# 6D pattern noise compared to 5D2, the info you won't get from DxO



## Aglet (Jan 5, 2013)

Got to play with one a bit at the shop today, shot some dark frames and pushed them as i usually do to better visualize the pesky noise patterns.

The 6D is considerably improved over the 5d2 and even 5d3. Although the total amount of dark level noise is not so greatly reduced, the subjective annoyance of its patterning is noticeably less.

5d2 could produce some fairly harsh noise lines (hor. & vert) in shadows at 100 ISO, they soften a bit from random noise at 400 ISO and up.

6d, at the same ISO settings, produces far less obviously structured noise lines. THIS IS A GOOD THING! 
Canon has actually made some significant improvement in this area over the older cameras!

6d's overall noise is more random and uniform, tho still exhibits some fine vertical stripe structures at 400 ISO, similar to 7d's low iso noise but not as severe. Overall there is still some coarse but smooth transition variations in horizontal and vertical axis, almost like large blotchiness. This would not show up on large prints anywhere near as bad as 5d2 or 7d noise stripes.

6d's subjective total noise at 400 iso is similar to 5d2 at 100 iso. And the 6d's noise would clean up better with NR software.

6d's high iso performance is impressive!
I could print a decent 6x9" from a reasonably exposed 25600 iso shot! (larger if not too fussy)

So, altho 6D's dynamic range will not be significantly better than 5D bodies at low ISO, its raw files should provide more post-processing leeway because of the reduced severity of patterned noise. Its extra performance at high ISO is a definite bonus.
Fussy shooters who do a lot of post-processing should definitely consider the 6D over either 5D body if low ISO performance is critical to their work.

SoNikon sensored cameras still do blow the 6D into the weeds with far cleaner low ISO data.
Hopefully Canon's (soon to be released?) next generation sensors will further improve on this dark/read noise issue.

As it is now, I am very tempted to sell my 5D2 to fund the 6D, it's that much more usable to me.


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 5, 2013)

Sounds great. 

Could you maybe post some sample images?


----------



## David Hull (Jan 5, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Got to play with one a bit at the shop today, shot some dark frames and pushed them as i usually do to better visualize the pesky noise patterns.
> 
> The 6D is considerably improved over the 5d2 and even 5d3. Although the total amount of dark level noise is not so greatly reduced, the subjective annoyance of its patterning is noticeably less.
> 
> ...



I have seen the same thing (having owned a 5DII and now a 5DIII). The noise seems to be about the same in the case of the 5DIII but it is predominantly one dimensional which allows it to be MUCH more easily dealt with by some of the third party NR plugins like those from Topaz and Nik. The DxO measured DR remains the same though so the fanboys who are used to making a big deal about that will not be disappointed


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 5, 2013)

There is a review at : http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review
with a bunch of pictures of the 6D noise from ISO 1600-25000

Also has some dynamic range tests with the shadows pushed.
There is also a 5D mark III (couldn't find a mark II) test with the 6D : http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii
that shows noise and dynamic range results.

It does seem that the 6D is considerably better than the older cameras like the 5D2 and just a tiny bit better than the 5D3. Though when it comes to dynamic range, the Canon cameras are still way behind Nikon.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2013)

Thanks for the info!  

It sounds like Canon rushed the 5D3, in order top stop Nikon D800 from "stealing the whole show".

The 6D sensor should clearly have been in the 5D3, and the 5D3 sensor in the 6D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2013)

Aglet said:


> As it is now, I am very tempted to sell my 5D2 to fund the 6D, it's that much more usable to me.



I applaud Canon's effort with the 6d as they managed to adapt their current "legacy" tech to meet customer's expectations = low iso noise and a bit more dr. But don't forget the 6d is also less sharp since obviously it has more forced nr than the 5d3 - so for comparisons the 5d2/5d3 images have to be downscaled a bit and then nr'ed to match the 6d's sharpness. The improved banding reducton is a clear, non debatable plus though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 7, 2013)

Aglet said:


> 6d, at the same ISO settings, produces far less obviously structured noise lines. THIS IS A GOOD THING!
> Canon has actually made some significant improvement in this area over the older cameras!



