# Review: Canon EOS 6D Mark II by DPReview



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 8, 2017)

```
DPReview has completed their review of the Canon EOS 6D Mark II rather quickly and came away liking, but not loving it.</p>
<p><strong>From DPReview:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>It’s true that every objective specification of the 6D Mark II has been improved upon when compared with its predecessor, while the release price has remained the same. Unfortunately, unless you’re a die-hard Canon user with an investment in glass and you just need an affordable backup body, it’s difficult to look past all that competing cameras have to offer…..</p>

<p>… As it should be, the EOS 6D II is a better camera than its predecessor in every way. With plenty of resolution, respectable burst shooting speeds and pleasing Canon color, it’s a camera that’s capable of producing great images in a variety of situations. Despite this, it is simply overshadowed by competition that is made up of more capable cameras at similar or lower prices. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Just like most of the people that have used the Canon EOS 6D Mark II, it’s a nice upgrade from the original, but may not compete all that well with competitors. Here’s hoping we don’t have to wait another 5 years for a successor.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, the camera will be judged by how well it sells. Casual consumers have a tendency to care a little less about certain specifications than us passionate gear nuts.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 8, 2017)

Very disappointing AF performance which is the case with even 80d.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

ritholtz said:


> Very disappointing AF performance which is the case with even 80d.



I would take that with a big pinch of salt - DPR have a long history of not knowing how to use Canon AF. Rishi has been on here before saying they use the Canon AF in the same way they do the testing with Nikon AF and quite few have called him out on this.
I am not saying the 6D2 AF is fantastic, just that DPR history does not give me much confidence in what they write.


----------



## AA (Aug 8, 2017)

A true retro camera at a non-retro price point: 2010 DR, 2010 video, for $2,000 in 2017...


----------



## cerealito (Aug 8, 2017)

*won't upgrade to it*

I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)

I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?

the competition is fierce... the fuji x-t2 for instance seems to be slightly cheaper and much more portable... and with 4k...
I'm also considering the eos m5 or waiting for the next iteration... the eos m7?

Canon definitely didn't give us aps-c shooters a real reason to upgrade.


----------



## ShootTheStars12 (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



Spot on. I'm an SL1 user that has just been biding my time to upgrade to full frame and blow money on some L lenses. Now, I'm not sure if I'll buy a camera or any equipment for awhile now. I would like to stick with Canon because of all their positives as a company, but I'm really not seeing a good value here.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



Did you want the small size of mirroless? That was never, ever going to happen in a DSLR and criticising the 6D2 for not being as small or as cheap as an crop sensor (Xt-2) is just odd. 
It makes me wonder if you know what it is you are after and why.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*

If you find yourself shooting in lower light and need that ISO 3200+ excellent sensor performance with very low noise, then FF camera is right for you. new Canon 6D II is an excellent low light capable camera that is worth to consider.
Hovever, if the focus and recompose technique is all that you typically would use, then 6D original is may be a very smart budget alternative. I hope it helps.



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts...* is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price?* is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



EF-S lenses and that Sigma 18-35 won't work on a full frame body so your Canon investment would mean your logical upgrade path would be an APS-C body (7DMkII). Only your flash and 50mm f/1.4 can be used on a 6D Mk II and because you would have to change most of your kit to go full frame you might as well consider the competition if full frame is what you truly want... but I doubt it because you mention 'portability'.


----------



## bedford (Aug 8, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Very disappointing AF performance which is the case with even 80d.
> ...



IIRC they admitted the test with the 80D was not done correctly. And promised to redo it. Well, probably they just forgot...

Oliver


----------



## bedford (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> Canon definitely didn't give us aps-c shooters a real reason to upgrade.



I agree. My plans were to upgrade from 60D to the 6D II.

Now, I'll get the 80D (plus some lenses) instead. 3000,- € less for Canon.

Oliver


----------



## Act444 (Aug 8, 2017)

Not exactly a glowing review...but I think it is a fair assessment. Even from the perspective of someone heavily invested in the Canon system like myself...

Here's what I think...the issue with the camera isn't it's feature set. As the review points out, and as folks who have picked up the camera have alluded to, it's a good, capable camera in its own respects. Rather, it is the price point, and perceived value for money where it seems to be falling a bit short. If they announced it at $1500 or even $1700 I think it would have been received better. But once you hit $2K, people now expect a bit more camera for that kind of money - especially with the Nikon D750 and even Canon's 5D III available for the same amount. It's almost like a brand premium, i.e., you're paying for the Canon name and they wouldn't be the only company to do that, there's nothing inherently wrong with it - they're betting that this target market would be willing to pay more for the Canon name and time will tell whether that is true or not.


----------



## xps (Aug 8, 2017)

Of course, Canon drains our wallet with outdated "skills" in a lot of the specs of the 6DII. Despit a lot of disappointment, I ordered the body. Now, some hundred shot later, I like some of its features. It is like an Déjà-vu, when I remeber my thoughts wit the original 6D. OMG, an so outdated AF  OMG,...
But as my second body, it is a pleasure to use. The articulated sreen helps me to get wonderful groundshots, without bending my old bones. The image quality is ok. If I need more DR, HDR is my best friend. Compare witht he 5DIV you see the difference. But, when I need much DR, I use the 5DIV. And mostly, DR is not the reason, why my shot looks just avergage 

Would I by this body again? Yes. Canon has no other FF option below my 5DIV. The price will sink in a couple of month. Just look at the 5DIV. Lost a lot of € in one year.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Aug 8, 2017)

my biggest problem with this thing is how clustered cannon made the auto focus points. They might as well have left it at 9... I think thats easly one of the most over looked issues with this camera. I was looking forward to finally upgrading to full frame, but I'd rather wate t upgrade to the 7D Mark III. I think that's the camera for me if it lives up to my REASONABLE expectations.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*

SecureGSM has given good advice. If you want to go to FF, then either the 6D or 6D II is a good choice. The question is, will FF give you what you want. If you are not doing low light shooting, or aren't interested in greater DOF, then there may be no benefit to going FF. 

I would recommend renting a 6D if you can. Only then can you compare your 70D to a FF. You may find a very slight IQ improvement if you shoot mainly daylight pics. While I really liked the IQ of my 6D, I went back to APS-C when the M5 came out. The IQ difference is noticeable if you are really concerned with noise, otherwise, I found the smaller size and weight of the M5 to be more important for me. 

As I mentioned, the only way to tell for the type of pics you take would be to rent a 6D or 6D II and compare with your 70D. All the comments on forums and various test sites will only create more confusion.



SecureGSM said:


> If you find yourself shooting in lower light and need that ISO 3200+ excellent sensor performance with very low noise, then FF camera is right for you. new Canon 6D II is an excellent low light capable camera that is worth to consider.
> Hovever, if the focus and recompose technique is all that you typically would use, then 6D original is may be a very smart budget alternative. I hope it helps.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> my biggest problem with this thing is how clustered cannon made the auto focus points. They might as well have left it at 9... I think thats easly one of the most over looked issues with this camera. I was looking forward to finally upgrading to full frame, but I'd rather wate t upgrade to the 7D Mark III. I think that's the camera for me if it lives up to my REASONABLE expectations.



The AF points are no different to the 6D, 5DIV or Nikon D750. That is one of the most overlooked facts when people complain about the 6D2.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 8, 2017)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> my biggest problem with this thing is how clustered cannon made the auto focus points. They might as well have left it at 9...



The AF point spread is typical for a FF DSLR.


----------



## xps (Aug 8, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Very disappointing AF performance which is the case with even 80d.
> ...



Hmm, this time, not Mr. Rhishi wrote the article. Yes, you are right, DPReview is Sonyphil and critizising Canon a lot. But on the other hand this article semms to be quite fair. The &DII is more an FF entrance body, than the IQ buster the 6D had been, when introduced.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

xps said:


> Hmm, this time, not Mr. Rhishi wrote the article. Yes, you are right, DPReview is Sonyphil and critizising Canon a lot. But on the other hand this article semms to be quite fair. The &DII is more an FF entrance body, than the IQ buster the 6D had been, when introduced.



