Canon 70D - Impressions, Discussion, etc.

[hokiealumnus]

Well, the prosumer Canon 70D has arrived! I'm totally excited. Not so excited I won't (eventually, after using it a while) write as impartial-as-possible review about it, but excited; because coming from a T3 it's like a whole different world.

First, this is a used model. New was beyond my budget, and I got a heck of a deal on the kit with the Canon 70D and EF-S 18-55mm IS STM lens. I'll save the close-up and detailed product photos for the actual review, but here are a few preliminary shots.

Front:



Back:



Top:



Remember, I said it was used. It definitely does not look like it. After turning it on, the photo counter was not reset and it had a whopping 318 photos. That's about a weekend of shooting for me, so this thing has barely been used.

With Lens:





Of course, I couldn't resist getting it outside the very day it came (the product photos were taken within an hour of its arrival...and I worked today), so samples to follow.

As the thread goes on, don't hesitate to ask questions, discuss or comment on the photos. Constructive criticism is always welcome!

[hokiealumnus]

Samples!

The full size samples are JPG, as they came out of the camera. I'll try fill in EXIF data later, but for now I'll just post the photos. The crops are as viewed at full size on the monitor.

These were taken with both he kit lens (18-55mm STM) and an EF-S 18-135mm IS

The kiddo had a dentist appointment and this came with us (to be used afterward), so of course I snapped a couple photos of the chairs.

Chairs:





Crops:





Now, a couple random photos.

Shamrocks, in winter...



Crop:



Random pipe & manhole cover that looked kind-of cool.



Crop:



Bridge

[hokiealumnus]

Some sky photos.





Crop



Sunset from our front yard (you can't see the horizon from here).



That's all for now. There is a lot to like about this camera so far. I need to use it to get past the 'zomg it's a new camera!' feeling to properly evaluate it. So far it's great though. Short live view testing shows this thing is even faster than our S95 point & shoot, which is already fast. The lens is absolutely silent; it makes me wish my 18-135mm was the STM version, but it's not worth attempting to save up for another 18-135. I'll just use the 18-55 STM for video since the camera will definitely pick up noise from the 18-135 motor.

Not sure how much further the thread will go, I won't list specifications and such, that kind of stuff will be saved for a proper review, but I'm happy to answer any questions if anybody has any.

[Darakian]

Any chance you can do a noise test? I've been going back and forth on if I want one or not. Also, if you don't mind; how well does the IS in video work?

[hokiealumnus]

Absolutely I'll be doing a noise test...I just have to determine a (repeatable, challenging & sensible) scene to use. There are lots of bookshelves in our house, so I'll probably just use room ambient light and put some stuff on a shelf to go with the books. We'll see. No promises it will happen immediately, but when I have time and can figure out what to do with it, I'll be doing a noise test.

Some additional initial thoughts I've had:

I'm loving the focus mode/point change button right next to the shutter button, that was a splendid idea; much more important and efficient than the flash button on the T3. Having the AF/Drive/ISO/metering buttons right there on top is also great for easy changes. For anyone that likes to actually control their cameras, having that top panel (compared to anything in the Rebel range that doesn't have it) is just wonderful.

The viewfinder is superb on the 70D, especially compared to the T3. The T3's is small and dark. You can definitely tell the difference between a pentamirror and a pentaprism. Size-wise, the 70D's is huge compared to the T3. I'm sure the actual difference in mm is small, but when it's up to your eye, you absolutely notice. 98% coverage vs. 95% is also a surprisingly important difference too for proper composition.

Oh, and speed. The 70D is blazingly fast. 3FPS vs. 7FPS (their rated speeds, I haven't timed the 70D yet) is a massive difference. Even on single shot, the shutter just sounds better.

[alpha0ne]

Nice kit !!!!!, and those ^ shots are soooo sharp/detailed, I hope I can get close to that quality within a year or so, fingers crossed

My budget was also too small for the 70D which I seriously looked at (along with the D7100 ) but my xmas pressie (from me ) arrived yesterday, Nikon D5200 + AF-S DX 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens (with a 35mm f/1.8 DX on order) and my old brain is complaining/bleeding about the learning curve, along with the staggering amount of options available.......................the basics are the same but its been 30 years since I picked up a camera, you know, the ones that had film in them

[hokiealumnus]

Thanks!

I know what you're saying about budget. This was my budget. The whole darn thing. I got very lucky to get this deal, much cheaper than retail and barely used. That D5200 kit should serve you very well; it's a great camera, with a lot of features and excellent image quality. You'll get plenty of quality out of that.

[hokiealumnus]

One thing I've noticed messing around in the house (it's rainy here) is that this camera over-exposes in dark'ish indoor conditions, such as a room with couple of lamps, or a shop with a couple lights in the ceiling. I have to adjust exposure compensation down to between -1.3 to -2.0 eV to get good images. It takes great images when adjusted of course, but I'm surprised how far down it has to go. The T3 usually took ~-2/3eV in similar conditions. It's no problem - all cameras to some extent try to over-expose in dark conditions, but the amount of adjustment required was unexpected.

