# DPreview adds 6D sample images to their preview



## traveller (Nov 19, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/19/Canon


----------



## Canon-F1 (Nov 19, 2012)

*dpreview 6D samples*

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/19/Canon?comment=7915871544


i am not that impressed by the image quality.... sorry to say.
not for a new camera in 2012.

maybe i have to take a closer look at the high iso images.
but as i shoot mostly under iso 1600 i don´t see much that makes me want to sell my 5D MK2.

lets wait for RAW samples....


----------



## azizjhn (Nov 20, 2012)

I like the low light performance u can get useful photo at ISO 102,000 Cool ;D


----------



## x-vision (Nov 20, 2012)

*Re: dpreview 6D samples*

What are you talking about? 

I just compared the 6D at ISO-6400 vs the 5DIII at ISO-6400 ... and the 6D is cleaner and with better colors.

Overall, the 6D image quality is shaping up as better than the 5DIII.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

traveller said:


> url=http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/19/Canon


Well, unfortunately they did extremely heavy global nr on the shots again (compare the details on iso 50 to the other studio shots), obviously to them a noise-free black background is more important than details :-x ... hail to raw and the LR nr brush!

But looking at the iso samples it might be clean 6400 and the the 51200 iso shot look better than 6400 on my 60d, so if it's a 3 stop improvement over the current crop sensor I'd say that's a definitive step up  ... on the other hand side we don't know how the dynamic range degrades @high iso.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 20, 2012)

*Re: dpreview 6D samples*



x-vision said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> I just compared the 6D at ISO-6400 vs the 5DIII at ISO-6400 ... and the 6D is cleaner and with better colors.
> 
> Overall, the 6D image quality is shaping up as better than the 5DIII.



Would you care to share your comparision? by posting some images


----------



## x-vision (Nov 20, 2012)

Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.


----------



## azizjhn (Nov 20, 2012)

Agree with x-vision
6D sample is better 
Very very Cool :


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 20, 2012)

x-vision said:


> Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.



I didn't see lens profile on your 5D III pictures, I'm assuming that you used same lens. Since you shot these pictures in studio, the light becomes MAJOR role. I do not believe your light setups were the same, in term of location and height.

Picture below was shot at f11 with 250W studio light in low light location, not the best , but it does show what 5D III can produce.


----------



## extremeinstability (Nov 20, 2012)

Wish they'd shoot in RAW, remove just the color noise and then post jpgs of that.


----------



## Area256 (Nov 20, 2012)

x-vision said:


> Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.



I agree it does look like the 6D is a little bit better at noise. The better colour could just be from changes in lighting between dpreviews setups, it's hard to tell. However the default NR on the latest Canon cameras has been far too heavy handed of late, and it shows in the other samples as well. Need to see some RAW files before we can really tell (but that will need to wait for RAW support). Although seeing the 6D jpeg better than the 5DIII jpeg, does suggest the larger pixel pitch is doing what would be expected (assuming no major changes to the jpeg engine of course).




Dylan777 said:


> I didn't see lens profile on your 5D III pictures, I'm assuming that you used same lens. Since you shot these pictures in studio, the light becomes MAJOR role. I do not believe your light setups were the same, in term of location and height.



Those pictures are from DPReview, we can only assume they used the same lighting setups, but it's possible they didn't manage to keep it exactly the same.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Picture below was shot at f11 with 250W studio light, not the best but it does show how sharp the 5D III can produce.



At iso 100 like your shot you hardly need a 5d3 to produce a good result (actually the 5d2 is said to be a bit sharper at low iso due to the weaker aa filter). Esp. for studio shots putting money into a sharp lens might be smarter than the newest camera body...

The jpeg iso samples of dpreview are to compare noise, in the way that you can see _what's left of the details after nr_. I guess dpreview is a reliable site and they had the same setup, and imho the 6d is indeed visibly better in these shots (detail left and noise in background) - I just loaded all into lightroom and compared them side by side.

So either Canon at last really did something about their sonsors (rejoice!) or the 5d3 shots were done with an older firmware version that had a worse in-camera jpeg converter - we have to wait for a 6d software raw converter and raw shots to be sure.


