Canon 80D video quality still atrocious

[tugela]

29 minutes ago, CMB said:

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! 

You could buy a T2i and it will pay for itself 5X in two weeks, if that is a camera that you use. It doesn't mean that it is better than everything else though, it just means that you opted for a lower performance tool for your work.

[Andrew Reid]

Maybe his work doesn't demand high performance.

I haven't seen it, so couldn't know.

[CMB]

I've never claimed the 80D is better then anything else. Just ddint understand why it was hated on so much when it provides perfectly adequate video for what it is. It's a tool. Nothing more. That seems to have been lost somewhere because it doesn't rival an Alexa at a fraction of the cost.  

Andrew, i'm not sure that's worth answering. I'm deeply surprised that the owner of a leading? Filmmaking site is calling out a forum members quality of work based solely on their choice of camera. It shouldn't matter if it's shot on a T2i or an FS7. I'm genuinely surprised. Shame on you.

[mercer]

7 minutes ago, CMB said:

I've never claimed the 80D is better then anything else. Just ddint understand why it was hated on so much when it provides perfectly adequate video for what it is. It's a tool. Nothing more. That seems to have been lost somewhere because it doesn't rival an Alexa at a fraction of the cost.  

Andrew, i'm not sure that's worth answering. I'm deeply surprised that the owner of a leading? Filmmaking site is calling out a forum members quality of work based solely on their choice of camera. It shouldn't matter if it's shot on a T2i or an FS7. I'm genuinely surprised. Shame on you.

I don't think he meant it that way, in fact I believe he was rebutting Tugela's rude comment. 

[Andrew Reid]

@CMB - rivalling the Alexa at a fraction of a cost is what this website is all about!!

I am not calling out your quality of work, so no need to jump on the defensive there. Clearly though your clients don't notice heavy moire and aliasing, a lack of detail and a lack of dynamic range, otherwise they would have asked you to reshoot it with a proper camera like a RED or Arri, or even an A7S II

Maybe you should hang out at JustATool.com instead, and you might find more people who agree with you. I heard they moved the mic and headphone jack out of the way of the pivoting screen too. For me those at JustATool.com this would be music to their ears, who cares about 4K for $700 when you have that kind of innovation from Canon.

I think we should just STOP with the image quality increases... people just want the mic slot well positioned.

Here is how image quality works...

A good camera makes an ordinary shot look nice, with creamy smooth roll off, no noise, tons of detail and a wide dynamic range at the same time as doing very richly saturated natural looking colour.

A bad camera does none of that. That's the 80D.

But you can make it look good with the right subject and light and composition.

So the 80D can look good and especially at longer viewing distances on a large screen, just a TV in the home will be enough, you won't notice the moire and aliasing as much, but when you get a scene that challenges it - say wide angle shot with lots of hard lines and high contrast detail with very large variations between the brightest and darkest parts of the frame you are going to have something that looks like it crawled from Donald Trump's toilet after a particularly hot curry.

[mercer]

Reid is right, it is just a tool. Look at Kendy Ty's work or our own @Jonesy Jones feature "The Luggage" to see stunning video shot with a Canon DSLR.

[Andrew Reid]

Look guys, we established this YEARS ago, you can shoot with a T2i or any old shit like Kendy did and do great work, especially if it is a low-fi look in the first place that you're after and you rarely use a lens other than 50mm equivalent (a wider lens would show up the lack of resolution).

We have also established that you can then upload this to Vimeo and if the content and shooting is compelling, the locations and characters cinematic looking, well lit and they kept the ISO below 800, when the viewer watches this at 720p on a laptop or TV, they won't notice that it isn't 4K wide dynamic range.

But image quality advances exist for a reason, they help to evolve the art of story telling and make the tools more flexible so they can be used in more challenging circumstances and a wider variety of situations.

I love slow-mo for instance, it's a great creative tool, and I love LOG as it is a substitute for raw when you want to apply a stylised look in post and get a couple of more stops dynamic range, without the much larger file sizes. I shot this in slow-mo and LOG for creative reasons and they made an interesting subject look beautiful -

Couldn't have done that on a T2i or 80D, or indeed any Canon camera I can afford. Do they even have decent looking 120fps on their Cinema EOS stuff??!

