Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon 80D video quality still atrocious

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I rest my case.

Gotta love all this confusion about what he is so EXCITED about.. :D

But, from the horses mouth:
Screen Shot 2016-04-07 at 12.27.00.png


And like previously said....this is nothing new.
Works perfectly on the NX1 as well, with native NX-lenses only of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Antonis said:


And like previously said....this is nothing new.
Works perfectly on the NX1 as well, with native NX-lenses only of course.

I bought the NX1 pretty shortly after the relese. That was not "years ago" and definetelly not when the GH3 was released. And the NX1 has its own problems. Or is being discontinued a new and fresh feature?

This constant bashing of cameras by people that have never ever used them is getting so old. 

I dont find the 80D all that exciting, but Ive never used it. So I dont bash it until I have.

I absolutely hate my rx100iv, but I still dont constantly post bs in the rx100iv thread. The G7 is one of the worst cameras Ive used, but I let those who are interested discuss it in peace without unfunny jokes and bogus links. I would rather jam a fork in my eye than get a a6300, but I dont feel the need to tell every one that have bought it how wrong they are...

Im out until someone actually has the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I bought the NX1 pretty shortly after the relese. That was not "years ago" and definetelly not when the GH3 was released. And the NX1 has its own problems. Or is being discontinued a new and fresh feature?

This constant bashing of cameras by people that have never ever used them is getting so old. 

I dont find the 80D all that exciting, but Ive never used it. So I dont bash it until I have.

I absolutely hate my rx100iv, but I still dont constantly post bs in the rx100iv thread. The G7 is one of the worst cameras Ive used, but I let those who are interested discuss it in peace without unfunny jokes and bogus links. I would rather jam a fork in my eye than get a a6300, but I dont feel the need to tell every one that have bought it how wrong they are...

Im out until someone actually has the camera.

Can't believe this has gone on for 7 pages!

We need Zak back to inject a little sanity into the proceedings...

1 hour ago, Antonis said:

And like previously said....this is nothing new.
Works perfectly on the NX1 as well, with native NX-lenses only of course.

But it hasn't for the Canon range & so that guy thought it was a great feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

...

This constant bashing of cameras by people that have never ever used them is getting so old. 

...

I guess you'll have to blame the topic starter for that?? :P (sorry Andrew!)

I don't know what all the other stuff has to do with my reply.
I am just stating the facts how I see them, not bashing on anything or anyone.

The dual pixel AF in the new Canons is some very impressive technology, but the part of wireless controlled AF and record function has been implemented by other manufacturers already. 
Nothing more, nothing less :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I bought the NX1 pretty shortly after the relese. That was not "years ago" and definetelly not when the GH3 was released. And the NX1 has its own problems. Or is being discontinued a new and fresh feature?

This constant bashing of cameras by people that have never ever used them is getting so old. 

I dont find the 80D all that exciting, but Ive never used it. So I dont bash it until I have.

I absolutely hate my rx100iv, but I still dont constantly post bs in the rx100iv thread. The G7 is one of the worst cameras Ive used, but I let those who are interested discuss it in peace without unfunny jokes and bogus links. I would rather jam a fork in my eye than get a a6300, but I dont feel the need to tell every one that have bought it how wrong they are...

Im out until someone actually has the camera.

hahahahahahahaha

Mattias is just generally in a bad mood. I saw his post here, or somewhere else, about the focus thing with the Canon 80D and I wanted to reply, but I realized that he is probably just in a bad mood, and curious yet harmless rant. 

Bro, go out and treat yourself to a nice cold beer. If you were in the same city, the beers would have been on me  :glasses: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

@Mattias Burling is quickly just about to exceed me as the most popular contributor here of all time (jealous), that says a lot about his accuracy of posts and willingness to help others by giving away precious time with no return. I find all his opinions/posts 100% accurate. 

The GH3 (or GH4 for that matter) cannot be used in AF on a professional shoot (or even an amateur one really), it's unusable, the 80D on the other hand is the first camera that can actually do what's demonstrated in the video, trying to put the 80D down by stating incorrect information that earlier cameras from other manufacturers had the same capability, is just no good for the readers. 

Having used them all I can definitely assure that, Canon Dual Pixel AF cameras are the ONLY ones that practically actually have AF for video use.

Not the A6300 with E lenses (tried it after Andrew's post on how it's similar to Canon DPAF, and no it's not even 30% as good), not the NX1 with NX lenses, they all fall apart focusing video, while the Canons don't.

So this is a huge advantage on the 80D vs all the other competitors on the market.