Actually more like significant improvement in this over over the newer cameras! (since the 1Ds3 and even 40D already did this more than half a decade ago  ). But yeah it is good that they at least have back to their past best banding levels. Certainly a shame that they didn't bother to do that for the 5D3 which was pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2013)

I've been looking for some downloadable 6D raw-files for hours, but haven't been able to find any.

Can someone here be so kind and upload a couple of raw files for me?  ISO 100 - 400.

You can use quick file sharing services like http://www.zippyshare.com/ or http://www.sendspace.com/

I just want to play around with the sliders in Lightroom and see how the files hold up.


----------



## jonathan7007 (Feb 7, 2013)

LetThe...
Your comment seems to say the 1DsMkIII had no low ISO noise/banding. As someone considering purchasing one I wanted to confirm that positive endorsement (if that's what it was!)
The 5DMkIII and 6D are a confusing pair of cameras. Like the earlier poster I'd like to mix the features differently, some from each... my 5DMkIII a poor copy, I believe, but wished for more improvement in IQ over the 5DMkII.

jonathan7007


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 7, 2013)

One question is, what will happen to Nikon if Canon's next generation sensors actually _do_ get closer to their DR performance, let alone equal or best it? They will continue to lose market share, that's what...then Nikon fanbois will be going off the deepend...And again, how do you Nikonians manage that ridiculous grip, shutter release placement, and rear panel ergonomics? 

Dswatson83, interesting link, I will look at it carefully.

Interesting that there's vertical band noise, where my 50D has horizontal band noise. I'm sure it's idiotic to ask what is common knowledge on here, but why is one vertical and the other horizontal? One is full frame, the other crop...is there something about the smaller size that makes the banding horizontal?

The problem I noticed with my cousin's 5D3 files in Lightroom 4, was a _coarse pebble like grain noise_ at ISO 4000 (not related to color), which LR4 couldn't take away without losing a lot of detail. The luminance slider had to be all the way up to like 85 or 90, to make any difference...and then all the detail is gone. I didn't notice any banding or much color noise, although I'm sure it had some.

So my question is, what do all of you experts do about this coarse grain? I presume Topaz or some other plugin does better than LR4, for this aspect of noise also (besides the color banding)?


----------



## DanielW (Feb 7, 2013)

What if Canon simply ditched the 5D3's sensor and put the 6D's sensor in it? I mean, same body, same AF system, everything, but made all 5D3s with the 6D's sensor from now on... Same sensor size, same company... Is it feasible, on the technical side?
Daniel


----------



## bgran8 (Feb 7, 2013)

"5d2 could produce some fairly harsh noise lines (hor. & vert) in shadows at 100 ISO, they soften a bit from random noise at 400 ISO and up."

Is it better to shoot with the 5d2 at ISO 400 than ISO 100 to avoid the pattern noise? Thanks.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2013)

DanielW said:


> What if Canon simply ditched the 5D3's sensor and put the 6D's sensor in it? I mean, same body, same AF system, everything, but made all 5D3s with the 6D's sensor from now on... Same sensor size, same company... Is it feasible, on the technical side?
> Daniel


That'd be very nice, but it ain't gonna happen.

A lot of people who already bought the 5D3 would go berserk! Even the ones who claim that they are perfectly happy with the current sensor, and that they don't need more DR for "their shooting style".  They would instantly change their mind and start whining.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2013)

DanielW said:


> What if Canon simply ditched the 5D3's sensor and put the 6D's sensor in it?



From the reviews I read and the raw samples I looked at myself you're absolutely overestimating the 5d3/6d difference - the 6d might have 1/3 stop less iso noise, but the 5d3 also has improved banding, has more resolution and is sharper than the 6d. Except maybe for iso12800 (favors 6d) or low iso studio shots (favors 5d3) the differences won't show.

Edit: removed assumption about aa filter strenght on the 6d, sorry.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2013)

Marsu: Could you please link some of those comparisons between the 6D and 5D3? I mean one that proves the 5D3 is sharper?

I have searched but did not find any.


