Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Thoughts on the Canon 80D?

N

neutrino23

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 14, 2003
1,881
391
SF Bay area
I've been looking at the Canon 80D and it looks like a great upgrade from my 40D. I mostly take "practical" pictures: kids' sporting events, family events, pictures of objects for presentations for work, scenery and such as a hobby.

I'm intrigued by the wider dynamic range and better low light capabilities. I'm a little put off by the increase in the number of pixels and the greater file size. The quieter shutter is a plus. I have yet to see one.

Anyone have one yet?
 
I've never tried the 80D but as it has only recently been released it is priced at a premium. You can expect the price to reduce over the next 3 months or so.

Also, somewhere after the 40D this series of cameras got plastic bodies rather than magnesium. As a result, they are lighter but not quite so tough. If that is an issue, you could opt for the 7DII.
 
Thanks. I'm fairly gentle with my camera so I'm not too worried about the build. A lot of the time it will live on a tripod.

The price idea is interesting. I already have more than enough lenses. I'll probably sell a lens and body to lower the price.

This will be my first DSLR capable of video, HDR video at that I believe. I'm looking forward to that. One less thing to carry around.
 
I got my 70D June-2014 for my "big" out west trip, the 80D offers improvements over it.
(Prior I was shooting with a 2009 T1i)

Not enough that I'd consider upgrade, but from a 40D to 80D... well sounds like you know what to do.

I truly love the flip out screen, I use it a lot on tripod.
 
CmdrLaForge said:
I have the 80D. Love to work with it so far. There are plenty of YouTube videos and reviews already available. I can answer specific questions.
Click to expand...
How do you like the low light performance? I don't mean dark but indoor or home lighting. Can you shoot at something like ISO100 or 1600 and get nice, low noise images?

Currently I err on the side of lower noise, choosing a too low ISO, and get a lot of blurry shots.
 
neutrino23 said:
How do you like the low light performance? I don't mean dark but indoor or home lighting. Can you shoot at something like ISO100 or 1600 and get nice, low noise images?

Currently I err on the side of lower noise, choosing a too low ISO, and get a lot of blurry shots.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the lowlight performance. I suggest to read through those great reviews either on websites or YouTube. Apparently lowlight is improved so much that this camera comes close to the best which seems to be Nikon and Sony. But as I have no comparisons I can't say. I liked my pictures I took indoors but that's not scientific.

What I really like about it that it works great as a camcorder too and the overall handling and working with it is really great.
 
I have a unique situation. I won an 80D and don't know what to do with it. :oops: I am a happy Nikon shooter and have multiple bodies and many lenses. Right now I am leaning towards selling it or converting it to IR.

From everything I've read it is a capable camera. For your needs it would be a fantastic choice. I wouldn't worry too much about file size if you have a computer made in the last five years. Drives are cheap and a 4TB drive will hold a lot of images. My laptop is a 2011 MacBook Pro from 2011 and I work with layered 36 MP files all the time. It does have 16 GB RAM but I would recommend that anyway.

In my research if the 80D it looks to be a good low light performer. If I didn't already have good low light cameras I would be all over it. I expect the newer system will perform close to my D800s. The pixel pitch is about the same. It is a huge upgrade from the 40D.

The real question is if there is something that the 40D isn't doing for you? If you are pushing the 40D in some way then that will help to define an upgrade path. If you don't find yourself limited then it is a matter of what your priorities and wallet will handle.
 
compasiune11 said:
If you compare 70D vs 80D you will se the only huge difference is the price, 70D is much cheaper
Click to expand...

Since I started the thread I've read the short review at dpreview and have seen some images. The 80D has much less noise. Something I don't understand well yet is the idea that rather than shoot at higher ISO you can shoot at lower ISO and then push the image in post and get nearly the same result. Anyway, the new sensor and electronics produce images with much less noise in low light. Probably I'll upgrade. The video aspect is also very interesting. I make short videos for inclusion in iBooks. Making them easier and better is always nice.
 
neutrino23 said:
I've been looking at the Canon 80D and it looks like a great upgrade from my 40D. I mostly take "practical" pictures: kids' sporting events, family events, pictures of objects for presentations for work, scenery and such as a hobby.