And when I shot this on the A7S, GH4 and Nikon D750, the pinsharp details and lack of moire, plus the slow-mo again, helped creatively bring out the look I needed.

If you don't want to focus on this kind of thing then fine, get the 80D and enjoy your AF. Nothing wrong with that. You might tell some great stories and do it really stylistically.

But in my view... image quality and frame rates and extra features are there to be USED.

Pointless writing a blog about cameras otherwise.

If everyone was happy to stick to 80D level of image quality and features then my job would be much easier and I'd have far fewer cameras!!

And then there is also a lot to be said for the motion cadence of a global shutter and vintage super 16 lenses too, which is what gave this shoot the look I wanted, down to a tee...

So before you write off all the exciting specs and just nerdy pixel peeping, consider what they give creatively and stylistically and consider what you are missing out on when you sacrifice all this for convenience's sake with the 80D!!

[CMB]

22 minutes ago, mercer said:

I don't think he meant it that way, in fact I believe he was rebutting Tugela's rude comment. 

I was about to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then the other comment just below yours made it pretty clear. 

[Andrew Reid]

Since when is mainstream considered a mark of success?!

[CMB]

Just now, Andrew Reid said:

Since when is mainstream considered a mark of success?!

Using an 'EOSHD' approved camera clearly is. 

[CMB]

This is 'The Painter of Jalouzi'. You may at first glance think it's a heart warming short documentary with worldwide acclaim. But in fact, enjoying it on any level would be wrong. Because it was shot on an iPhone. I think that's the message Andrew is trying to get across?

 

[Andrew Reid]

No that's not the message I am trying to get across.

I am just trying to help you guys make informed decisions about the relative image quality of cameras.

A shame you feel the need to shove this back in my face, just because it doesn't quite align with your choice of purchase.

The core EOSHD readers get it. You're just an ungrateful hanger on with 19 posts to his name who feels he can leech all the knowledge from others on the forum, without giving anything constructive back in return.

Almost all of your posts have focused on annoying the hell of the forum owner himself, which I might add is a rather rude way to introduce yourself into somebody's house.

On 31 March 2016 at 9:16 PM, CMB said:

These Canon 'hate rants' have to be for traffic right? Meanwhile the 6300 overheats and is useless for production work. there is no perfect camera. 

I got my 80D on Tuesday and just finished my first shoot with. It looks great. No, it's not an FS7 (we have one of those in the office). But for the price and reliability it's fine. I've produced about 150+ videos with my 70D since its launch and will no doubt go on to do the same with this 80D. 

Ah you have an FS7 in the office though!

But I thought 80D is all you need?! Hmm moire. Hmm aliasing. Hmm clipped highlights. Lovely.

Oh but it's "bashing". Bash bash bash!!

Can't mention the moire! Oh noooo

That's biased!

(No I'll think you'll find it's just a fact)

[DayRaven]

12 hours ago, CMB said:

This is 'The Painter of Jalouzi'. You may at first glance think it's a heart warming short documentary with worldwide acclaim. But in fact, enjoying it on any level would be wrong. Because it was shot in an iPhone. I think that's the message Andrew is trying to get across?

Intentional or natural? That's the question that I have to ask about your lack of comprehension. Yes you can produce a film on an iphone, but you are limited by the technology, and you may have to change your film to take the tools into account. The more you have to change it, the less of you is in there and the more of the tool.

Some people thrive on limitations, in which case, go take Sundance by storm with your Denver action cam, £12.50 with free p&p. Otherwise, when you have your piece you want to create, choose the tool that enables you to do that, and this forum is invaluable in making your decision.

Have loads of scenes in a nightclub - members of this forum may have discovered that the bmmcc may not be the tool for you. Long fast action takes with loads of handheld, members of this forum discovered a6300 is not for you, obsessed with apple recognising your prores cameras licence on their website, Kinefinity are probably low on your list, and so on and so on. But please, show us your work.

[jax_rox]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

A good camera makes an ordinary shot look nice, with creamy smooth roll off, no noise, tons of detail and a wide dynamic range at the same time as doing very richly saturated natural looking colour.