Whether Mr Rishi wrote the article is not really relevant - DPR testing protocols leave a lot to be desired with AF. I know it is next to impossible to do a standardised test for tracking AF but with Canon you need to now how to set it up for best effect and the have been criticised for not doing so with previous models. 
I am not sure what you mean by " The &DII is more an FF entrance body, than the IQ buster the 6D had been, when introduced." - the 6D was an entrance FF as well and nor was it an 'IQ buster' in that it was not really significantly better than the 5D3. Yes, it was better but not hugely so - what peed people off was when they had just bought the 5D3 and out came the 6D that would have done pretty much what they wanted at a much lower price. The 6D2 maintains that relationship to the 5DIV.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 8, 2017)

Nothing to see here. The Canon excuse-bots will be along shortly to clean up this mess.


----------



## padam (Aug 8, 2017)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> The AF points are no different to the 6D, 5DIV or Nikon D750. That is one of the most overlooked facts when people complain about the 6D2.


The main problem is the light sensitivity. Any other AF point besides the center and it won't work nearly as well, the D750 is better and the 5D IV is much better.


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 8, 2017)

Long time Canon user - not their professional gear, as I'm merely a hobbyist. But my first EOS camera was the 620 (film). My last film camera was the Elan IIe with battery grip. Since the inception of digital I've only has 2 Canon bodies, the 40D (an overall excellent camera when introduced and I still get great images with it) and a used 7D I bought from a friend when he upgraded to the 7D Mk II. I also purchased his 70-200mm f2.8L IS when he upgraded to the Mk II version of this lens. 

I get tired of the Canon bashing concerning their products. "If you don't like their products buy something else." This has been my mantra, rarely written/shared, but mentally spoken. On the other hand, I also get tired of "blind" Canon fanboy support. I think Canon is a good company, maybe a great company even, especially to work at, they have been and certainly are successful. And I understand their philosophy of and self-titled moniker as, "a complete imaging solutions" company. 

But I now feel compelled to join those who are becoming slowly fed-up with what they are selling us. I understand completely that anyone who buys the 6D Mk II will have a camera that they can get stellar images with and enjoy using it. However, when one looks at the entire photography product landscape today it almost appears (to me anyway) that Canon is "resting on their 'laurels'" with some of their product offerings. I don't know if they're putting more effort/$$ into R&D and manufacturing of lenses, mirrorless, or the printer business. It does appear that they are not interested in what the competition is offering these days for similar or even cheaper price-points. And perhaps, when you're the 800lb gorilla in your marketplace you can do that. But it is telling that one can buy outside of Canon and get more "bang-for-the-buck" at least in features. 

Well, I guess now we wait for TDP and Dustin's completed reviews of the 6D Mk II. I'm in particular interested in what Dustin's take-aways are (Dustin Abbott) as he generally provides a realistic real world/real usage perspective. And he's very familiar with the original 6D having used a couple of those bodies for several years until recently when he got an 80D (for his videos I believe) and then a 5D Mk IV. He should be able to make some excellent comparisons. 

(PS: I don't believe the 6D Mk II is a bad camera. I think it is a good camera. But it could have been (it seems) so much better. The sensor performance in particular - as the original 6D in some ways was better then the 5D Mk III.)


----------



## BillB (Aug 8, 2017)

Act444 said:


> Not exactly a glowing review...but I think it is a fair assessment. Even from the perspective of someone heavily invested in the Canon system like myself...
> 
> Here's what I think...the issue with the camera isn't it's feature set. As the review points out, and as folks who have picked up the camera have alluded to, it's a good, capable camera in its own respects. Rather, it is the price point, and perceived value for money where it seems to be falling a bit short. If they announced it at $1500 or even $1700 I think it would have been received better. But once you hit $2K, people now expect a bit more camera for that kind of money - especially with the Nikon D750 and even Canon's 5D III available for the same amount. It's almost like a brand premium, i.e., you're paying for the Canon name and they wouldn't be the only company to do that, there's nothing inherently wrong with it - they're betting that this target market would be willing to pay more for the Canon name and time will tell whether that is true or not.



If you don't care about an articulated screen or touchscreen focussing in Liveview and video, some of the value of the 6DII goes away. In typical DPR fashion, the value is these 6DII features is first recognized, but then ignored when comparing the 6DII to other cameras, such as the 750D with its wretched Liveview implementation. If you read DPR for its assessment of the 6DII and then ignore its rationalizations about other cameras being better value, you will likely find some useful information.


----------



## BillB (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



bedford said:


> cerealito said:
> 
> 
> > Canon definitely didn't give us aps-c shooters a real reason to upgrade.
> ...



Sounds like Canon did you a favor.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 8, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Nothing to see here. The Canon excuse-bots will be along shortly to clean up this mess.



So true


----------



## bedford (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



BillB said:


> bedford said:
> 
> 
> > cerealito said:
> ...



Well, in effect they did my wife a favor


----------



## tencachon (Aug 8, 2017)

I love DPreview but I would disagree with their comments on the focus system. Liveview is super accurate, even through the viewfinder, it's a much better and more accurate system than the 80d/70D. Having the 70D and 80D in the past, I definitely know it's hard to nail focus using third party lenses at wide open (f1.4), but I've been enjoying doing that on the 6d2. Attached as sample of yesterday's picture with 85mm Art at f1.4


----------



## magarity (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user
> ... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price?


The 70D is a fine camera. When your photography skills and needs get to the point where the 70 isn't cutting it anymore, you won't have to ask the question you asked above. Meanwhile the cool thing about the EF and EF-S system is that your 70 can use the EF lenses right now.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 8, 2017)

The 3 years old d750 still can eat this 'amazing' (according to the fan boys) 6d2 for breakfast. How canon managed to produce bellow standard products and still kept fanboys happy is what amazes me lol! 2k usd for a 2013 sensor and system! No thanks. 

Thanks for the past 6 years Canon. But I'm done feeding a greedy corporation like you. I'd gladly support a company that leads with innovation with my next purchases instead. 

Will 6d2 limit my photography skill? No. But why would I support company who isn't the leading innovator? Who isn't pushing thing? Who's just playing the lame cat up game and playing it bad?


----------



## daphins (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



Can't speak for then 70D, but the 6D mkii is light years better than my 60D. So much less noise, so much smoother. It doesn't not even a comparison I almost feel dumb for not upgrading to a 6D earlier as they say the image quality is similar (different feature set of course).

It's what's been missing to push my photos to the next level. I've always had good L glass, figured the body didn't make a big difference.

I was wrong.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 8, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> The 3 year old d750 still can eat this 'amazing' (according to the fan boys) 6d2 for breakfast. How canon managed to produce bellow standard products and still kept fanboys happy is what amazes me lol! 2k usd for a 2013 sensor and system! No thanks.
> 
> Thanks for the past 6 years Canon. But I'm done feeding a greedy corporation like you. I'd gladly support a company that leads wihh innovation with my next purchases instead.



... until leadership changes again ...

I see the advantages of other companies products too but (1) I like the reliability of Canon products and (2) I decided that the SL2 will be the right package for me until (a) I want another FF camera or (b) I need another FF camera that the 5D classic.


----------



## tarjei99 (Aug 8, 2017)

Let me take a wild stab in the dark : Canon has done its market research and know perfectly well who will be the people who will buy this camera and why. And we don't.

It is the same wailing all the time, but Canon is still the ones who sell the most DSLRs.

I am fairly annoyed at people posting as if the 6D2 is anything but a camera for the people with money and a wish to look good by having a full frame camera. They don't know what dynamic range is and most likely neither does any of you either. It is a technical and well defined term and you will be shocked when you find out what it actually means.


----------



## BillB (Aug 8, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> The 3 years old d750 still can eat this 'amazing' (according to the fan boys) 6d2 for breakfast. How canon managed to produce bellow standard products and still kept fanboys happy is what amazes me lol! 2k usd for a 2013 sensor and system! No thanks.
> 
> Thanks for the past 6 years Canon. But I'm done feeding a greedy corporation like you. I'd gladly support a company that leads with innovation with my next purchases instead.