----------



## dpollitt (Nov 20, 2012)

Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg - or attachment


----------



## Marine03 (Nov 20, 2012)

6D looks better so far but is logical from my view. To have a body that is cleaner image wise but slower in AF and FPS. This makes me excited as a 450D user looking at the near endless possibilities. Just curious what the 7ad2 will do.


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 20, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.


The 6D looks better. That is pretty amazing as the 5DIII was already quite good.


----------



## Area256 (Nov 20, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
> 
> http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg - or attachment



Very interesting. Thanks for posting this! 

Of course we can't know for sure until we see the raw files if this is clever NR or better sensor design, but the results are very encouraging. I would prefer the 6D to the 5DIII in this case - far less blotchy colour noise, and better overall colour. Although there is a slight difference in exposure which is kind of odd, and may have an effect on the comparability.

On a side note, it's nice to know that Canon has given DPReview a per-production camera to play with. That may mean we can expect a full review fairly soon after the camera is on the market (fingers crossed).


----------



## gmrza (Nov 20, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> 6D looks better so far but is logical from my view. To have a body that is cleaner image wise but slower in AF and FPS. This makes me excited as a 450D user looking at the near endless possibilities. Just curious what the 7ad2 will do.



It certainly looks interesting. While I don't know if this comparison is across sufficiently well-controlled environments, the initial view is that the 6D does seem to perform better. A more accurate reflection will be once DPR has the full reviews of both bodies available and it is possible to compare RAW files of the same scene.

Either way, it may be beginning to look like the 6D is a more interesting camera than many of us initially gave it credit for. (Not that I am in the market for one.) For those people who were thinking of still buying a 5DII, rather than waiting for the 6D, it may make the decision a little more difficult.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 20, 2012)

The 6D shots look very interesting. 5D3 is already very good in terms of IQ. If they are able (and from the looks of it, they did) a little bit with the 6D, I think I'll wait for the 6D. As long as it can focus properly even in low-light, I don't need the AF of 5D3. I can't wait for its release. If it turns out to be not much better than 5D2, then I'll just get the 5D2.


----------



## M.ST (Nov 20, 2012)

Yes. Forget the 5D Mark III and get the 6D if you have SD cards or if you have a lot of CF cards stay with the 5D Mark II oder change from a entry level camera to the 5D Mark II.

But as the 5D Mark III you loose with the 6D over ISO 3200 a lot of fine details. For professional use don´t go higher then ISO 1600 oder ISO 3200 if you don´t make action or wildlife shots.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 20, 2012)

that sounds like exactly what i have thought... 6d will have a improvement over 5d mark iii on iso. however, i am happy with my canon 5d mark iii anyway since i got it with a really good deal at adorama. in addition, i cross my finger and hope that canon will push an firmware update to improve and maximize 5d mark iii capabilities....

congratulation to whoever has been waiting for upgrading to 6d... it seems a good signal to start with.


----------



## onkel_wart (Nov 20, 2012)

for someone like me coming from a 50D this looks like a dream come true.


----------



## nightsky87 (Nov 20, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
> 
> http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg - or attachment



Not to burst anyone's bubble but the 5D3 sample I saw in the DPR galleries was with no NR applied. So unless I missed something, this comparison is like comparing the in-camera NR'd 6D images vs no NR 5D3. Hardly a fair comparison. But these images are certainly encouraging compared to the ones on Flickr.

Okay, I just looked around a bit more and I did see the right samples. So unless there was a significant different between the pre-production 5D3 and the final version, the 6D samples look great! Time to really pre-order this one.


----------



## bvukich (Nov 20, 2012)

The plot thickens... (dramatic pause) dum dum duuummmm...


But seriously, I have no doubt that the IQ will be acceptable; I, and I'm sure many others, are more concerned about the AF. I fully understand that this is a compromise camera, spec'd and priced for a certain bracket in their lineup; but I'd be very disappointed if the AF performance is less than the 60D. I know spec wise, it looks to be lesser, but it could still perform better, especially in low light with the -3EV sensitivity.

I really want to be able to like this camera so I can get it plus a decent lens, instead of having just a 5DIII and having to make due with my current mediocre glass.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 20, 2012)

bvukich said:


> The plot thickens... (dramatic pause) dum dum duuummmm...
> 
> 
> But seriously, I have no doubt that the IQ will be acceptable; I, and I'm sure many others, are more concerned about the AF. I fully understand that this is a compromise camera, spec'd and priced for a certain bracket in their lineup; but I'd be very disappointed if the AF performance is less than the 60D. I know spec wise, it looks to be lesser, but it could still perform better, especially in low light with the -3EV sensitivity.
> ...