Man, I totally disagree. A good Cinematographer/shooter/DP/whatever you want to call them can make an ordinary shot look nice. A nice camera can help them, sure, but it's the guy behind the camera at the end of the day.

I've seen some absolute sh*t out of Alexas, REDs, F55s, C300s etc. I've seen horrendously noisy RED and Alexa footage. I've seen Alexas exposed incorrectly so as to massively reduce its dynamic range. I've seen people suffer from IR contamination because they don't know what they're doing. 

I watched footage from a very seasoned DP when the RED Dragon came out - and was amazed at how noisy the red channel was. He hadn't used the camera before, and wasn't aware that the red channel was going to get that noisy, so couldn't compensate. In the grade, they de-noised it. But you're talking about a RED Dragon being operated by a seasoned DP and there was still this ugly red noise.

I've also seen some amazing stuff out of all of those cameras. I've seen noiseless RED footage and Alexa footage, after a bit of post-processing, and careful exposure.

I've had the simple fact that it's not the camera, it's the person re-enforced so many times through my own experiences, and I think a lot of the time, people would be better off learning more about exposure, lighting, lighting ratios, metering etc. etc. than trying to find which new camera will finally make their footage look like a Hollywood movie..

--
The 80D is not great for video, but it will probably be popular in the market it's aimed at. I think Canon knows 'serious hobbyists' are a market that have already moved off Canon - and who knows, maybe they haven't seen a huge effective decrease in sales for this particular series.

I do think there's merit in comparing similarly priced cameras, especially for video - as this forum is tailored to that specific market, and it is pertinent to point out Canon's 'failings' (for lack of a better term - market choices could be another). 

But that doesn't mean the 80D can't be a capable camera in the right hands. Get informed and make an informed decision. A different camera is probably going to give you better quality, but hey - if you want to deal with some of the issues outlined here, that's your prerogative. No camera is perfect, so you'll always have your own preferences and compromises. If you need that Dual Pixel AF, and need AF with your Canon lenses, and you can't spend heaps of money... maybe it's the camera for you

[Andrew Reid]

You misunderstood my point

a good DP makes a great shot in the first place, so it won't be so ordinary

He maximises the tool

all that is obvious

However beautiful image quality can add 'spice' to just an 'OK' shot where the DP is limited in terms of his location, poor light, and boring subject matter... You have to work with what you've got sometimes and that's why a flexible and powerful image is important. Slow-mo, insane resolution and a wide dynamic range can have a wow factor in themselves, even if you're shooting very ordinary subjects on ordinary places

as for the bad DPs, no hope for them, no matter what the camera. And yes even an Alexa can be mishandled and made to look rubbish.

Meanwhile a drone shot of a spectacular volcano would look great on just about any camera, be it a small chip GoPro even or an iphone

A challenging location which isn't so beautiful and is poorly lit demands more of the camera and absolutely more of the shooter too.

 

[gelaxstudio]

Well , A6300 just tested by Dpreview, and proved to be the highest resolution 4k camera of all time,way sharper than GH4~ And it is just a little consumer camera under  $1000.

http://***URL removed***/reviews/sony-a6300/5

Do u still go on talk about 80D?

I even bet the 5D4 won't beat the A6300

[Policar]

Quote

 

Well , A6300 just tested by Dpreview, and proved to be the highest resolution 4k camera of all time,way sharper than GH4~ And it is just a little consumer camera under  $1000.

http://***URL removed***/reviews/sony-a6300/5

Do u still go on talk about 80D?

 

 

 

 

I even bet the 5D4 won't beat the A6300, but I'm not sure it needs to.

It won't have more resolution (almost certainly much less) but it also won't overheat in the middle of shooting a once-in-a-lifetime BTS interview with Tom Cruise or something. I have friends who do that kind of stuff and they've had to switch back to cameras with a worse image (despite spending more to get less) because A-listers have little patience and probably don't know what aliasing is.