> 
> Will 6d2 limit my photography skill? No. But why would I support company who isn't the leading innovator? Who isn't pushing thing? Who's just playing the lame cat up game and playing it bad?



Well if it isn't working for you, do what you have to do. Thanks for letting us know how you feel.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> The 3 years old d750 still can eat this 'amazing' (according to the fan boys) 6d2 for breakfast. How canon managed to produce bellow standard products and still kept fanboys happy is what amazes me lol! 2k usd for a 2013 sensor and system! No thanks.
> 
> Thanks for the past 6 years Canon. But I'm done feeding a greedy corporation like you. I'd gladly support a company that leads with innovation with my next purchases instead.
> 
> Will 6d2 limit my photography skill? No. But why would I support company who isn't the leading innovator? Who isn't pushing thing? Who's just playing the lame cat up game and playing it bad?



Is Canon putting everything they can into the 6D2? Probably not 
Is there a manufacturer out there putting the best of everything into one body/system? Nope.
Will I worry about where Canon fall short? Nope
Will I spend time and lose money switching to a manufacturer that innovates in areas I don't need? Nope. 

Enjoy your spec-based purchase. I am sure SoNikon will serve you well.


----------



## slclick (Aug 8, 2017)

Looks like a very nice camera. If I was in the market for a backup/alternative to my 5D3 this would be the ticket, especially with the screen for ground level macro. I don't need the latest greatest, I don't use half of the 5D3's feature set. I also don't shoot with a spec sheet or need bragging rights, I just need time with a body and lens combinations to know their abilities and limitations. 

Has anyone used this camera long enough to know those factors? Everything we hear at this point is from either a very short duration of use and or griping about specs. Neither is a good way to judge a camera body.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



Yeah, I was nearly in the same boat, also having a 70D. But I got 2 EF lenses as well, thinking those would be practical when I finally am ready for full frame.
So I waited for the next 6D...and then didn't pull the trigger.

Instead I started reading up on how to use the Sony offerings and how just got the A7Rii, which is different but awesome. 

So you should look at other companies as well. You aren't so deep into Canon that you can't switch.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 8, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> The 3 years old d750 still can eat this 'amazing' (according to the fan boys) 6d2 for breakfast. How canon managed to produce bellow standard products and still kept fanboys happy is what amazes me lol! 2k usd for a 2013 sensor and system! No thanks.
> 
> Thanks for the past 6 years Canon. But I'm done feeding a greedy corporation like you. I'd gladly support a company that leads with innovation with my next purchases instead.
> 
> Will 6d2 limit my photography skill? No. But why would I support company who isn't the leading innovator? Who isn't pushing thing? Who's just playing the lame cat up game and playing it bad?


I know that feeling. 
so I sold most of my Canon gear; lost some $ on bodies, but maintained or made $ on the lenses.
I still keep a little bit of it for specific uses but in 2012 I switched to Nikon and eventually added Pentax, Fuji and Olympus gear.
After seeing that even consumer-level products from those mfrs gave me the kind of raw file quality that even Canon's high end bodies could not deliver I was convinced I made the right decision and 5 yrs later I'm still happy I changed gear to get what I wanted. I allowed me to focus on the image and processing I wanted to do instead of learning workarounds to deal with shortcomings of Canon's imaging systems. It also spared me the angst of waiting and hoping that the next Canon body upgrade would deliver what I wanted. I would have been waiting for years for the 80D and 5d4.

I still think Canon makes one of the simplest and easiest to understand and use camera systems (early flashes not included) with great ergonomics but raw file quality was more important to me than all those other things.

So, if you also feel like that, hopefully you can justify and afford to make the change. it's not that hard to learn a different system and Canon's lenses aren't so fabulous that you're going to miss out on something special by switching... Well, maybe with the exceptions of those wonderful 17 and 24mm til-shift units!

Just do it!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2017)

Aglet said:


> so I sold most of my Canon gear; lost some $ on bodies, but maintained or made $ on the lenses.
> I still keep a little bit of it for specific uses but in 2012 I switched to Nikon and eventually added Pentax, Fuji and Olympus gear.



No, *really*? This is definitely new information and not at all you repeating what you've said ad nauseam in more other threads than I can remember :


----------



## Aglet (Aug 8, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > so I sold most of my Canon gear; lost some $ on bodies, but maintained or made $ on the lenses.
> ...



Well then, take your Dramamine and find a comfortable spot to sit it out. 
Maybe you might notice it was for the benefit of CanonGuy who hasn't been here long enough to dig into old threads.


----------



## WilliamJ (Aug 8, 2017)

First time poster here. 

I've been following the reviews and forum posts for some time and I finally feel compelled enough to chip in. 

I have a 70D with Sigma 18-35 1.8 and 50-150 f2.8 OS and have been itching to sell the 70D body + 18-55 STM kit lens to fund an 80D body for the low ISO DR improvements, wider spread AF coverage, -3EV sensitivity amongst other small benefits like mechanical shutter, larger buffer, 100% VF coverage etc. 

When people said the 6D ii was like a full frame 80D I was really excited to consider going FF because this would make a great two body combo that are almost ergonomically identical. 

But since discovering more specs it seems like the 6D ii is more a FF rebel just in the larger 80D body. I was almost coming round to 1/4000 max shutter speed which is limiting for fast glass in bright sun, and I've been used to single SD slot and okay with that (though not pleased). But then when the sensor tests show it's the old tech and that the DR at ISO 400 and below is no better than 70D (and way behind 80D and 5D IV), I'm thinking what is the point? I already have the 18-35 1.8 which is like a 28-55 2.8 FF or thereabouts, and on an 80D this would be better than a 6D ii with 24-70 2.8 in low ISO DR, AF coverage, 1/8000 max shutter, 7fps and 1/250 max sync speed as well as being equivalent in ISO performance, DoF control etc, and most importantly at a tiny fraction of the cost of 6D ii + 24-70! 

I'm hoping Sigma release a 50-85 ish f2 lens to compliment the 24-35 f2 in a two lens combo that beats the 28-55 2.8 equivalent that you can get on crop sensors with the 18-35 by a full stop. 

I was really hoping that the 6D ii would at least update sensor tech so that it genuinely does seem like a FF 80D but whilst it's old sensor tech, no headphone jack, slow max shutter and sync speed and I have the 18-35, I start to look to the 5D IV but then I ask why couldn't canon just keep the 6D ii truly equivelant to the 80D as they match so perfectly together in every other way!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 8, 2017)

Aglet said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Yeah, but CanonGuy was borderline trolling (as nobody has called the 6D2 "amazing" as he said), so replying to him is counterproductive.


----------



## ShootForThrills (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



I'd love the ff M series if that comes out but I too was waiting to potentially upgrade my 70D to a 6D II. Now I'm wondering if it would be better to grab a 5D III, even if it's older its still a workhorse. 

Anybody else considering this jump or have feedback?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

WilliamJ said:


> First time poster here.
> 
> I've been following the reviews and forum posts for some time and I finally feel compelled enough to chip in.
> 
> ...



Someone else seduced by all the blather. 
If you look at images on threads and social media, you will not see an improvement with the 6d2 or, really, any other camera. 
If you crop a lot you will start to see an improvement with the 6D2.
If you print above A2 the larger sensor will benefit you, despite that the spec sheets tell there are situations where the FF sensor beats APS-C despite talk about dynamic range. 

But all this ignores the glass which is the biggest factor. Given a choice between the 6D2 and a 'consumer level' lens or the 80D and a 70-200 f4LIS, the 80D wins. Every. Single. Time.


----------



## EduPortas (Aug 8, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



I agree that the competition is fierce and there's little incentive to start your FF adventure with a 6D mark II.

However, your mentioned that you already have at least one Canon lens and that makes a difference.

There's a certain incomparable "feel" with Canon's FF cameras that is not replicable even

with Canon's top APS-C product. You'll be hooked once you try it. 

And yes, I've owned or own the following cameras: SL1, Rebel T4, 7D Mark II and 6D. 

I've also owned Nikon APS-C and FF. 