----------



## DanielW (Feb 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > What if Canon simply ditched the 5D3's sensor and put the 6D's sensor in it?
> ...



I agree about the overestimation thing -- I'm thinking of selling my 60D and getting a 7D (mark 1!) because of AFMA. A FF would be great, indeed much better than my 60D or my "new" 7D, but what's keeping my photos from being better is definitely not my camera.
Going FF with Canon would mean losing the built-in flash as a commander (I have only one flash) and becoming restricted to on-camera flash, when what I need is just the opposite: quit being such a lazy ass and get the flash off-camera more often. Sure, I could just buy another flash, but going FF, buying new lenses and accessories is expensive and probably wouldn't make my photos much better, if any. I'm the limiting factor... 
And, as jrista pointed out recently, there are softwares with incredible NR capabilities available nowadays. I've found that ISO 1600 and 3200 are really good after adequate NR on the RAW files of my 60D, and for what I shoot it's really enough.
Daniel


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > What if Canon simply ditched the 5D3's sensor and put the 6D's sensor in it?
> ...



With all due respect, you seem to be repeatedly making this point in a variety of threads, but without substantiating it. You also don't seem to own any full frame Canon camera body according to your signature, so where is the source for your information?

I don't own and have not used the MKIII, but I did extensive research before purchasing the 6D and have processed many thousands of images with the MKII (which I continue to own). I can tell you from my research that many professional reviewers when doing testing were surprised to find the improvement in dynamic range, high ISO performance, and reduced noise in the shadows in the 6D. They weren't looking for it; they were shocked to find it! I can tell you *from my own experience* that the difference between the RAW files in these qualities from the 5D2 to the 6D is huge. I am sure it is far less obvious when compared to the 5D3, but I have not really heard any professional assert that still image quality is better (or even 100% as good). The 5D3 is unquestionably the better camera; it probably doesn't produce better images.


----------



## Brock (Feb 7, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Canon can not be equal with theirs old sensor lay out and and and signal path way.
> Thera are no indications that Canon has gone from the old 180nm tech to Sonys, Panasonic Aptina, Toshiba tech which are down at 65nm



http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

Canon is at 500nm.

Nikon 350nm & 250nm

Sony at 250nm & 180nm (though technically the 180 is in the Nikon D800)

Where are you getting 65nm from?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> With all due respect, you seem to be repeatedly making this point in a variety of threads, but without substantiating it. You also don't seem to own any full frame Canon camera body according to your signature, so where is the source for your information?



Asking for sources is perfectly fine - though since this is not a scientific article, skipping them unless asked to is imho also ok. While looking for the adequate ff camera (5d2/5d3/6d) I did a lot of research and downloaded multiple raw comparisons and had a look for myself in Lightroom. What exact source are you asking for - that the 5d2 is sharpest at low iso, or that the 6d is less sharp than the 5d3? If I can I'll try to post where I got the information from, though it were a lot of articles so I'll really have to look. Not to be misunderstood: I also think the 6d iq is overall much better than the 5d2, that's why I'll buy the 6d.

Btw: I'm not a big fan of the "you don't own that gear, you can't tell anything about it" argument - I for one never told it to anyone commenting on, bashing, praising or comparing the 60d w/o owning it. While it is certainly true that ownership or extended rental is required for evaluating gear handling over longer periods of time, your 6d probably has the same sensor as any reviewer's 6d, so I'm confident I can come to valid conclusion when using other people's raw files. If reading sources would be no viably way to acquire information, scientific or journalistic work would be confronted with quite a problem.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 7, 2013)

Daniel, AFMA is a must, and the 60D was "rebel-ized" to appeal to Rebel fans. I've never liked it, which is why I still use my 50D. Let's face it, the noise is not that much better in the 60D and 7D, nor is the resolution. By contrast, the resolution was increased a whopping 50% going from 40D, to 50D. Sure the 40D had less noise at the pixel level, but not when you downsample the 50D's images to match the 40D's 10MP image size.

So the 5D3 has a stronger anti-aliasing filter than the 6D? I did not know dat...maybe that partially explains why the 6D's video has more moire?