For my usage, AF-wise, if it can get AF in low-light even if it's not so fast, I think that's enough for me. I agree with you. At least it should be able to surpass 60D AF or else, this is just another glorified 5D2. If that's the case I'd also consider 5D2.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

onkel_wart said:


> for someone like me coming from a 50D this looks like a dream come true.



Given that nowadays the camera upgrades are incremental, it pays to wait a little to wait ($$$ and iq-wise)  ... and even with the 60d it's the same, if the 6d has 1 usable stop more than the 5d2 that's good news and a reason to get the newer gear.



Area256 said:


> it's nice to know that Canon has given DPReview a per-production camera to play with.



Where did you get this information? Everywhere I look it has the "The camera used for this gallery was pre-production, and image quality should be considered 'Beta' standard" notice, though that probably only means the in-camera raw-converter / jpeg-engine and not the sensor hardware.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 20, 2012)

Previously in another thread, I've raised the possibility that 6D is built on an entirely new generation of sensor. After seeing the sample pictures even if they're just pre-production, I'm thinking that 6D's sensor might be it. Maybe Canon got tired from giving Nikon a lot of advantage in the sensor department.  I'm still crossing my fingers... I hope they got/nail it with 6D because soon it will be my first FF (forgive me for my enthusiasm, I've waited a lot already).


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 20, 2012)

x-vision said:


> Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.



There's either an exposure or a levels difference between the two. I don't see any real difference in noise. If there is a difference, it is well below the threshold of differences introduced by post processing (NR software and technique).


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 20, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.
> ...



The 6D shots might be a little bit underexposed compared to 5D3 but nevertheless, I can see it a little bit better than 5D3. Besides, generally underexposure usually means more noise when processed. Is this NR or is this really a new sensor technology? Let's wait till December.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 20, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.



Again, there is a lighting / exposure / processing difference at play. It's hard to discern real noise differences with these confounding factors, but any real noise differences are likely less than those introduced by user post work.

Side note: I hate the new DPReview "low light" test. Brightly lit objects against pure black is not the situation where DSLRs struggle. With this test a 7D would produce good 6400 shots. No, the problem is when a lot of your detail falls on the shadow side (not black), especially if you have to lift in post. It's these situations which force me to cap 7D shots at 3200 and 5D2 shots at 6400.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 20, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > There's either an exposure or a levels difference between the two. I don't see any real difference in noise. If there is a difference, it is well below the threshold of differences introduced by post processing (NR software and technique).
> ...



You're assuming underexposure vs. the tonal curves of the cameras (or some related setting). At 6400 there's no actual resolution difference, and little noise/contrast/color difference which disappears with a levels adjustment.

At 102k there's more of a difference at first glance. But it could still be due to the camera tone curves.

Sorry, I think people are getting excited about JPEG processing. And not even JPEG NR processing, but small differences in image parameters between a consumer and a pro camera.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Previously in another thread, I've raised the possibility that 6D is built on an entirely new generation of sensor.



Definitely not, this was already ack'ed by Canon - it's the same sensor tech, though the 6d has a bit little larger pixels for the loss in resolution. The reason probably is that after the criticism about the lack of advancement 5d2->5d3 Canon had a 3/4 year time to optimize everything else.



verysimplejason said:


> The 6D shots might be a little bit underexposed compared to 5D3 but nevertheless



If you look at the exif data, all 6d shots have a shorter exposure time then the 5d3...



dtaylor said:


> but small differences in image parameters between a consumer and a pro camera.



However, this shows how desperate the Canon crowd is for sensor advancement ... the Nikon competition obviously has left its mark :-> ... and again, imho there is no fixed distinction between "pro" or not except for marketing, why not use the 6d if it is at least as good or even better (low light af) for some shots?


----------



## nightsky87 (Nov 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> However, this shows how desperate the Canon crowd is for sensor advancement ... the Nikon competition obviously has left its mark :-> ... and again, imho there is no fixed distinction between "pro" or not except for marketing, why not use the 6d if it is at least as good or even better (low light af) for some shots?