I'm intrigued by the wider dynamic range and better low light capabilities. I'm a little put off by the increase in the number of pixels and the greater file size. The quieter shutter is a plus. I have yet to see one.

Anyone have one yet?
Click to expand...

If you're a canon shooter and want a cropped sensor camera, this is one the to get. Period. I think you'll love it coming from a 40D. You'll be extremely happy with the difference in image quality. I had the 40D and to be honest my Sony RX100 IV is better than that camera overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neutrino23
For photography Nikons files are superior.

The 80D is marketed as a video-dslr because of its continous autofocus, touch-focus and tiltscreen.

But it has no cinelog ... o_O
 
Meister said:
But the 70d was very popular among independent filmmakers.
Click to expand...

Which neither had cinelog
[doublepost=1461481653][/doublepost]
simonsi said:
Ummm but that is determined by the body technology, its not as if ALL Nikon files are superior??

Sorry, not getting it...
Click to expand...

Of course it has nothing to do with the files but with the sensor technology. And btw-from all review th Canon 80D seems to have closed the gap to Sony and Nikon (who uses Sony sensors)

And as I said before - with Canon it is way more convenient to load a picture profile that needs no correction for example this one:

http://www.cineplus.ch/cinema.html

And if you follow the link you can find other profiles that are flat as well. All is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meister
CmdrLaForge said:
Which neither had cinelog
[doublepost=1461481653][/doublepost]

Of course it has nothing to do with the files but with the sensor technology. And btw-from all review th Canon 80D seems to have closed the gap to Sony and Nikon (who uses Sony sensors)

And as I said before - with Canon it is way more convenient to load a picture profile that needs no correction for example this one:

http://www.cineplus.ch/cinema.html

And if you follow the link you can find other profiles that are flat as well. All is good.
Click to expand...
Good link!
There is also always Magic Lantern.
[doublepost=1461499384][/doublepost]
simonsi said:
Ummm but that is determined by the body technology, its not as if ALL Nikon files are superior??

Sorry, not getting it...
Click to expand...
The files/images contain more dr and less noise.
Thanks to the sensor of course.

This is generaly the case for most Nikons over Canon. (except the 5ds)

The dr difference is quite significant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vanessa D.
Meister said:
For photography Nikons files are superior.

The 80D is marketed as a video-dslr because of its continous autofocus, touch-focus and tiltscreen.

But it has no cinelog ... o_O
Click to expand...

Unless you are working with RAW data files, the goal of shooting video with an SLR should be to get it as close to correct in-camera. You can shoot flat for less noise, but compression of the output files makes any meaningful color grading difficult. I use a modified version of Cinestyle by Technicolor
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meister
Vanessa D. said:
Is the reason why the people say that Nikon is not so good to video?
Click to expand...
When you shoot photos with a Nikon, you can get a raw file with 14 bits of dynamic range, that you can manipulate to your hearts content.
When you shoot video with a Nikon, you get something that's already reduced to 8 bits, and compressed further into whatever codec Nikon thinks is appropriate. You can avoid some of these compromises by getting a Nikon with a clean HDMI output and using an external video recorder.

If you use a DLSR for shooting stills, you're using a completely different autofocusing system than the one supplied for video/liveview. The video engine may not take advantage of any tonal controls associated with the in camera JPEG engine. And Nikon has a relatively primitive aperture control system that is best suited for stills photography. The top end Nikons do have an extra motor that solves this problem.

So while Nikon may have a real advantage over Canon in terms of still photography, this advantage does not extend into video--possibly because the engineering teams have different priorities, and different technological constraints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meister and Vanessa D.
As a 70D owner, I can vouch for its video capabilities. If you want to shoot good video and have a nice stills camera, the 80D will be a good fit. The 80D adds a significant upgrade over the 70D for video, and that is a headphone jack. You can now know for sure what quality of audio is being recorded. I have never owned a Nikon, so I can't make any comparisons between the two camera makers.

If you want to save some money on an upgrade from the 40D, I'd give the 70D a serious look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back