As for 5D3 owners going crazy, how about all those who bought the first production run of the 5D3 with the light leak under the top lcd screen? Were they not angry too? hahahaha....

And how about all those Nikon D4 owners who have to contend with the green tinting of both the LCD and the files themselves, with no acknowledgement of a problem from Nikon? A lot of them just sold everything and bought a 1Dx and the far superior Canon lens line. Not sure that problem was ever fixed, and don't really care either.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> So the 5D3 has a stronger anti-aliasing filter than the 6D? I did not know dat...maybe that partially explains why the 6D's video has more moire?



Wups, sorry, I read my own post and have to admit that the strenght of the aa filter is just an assumption (unlike the 5d2/5d3 sharpness vs. the 6d) because of the stronger moire, it can also be due to another sampling algorithm vs. the 5d3. So sorry for that, I corrected it above but would also like to have more information on this.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect, you seem to be repeatedly making this point in a variety of threads, but without substantiating it. You also don't seem to own any full frame Canon camera body according to your signature, so where is the source for your information?
> ...



I don't think that I ever said that you could "not tell anything about it". I do question trying to make such a strong point that seems to contradict prevailing wisdom without more evidence to back it up...and I don't recall you ever actually quoting a source. 

I think your policy of using other people's RAW files to get a sense of the camera's ability is a good one. I think that doing research is very smart. But I don't think just having RAW files is going to tell you the whole story about all the potential variables at capture or give you a real sense of the operation/workflow of the camera. I'm not looking for an argument; I look forward to hearing your thoughts once you have had a chance to use the camera for yourself.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 7, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I don't think that I ever said that you could "not tell anything about it". I do question trying to make such a strong point that seems to contradict prevailing wisdom without more evidence to back it up...and I don't recall you ever actually quoting a source.



Well, you didn't ask for a source on any specific item yet  ... and sorry if I seemed to generalize your post, I was also commenting on various other past threads where the idea that you have to own something to be able to comment on it is often mentioned - so sorry for being too strong on this.



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I'm not looking for an argument; I look forward to hearing your thoughts once you have had a chance to use the camera for yourself.



Me neither, and actually I really value your posts because of you I now decided to go for the Tamron and 6d combination, saving €2000 (that's a lot of money to me) - if you can shoot with it like you do, I certainly don't need the 5d3+Canon mk2 combination. And I'll certainly tell about my experiences here, though I'll wait some for the 6d to drop some more in price.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 7, 2013)

Good enough  I hope the combo works as well for you as it has for me so far.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 7, 2013)

jonathan7007 said:


> LetThe...
> Your comment seems to say the 1DsMkIII had no low ISO noise/banding. As someone considering purchasing one I wanted to confirm that positive endorsement (if that's what it was!)
> The 5DMkIII and 6D are a confusing pair of cameras. Like the earlier poster I'd like to mix the features differently, some from each... my 5DMkIII a poor copy, I believe, but wished for more improvement in IQ over the 5DMkII.
> 
> jonathan7007



Well they all have read noise at low ISO, all a lot more than the exmor stuff, but the 1Ds3 did have among the least low ISO banding that Canon had ever released and some of the better ISO100 read noise for a Canon. 

From what I hear and have seen and in some, but not all, cases tested, it seems like for the FF cams from Canon that 1Ds3,1DX,6D all have noticeably less banding than the 5D3/5D2 (5D3 completely cures it in one direction but since it still has it so strongly in the other direction it doesn't really do much anything to help). From what I recall 1Ds3 has no horiz banding and a little bit of vertical and the 5D2 has a lot of both and the 5D3 has no almost vertical but a lot of horiz. Those three (1Ds3/6D/1DX) also all have a bit less read noise than the 5D3/5D2 as well at ISO100 (5D3 is actually the worst of them all for ISO100 read noise, although the degree that it is worse than the 5D2 in that regard is so minor that I don't it is possible to notice real world). Some say the 6D has the least banding of these Canon FF cams, I didn't check that out carefully myself yet.

