cgarcia

Offline

 

: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 80D dynamic range: good news! (quick test with RAW images)







https://lightful.github.io/talk/photo/sensor/80D_vs_7D2_dr.png



However, at high ISO, the 80D is slightly under the 7D2 level. I don't know if this is related to cheaper electronics or if the new tech has some influence. Note also that both cameras true ISO level could differ.



Here are the numbers, using also the ones from my 7D2 analysis (same technique) to compare:



ISO 100 (

80D - DR 13.22 at 8MP (12.43 at 24MP), read noise 2.8712 DN

7D2 - DR 11.60 at 8MP (10.94 at 24MP), read noise 5.88731 DN



ISO 200 (

80D - DR 12.74 at 8MP (11.95 at 24MP), read noise 3.99545 DN

7D2 - DR 11.70 at 8MP (11.04 at 20MP), read noise 6.28073 DN



ISO 400 (

80D - DR 11.92 at 8MP (11.13 at 24MP), read noise 6.37543 DN



ISO 800 (

80D - DR 11.09 at 8MP (10.29 at 24MP), read noise 11.3868 DN



ISO 1600 (

80D - DR 10.25 at 8MP (9.45 at 24MP), read noise 20.3616 DN

7D2 - DR 10.41 at 8MP (9.75 at 20MP), read noise 15.4014 DN



ISO 3200 (

80D - DR 9.41 at 8MP (8.62 at 24MP), read noise 36.395 DN



ISO 6400 (

80D - DR 8.63 at 8MP (7.84 at 24MP), read noise 62.2559 DN

7D2 - DR 8.95 at 8MP (8.29 at 20MP), read noise 42.3891 DN



ISO 12800 (

80D - DR 7.64 at 8MP (6.85 at 24MP), read noise 124.027 DN

7D2 - DR 8.00 at 8MP (7.34 at 20MP), read noise 82.8706 DN



ISO 16000 (

80D - DR 7.33 at 8MP (6.54 at 24MP), read noise 153.517 DN



ISO 25600 (

80D - DR 6.74 at 8MP (5.95 at 24MP), read noise 231.801 DN



The new sensor uses a black level of DN (data number) 512 for ISO 100 and 200, but continues using 2048 for the remaining ISO levels. The saturation level seems to be the DN 16383 at all ISO levels, which is unusual. For example, the analyzed ISO 100 picture has 871 blue pixels with DN 16383, 1039 red pixels with DN 16382, and 1660 plus 1632 green pixels (two green channels) with DN 16383; the image is overall underexposed and from DN 10000 to 16381/2, each DN only counts 0-2 pixels.



There are two masked areas in the 25.5MP image (6288x4056): one 264 pixels wide at the left and the other 34 pixels height at the top. So, the effective image area is 6024x4022 (one-two pixels in the frontier of both areas, showing visible artifacts, are not truly usable). The masked area does not receives light and its standard deviation can be measured to determine the read noise, and to infer from that the DR. The area used has been the left one, but the top measures almost the same noise levels (unlike with other sensors, where the top masked area has some oddities).



Edited on Apr 03, 2016 at 10:19 PM · I have completed a more detailed study of the RAW images. Definitely, the sensor dynamic range versus ISO graph now resembles the profile of the Canon competitors. To make this graph I have used the 7D2 results generated with exactly the same technique on september 2014 (see https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1319060/0 ):However, at high ISO, the 80D is slightly under the 7D2 level. I don't know if this is related to cheaper electronics or if the new tech has some influence. Note also that both cameras true ISO level could differ.Here are the numbers, using also the ones from my 7D2 analysis (same technique) to compare:ISO 100 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI00100NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 13.22 at 8MP (12.43 at 24MP), read noise 2.8712 DN7D2 - DR 11.60 at 8MP (10.94 at 24MP), read noise 5.88731 DNISO 200 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI00200NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 12.74 at 8MP (11.95 at 24MP), read noise 3.99545 DN7D2 - DR 11.70 at 8MP (11.04 at 20MP), read noise 6.28073 DNISO 400 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI00400NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 11.92 at 8MP (11.13 at 24MP), read noise 6.37543 DNISO 800 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI00800NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 11.09 at 8MP (10.29 at 24MP), read noise 11.3868 DNISO 1600 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI01600NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 10.25 at 8MP (9.45 at 24MP), read noise 20.3616 DN7D2 - DR 10.41 at 8MP (9.75 at 20MP), read noise 15.4014 DNISO 3200 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI03200NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 9.41 at 8MP (8.62 at 24MP), read noise 36.395 DNISO 6400 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI06400NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 8.63 at 8MP (7.84 at 24MP), read noise 62.2559 DN7D2 - DR 8.95 at 8MP (8.29 at 20MP), read noise 42.3891 DNISO 12800 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI12800NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 7.64 at 8MP (6.85 at 24MP), read noise 124.027 DN7D2 - DR 8.00 at 8MP (7.34 at 20MP), read noise 82.8706 DNISO 16000 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI16000NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 7.33 at 8MP (6.54 at 24MP), read noise 153.517 DNISO 25600 ( http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/80DhSLI25600NR0.CR2.HTM 80D - DR 6.74 at 8MP (5.95 at 24MP), read noise 231.801 DNThe new sensor uses a black level of DN (data number) 512 for ISO 100 and 200, but continues using 2048 for the remaining ISO levels. The saturation level seems to be the DN 16383 at all ISO levels, which is unusual. For example, the analyzed ISO 100 picture has 871 blue pixels with DN 16383, 1039 red pixels with DN 16382, and 1660 plus 1632 green pixels (two green channels) with DN 16383; the image is overall underexposed and from DN 10000 to 16381/2, each DN only counts 0-2 pixels.There are two masked areas in the 25.5MP image (6288x4056): one 264 pixels wide at the left and the other 34 pixels height at the top. So, the effective image area is 6024x4022 (one-two pixels in the frontier of both areas, showing visible artifacts, are not truly usable). The masked area does not receives light and its standard deviation can be measured to determine the read noise, and to infer from that the DR. The area used has been the left one, but the top measures almost the same noise levels (unlike with other sensors, where the top masked area has some oddities).Edited on Apr 03, 2016 at 10:19 PM · View previous versions





Mar 18, 2016 at 01:22 AM