Agreed! If the low-light AF functionality of the 6D is as advertised, then it certainly caters to a different group of photographers. Body is still magnesium alloy reinforced after all. What's really missing is the lack of the advanced AF system of the higher-end models. Maybe eventually, the 6D would also be used as a backup body for when low-light is needed.

Personally, as long as the 6D doesn't perform poorer in the IQ area compared to the 5D3, then its certainly a viable option for people like me who don't really take much pictures of moving subjects.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

*Re: dpreview 6D samples*



x-vision said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> I just compared the 6D at ISO-6400 vs the 5DIII at ISO-6400 ... and the 6D is cleaner and with better colors.
> 
> Overall, the 6D image quality is shaping up as better than the 5DIII.



yeah well if details in the images don´t count for you.... the images look good.

but im only interested in low iso.. (100- max 1600) im not needing these incredible high isos for my shots.

and like the 5D MK3 i see no real improvement compared to the 5D MK2... not in these samples.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

*Re: dpreview 6D samples*



Gothmoth said:


> i only speak about low iso.. im not needing these incredible high isos for my shots. and like the 5D MK3 i see no real improvement compared to the 5D MK2... not in these samples.



And that wasn't to be expected - for lower iso shots the 5d2 should be great (actually even little better than the 5d3). But most people who upgrade to ff want to have the medium-high iso capability, meaning ~6400 which is exactly what is really missing from the crop sensors and in this region there is an improvement over the 5d2. I agree crazy-high iso speeds are mainly for marketing.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

*Re: dpreview 6D samples*



Marsu42 said:


> And that wasn't to be expected



yes it was not... but i really hope we will see a new process (180nm) soon.

then the great camera bodys will be joined with even better sensors.
and for low iso, high quality landscape and studio photographer, who don´t care much about AF speed or AF tracking, there will be a reason to upgrade to a new body.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 20, 2012)

These are out of camera Jpg's. They look identical to the 5D3 files but only with more NR in camera.


----------



## Area256 (Nov 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Area256 said:
> 
> 
> > it's nice to know that Canon has given DPReview a pre-production camera to play with.
> ...



It's the logical conclusion that DPReview got a pre-production 6D from Canon. How else would they have been able to take sample images with it? These aren't samples Canon took themselves and sent to DPReviews. How closely this camera comes to the production camera is anyone's guess. Although if Canon intends to have these in stores world wide for Christmas, I'd bet they are already in production, and the only thing likely to change is firmware.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

Area256 said:


> It's the logical conclusion that DPReview got a pre-production 6D from Canon.



Sorry, of course you're correct - I mis-read your post :-o



RLPhoto said:


> These are out of camera Jpg's. They look identical to the 5D3 files but only with more NR in camera.



Look again, for example @iso6400 on the fur of the mouse on the left - there are more details in the 6d even though it has a cleaner background, so it's not just more nr. But still doesn't mean much since it's a comparison of two beta in-camera jpeg engines with too high nr settings...


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > These are out of camera Jpg's. They look identical to the 5D3 files but only with more NR in camera.
> ...



Meh. If there is any tiny difference, it will be irrelevant in real world use.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Meh. If there is any tiny difference, it will be irrelevant in real world use.



Sure, though we'll only know for sure by looking at studio shots after a 6d raw converter is out. And concerning the dpreview shots: Actually I looked again and the focus on the 5d3/6d shots is a little different, so even @f11 that explains some differences.


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 20, 2012)

Those shots looked surprisingly good to me. How do you guys think this will compare to the 5dII at say ISO 3200? Im going to be in the market for one of the two eventually


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh. If there is any tiny difference, it will be irrelevant in real world use.
> ...



On another note, I recently found out why the 6D was designed without a multi-selector. 

Here's a hint, The 5Dc and The 5D2 really didn't need one either. :


----------



## tron (Nov 20, 2012)

Unless we see raw files taken at exactly the same studio conditions the only thing we learn is that the jpeg engine is better at 6D.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 20, 2012)

tron said:


> Unless we see raw files taken at exactly the same studio conditions the only thing we learn is that the jpeg engine is better at 6D.