1DX/6D and even 5D3 (and even 5D2) all have better high ISO DR than the 1Ds3 though (even starting by just ISO800 or even 400 really, not even talking high). And at say ISO3200 the 1Ds3 DR actually does fall quite far behind the 5D3 and bit farther still than the 6D and even a touch yet than the 1DX. Even compared to the 5D2 it doesn't even fair so well at ISO3200.

1DX/6D/5D3 all have better SNR than the 1Ds3 across the range (although SNR is so good that at ISO100 it doesn't matter that much and with the better color filters and less banding and a bit less read noise I'd say 1Ds3 does ISO100 better than the 5D3 even if the SNR is worse outside of the darkest tones).

1Ds3 appears to have the least color-blind color array filter when shooting under outdoor lighting of all those cameras. 6D may be the most color blind. In what ways and what the difference means exactly is very complex and hard to say.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 7, 2013)

DanielW said:


> What if Canon simply ditched the 5D3's sensor and put the 6D's sensor in it? I mean, same body, same AF system, everything, but made all 5D3s with the 6D's sensor from now on... Same sensor size, same company... Is it feasible, on the technical side?
> Daniel



It would mess up the video being only 20MP instead of 22MP. Not 100% sure it could drive the 6fps either, might need more readouts added (might be require only a modest little fix in the grand scheme of things though).

I don't get why they didn't just make the 6D sensor 22MP instead of 20MP and just use the same one in both cameras. Very bizarre.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > What if Canon simply ditched the 5D3's sensor and put the 6D's sensor in it? I mean, same body, same AF system, everything, but made all 5D3s with the 6D's sensor from now on... Same sensor size, same company... Is it feasible, on the technical side?
> ...



And that is at the heart of what got me when doing research. The 6D wasn't even on my radar, but as I actually researched the key things that matter to me (IQ being #1), there wasn't really a clear pecking order between the 5D3 and the 6D. The 5D3 is the better camera...but not in every way. The 6D was not just a "dumbed down" 5DIII. In some ways it is actually a superior camera; in others it is considerably inferior. I was dead set on buying a 5D3 until I did the research and discovered that (at least for my actual purposes) the 6D might actually be the preferred camera. While I have not yet used a 5DIII, I can safely say that I am very happy with my purchase of the 6D.

But my point is that Canon has really muddied the waters for potential customers like myself. If the 5D3 was clearly superior in every way, I would be purchasing one right now. It's not, so I didn't. Was that in Canon's best interest?


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Feb 7, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



+1 it's a completely different perspective to own the actual product. I bashed the 6D when it was announced and bought one for my wife because she needed "just" the better ISO performance. Ended up buying one for myself as well because of the compact delivery of IQ nearly identical to 5D3. For still subjects at least. It's easily a level above the 5D2 for image quality and AF which matter the most, and several other features. The weaknesses are easily outweighed. I bashed the 60D when it was announced as well, but last year we ended up buying 3 of them instead of the somewhat noisier 50D. IQ just wins in the end over other features, especially since Canon is beginning to trail behind in sensor technology. Not saying it's the only thing that matters, but if you want to make the most out of your lenses I'm sure it's a good place to start.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 7, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > DanielW said:
> ...


That is why I believe the 5D3 was rushed, in order to go up against the D800, and thus "stealing some of the spotlight" from Nikon.

It is an ugly theory, but it also makes perfect sense.

I also believe that the 5D3 will have a much shorter product cycle than the previous 5D-cameras. A replacement (the 5DX?) will most likely come sooner than later.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

bgran8 said:


> Is it better to shoot with the 5d2 at ISO 400 than ISO 100 to avoid the pattern noise? Thanks.


that is a viable workaround for the problem which I should have used more often myself.
dynamic range is almost the same from iso 100 to 800 or more but the effective read noise drops as you move up the iso scale and the signal to noise ratio also gets worse. BUT, the SNR is still pretty good overall so some minor NR in post will clean up a 400 or 800 ISO raw file to be nearly as good as a 100 iso should be. IF you have enough shutter speed and other exposure latitude to do this (careful when using flash fill)
after all that, yes, if you can move to iso 400 or more without affecting your composition elements from flash fill then use it to avoid the strong banding because the increased random noise/pattern noise is a benefit in this case.
Of course,all this only applies if you're lifting shadows or raising the overall exposure in post. If you're not doing that, there's no need to. the 5d2's shadow banding is usually barely noticeable in shadows that are not lifted at all. It sort of depends on what you do with the image.