Ergonomically, Canon wins hands down. For me, that was the most important factor when deciding on the system

to invest in. The gear must "feel right" and Canon does that better than anyone else.


----------



## hbr (Aug 9, 2017)

slclick said:


> Looks like a very nice camera. If I was in the market for a backup/alternative to my 5D3 this would be the ticket, especially with the screen for ground level macro. I don't need the latest greatest, I don't use half of the 5D3's feature set. I also don't shoot with a spec sheet or need bragging rights, I just need time with a body and lens combinations to know their abilities and limitations.
> 
> Has anyone used this camera long enough to know those factors? Everything we hear at this point is from either a very short duration of use and or griping about specs. Neither is a good way to judge a camera body.



Don't own a 5DIII but I do own the original 6D and a 7DII. What feature sets are you interested in? I have taken over 800 shots with my 6DII and would have taken more but it has been raining every day here. I have found the 6DII to be a significant upgrade from my original 6D in almost every way. Off the top of my head, i think the 5DIII has more focus points and possibly a little faster AF. I considered buying a refurbished 5DIII instead of the 6DII but I am glad I didn't.

After using the 6DII for close to a couple of weeks, I just don't see why everyone is poo-pooing it. Makes me wonder how many of them have actually used it instead of spouting out garbage from spec sheets. If you are on the fence about buying one try it for yourself.

Brian


----------



## Otara (Aug 9, 2017)

I think it was a pretty fair score. Good camera, but not award worthy.

I view this as mostly Canon saying that the 6d was too close a competitor to the 5D3, and they didnt want similar with the 6D2 vs the 5DIV. Fair enough, but as a result I choose neither at this stage.


----------



## pwp (Aug 9, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



ShootForThrills said:


> I'd love the ff M series if that comes out but I too was waiting to potentially upgrade my 70D to a 6D II. Now I'm wondering if it would be better to grab a 5D III, even if it's older its still a workhorse.
> Anybody else considering this jump or have feedback?


I get asked a lot from clients and friends about planned camera purchases. Having direct, daily use experience with 5DIII (& 5DIV) I've been suggesting a low-mileage 5DIII as a preferred alternative to the 6DII in most cases. If size and lightweight (for travel) are high priorities, then the 6DII will be sure to satisfy. Yesterday I spent a day with a 6DII and could find little to fault with it. 

If weight is no issue, why not consider a used 1DX? 1-Series bodies are just insanely robust. My 1DX looks like it's been in a fight with a tiger but still functions perfectly with a shutter count up over 600k (it had a new shutter at 450k). Buy a 1DX for similar money with around 100k on it and you'll be unlikely to ever wear it out with typical non-professional usage.

-pw


----------



## woodman411 (Aug 9, 2017)

My issue with the dp-review of the 6d2 is that they didn't really try to get great pictures from it, rather, it seemed like they zeroed in on the weaknesses (low-iso DR and ovf tracking), and built the review around that. In fact, the first preview article of the 6d2 was them complaining about the sensor. Other statements in their review also shows they just didn't try, like this:

​"We've also had some issues with outright focus accuracy when using the viewfinder, so for formal portraits or perhaps paid event coverage, it's best to switch into live view just to be safe."

So did they even bother to micro adjust? Doesn't seem like it, which also brings into question how accurate their af assessment was. With proper micro-adjustment, af is very accurate for me, both with the 80d and 5d4 (ai-servo is not that accurate with 3rd party lenses, but that's not really Canon's fault). They criticize ovf tracking, again not a Canon strength, most if not all Canon sport shooters I know select one point focus and ai-servo - how accurate was this method? Did they even try? It is not that hard to move the camera with one focus point and ai-servo, it really isn't, with the advantage that you get to select exactly what's in focus and not rely on the camera to hopefully select the right focus points.

Speaking of ovf af, which lenses did they use for ai-servo? We know lenses make a huge difference in ai-servo performance, especially within the large Canon ecosystem. It's almost comical they're using old and cheap 50 1.8 and 28 2.8 primes (yes I know they used a few L lenses), while using nothing but expensive G-master lenses for their Sony a9 review. That's fair. (of course they needed to do that, that's the only way to take advantage of the a9's 20fps).

No mention of AWB-W. No mention of anti-flicker. If they did mention it, I must have missed it among the overwhelming negativity. Before posting that you disagree that they didn't try much, please, take a look at their 6d2 gallery. Take at look at the effort they put in composition, settings, lighting, and post-processing. It is almost non-existent. I could have taken better pictures with an iPhone. That's not a knock on the 6d2. You could take terrible pictures with an a9. Point is, in dpreview's eyes, the 6d2 was doa, and for me at least, it clearly shows in their half-hearted review.


----------



## dcm (Aug 9, 2017)

Otara said:


> I think it was a pretty fair score. Good camera, but not award worthy.
> 
> I view this as mostly Canon saying that the 6d was too close a competitor to the 5D3, and they didnt want similar with the 6D2 vs the 5DIV. Fair enough, but as a result I choose neither at this stage.



If they had named it the 8D or 9D would people better accept the feature separation?


----------



## Tangent (Aug 9, 2017)

I think all the cards are on the table now. For me hanging on to the 6D for now seems most reasonable since the IQ is basically the same as the mkII, a bit better at low ISO's. Disappointing, but there it is.

Get a good deal on 6D mkII later for the non-sensor features, play into Canon's segmentation scheme and get a 5D mkIV, sit out a generation? I'll be looking at the Sony's Alpha A7 III as well, so I won't make a decision until then. I guess I'm past the emotion of acute disappointment now. Just being pragmatic going forward. 

The seven stages of 6D MkII grieving:

SHOCK & DENIAL - The DR can't be that bad! It's just the beta body!
PAIN & GUILT - Well, pain anyway - that Canon would mess up in the one area I needed most.
ANGER & BARGAINING - Maybe Canon will release a firmware upgrade ?!!?
"DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS - How could Canon not care about me, their customer, mfft!
THE UPWARD TURN - Well, my 6D still works, I can still use that for now.
RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH - I'll look at the alternatives and work out a plan.
ACCEPTANCE & HOPE - How long til the 6D mkIII? That Alpha A7III is coming out this fall... Hmmm...


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 9, 2017)

This would be a good first time FF DSLR. If you are on a 6D, I feel the next meaningful upgrade would be the 5D Mk IV. 6D to 6 MkII is not really a value for money in any way, not for long term. Mediocre AF and DR, with a single SD card slot is too little for an upgrade from a 6D. I am disappointed with the 6D MkII AF spread out, its too crammed for a FF system. Canon needs to improve the DR with its sensors to stay competitive.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 9, 2017)

Not sure what to make of DPReviews AF results. I don't generally pay much attention to DPReview Canon AF test results as I don't think their methods really optimize Canon's AF system. I don't see it as a case of bias, they are just trying to use a standard methodology that seems to hobble Canon's AF accuracy. 

In my experience, Canon cameras work best if you use them the way they were designed to function. Sounds like a funny thing to say but I see cameras with some peculiar setups.

I think for existing Canon shooters such as myself, I'd rather have AF feedback from other Canon shooters. I use a fairly blunt force-limited points-cranking the AF points around with the joystick approach myself and it works fine for me. However, between that and the AF-on BBF deathgrip my thumb joints can be a bit sore after a long day of shooting so I'm open to trying something new if it works as well.

With no joystick on the 6D's I guess that's not going to be an option regardless. Be curious to hear what a few Canon oriented reviewers like TDP think about the AF. That rocker pad looks a bit sketchy. 

AF tuning is also an area where you can see a big improvement through a firmware upgrade post launch.

That being said, the results were quite a bit worse than I expected. 

I managed to work my way through the sensor issues but there's no real way around ineffective AF for my intended use. Given how positive the buzz has always been about the original 6D, I guess I was just expecting too much. A greymarket/refurb/used 5D3 is looking pretty good right now but I was looking forward to having a light-weight full frame travel camera with a touch tilty-flippy, GPS and WiFi. None of that would make up for OOF images though.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 9, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



cerealito said:


> I'm a 70D user with a moderate investment in canon (sigma 18-35, EF 50/1.4, canon EF-S 55-250, EF-S 60 macro, 430 iii flash...)