I wish I have 6D on hand for side by side comparision. The math doesn't seem to add up, $2100 body is perform better than $3500 : in high ISO with same sensor.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

tron said:


> Unless we see raw files taken at exactly the same studio conditions the only thing we learn is that the jpeg engine is better at 6D.



... and even that is uncertain because it's a comparison to the pre-release engine of the 5d3 which might have been optimized in the meantime.



Dylan777 said:


> I wish I have 6D on hand for side by side comparision. The match doesn't seem to add up, $2100 body is perform better than $3500 : in high ISO with same sensor.



The 6d will only be a little better because of the larger pixels... and as to the price: the reason would be that Canon cannot cut back the sensor in light of the Nikon competition - so they'll make sure to build in enough differences to the 5d3 elsewhere (1/4000s, 1/180s x-sync, body size, af, fw features like no raw hdr, ...).


----------



## rlaverty (Nov 20, 2012)

Just wondering... So the main complaint has been the gimping of the 6D vs 5D3 with the AF. Maybe they did it because the sensor is better, just saying.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> The 6d will only be a little better because of the larger pixels...



There is no real difference in the pixel size. Certainly nothing that could be responsible for a visible IQ difference. If the 6D proves to have higher SNR per pixel...which I highly doubt...it will be due to other design/fabrication changes.

More than likely the tiny difference in MP is due to design changes to increase wafer yields. It's even possible that 6D pixels are the same size as 5D3 pixels or a bit smaller if this is the case.


----------



## steliosk (Nov 20, 2012)

so its cleaner than 5D 3
of course it would, it has less megapixels so what? do the math!

how about BANDING? and noise in the shadows where needs to be filled?

oh and in RAW format, thats the real deal of the hardware and not a software filtered jpeg which can be produced with a computer also


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> More than likely the tiny difference in MP is due to design changes to increase wafer yields. It's even possible that 6D pixels are the same size as 5D3 pixels or a bit smaller if this is the case.



Actually the 6d sensor is a tiny bit smaller than the 5d3 one - if I wouldn't be that lazy I could do the maths and see if that's the difference between 22->20mp


----------



## Area256 (Nov 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > More than likely the tiny difference in MP is due to design changes to increase wafer yields. It's even possible that 6D pixels are the same size as 5D3 pixels or a bit smaller if this is the case.
> ...



Pixel sizes:
1Dx -> 6.95 microns
6D -> 6.55 microns
5D3 -> 6.25 microns

Before we get too excited however the 1Dx has gap-less micro lenses, and I'm not sure if the same can be said for the other two?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

Area256 said:


> Before we get too excited however the 1Dx has gap-less micro lenses, and I'm not sure if the same can be said for the other two?


At least the 5d3 does, I vividly remember people writing when realizing that the 5d3 sensor isn't a large leap as expected from the 5d2 "... but ... but ... it has gapless microlenses!" :-> ... Personally I don't care if it has orange-juice powered plutonium-afterburners as long as it delivers (or not).

See also here for the specs: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5D_MkIII_preview.html


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 20, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> The math doesn't seem to add up, $2100 body is perform better than $3500 : in high ISO with same sensor.


It's not the same sensor. Canon's web site describes it as a new design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> It's not the same sensor. Canon's web site describes it as a new design.



Of course it's not the same - it's 20 MP, not 22 MP. But if it uses the same production technologies found in the 5DIII and 5DII, the IQ should only be marginally different, if at all.


----------



## x-vision (Nov 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the same sensor. Canon's web site describes it as a new design.
> ...



There are rumors flying around that _parts_ of the 6D sensor are made using a new production technology.
So, some improvement seems likely. We'll see how much.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 20, 2012)

x-vision said:


> There are rumors flying around that _parts_ of the 6D sensor are made using a new production technology.



Wow, that's exciting and exactly what a rumors site is supposed to be about - my theory: the new tech is something to cut back costs so that Canon can get a higher profit margin with the 6d over the 5d2!


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 20, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the same sensor. Canon's web site describes it as a new design.
> ...



+1 as Neuro stated (20MP vs 22MP)

Prior to my 5D III, I owned & used 40D, 60D, 7D, 5D II and tested and owned a lot of lenses. My comments are based on hand-on-experience, not what I heard and read on internet and interpret to this forum. 

How often to hear people give advices or comments on FF gear, while they shooting crop. Reality is.... you get for what you pay for. 