----------



## Aglet (Feb 8, 2013)

*i DID notice one more little flaw of sorts that affected my 5d2 and the 6d I looked at.
*Altho it appears similar to FPN, it likely is not a noise issue but a small variation in pixel performance occurring .

I'll have to post the shots when I have time to monkey with them some more but the effect is this;

A "ribbon" shaped area was affected such that when shooting SMOOTH MIDTONES there was some fine vertical banding-like structure evident. This is actually the first flaw i noticed on my 5d2 when i bought it but thought it was a noise issue at the time. If it were a normal FPN issue,the banding would have been evident over the whole range of the smooth tone area. instead, it was confined to a ribbon-like shape that meandered a bit over part of the sensor.

I managed to replicate and identify it by shooting a flat surface and enhancing the heck out of the contrast.
But it was in a real image of a foggy mountain lake at sunrise where i first found it.

So far I've only found this on the 5d2 and 6D.
I've sold my 5d2 recently, now waiting for price drop before getting a 6d, if I get one at all.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 8, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> But my point is that Canon has really muddied the waters for potential customers like myself. If the 5D3 was clearly superior in every way, I would be purchasing one right now. It's not, so I didn't. Was that in Canon's best interest?



You just got a bunch of Canon marketing guys fired :-> ... they really tried *everything* to make the 6d look inferior to the 5d3, esp. in the specs - except for the anti-d600 joker "low light af" and the button layout / smaller size, but on the latter they probably aren't sure themselves if this is good (travel) or bad (i.e. to make it look less "pro").


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 8, 2013)

Dustin-

Is there a post somewhere you've expounded on your decision making process, 6d vs 5d3? Curious because I bought a 7d around the time the 6d was released, decided at the time it wasn't worth paying for FF for my needs, and the 7d was half the price, and so far I've loved it. But there's still this part of me nagging to get into FF, and I'd love as much info as you are willing to spend the time to type out on a forum... haha. 

Thanks!!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

Dustin, what sort of photography do you mostly do? I too am wanting to decide which camera to buy, but won't actually buy for months. How workable is the AF on the 6D? I've only had a 5D3 in my hands, not really gotten to play with it much. Tried to tweak the files in LR4, didn't work too well.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 8, 2013)

Had a look at the 6d the other day and there was lots and lots to like, the handling is superb even with the missing joystick. I love the way the silent shutter sounds and focus seemed better than my 5d2...the thing is my 5d2 delivers the goods in spades, I can shoot happily up to 6400 and topaz cleans up most if not all of the visible banding in the shadows and when I overexpose the images a bit, then the shadows are clean and there is still plenty of detail in the highlights even if it looks overexposed...me I am waiting for that D800 competitor camera to be launched..until then my 5d2 works just fine and no client has ever complained about the image quality.


----------



## pedro (Feb 8, 2013)

Ricku said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


----------



## MintMark (Feb 8, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that I ever said that you could "not tell anything about it". I do question trying to make such a strong point that seems to contradict prevailing wisdom without more evidence to back it up...and I don't recall you ever actually quoting a source.
> ...



Can I ask about the 6D sharpness compared to the 5D3? Is it just the slightly higher pixel density of the 5D3 or do you think there is another factor in play?

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 8, 2013)

MintMark said:


> Can I ask about the 6D sharpness compared to the 5D3? Is it just the slightly higher pixel density of the 5D3 or do you think there is another factor in play?



You can discover this yourself by downloading any raw files with fine details yourself, use the dpreview widget http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d/11 or look at this comparison: http://www.etherpilot.com/photo/test/misc/6d_5d3_d600.jpg

The difference is not big enough to make a difference for me, but it is visible. The best test I know concerning the resolution differences is on the German site traumflieger.de - look for the 6d review video.

From what I've read and seen for myself this is not only due to the lower resolution of the 6d, but because Canon applies more forced noise reduction to the 6d raw files - look at the strong chroma noise on the 5d3 in black areas, it's nearly completely gone on the 6d but at a loss of sharpness.