What sort of exposure compensation do you find yourself needing in darker conditions with your cameras?

[alpha0ne]

What sort of exposure compensation do you find yourself needing in darker conditions with your cameras?

I only took it out today, bright sunshine and 36C, the lens is pretty average for shade shots (d lighting off, the lens might be too slow) but I've barely touched the surface re exposure as yet, I've been doing a few compare shots in aperture priority mode using different iso/f/shutter speeds

I might figure out all the settings/options in about ~ 5 years

[alpha0ne]

Well worked out re indoors/low light, another 24 months and I might actually know what I'm doing

[hokiealumnus]

Looks nice and sharp at the long end.

[hokiealumnus]

More observation: Over the weekend I put the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS on and turned on live view video, then panned around the room. What a racket that thing made! Granted, it was quiet in our house, but even if I did put a shotgun mic on there, I can't imagine it would silence that sound.

The lens doesn't strike me as loud, but that's because I've always shot photos with it, where it focuses and stops there. For video with constant focusing adjustments, it's completely unusable.

Soooo, it looks like I'll be limited to 18-55mm when filming video for now (which isn't really that bad; on a crop sensor that's 88mm equivalent). I put my ear up to the STM lens when panning the camera around and could barely perceive a tiny little sound. It's perfect for video, even with the built-in mics. Thus, if you want video with more range, I'd recommend getting the kit with the 18-135mm STM lens.

[alpha0ne]

I haven't even used live view video yet, I might just give it a try now to see how loud it is, I only have the 18-140 lens ATM so should be interesting

[Darakian]

Does the video autofocus work with any lens? I heard some talk a while back that it didn't, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Do you have any third party lenses you can test with?

[alpha0ne]

I only have the nikon 18-140 ATM but I 'think' AF should work on any nikon AF lens

I filmed a few video shots inside and out whilst panning and auto AF worked perfectly, I could not hear ANY sound whatsoever from the camera whilst panning

[hokiealumnus]

One thing I've noticed messing around in the house (it's rainy here) is that this camera over-exposes in dark'ish indoor conditions, such as a room with couple of lamps, or a shop with a couple lights in the ceiling. I have to adjust exposure compensation down to between -1.3 to -2.0 eV to get good images. It takes great images when adjusted of course, but I'm surprised how far down it has to go. The T3 usually took ~-2/3eV in similar conditions. It's no problem - all cameras to some extent try to over-expose in dark conditions, but the amount of adjustment required was unexpected.

Ok then, I sheepishly must say that this was all my fault. There's this new setting called "Highlight Tone Priority", which is supposed to bring detail back to blown-out highlights, which would normally be a featureless white blob in your photo.

When HTP is turned on, that automatically turns off Auto Lighting Optimizer. I'm used to shooting with ALO on and have gotten used to its behavior on the T3. Well, with it disabled, plus the camera trying to recover highlights in a dark environment (indoors), it blew out the majority of the image.

Once I turned HTP off and with ALO back on, the camera started acting like I expected it to again, slightly over-exposing as expected with ~-0.3eV required in low light conditions.

The moral of the story - don't turn on features you aren't familiar with and forget they're on. Wait, no, that's not it. The moral of the story is that in low light situations, indoors with low'ish lighting, HTP will indeed give highlights the priority and blow out the rest of the photo.

[alpha0ne]

The moral of the story - don't turn on features you aren't familiar with and forget they're on. Wait, no, that's not it. The moral of the story is that in low light situations, indoors with low'ish lighting, HTP will indeed give highlights the priority and blow out the rest of the photo.

Hahaha ......................sheepishly raises an arm

[hokiealumnus]

ISO Noise Testing

These ISO tests were all taken with my standard image profile: Auto picture style, +6 sharpening, +1 saturation. The bookshelf is in our bonus room / office. The only light source was a 100W equivalent, daylight CFL in a fan, in the middle of the ceiling. The light source is approximately five feet away and about 1.5-2 feet above the shelf you're seeing.

To keep variation between shots minimal, they were taken with spot metering (center of the frame) and a single AF point (which is in the middle of the metering spot). The lens was the kit lens (18-55mm STM) at f/4.5 & 35mm

I'll split this into two posts to prevent bumping up against any potential per-post image limits. The first post is ISO 100 through ISO 800, the second is ISO 1600 through ISO 25600.

ISO 100



ISO 200



ISO 400



ISO 800



Everything looks fine through ISO 800 when considering the full images.

[hokiealumnus]

ISO 1600



ISO 3200



ISO 6400



ISO 12800



ISO 25600 (aka zomg so much noise!)



ISOs 1600 through 6400 seem quite usable. 1600 has some noise, but it's not very intrusive. At 3200 and even 6400 you can start to see a bit more but it's not bad.

