVF than A6300 and I really disliked it,refresh was not great to me & colors far from real/actual.
Old eyes do not like having to use the LCD (constant 'glasses on-glasses off' is PIA), OVF can be adjusted, a good EVF would be adj too I ASSume, but prefer OVF.
Beyond a certain point the size of a lens can swamp the size of the cam, and if one uses large lens very often, cam size really does not matter !!
Small lens, small cam makes sense, a 100-400mm on small cam - who cares for size of cam ?!
Hard to fathom why Canon can not do 4kHD in this cam.
Earthlight: I am now very happy with my decision not to get a 5DsR last year. Give me a 5D4 with this sensor tech, say 28 mp and that is it. It would give very, very high quality 50x75 cm prints from a single frame. Stitch to get gigantic enlargements and panoramas.
I sold my 1DsMkIII in anticipation 6 months ago and have been shooting with a pair of 6D bodies since.
And hopefully Canon will continue to improve its sensors.
Maybe they will do BSI for APS-C & 35mm sensors, eventually doing stacking tech for them, but it will maybe take a couple of gens to get there - but their lens are arguably equal to the very best and definitely are cheaper for great quality compared to Zony lens for example !!
And touch screens really do have a nice advantage to non touch, Sony does not use these much yet.
So do we know if this is a FSI or possibly a BSI sensor ?
Superficial research shows that FSI with reflective lens (to bounce the photons down to well and prevent reflections from metal layers) can be nearly as efficient as a BSI, especially w/o stacking (the 'nearly' would explain the 'not quite as good as Sony/Samsung performance)..
Stacking does have an advantage beyond the obvious, in that the size of the analog layers topology can be larger than is needed for the digital layers, allowing for optimal silicon characteristics (dark noise, etc), as well as mixed substrate material.
I would hope we are all happy that Canon is working to increase the low ISO DR!
PS: To me it seems the 80D is ~2ev worse (than Nikon 7200) but is a large improvement over the 70D!!
David Hull: It is not shortening the electronic path or even the integration of the converter that achieves the improvement. It is the fact that they have increased the effective number of bits (ENOB) of the camera by going to entirely different converter approach. The ramp converter approach is very accurate, but very slow so in order to use it they need to use a lot of them and the easiest and least expensive way to achieve this is to put them on the same die with the sensor elements.
Shortening the path does bring benefits but this was never the root cause of the issue people have been whining about. The root cause always was that they put an ADC with an ENOB of 12.5 bits in what they claimed was a 14 bit camera. The reason that they had to do that was that converters that were fast enough to digitize just a few analog lanes from the sensor design they had, were pipeline designs that sacrifice accuracy to achieve speed.
But once again speculating on which ADC model they use and using the current worst/hardest example - a 50mp sensor & not the 80D sensor mp.
TI also makes 16bit ADC of sufficient speed, so depending on the chosen ADC, Canon could be getting real 14bits-correct? Also 14bit ADCs with full 14bit resolution, still implies speculation w/o actual model used!
And if fast enuf, ADCs can perform multiple conversions on a single sample as well & correlate the results.
Quite a range of models by TI, model-slas760, is a 16bit with a 14bit low power mode w/ 85-dBFS SNR at f in = 3 MHz, 100 MSPS.
So unless the model is know then - still speculating !!
I have read that Sony was using a 8bit ADC then a 12bit ADC on some recent sensors, yet no one is speculating that they do not provide true 14bit raw.
Of course, if the noise level swamps the lsb's, then sure ENOB is less.
Still seems speculation!
Is this speculation or do you have inside knowledge to the ADC's used by Canon ?
Also, there is no reason to have more bit accuracy than the signal you have if using a standard DR step is there - IOWs, if you have only '12.5' steps of signal using a 14 or 16 bit ADC will make NO diff.
But if you decrease either/both the analog noise via NR techniques OR/& reduce noise amp noise before the ADC by getting ADC closer to last analog stage, then you will have better conversion capability, yes?
As to the quality of the ADCs, I saw pics of a 35mm Canon cam (5DIII or 1Dx) showing Burr-Brown ADCs which in the hifi audio world are considered (or at least were) quite good/excellent (and analog signals are analog signals whether music or static analog sensor pixel values).
So unless you can fully state the model of ADCs that are/where used by Canon that are 'effectively' 12.5 bits vs full 14 bits then you are just speculating.
So please, give a url to the external ADCs past used by Canon, thx
Can anyone tell me what the purpose of those VERY thick single elements ? The location of these very thick (the 2 I noticed did not have complex 'face' shapes, just very thick) lens elements are certainly not for structural strength either.
I mostly thought that it was really the 'face' curves, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical, and it was the material coefficient of refraction, etc that made for the strength of the total refraction.
So is this thickness part of color correction or a 'cheaper' manor to attain a particular refraction value ??
Thx for the explanation !!
Coyote_Cody: Since apparently LOTS of reading challenged users here:
"Put simply, the Sigma MC-11 adapter allows the use of Sigma-mount and Canon-mount Sigma lenses, such as the excellent Sigma Art 35mm F1.4, to be adapted to Sony bodies with no autofocus compromises whatsoever. "
Notice the word sigma mount AND Canon mount Sigma lens, so NOT just SA mount lens adapter(s?) !
Also note that Rishi will 'change' his Nikon mount into a Canon mount to use via this!
So this adapter looks like a HUGE WIN-WIN-WIN, can use many more lens, maybe great cheap lens (Canon) as well as nice Art and other Sigma mount lens, etc.
This adapter can make a Sony E mount palatible for many users with NON Zony lens thus - a HUGE WIN-WIN-WIN !!!
ASSumption: If you can mount a Canon mount Sigma lens, why not a Canon lens ? (maybe there are s/w limits to NOT allow this?, otherwise a very smart move for Sony buyers of this adapter)
'IF' any adapter bought the protocol for a specific lens maker, it might could buy the lens info too. So it could be a combo of what you say.
What you say about Sigma is likely true, thus explaining why a Canon lens did not identify correctly - easy to check via meta/Exif data - so Sigma is diff and NOT a generic adapter.
But if purely 'reverse engineering' adapter then it is just skill in interpreting all those protocol cmds, responses from lens and timing, a very non trivial thing - hard work !!
Still a nice Win-Win for those who hate those HUGE Zony lens prices !!
dbm305, how do you think MB supports ANY lens? It reverse engineered them, and forum members as well as lensrental employees have 'wired out' the lens system of IIRC the E mount and a company like MB/Sigma can either buy the IF/API/protocols (for a large sum I would guess) OR reverse engineer with a logic analyzer and a some smart engineers/s/w guys !!
It is called work hard for your money, not a modern day concept I guess ?? ;)
As much as I like my M1, I will likely never buy another cam that does NOT have either a nice OVF or EVF.
I do NOT like having to look at the monitor for framing, my farsighted eyes do not like to try to look at the damn LCD and hate having to lug around and lose yet another pair of 'reading/viewing/framing' glasses.
Spit spit spit spit on HAVING to use ONLY the LCD monitor of ANY cam !!
And M1 AF sucks so bad sometimes, so glad I only spent $305 for cam/22mm, will not buy another Canon until ACT IS TOGETHER !!!!!!
Might would spend $305 for a M3, but maybe not too.