To put it another way: If you downsize the 5d3 files to 6d resolution and apply strong chroma and mild luma nr until the sharpness matches the 6d it's a wash except for a slight luma noise advantage of the 6d @same iso: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11279.msg202164#msg202164


----------



## MintMark (Feb 8, 2013)

Thank you for replying. I have seen those comparisons before but I'm not sure I share the same conclusion.
Looking at the Siemens star in the centre of the dpreview scene at various ISOs, it's hard for me to see a difference in resolution between the 6D and the 5D3. Especially at high ISO, the colour blotches obscure the fine detail for both cameras. At low ISO they seem equivalent to me.

What makes you think Canon is applying noise reduction to the raw data?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 8, 2013)

MintMark said:


> Looking at the Siemens star in the centre of the dpreview scene at various ISOs, it's hard for me to see a difference in resolution between the 6D and the 5D3. Especially at high ISO, the colour blotches obscure the fine detail for both cameras. At low ISO they seem equivalent to me.



I didn't have an in-depth look at the dpreview shots since they only came out recently. It's a pity you probably cannot understand the German traumflieger.de review. I'd suggest downloading some raw samples yourself and have a look in LR - I did this with the raw files from http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1566/reflex-canon-6d-bruit-electronique-12.html and compared the print on the circuit board and the shadow noise at zero nr.



MintMark said:


> What makes you think Canon is applying noise reduction to the raw data?



Look at the other CR link I posted, there are 5d3/6d comparisons w/o nr and no way the 6d can have that little chroma noise at low iso w/o some nr. Afaik Canon also applies nr to the 5d3 et al on higher iso levels, and I know Nikon does.


----------



## Meh (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Brock said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Read what again? Do you have a reference for the numbers you gave?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 8, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Dustin-
> 
> Is there a post somewhere you've expounded on your decision making process, 6d vs 5d3? Curious because I bought a 7d around the time the 6d was released, decided at the time it wasn't worth paying for FF for my needs, and the 7d was half the price, and so far I've loved it. But there's still this part of me nagging to get into FF, and I'd love as much info as you are willing to spend the time to type out on a forum... haha.
> 
> Thanks!!



I have blogged at length about that process at my website here: http://www.dustinabbott.net/2013/02/why-i-chose-a-canon-eos-6d-over-a-5d-mkiii/ Hopefully this can help someone who is trying to make a decision like I was


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 8, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Dustin, what sort of photography do you mostly do? I too am wanting to decide which camera to buy, but won't actually buy for months. How workable is the AF on the 6D? I've only had a 5D3 in my hands, not really gotten to play with it much. Tried to tweak the files in LR4, didn't work too well.



Carl, see the link in the post above. I hope this helps!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

Don't feel like looking over all that again.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 8, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Don't feel like looking over all that again.



If you are referring to the link I posted, I just got through writing all of this in answer to the questions that you and others have asked in regards to the 6D. There is no "again" here.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

I thought you were referring to the longer posts on the earlier pages, I missed the last one on the previous page. Ok, well looks like you might be as much a writer as a photographer. And your photography looks to be primarily medium and wider angle, low light landscape...so generally manual focus materal. The 6D would be more than fine for that, as you know, hence you have one (or at least I think you do). Do you mind if I ask if you make much money from selling prints? (I ask because I myself, want to get into doing that.) Or further, percentage-wise, what part of your income is related to doing photo work? Not at all trying to get personal here, if you would rather not say in public, you could private message, or keep it to yourself...no big deal. For myself, I do work from photography, but I don't make a lot of income from it in total. I've certainly made nothing from my landscapes (at least not from the ones for "beauty") and wildlife, but would like to. I feel some of it is worthy of being brought to the marketplace, at some point. It's not the "best" out there by far, but so what? A lot of it is unique locations in my area, where most landscape photography seems to be done in the US national parks, the desert southwest, the british coast, the scenic cities of europe, exotic locales in africa and elsewhere, etc.


----------



## Brock (Feb 8, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Brock said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



90nm is still not 65nm.