> 
> I closely followed the rumors of the 6dii because I thought that it was going to be my first FF camera... but now that it's out I'm having second thoughts... is the image quality of a FF system worth the added bulk and price? is mirrorless the future?
> 
> ...



I was a 70D shooter at one point. And I added/upgraded to the original 6D. My thoughts going into the upgrade were that moving to the full frame camera would be "underwhelming", however I'd never look back. And that is what a happened. 70D collected dust and I shot the 6D almost exclusively.

Now, a couple things... the 6D2 is better than the 6D so you have a potential greater bump than I experienced. And second (and much more importantly) it depends what you shoot. I shoot people/portrait more, landscapes, low light, etc. The 6D was just the better tool. And frankly I like wide angle primes and the in the Canon lineup this works out much better for full frame (EF) vs crop (EF-S).

Again, depends what you shoot, but if low light, wide angle, or narrow DOF/crazy bokeh are on your list, there is always a reason to upgrade to full frame, even last generation equipment.


----------



## daphins (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> WilliamJ said:
> 
> 
> > First time poster here.
> ...



Yeah, but a 6D mkii with a 70-200 f2.8L IS II will eat its king....


----------



## greger (Aug 9, 2017)

I've read all the responses to this thread with interest. In spite of all the negative comments I think Canon will sell a ton of 6Diis. From what I've read it's an improvement on the 6D. I think the articulating screen will open the possibility of it appearing on the 7Diii and the two other full frame cameras. If they break they can be fixed. I'm a little more hopeful on the features of the 7Diii.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Very disappointing AF performance which is the case with even 80d.
> ...


I think, DPR staff knows Canon AF stuff which needs user input for starting focus point when all focus points activated otherwise it picks focus point with nearest contrast/object. No option with Canon to pick face and track in view finder like Nikon 3D tracking which is a big feature for DPR staff. They even mentioned this 3d tracking in their recent Nikon d3400 vs sl2 article even with their 11 focus point system.

They reviewed lot of Canon cameras recently. Like 80d, all focus point servo tracking struggled to keep up with subject face. Unlike recent rebels and 80d, live view tracking also bad on 6d2. DPR is pretty big on live view tracking which also fits their mirror less and face tracking expectations). They praised recent rebels for their live view servo tracking. 6D2 live view servo tracking went back to M2.


----------



## Talys (Aug 9, 2017)

Hidden gem that I wandered into, today. I used the Bluetooth Remote BR-E1 for the first time, and I was REALLY impressed (I don't have a 77D, so I've never had/used one before). Now this is saying something, since I use a remote trigger for pretty much every studio shoot where my cameras are on tripods, but I generally hate Bluetooth peripherals because they can be frustrating.

The form factor is awesome (much, much thinner and smaller than most remote triggers), it's very responsive and it just works. There is no sleep or re-connect lag; the instant you turn the camera back on, the remote is ready to go. And, the remote doesn't turn on/off, so you never have to worry about forgetting to turn it off. It's just a great accessory that improves quality of life, and it isn't very expensive (I bought it from Amazon US for less than $40 US dollars).


I am baffled by how people can say it's hard to set up. On the 6DII, you go to wireless, Bluetooth, and pick Remote, and choose Pair (and these are like, 3 options in a row). Then on the remote, you press and hold the W and T buttons for 3 seconds, and boom, it tells you you're paired. Done. There's a Bluetooth icon on the top display that shows that you're connected. How much easier can that be?

To shoot with the remote trigger have to set the drive mode to timer/remote, like the Infrared remote, which is a little annoying (why can't it just work in regular single or continuous mode?). But it's not terrible -- generally, if I'm using remote trigger, I'm going to use a remote trigger for the whole shoot anyways. 

There's a separate AF and trigger button, which is an improvement to half/full-press shutter compatibility through the trigger port, especially since the AF button is recessed, and you can't really hit it by accident. There are W/T buttons if you're using a lens with the attachment that supports remote zoom. I'm told this is an awesome feature, but frankly, I don't care about video, so this it's lost on me. 

There's also a slider that goes between instant trigger, 2 second timer, and movie. I'm not sure I'd ever use the 2 second timer, with a remote, but the really awesome thing is that you can't turn the slider off -- meaning, you can't accidentally drain the battery. If you wedge something against it and press the button down, it goes off by itself after a second or two, and stays off. The trigger doesn't support continuous shooting (which seems strange, because there is a timer-continuous mode), but I wouldn't use it anyways.

All in all, I am very happy with the BR-E1 plus the (much) wider field of view of the 60DII when shooting still subjects.


----------



## dsut4392 (Aug 9, 2017)

*Re: won't upgrade to it*



bedford said:


> cerealito said:
> 
> 
> > Canon definitely didn't give us aps-c shooters a real reason to upgrade.
> ...



I upgraded from the 60D to the original 6D about 5 years ago and my only regret was giving up the tilt screen. The 6DII is a massive upgrade over the 60D in IQ and AF (both live view and viewfinder). 
The 80D looks like a great camera in almost every respect for a fraction of the cost of a 6DII, but will never give you DOF equivalence with full frame. If you're after the 'full frame look', there is no substitute for sensor size.


----------



## Talys (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Someone else seduced by all the blather.
> If you look at images on threads and social media, you will not see an improvement with the 6d2 or, really, any other camera.
> If you crop a lot you will start to see an improvement with the 6D2.
> If you print above A2 the larger sensor will benefit you, despite that the spec sheets tell there are situations where the FF sensor beats APS-C despite talk about dynamic range.
> ...



I couldn't agree more, on the issue of the glass.

For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time. an 80D also gives you the ability to use cheap lenses that perform pretty well for the odd purposes that you don't use much. For example, the EFS10-18mm and the new macro-illuminated EFS 35mm are pretty decent lenses that just have no EF equivalent in those price ranges. You can buy those, and then spend all your money on a 24-70 or 70-200 depending on what you shoot.

But not only that, there's the weight factor. As you get to telephoto lengths of 200mm-600mm on APSC, to match the reach you need to buy much more expensive, heavy lenses to compete on reach.

I'm happy with my 6DII and with a FF camera, I really am. But it was a lot of planning and time spent with a borrowed 5DIV to know exactly what I was getting into, and what I would be giving up. For instance, selling my EFS17-55 2.8, and knowing that my 70-300 II (which is a good compromise on APSC as a light telephoto) and 70-200 II IS 2.8 are both going to be much less useful for telephoto -- but that the 70-200 2.8 will be much more useful for some other subjects I love to shoot, like hummingbirds. 

And _definitely_ it's not like: "I have a $2000 FF camera -- Now all my pictures will be better! ... They aren't better -- This camera must suck!"


----------



## mahdi_mak2000 (Aug 9, 2017)

ritholtz said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



Not true.
I have 80d and 6dmkII. LV focus and tracking is improved in 6dmk2 compare to 80d.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 9, 2017)

Talys said:


> For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time.


You're thinking in terms of zooms. 40mm, 50 mm, 85/1.8, 100/2 etc are relatively "cheap" glass but excel on FF.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased. While their reviews have some value it is very striking to compare a review by Bryan at TDP with DPR. If you haven't already, compare: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Here are a few samples. I don't think DPR is worthy more time than this.

"That said, five years is a long time in the digital camera market, and the competition hasn't stood still. So the question remains: Has the 6D Mark II improved enough?"

Improved enough? Are we not interested in whether it is simply a quality product? Clearly they set out with an agenda to compare it to their favorite cameras. 

"full frame sensor is wrapped in a fairly *plasticky* (though still weather sealed) body, and it *makes do* with some compromises ..." 

What exactly is the purpose of this statement? A knock? Bias?

"While at first glance, it's apparent that the 6D Mark II is *at least competitive* with challengers from Nikon and Sony, it should be noted that both the D750 and a7 II have been on the market for some time, and frankly, are due for an upgrade."

At least competitive, barely?? Clearly the upgrades will blow the 6D2 away in performance in all aspects and price, right?