When you start going to ultra high ISOs, 12800 starts getting pretty noisy. I'd probably not use that unless I absolutely needed the shutter speed and there was no other choice. ISO 25600 is really just a gimmick or for photo emergencies when it's pitch black, you have no tripod and you absolutely must take a photo right then. Aside from this test, I don't even have that ISO enabled for selection.

Now, I have not cropped any of these images (still haven't decided which part of the image to crop) nor really had time to look at them closely; so consider these just plain raw data for you to draw your own conclusions. Taken as full images, all the way up through ISO 6400 looks great to me. ISO 12800 is even ok, but not preferable. ISO 25600...just no.

If anyone has any suggestions about which part(s) of the images to crop that would be the most challenging for comparison (two or three is fine) at 100%, I'm all ears.

[alpha0ne]

3200 and 12800 are the worst re noise yet not 25600 seems a little better than those two, 400 is also not so good

This is the only crop I would suggest, with a little highlight

[hokiealumnus]

Heh, I meant crops to show the noise, not crops to make the photo better. Here is the first round:

ISO Tests Cropped

These are the first crops of the ISO tests above. I will be cropping tighter in at least one more place, if not more than that, as time allows. These are not quite as viewed at 100%, but quite close; they were resized by ~120px horizontally. I'll also split these into two posts.

ISO 100



ISO 200



ISO 400



ISO 800



One spot to watch in this series is the book on the far left. It has a fabric binding and will start to lose detail pretty quickly when the camera fights against high ISO noise.

As far as this series of four goes, things look pretty solid through ISO 800, but you can definitely see a loss of detail starting at ISO 400 and becoming more noticeable at 800.

[hokiealumnus]

ISO 1600



ISO 3200



ISO 6400



ISO 12800



ISO 25600



ISO 1600 still looks ok for detail, but you're starting to get more visible noise. 3200 has more visible noise, but it starts to add a degree of softness that wasn't there at 1600 and below. Notice the "Richmond" text in the binding second from the left.

At 6400 you're getting a good big of noise through in addition to a very noticeable drop in sharpness from 3200. 12800 is just plain noisy and the camera's algorithms are struggling to combat the noise, even as the image becomes softer. It's doing a good job, but again this is where it starts to become unusable, depending on the shooting conditions.

As expected and already noted, 25600 is just there to say the camera has that setting. It's straight up ugly, with little discernible sharpness and lots of noise.

[hokiealumnus]

Ok, as promised, here is a 100% crop of probably the most challenging portion of the image - a fabric book binding.



Once you start pixel peeping, the loss of detail becomes pretty obvious. Luminance noise is there and gets worse as the ISO goes up, obviously. Chroma isn't too bad up to 1600, but gets more noticeable at 3200 and is obvious at 6400. At 12800 things are ugly and it just gets unusable at 25600.

Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to use anything up to 3200. If I needed to stop motion (or couldn't hold the camera still long enough) in low light, 6400 is usable in a pinch. I'd only use 12800 in an emergency and 25600 will remain disabled on the camera.

Frankly, for an APS-C sensor, 12800 isn't all that bad. That looks like my T3 looked like at 3200. All in all, I'm happy with the performance. Hoping to have the chance to get out and use the camera tomorrow.

[Soulburner]

Looks like Auto ISO should be good up to 3200 or 6400. What's killing your detail is most likely high ISO noise reduction. If you typically do this in post, disable it in camera.

Nice camera. It goes head to head with my D7100.

Now get some quality glass on there. I'm not too familiar with Canon lenses but the 17-40 f/4 and 17-55 f/2.8 are very popular. And as you said, definitely something with a quiet focus motor.

[hokiealumnus]

I don't do much in post-production. Yet. I did shoot RAW+JPEG for the shots I'm about to post and will play with them to see if I can do anything at all with the RAW files. I just have absolutely no experience and the whole workflow thing is intimidating, especially for someone that is quite busy and doesn't have time to process everything. Totally agree about getting some quality glass, but that will have to wait. My budget for the foreseeable future is all wrapped up in this camera already. I don't see having the ability to buy anything for quite a while. Eventually I hope to change that, but for now what I have will have to suffice.

Moving on to my prepared words....

I was finally able to set out and actually use the 70D and the experience did not disappoint. To use the cliche, it just got out of the way and let me shoot. That's really the job of any good camera, and upgraded models like this with their glorious, easy-to-access multitude of external controls give you that very experience.

These were all taken RAW + JPEG as well. I have done nothing to these images, they are the JPEG SOOC (straight out of camera) shots with some cropping on a couple of the butterflies. The cropped shots will be noted. I'm going to take the plunge and see if I can do anything better with the RAW files. Chances are I can't, but I'll play with them anyway.

If anyone who IS experienced with RAW wants to take a crack vs. my in-camera settings with any of these, you're more than welcome to; just PM your email address asking for one and I'll send it right over.

Now on to the real-world use photos. Comments & (contstructive) criticism are always welcome. I'll split this into two posts. The lens used for the whole day was the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (non-STM).

This one was pretty heavily cropped.







Moderate crop on the one below.