It's a technology that I wish all cameras had, from point and shoots to Alexas and Epics.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I bought the NX1 pretty shortly after the relese. That was not "years ago" and definetelly not when the GH3 was released. And the NX1 has its own problems. Or is being discontinued a new and fresh feature?

This constant bashing of cameras by people that have never ever used them is getting so old. 

I dont find the 80D all that exciting, but Ive never used it. So I dont bash it until I have.

I absolutely hate my rx100iv, but I still dont constantly post bs in the rx100iv thread. The G7 is one of the worst cameras Ive used, but I let those who are interested discuss it in peace without unfunny jokes and bogus links. I would rather jam a fork in my eye than get a a6300, but I dont feel the need to tell every one that have bought it how wrong they are...

Im out until someone actually has the camera.

Give me a break. We don't live in the dark ages any more - other people can test the camera and you can go view the results on youtube or vimeo. You can tell the footage coming off the 80d is glorified 720p. Other cameras have their limitations. There is no perfect camera. But there is no excuse for a company with the equity of Canon to be producing cameras that shoot soft, moire-ridden 1080p in 2016. I expect Fuji or Sigma to do this, but not Canon. Not a company with a well-established Cinema line and a low marginal cost of letting innovation trickle down to the enthusiast level if they only wanted to. I think Canon should be openly criticized for this approach and I don't need to order and go through the rigors of testing and posting low-grade footage to substantiate my frustration. The camera is intentionally hampered, the codec is outdated and the resolution is not up to snuff. I have no qualms in saying that. I've seen enough test footage posted by others - including Canon themselves - to make that determination. Those who needlessly stifle innovation deserve to be bashed. But I also expect legions of apologists like yourself to stubbornly try and find a silver lining in what they do. I don't understand it, but I nevertheless expect it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is now 20% facts. 30% misinformation and 50% "Waghh! Why won't canon put their 4K cinema tech in a camera for $500 bucks just for me." Gotta love the Internet.

I've had the 80D nearly two weeks now. It's fine. Video quality is actually improved regarding moire as has been mentioned in countless reviews but nobody wants to hear that. 

I noticed Andrew didn't reply to my mention of him bashing the XC10 on release and now buying one months later. So I figure if we fast forward a year he'll buy an 80D and label that a 'cinema dark horse' too. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CMB said:

This thread is now 20% facts. 30% misinformation and 50% "Waghh! Why won't canon put their 4K cinema tech in a camera for $500 bucks just for me." Gotta love the Internet.

I've had the 80D nearly two weeks now. It's fine. Video quality is actually improved regarding moire as has been mentioned in countless reviews but nobody wants to hear that. 

I noticed Andrew didn't reply to my mention of him bashing the XC10 on release and now buying one months later. So I figure if we fast forward a year he'll buy an 80D and label that a 'cinema dark horse' too. :) 

Seems you have just contributed to the 30% misinformation. Oops. The XC10 article was my first impression of the announcement (paper specs) from almost a year ago.

I have bought one recently for a specific purpose, you'll see soon on the blog.

Here's a factoid for you....80D video quality ranks below almost everything else on the market, but hey... AF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that guy seemed so happy that he could sit on his arse & use the AF!

You just wait & see, someone will make a film using the AF & it'll be sooooooo big that the idiot who made it will be given a Hollywood deal........blah blah blah.........and produce another piece of shit movie.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CMB said:

This thread is now 20% facts. 30% misinformation and 50% "Waghh! Why won't canon put their 4K cinema tech in a camera for $500 bucks just for me." Gotta love the Internet.

I've had the 80D nearly two weeks now. It's fine. Video quality is actually improved regarding moire as has been mentioned in countless reviews but nobody wants to hear that. 

I noticed Andrew didn't reply to my mention of him bashing the XC10 on release and now buying one months later. So I figure if we fast forward a year he'll buy an 80D and label that a 'cinema dark horse' too. :) 

This is a $1,200 camera in 2016. I expect quality at least at the standard of a $1000 camera in 2013 (GH2). 

I don't need the 4K. Just give me high-quality 1080p, some kind of LOG and codec that's at least slightly less brittle than a piece of dry toast. Give me something that approaches that of an A7s or GH3 and I'll cut Canon some slack and commend them for the DP-AF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi
8 minutes ago, forofilms said:

This is a $1,200 camera in 2016. I expect quality at least at the standard of a $1000 camera in 2013 (GH2). 