Also you can't always equate fabrication process to image quality. It's not like a CPU where it gets incrementally better. Sensors have to deal w/ the physical properties of light being 400-700nm, CPUs don't. i.e. Moore's law doesn't apply to image sensors.
__________________________________________________________________


Meh said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > Brock said:
> ...


 Also, this.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 8, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I thought you were referring to the longer posts on the earlier pages, I missed the last one on the previous page. Ok, well looks like you might be as much a writer as a photographer. And your photography looks to be primarily medium and wider angle, low light landscape...so generally manual focus materal. The 6D would be more than fine for that, as you know, hence you have one (or at least I think you do). Do you mind if I ask if you make much money from selling prints? (I ask because I myself, want to get into doing that.) Or further, percentage-wise, what part of your income is related to doing photo work? Not at all trying to get personal here, if you would rather not say in public, you could private message, or keep it to yourself...no big deal. For myself, I do work from photography, but I don't make a lot of income from it in total. I've certainly made nothing from my landscapes (at least not from the ones for "beauty") and wildlife, but would like to. I feel some of it is worthy of being brought to the marketplace, at some point. It's not the "best" out there by far, but so what? A lot of it is unique locations in my area, where most landscape photography seems to be done in the US national parks, the desert southwest, the british coast, the scenic cities of europe, exotic locales in africa and elsewhere, etc.



Not a problem. The majority of my photography income comes from shooting events (weddings, business events, church events, even funerals) or portraits, not fine art sales. I would say that photography accounts for about 15% of my income, but demand for my services is increasing. Because of the demands on my time already, however, there is a practical limit to how much I can commit to. I have made some money through fine art sales both directly and through sites like Fine Art America. I use part of my church office as a gallery of framed work and/or canvases and have sold some that way. I've gotten paid for the use of some my landscapes in magazines, although I have made less than a thousand dollars that way. My work is licensed through Getty and iStock, but that has not generated big sales (particularly not iStock). I have made as much directly licensing some of my work. Fine art/stock image sales are probably only 10% of what I make in photography income, but I proportionately spend far more time on that...because I enjoy it, and photography is primarily for me a joy, not a job.

The number of people making a living from landscape photography is very, very low. It can be done...but isn't being done by me. I'm afraid that landscape shooting is very fulfilling, and I love sharing that kind of work, but it doesn't earn much of a paycheck.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

Brock, good point. Certainly it's not the smaller size of the photo sites that yields higher DR and lower "read noise".

Much of the best photography out there, landscape or otherwise, is done with Canon cameras, more often than Nikon. Mikael, explain that? Why does the marketplace keep choosing Canon over Nikon? Is it because photographers are stupid and wrong-minded? Is it because, in your mind, they aren't "true artists"? 

Or could it be that a high DR at low ISO is academic, and not indicative of the end-quality of the photographs taken? Could it be that Nikon base their grip and ergonomic design, around a 7 foot tall female who weighs 100 pounds...or perhaps from an alien species? Are the design engineers at Nikon, even from this planet? I submit that they are the wrong-minded ones.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 8, 2013)

Dustin, much grattitude for your detailed and quick response! My goal is certainly not to make a living from landscape and wildlife...more like to try to eek out a similar percentage that you are doing.

Are you familiar with Marc Adamus? One of his shots got me re-inspired for photography. Not sure how big of a deal he is now. 

Indeed, landscape is very fulfilling. In my younger days, I fancied myself an artist and wanted to design cars. I sent my idea to its intended target, a manufacturer in Germany. Three months later, they returned it with some legal forms which I never signed. The copy of my design had been folded up and worked over a lot. Alas, it was not a realstic goal for me. Not enough people get to do it. I also, always felt drained after drawing or painting something. I never feel that way when shooting photographs that I love...or even of editing them (after a few hours at a time it gets old, of course.) If it's photo work that I don't love, then I definitely dislike spending time with it, but sometimes that has to be done.

But it was strange back in art school, that all of my classmates felt doing their work was therapeutic. It never was for me.

I also like to write, but too many people seem to be doing that these days, too. Every form of creativity is highly subjective, did you know that?


----------