I can see another post with title like this soon: *6D + 24-70 f4 IS is out perform 5D III + 24-70 f2.8 II* : : :


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 20, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > The math doesn't seem to add up, $2100 body is perform better than $3500 : in high ISO with same sensor.
> ...



What's a "new design"? Sony technology?


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 20, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 20, 2012)

I wonder if the 6D has some type of built-in NR that is always on since it's supposed to be more of a prosumer camera and maybe that's why it looks better? Like how video from a DSLR may look better than raw footage from a RED camera if you're just looking at what comes out of the camera. But grade the RED footage and then compare and it's no contest.

Either way it's pretty awesome that the performance is there, alot of people (especially here) have been dogging on this thing since the moment they saw the spec sheet. But hey for over $2k I'd hope it would be halfway decent. Even if the image quality does match the 5D3 there are still plenty of good reasons to go with the 5D3. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon deliberately went with the 11pt AF because anything higher would have put it too close to the 5D3 (30 vs 61 doesn't sound too bad, but 11 to 61 sounds like a massive difference).

It just dawned on me that I may actually pick up one of these to replace my 5D2, now I'm kinda excited.

PS. I slowly became more and more incapacitated as I wrote this, my apologies if it's incoherent.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 20, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I can see another post with title like this soon: *6D + 24-70 f4 IS is out perform 5D III + 24-70 f2.8 II* : : :



you make me want to sell my 5d iii... LOL... nah, i am keeping it though even if number of people turns out to say like that in this forum. i am pretty sure that 6d cannot match 5d mark iii though... why, because canon is a big corporation. it knows the way of runnin' its bussiness...


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 20, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 21, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm not aware this, but can you tell me in the past, which lower price Canon camera(s) performs better than expensive camera(s)?



5D2. It's a lot, lot cheaper than 1DS3 but it delivered *arguably* a little bit better or at least on par IQ with 1DS3. You may argue that 1D4 sensor size is smaller but based on price point and IQ, 5D2 outperformed it. Take note that I'm not talking of what's better camera overall but only based on IQ and price.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 21, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not aware this, but can you tell me in the past, which lower price Canon camera(s) performs better than expensive camera(s)?
> ...



I have never own 1D series - so, no comment on IQ btw 5D II and 1D series. 

When you said little better, it's 8/10 better? Did you do the test comparsion yourself?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 21, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
> 
> http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg - or attachment


This in a nutshell. I was astounded at how that little guy looks now.

I looked at some of their leaf photos around 3200 and 6400 - amazing detail, although not at the full res, but definitely enough to make me blink.

I am tamping down my expectations, though, for a 7D successor simply because of the APS-C size sensor. But this is certainly encouraging that things might get even better for that camera. Better autofocus capabilities yet - including f/8 - will be the main draw, though.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2012)

Edwin Herdman said:
 

> Better autofocus capabilities yet - including f/8 - will be the main draw, though.



Until now the Kenko dgx extenders talk every camera into af'ing @f8 - I'd be surprised if the 6d was an exception, even if Canon surely won't support f8-af officially to make a point for the 5d3/1dx.

And don't forget: One drawback of high iso on the current sensors is reduced dynamic range, so you have less tolerance for exposure errors, recovering highlights or raising shadow - some less iso noise doesn't help here.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 21, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I have used both albeit not much since I just borrowed them from my friends. I also don't have the technical expertise to pixel-peep both. Instead, I trust DPR and DXO because they were able to test the sensors. If you ask me why, then I could also ask you the same question why do you doubt them especially since we're comparing cameras from the same brand.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/38
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/483|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/436|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

Based on their reviews, both camera sensors perform almost on par with each other. If you still doubt DPR and DXO, this is also a trusted review site:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3&Camera=479&CameraComp=453&Sample=0&SampleComp=0

As I said, I'm only pertaining to IQ and pricing. Overall, 1DS3 is still much better camera than 5D2. Just for the fun of it, let's add the famous Ken Rockwell to those praising 5D2.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii.htm

"To quote Canon's original 5D Mark II press release, "The EOS 5D Mark II achieves the highest level of image quality of any EOS Digital SLR released to date," which means better than the $8,000 1Ds Mark III. "


----------



## ZoeEnPhos (Nov 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the same sensor. Canon's web site describes it as a new design.
> ...