Compared to the GH2 it has much much higher lowlight performance, better colours, lower rolling shutter, higher DR, bigger sensor,

I can't see how it's not at least GH2 standard for you. Did you try it? I did. It's a much higher quality video than a GH2, actually even GH4 the 80D exceeds it in IQ by colours, RS, bigger sensor, much better lowlight performance, while the GH4 has higher sharpness and better aliasing suppression. 


I don't understand how people define image quality nowadays.

*Hint:it's more than just sharpness, or aliasing... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, CMB said:

It begins with resolution. If acceptable resolution isn't there, none of the qualities you listed matter all that much. People don't buy TV sets for wider DR and and better color rendition. They buy for better image clarity. Everything you enumerated does indeed matter, but the starting point is resolution. 

5 minutes ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

Compared to the GH2 it has much much higher lowlight performance, better colours, lower rolling shutter, higher DR, bigger sensor,

I can't see how it's not at least GH2 standard for you. Did you try it? I did. It's a much higher quality video than a GH2, actually even GH4 the 80D exceeds it in IQ by colours, RS, bigger sensor, much better lowlight performance, while the GH4 has higher sharpness and better aliasing suppression. 


I don't understand how people define image quality nowadays.

*Hint:it's more than just sharpness, or aliasing... 

 

It begins with resolution. If acceptable resolution isn't there, none of the qualities you listed matter all that much. People don't buy TV sets for wider DR and and better color rendition. They buy for better image clarity. Everything you enumerated does indeed matter, but the starting point is resolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi
42 minutes ago, forofilms said:

It begins with resolution. If acceptable resolution isn't there, none of the qualities you listed matter all that much. People don't buy TV sets for wider DR and and better color rendition. They buy for better image clarity. Everything you enumerated does indeed matter, but the starting point is resolution. 

I certainly see the 80D footage I shot here viewed on a 48" HDTV crosses the threshold of practically all applications, it's pretty good HD, clear.

On the other hand the problem I am having definitely aliasing on fine buildings.

My D5300 has a similar image to the 80d but without the aliasing (though the 80D has the clearly better lowlight, AF, ergonomics, headphone jack, Canon mount, and much much easier/faster to shoot video with etc 'plus the STM glass I adore'). 

I really do wish Canon (and am waiting) for a Canon APS-C SLR (hopefully 60D line body) with the resolution pop of 4K->HD look.

But as it stands, for wide sweeping landscape shots in daylight, stock footage, a GH4 is a better choice. It has that pop.

While for a do-it-all with acceptable HD IQ & ease of use, I haven't seen anything like the 80D delivering a good S35 image SO easily and effortlessly, due to the ergonomics (tilty screen, touch panel, menus, battery, size, speed) and Auto focus/exposure. This is a camera that you can hand off to your son/wife/assistant/plummer and end up with usable s35 HD images with sharp focus & perfect exposure/WB.
 

That's the strength I see in this camera, ANYONE can use it.

Is it a strength I care much for? Not really I do things manually & can workaround shooting with cameras that have manual everything, missy menus, adapted glass, small batteries, etc

But I just want to emphasize on how my needs are different from the next guy. 

I won't be keeping the 80D. I prefer it to the GH4 I sold back in the day, but shooting the 1DC makes it hard to look at 80D files. I do understand the significance of the ridiculous ease of use though. It has its place, big place actually in the video production world. Just not EOSHD regulars who like to tinker with their cameras and produce very specific qualities having the skills to do it all by hand. 

You really have to try the 80D + IS STM lens to understand the magic of how it nearly self-operates, just unlike any other camera I've seen. Isn't that a point/advantage worth noting to readers? I believe it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

This constant bashing of cameras by people that have never ever used them is getting so old. 

Im out until someone actually has the camera.

I honestly thought that was the point of this forum? I've tried to make similar points so many times but figure that's just what this forums all about..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Here's a factoid for you....80D video quality ranks below almost everything else on the market, but hey... AF.

And yet it's already paid for itself 5x over in the two weeks I've had it. Weirdly, not one person has been violently sick when viewing footage from it. Not even a little. Funny that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, forofilms said:

This is a $1,200 camera in 2016. I expect quality at least at the standard of a $1000 camera in 2013 (GH2).

GH2 was 2010 (October)

6 years later and Canon haven't matched its video quality, overall.

Like I say time and time again, only Canon seem to be able to get away with this year after year. If it were any other company, people would be astounded.

At the same time, since 2009 their APS-C stills quality has inched forward only a bit from 18MP to 20MP and now 24MP with a tiny bit cleaner shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...