"though we do wish the viewfinder was 100% coverage: you may find some unwanted objects creeping into the edges of your images in carefully composed shots."

Good grief is this a serious fault to be bringing up early in a review while ignoring lots of far more important items. As if the owner of a $2K camera can't crop 2% out.

"Bluetooth is a bit useless;" 

Pretty brash (negative) statement and I'm betting it isn't true.

"Lastly, we've seen that the 6D II's dynamic range at lower ISO's is sorely lacking, which will result in less flexibility in post processing and flat-out noisier images. In fact, even Canon's newer APS-C sensors offer better performance in this regard, despite their smaller size."

Here we go - DR is the be all and end all.

While Bryan is a competent reviewer, these guys are pathetic. Incompetent at least from the perspective of writing a review. If they were in a university course they'd get a flunking grade for sure.  Nothing we didn't already know. 

Jack


----------



## soloyc (Aug 9, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased. While their reviews have some value it is very striking to compare a review by Bryan at TDP with DPR. If you haven't already, compare: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx
> 
> Here are a few samples. I don't think DPR is worthy more time than this.
> 
> ...




The review looks "well-balanced". At least, much more than what I would expect. But I agree with you, Jack: a lot of it is written as if they wanted to look less biased, but not achieving to do so perfectly. Probably they read these forums and adjusted themselves... a bit.

I still wonder about some aspects, which seemed omitted: f/8 focussing? Weather sealing: is this improved over the 6D, or the same level of "weather sealing"? Or perhaps I read the review too quickly? Can I say that the review also falls short of being thorough? I give it a 80%. :



I remember reading these forums and DPR when looking for a FF model some years ago. My wife owning a 5D3 made it an easy choice, as well as the possible lenses and what I had already seen from the UI of Nikon, Sony and Canon (the latter aspect made it even easier.) It all lead to me getting the 6D. Of course this was some time after its release, and the price was already dropped to 1500 Euros. But I got it despite the mild reviews back then, and the obvious shortcomings: the somehow outdated AF, the camera not being fully weather sealed, DR "failing" compared to some competitors, etc). I was and still am happy with my choice, even if the greatest gripe I have is with the lack of proper sealing, the simple AF system, and the lack of f/8 focussing. But hey, there was no other entry-level FF from Canon, it made the choice quite trivial. I appreciated the comments here at Canon Rumors because they made me realize what kind of camera I was getting.

Now, reading this review, it's like going back in time. I am confident that people looking for an entry-level FF will still see potential in the 6D2. Especially going in stores, handling the different cameras and comparing user interfaces. In a way, this is the camera I would have liked to get if I did not already own one. If the review had been more detailed, it would have helped me understand what I was getting, and what NOT to expect. As far as I see, the 6D2 improves on all major issues (except DR at base ISO, which would mostly affects sunset/sunrise shots, but from my side it's a boring subject -- the sunrise pics, not the DR). This camera will surely not urge people invested in other brands to switch over to Canon, but that was the same with the 6D, which sold well nevertheless. For the same reasons, the 6D2 will probably outsell a lot of its "competitors".

One comment: if the 6D remains available for some time, I bet this will affect 6D2 sales. This is probably its true biggest competitor, despite the shortcomings, and it's like offering two entry-level FF cameras. I can see how Canon will want these to be quickly discounted to get them off the shelves. I would therefore not expect a price drop on the 6D2 until the 6D is gone.


The end of it: I am not considering buying one, although the AF system and weather sealing do appeal to me a lot. It could have had much better DR and I would react the same way: perhaps later, when the price drops, or if my 6D fails, or if by some time warp phenomenon I am back to owning no 6D. Until then, I'm hopeful I can still get acceptable pictures with my current 6D...


----------



## Khalai (Aug 9, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time.
> ...



There are also more rather affordable options such as 24/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS or low-tier L lenses such as 24-70/4L IS or 70-200/4L (non IS)...


----------



## Aglet (Aug 9, 2017)

mppix said:


> If it works for you: good. I have a few questions tough.
> 
> Why did you switch to 4 systems from Canon (besides that they were each best at something at the time of introduction)?



Short answer is "because i could."  I don't spend my money on big houses or vehicles or kids or pets or frivolous things so all my discretionary can go to my passion and I'm fortunate enough to be able to do this and I recognize that not everyone can so I'm fine with sharing what i've learned.

Cameras all do pretty much the same thing but of course they all do things a little differently.
Each system has it's strengths, whether specific bodies or lenses.

Nikon provided my first experience with the very clean low ISO performance I was looking for. I loaded up on d5100s and d800s for most of my landscape based shots. They delivered what I was looking for.

I had some older Pentax lenses around so when i got a great deal on a new K5-2s I took it. Great camera for slow work but lack of AA filter meant some serious color fringing could appear on specular hilites at times. not so good for my water shots, great for many other things. Very decent low light camera. I added some other Pentax bodies and check out the FF K-1 and let me know what features it's missing... especially at that price. 

http://ricoh-imaging.ca/en/products/cameras/K-1/features

Fuji... Started with an Xe1, liked the OOC jpg color tho it was a bit soft. Still bought into the Fuji system quite heavily when the XT1 was next and I saw how good OOC jpg could be and that saved me a lot of post time for certain kinds of product shots I do. Iridient Developer made the Xe1 files as sharp as the Xt1. HOOKED! 
Added a lot more Fuji kit. It's quirky but in a way I like and the output is very pleasing.

MFT when I wanted to travel really compact and light, like bicycle rides and walking, but still wanted much better IQ than from a compact camera and more lens flexibility. Cheap Olympus EM10 was much fun to use, delivered adequate IQ (better than crop Canons) and fit the bill. Got an EM1 cuz it had great ergos and better performance. Now have the new flagship and it's an amazing camera! Excellent ergo's, great IQ, crazy fast, small, light, fun to use. My favorite photography tool right now.
It'll mop the floor with a 5d3 in nearly every thing you might want to do with it. It certainly hasn't been unable to do anything I wanted to do with it. And it's a lot cheaper too.
Their lenses really perform too.

DARE TO COMPARE! 

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m1-mark-ii.html

If I had to have only one camera system, it's the Olympus.
Fuji's are really good too, (and Panasonic/Sony but I don't have those) but the Oly's are just great tools.




> I usually like that my lenses work on the body that I have with me. Is it because one other brand could not meet your needs?



Canon could not meet my most critical need for a very clean low ISO file.

Nikon would have done everything I _needed._
But since I had the ability to expand to other brands as well I am able to select from a wide range of gear to fit whatever style or method of shooting I want to do. It's been an interesting learning experience and I enjoy using all the different systems. I often take a mix out on a shoot. One body with lens for one thing, another set for another thing. Totally mixed brand now. I actually carry less gear this way than I used to, oddly enough.



> The other question that I have is regarding raw file quality. It happens that I like the Fuji system quite a lot and despite not owning one I played with it quite extensively. The RAW quality is good (using the right converters) but any claim that it keeps up with any FF camera is -at best- misleading. Micro 4/3 is even worse. How do you determine quality?



Most of my prints are 24 to 36" on the long side.
Canon files were giving me visible noise issues at those sizes.
All the other systems are providing me with an image quality I like a lot better. FWIW most of my customers do not see the difference if I don't point it out and even then many do not care about it.
_I do, however._

MFT file quality not good enough?...
Uhmmm.... is a 5D3 good enough?

have a look at this:  this is one of the more important metrics for my work after the fact that the file must not have any kind of banding or fixed pattern noise show up in processing.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%2080D,FujiFilm%20X-T20,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

I can make a very nice 36" print from a clean 16MP file. With Canon 18MP crop files I had to process carefully to get about 24" and it took a lot of work to clean up 5d2 iso 400 file to print 36" at my standards and I had to wait years for improved software to do it. Lower ISO on my 5d2 often showed banding problems. Hated that.

When I need to go larger I pull out the (Nikon) 36MP FF gear for 48 to 66" prints.
If I have a static scene I have multi-shot hi-res mode with the Olympus (80MP raw I think) and the Pentax that can provide more MP on the subject with enhanced DR (reduced noise) too. I don't need medium format.