Hello Neuro!

I was holding the 6D in my hands and asking the Canon-representative here in Sweden about the sensor and especially the low-light-capacity and 
he (K. Mörk, Svenska Canon Sweden) told me that this sensor is NOT the same as used in 5DMK3 but it is totally NEW and that he was thinking that 6D sensor will be performing a bit and slightly
better than even the 5DMK3 but this said in the low-light-situations when using high ISO. This is from our conversation from 31st October 2012 - that is my two cents in this thread)
Have a good day!
C


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2012)

ZoeEnPhos said:


> that this sensor is NOT the same as used in 5DMK3 but it is totally NEW and that he was thinking that 6D sensor will be performing a bit and slightly better than even the 5DMK3 but this said in the low-light-situations when using high ISO.



They developed a "_totally new_" sensor that manages to show "_ slightly better_" performance?! And ony in extreme conditions (high iso @low light) and with some loss of resolution? Great work, Canon 

Please note: newer is not always better, and overall it sounds as if Canon is mighty proud to have reduced costs while keeping the sensor performance on 5d3 level - after all they'll want a higher profit margin even after stuffing in wifi and gps with the 6d over the current 5d2 price.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 21, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...



Thanks for sharing, great info. But then again...if I had trusted DXO, I would be shooting with Nikon gear. ;D 

I simply DO NOT buy my camera gear based on DPreview nor DXO. My purchases are based on manufature spec and hand on it. Keep it or not, the result speaks for itself.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Nov 21, 2012)

seems like im gonna have to buy this camera!


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 21, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I agree with you that personal experience is still the best but as not everybody has the necessary tools or equipments to test all the sensors of the cameras they want to compare, we are forced to rely on DXO, DPreview and other technical review sites.

And no, even if you trusted DXO, you'll not be shooting Nikon gear because *DXO is only evaluating the camera sensors and not the whole camera specs*. IQ is only a part of what makes a camera better than another one. I still believe Canon makes better overall camera body in my opinion. I thought I made it clear to you already. I'll repeat. 5D2 is only as good or a little bit better than 1DS3 in terms of IQ. Same thing that might happen with 5D3 and 6D even if 1DS3 and 5D3 are marginally better cameras than the latter especially if you put their specs side-by-side. Price-wise, of course 5D2 and 6D beat their counterparts. I said this because for some people, IQ and price come first when determining what camera they would buy.

PS. To discount or ignore such reviews isn't wise. It's always prudent to do your research before buying unless you are rich enough to afford only the best regardless of price.


----------



## Gjako (Nov 23, 2012)

Hi everybody!

I have noticed that more image samples have been released. 
I have been following the 6d for a long time as I'm thinking seriously about getting one (jumping from a T1i will be a big change )

What do you think about these pics?

www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/galleries/sample-images/canon/34718/1/canon-eos-6d-beta-image-sample-gallery.html


----------



## zim (Nov 23, 2012)

Gjako said:


> Hi everybody!
> 
> I have noticed that more image samples have been released.
> I have been following the 6d for a long time as I'm thinking seriously about getting one (jumping from a T1i will be a big change )
> ...




As ever it's the RAW's we need to see but I do like the flower (3200) and the bike (12800) although wrong lens choice for the flower shot I'd have thought but anyway not seeing any nasty colour blotches starting in the dark areas at 12800 very usable, wish they had done that one at 25600 though.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 23, 2012)

Gjako said:


> Hi everybody!
> 
> I have noticed that more image samples have been released.
> I have been following the 6d for a long time as I'm thinking seriously about getting one (jumping from a T1i will be a big change )
> ...



I'm also jumping from a Ti1 but I'm still withholding my decision. I'm deciding on 5D2/6D + lens or 5D3 body. I'm not expecting much on AF. I just want the center point to focus properly even in low-light. The main deciding factor will be low-light performance and DR for me. I'll try to wait at least till March... hopefully...


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 23, 2012)

zim said:


> Gjako said:
> 
> 
> > Hi everybody!
> ...



Some RAW shots from 6D and an updated DPP raw converter.


----------



## zim (Nov 24, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Gjako said:
> ...




Absolutely, no decision from me until April/May


----------