And so.... this argument is fruitless. The 80D is a great low end "pro" camera because it's reliable and the image is good enough to sell (the 7D was used extensively on national ads and still occasionally used as a B camera on major tv series). For resolution enthusiasts, there are lots of other options, though. So are you an artist or a hack? Sounds like you're an artist. Not me.

I'll take hack if the day rate is higher and it's an amicable team. Even on my own recreational projects I don't want to waste time in post or on set. But kudos to people on both sides. Just because I don't have the finances or financial freedom to up my game doesn't mean I don't want to. Artists and hacks both have valid motivations, and even Spielberg money won't bridge that gap. Good luck convincing anyone to switch sides because they won't easily....

The A6300 probably has a sharper image than the Alexa 65, forget a Canon dSLR. If what you're after is technical excellence you've found it. Sure there's tons of skew, it breaks down on set, and the color is hideous unless you control it carefully–but the resolution is breathtaking and with enough patience and care in lighting you can work around the rest. But some of us are broke and need that paycheck. And worse yet we're lazy. Living wage is $80k/year in my market. Once that's paid for, I'll consider trading up. For now... if it pays, that's what counts.

So I salute the 80D guys. I even want one because it seems so easy to use I can save on crew and pay myself more. But I also think it's sort of criminal that we still put up with such a soft picture, and that Canon won't offer more. All I need is GH2 sharpness and 80D everything else and I'm sold.

Weird... really weird... that that isn't available even now. It should be.

[jax_rox]

22 minutes ago, Policar said:

It won't have more resolution (almost certainly much less) but it also won't overheat in the middle of shooting a once-in-a-lifetime BTS interview with Tom Cruise or something. I have friends who do that kind of stuff and they've had to switch back to cameras with a worse image (despite spending more to get less) because A-listers have little patience and probably don't know what aliasing is.

But you know what? The a6300 will be <1/3rd the price of a 5DIV. The RED One and even RED Epic/Scarlet spent a lot of time overheating. To the point where you might need to put it on ice. That made it unusable for some/a lot of people. You either use the camera and find the workable solution for you, or you go with something else. It took them a while, but the RED barely overheats anymore. The fan can still be pretty noisy though. Has it stopped people from using it? Sure, some.

Use what you want to use and who cares what anyone else is using.

Depends what you want out of a camera. I'll take an Alexa over a RED any day, despite the fact that the Alexa can't even do 'real' 4k (exception of the 65), whilst the RED's currently doing 8k.

[hmcindie]

3 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:

Well , A6300 just tested by Dpreview, and proved to be the highest resolution 4k camera of all time,way sharper than GH4~ And it is just a little consumer camera under  $1000.

http://***URL removed***/reviews/sony-a6300/5

Do u still go on talk about 80D?

I still get way more beautiful shots on the 5d than on the a6300. Even on h264 mode. Yeah, the a6300 is sharper, more detailed. That's about it. Most seasoned DP's agree that sharpness isn't the thing.

I realize that the 80D is no 5d (especially when shooting raw) but I still have shots I've shot on the 7D on my reel. It was actually interesting putting the reel together because most of my best shots came out of a Canon, even when I was shooting with the A7s (about one year with the a7s). And most of the A7s shots I didn't put on the reel because they just looked a bit ugly. Am I just wrong or...? What's going on? I really have no idea why people are raving about the Sony cams. For example the A6300 seems to be the best camera ever if you just look at youtube comments. But it's not. I can see several things I like about the 80D more (except moire, hate that stuff but the A6300 has it too when shooting HD and the 4K is useless because of rolling shutter).

Yeah, the a6300 can take beautiful still shots and tripod shots. Whooptydoo.

A lot of people here seem to not shoot much if anything. They look at stills and analyze pixels (which I do as well and love it) but without the shooting experience all the advice you give others is kinda moot. When people ask me "what should I shoot with", I'm really careful about giving a straight up answer because there so many caveats attached to every single thing you suggest. A long time everyone on this forum was riding the GH4 wave (It looks fugly I thought) and everyone was suggesting the GH4 for every single goddamn project. I thought it was just weird. Seemed like a cult but I guess that's what we humans do. Form cults around cameras.

[Mattias Burling]

12 hours ago, forofilms said:

 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. 

What a bunch of BS.