Canon can't do these tricks w-o great IBIS. Tho there is some kind of software that allows you to stack multiple shifted images the hard way. Gah. ???

EDIT:
Here's more on what MFT can do in talented hands. From a former Nikon ambassador:

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html




> In terms of lenses, I think nobody here is prepared to claim that Canon has the absolute best lenses. They have a few gems but so do others. However, my experience is that they can take a beating (usually more than others). If they do fail, CPS will get them back to you in pretty much no time and repairs don't cost a fortune (unless you run a truck over it). Still, my favorite feature of Canon lenses is that I sell them for about the same as I buy them new. Good luck doing that with other brands.



Optically, Canon lenses are nothing special; they have good, great and so-so stuff like everyone else.
Canon does have some specialty lenses tho that are without peer. Fortunately I don't need those.
They definitely do hold their resale value well tho; IMO, for no good reason other than the name. 
My gear doesn't get beat up so I can use a consumer grade lens for years without problems.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 9, 2017)

bedford said:


> IIRC they admitted the test with the 80D was not done correctly. And promised to redo it. Well, probably they just forgot...
> 
> Oliver


They also promised to redo their rather misleading test of the 5DS/R (its noted on the review). Using the failed Adobe Lightroom color profile with crushed shadows for the review with the resultant inferior IQ without checking the results with Canon's own software was of DPR's worst blunders in a camera review IMHO. But nothing so far.

So expect to wait a couple of years. At least...


----------



## testthewest (Aug 9, 2017)

daphins said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > WilliamJ said:
> ...



Maybe that's because they are more expensive than the options given above? 
I'd like to inform you that you can do even better: Just have a 5dMk4 and a 70-200 f2.8L IS II.
And this can also be topped by a Sony A7RII with a GM 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 9, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased. While their reviews have some value it is very striking to compare a review by Bryan at TDP with DPR. If you haven't already, compare: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx
> 
> Here are a few samples. I don't think DPR is worthy more time than this.
> 
> ...



Honestly, you seem more biased then them. And in your fanboydom, you can't even see that.

Their questions are valid. That a second version is better than the first should be a given, otherwise why even make such a product? So stating it is better than 6D Mark I is obsolete. Stating it is a quality product is also obsolete, if the 6D Mark I already was that. The only question is the one they posed: Did Canon improve enough?

Same with your problems about the viewfinder remark. They just state it isn't 100% and they wish it was. What's wrong with that?

And the DR *is a disappointment*! No beating around the bush here. If you tell me that doesn't matter, then I say what is even mattering to you! 
Canon can do better, even in the hobbist market as shown with the 80D. Giving us such a old tech sensor is an insult. But you can't see that, because as long as the Canon logo is on it, you are happy.
And you accusing others of being biased is just rich.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Honestly, you seem more biased then them. And in your fanboydom, you can't even see that.
> 
> Their questions are valid. That a second version is better than the first should be a given, otherwise why even make such a product? So stating it is better than 6D Mark I is obsolete. Stating it is a quality product is also obsolete, if the 6D Mark I already was that. The only question is the one they posed: Did Canon improve enough?
> 
> ...



DR a disappointment when it is so close to the 5DIV? And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same. 
When you say the 6D2 image is 'old tech' what exactly do you mean? Personally I don't care what tech they used as long as it turns out good images and the 6D2 does just that. Could they have done better? Maybe. But what would have made you happy? one more stop DR/ WOW! Big move, that. 

Jack is far from a fanboy but you in turn seem hellbent on criticsing Canon for areas that they did not see as critical to what they saw as the intended market.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 9, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> bedford said:
> 
> 
> > IIRC they admitted the test with the 80D was not done correctly. And promised to redo it. Well, probably they just forgot...
> ...



Crushing the black point doesn't necessarily result in "inferior IQ" when you want to compare a camera to others. In fact since it buries more noise under the black point, it can help a camera look better. 

The main problem with crushing the black point is that it makes the comparison invalid, since one variable that should have been controlled wasn't.

That being said, at least the raw files are downloadable, and Adobe has released updates profiles for the 5DS(R), so you can form your own opinion. But don't expect any miracle. In terms of noise it isn't particularly good.


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same.



It doesn't.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 9, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same.
> ...



You seem to like DPR data:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review/6


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The3o5FlyGuy said:
> 
> 
> > my biggest problem with this thing is how clustered cannon made the auto focus points. They might as well have left it at 9... I think thats easly one of the most over looked issues with this camera. I was looking forward to finally upgrading to full frame, but I'd rather wate t upgrade to the 7D Mark III. I think that's the camera for me if it lives up to my REASONABLE expectations.
> ...


I own the 5DS, 6D and 6D MKII (plus the 760D) and the statement about the AF points spread is incorrect the spread is definitely wider on the 5DS (and the 5D MKIV).


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



You were talking about DR : "DR a disappointment when it is so close to the 5DIV? And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same."
Factual evidence points to the contrary. Full stop. 

at higher ISOs it's better to talk about SNR (because you're shutter speed or aperture limited).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased.
> ...



Jack reads CR for the humor. I hope he finds your post as funny as I do. 

Jack has also posted many wonderful images, including some with the original 6D. What images have you posted? Oh yeah, a screenshot of the DPR comparison tool. Too funny.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 9, 2017)

Aglet said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > The 3 years old d750 still can eat this 'amazing' (according to the fan boys) 6d2 for breakfast. How canon managed to produce bellow standard products and still kept fanboys happy is what amazes me lol! 2k usd for a 2013 sensor and system! No thanks.
> ...


To put some balance on this statement we own a still camera rental business for every rental of a Nikon or a Sony product we have three or four on Canon. The Sony A7 series cameras have great sensors but terrible control layouts & menu structures, Nikon menus by comparison to Canon are also not as well thought out and color imagery not as good. All these systems have their star lenses and ones that could be better. 
I have had Olympus micro 4/3rds cameras back to when they brought out the 4/3rds system with Panasonic again the menu structures are flawed and the sensor size too small for serious landscape but as a casual travel camera it fits the bill.
Fact is grass is always greener on the other side until you get there then you see the shortcomings. Did Canon short change the 6D MKII, yes and no, did Nikon short change the D750 yes and no, did Sony short change the A7 II yes and no life is never simple and neither is camera choice.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 9, 2017)

ritholtz said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



I'm leaving this afternoon for a long weekend at a lake resort out of town. I'm really looking forward to spending some more time with the 6D2. However with that said, so far I've found the AF to be spot on. Algorithms continue to get tweaked and improved, and processing power goes up with each camera. The 6D2 has no issue crunching the data it receives from it's focus points and continuously moves among them effortless as it tracks a subject. While it doesn't have the fancy/smancy iRGB size metering sensor in the 5D/7D/1D, the modest one they DID put in the 6D2 appears to have improved tracking as well. 

The 6D2 is a evolutionary upgrade over the 6D, essentially the same or a little better in every way, except one area, AF tracking. It is a night and day difference between the two.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 9, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time.
> ...



Agreed, while this forum gives most the attention to the L glass when we get to full frame status, most of the "consumer" primes from Canon are very excellent pieces of glass, and quite affordable (in comparison) to boot!


----------



## candyman (Aug 9, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...


AF tracking on the 6D MK II is pretty good. I used it two days ago on some speedy waterboats. I experienced some limitation of the buffer. Very fast it is full (slowing down). That could happen in a moment I really need some more shots. But knowing this limitation, I need to carefull look when to press and not. Otherwise I really like this camera. It is very nice to use and I did some nice shots




Skyline Rotterdam by Thornmill Images, on Flickr


----------



## MayaTlab (Aug 9, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I'll add to that that, if I were to buy the DOF equivalent lenses to the lenses that I currently use with my 6Ds within, for example, Fuji's lineup, it would actually cost me a little bit more than Canon's FF lenses.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 9, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...


And I'm sure your return with shots your be more than happy with as I did this weekend shooting on my 6D MKII. Better to use a tool than discuss it and never have used it thinking your an expert because you believe everything in the press or on blogs.


----------



## BillB (Aug 9, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Fair points. On ther other hand, Canon has done a very impressive job of developing high quality, quite inexpensive, if slowish, EF-S and EF-M zooms over a wide range. Matching that capability at the EF level could get a little pricy.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 9, 2017)

Here is my initial impressions of shooting the 6DMKII

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33212.msg680597#msg680597


----------



## Jopa (Aug 9, 2017)

candyman said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



Superb picture. But according to DPR you couldn't have taken this with your 6d2, so you must be cheating / patching exif. It's a Sony camera for sure!

Seriously people, why you read / care / repost DPR?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

@ soloyc I have essentially the same experience. I really like the upgrades and so sold my 6D but it has been a fun, smallish camera that gave me roughly 35 000 photos without a hiccup.

@ neuro Yes I read CR for the humour or humor and often yours is the best. Sad that many can't comprehend that. ;D

BTW, it really is an encouragement hearing a compliment like that. For me photography is about fun and luck with the shutter button. If one is persistent enough then one will get the odd great photo and quite a few decent ones. I generally don't post shots that I know don't cut it technically.

At this moment I am a fan of the 400DO F4 II since its 800 hand held Milly Meaters is a blast. Guess who makes the lens! Guess that makes me a Canonfanman (I'm elderly). 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

@ testthewest I'm not surprised. You totally missed my point. I don't disagree with what you're saying, rather I was merely pointing out the slant/style/bias/perspective that DPR takes when reviewing a Canon product. Sure, it's there prerogative to do so but then when one of their staff comes on CR and argues until he's blue in the face that they aren't biased, well it simply provides more humour. It was quality humour but kind of sad. Seems they think that a master's or PhD in some technical field makes them good "reviewers".

I stand by my statement; if this review was a sample in a university course dealing with how to construct a review it would be there as a "bad example". Does bias or poor construction make it useless? No, but reader beware. 

Jack


----------



## candyman (Aug 9, 2017)

Jopa said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > <snip picture>
> ...


Thank Jopa. I enjoy every minute of my......6D MK II camera


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 9, 2017)

well, you need PHD degree for that. so... 



Jack Douglas said:


> @ neuro Yes I read CR for the humour or humor and often yours is the best. Sad that many can't comprehend that. ;D
> 
> Jack


----------



## Yasko (Aug 9, 2017)

I'm pretty sure the 6D mk II is a reasonable upgrade for a 70D shooter like me.
But I am not looking on upgrading just now. May be when there is a deal around 1500 somewhere the next years...
but realistically seen, the 6D mk II is just that kind of a camera that has me out on a limb waiting for a FF mirrorless from Canon ... or something else that will make me upgrade.

Until then I am happy to have a 70D. Another APS-C is not an option for me. I am into gear and "bells & whistles", but not that much that I want to afford another APS-C camera that really doesn't give me that FF look.


----------



## woodman411 (Aug 9, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> @ testthewest I'm not surprised. You totally missed my point. I don't disagree with what you're saying, rather I was merely pointing out the slant/style/bias/perspective that DPR takes when reviewing a Canon product. Sure, it's there prerogative to do so but then when one of their staff comes on CR and argues until he's blue in the face that they aren't biased, well it simply provides more humour. It was quality humour but kind of sad. Seems they think that a master's or PhD in some technical field makes them good "reviewers".
> 
> I stand by my statement; if this review was a sample in a university course dealing with how to construct a review it would be there as a "bad example". Does bias or poor construction make it useless? No, but reader beware.
> 
> Jack



Agreed, the dp-review was half-hearted and biased, I've stopped reading their site and forums


----------



## Adelino (Aug 9, 2017)

dcm said:


> Otara said:
> 
> 
> > I think it was a pretty fair score. Good camera, but not award worthy.
> ...



Good point, I think so actually, if it meant that there would be another body between the new 8D and the 5D, a more worthy 6D successor. I'm still hoping a middle model (your alluded to 8D?)  will be announced the sooner the better.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 9, 2017)

candyman said:


> AF tracking on the 6D MK II is pretty good. I used it two days ago on some speedy waterboats. I experienced some limitation of the buffer. Very fast it is full (slowing down). That could happen in a moment I really need some more shots. But knowing this limitation, I need to carefull look when to press and not. Otherwise I really like this camera. It is very nice to use and I did some nice shots



Oh for sure. I was only speaking to the AF performance and not to continuous shooting. Thankfully I don't do a lot of that. I will point out though the buffer appears to be deeper than the original 6D, enough to capture at least a dozen or so frames in RAW at the max 6.5 fps.

Great shot by the way!


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 9, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> I'll add to that that, if I were to buy the DOF equivalent lenses to the lenses that I currently use with my 6Ds within, for example, Fuji's lineup, it would actually cost me a little bit more than Canon's FF lenses.



Completely agree, and it is one of my personal knocks against the Fuji XF lens lineup. While their prices are not in the crazy L lens territory, they remain quite pricey, especially for APS-C size lenses. A while back I someone had down a comparison between the Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2 and the Canon 85mm f/1.8. Both lenses were shot on native bodies and therefore delivered an equivalent focal length and DOF. If I recall one could not really tell a huge difference. Of course the big take away was that the Canon lens was a third of the price of the Fuji.


----------



## candyman (Aug 9, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > AF tracking on the 6D MK II is pretty good. I used it two days ago on some speedy waterboats. I experienced some limitation of the buffer. Very fast it is full (slowing down). That could happen in a moment I really need some more shots. But knowing this limitation, I need to carefull look when to press and not. Otherwise I really like this camera. It is very nice to use and I did some nice shots
> ...


O yes, I am used to the 5D MK III for action. I hardly used my 6D for action so my statement is a little unfair since I should have mentioned I am used to the buffer of the 5D MKIII. The buffer improved over the 6D. I just need to remember it is different from the 5D MK III. 


Thank you for your compliment


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> well, you need PHD degree for that. so...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## testthewest (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, you seem more biased then them. And in your fanboydom, you can't even see that.
> ...



That's just the problem: The DR *is not* like the 5D Mark IV! It's the like the Mark III.

Can you take good pictures with it? Of course you can! But that's also true for a 50 year old film camera. Yes, you can take great pictures. But that's not the point. The point is: Any picture you take with the 6D Mark II could have been cleaner and technically better with a sensor like the 5D Mark IV has or the 80D, if it was scaled up to full frame.

You call me hellbent on critizising Canon, and true: I am bitter towards Canon. I waited patiently for this camera, I got EF lenses for my crop body, just to be ready for it. And Canon presents something to me, I could have bought 5 years ago in form of the 5D Mark III. 
So excuse my saltiness, if I didn't care for Canon, I wouldn't be.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



What exactly does pictures posted have to do with DPR? Oh right, nothing. 
Actually, wonderful images can be taken with a 50 year old film camera. Single images are pretty pointless if you discuss specs and tech. And just be clear: Canonrumors is *only* about that. New tech rumors. Not about art, not about skill in photography, not about user made shots or even a weekly competition for the best shots. 
Posting pictures here is like writing a political article in a porn mag. It's pointless.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> I waited patiently for this camera, I got EF lenses for my crop body, just to be ready for it. And Canon presents something to me, I could have bought 5 years ago in form of the 5D Mark III.
> So excuse my saltiness, if I didn't care for Canon, I wouldn't be.



Well that is pretty dumb. Spending your hard earned cash on inappropriate lenses in readiness to spend more hard earned cash on a camera whose specs and capabilities you had no idea about? And then you get angry at Canon? I think that says more about you than Canon. 

Over the years I have seen countless people ask 'which lenses should I buy, I may go FF sometime in the future', and I always advise to bu the lens they need now not something they _may_ need in the future.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > I waited patiently for this camera, I got EF lenses for my crop body, just to be ready for it. And Canon presents something to me, I could have bought 5 years ago in form of the 5D Mark III.
> ...



What's dumb about getting a lens, you can use later on full frame, if that's what you are planing to do? Furthermore, many fast primes are only available as EF lenses. So I chose to buy something more expensive, but future proof (so I thought), instead of first the cheaper stuff, and then all the stuff again in expensive version.
Also I wasn't "I may go FF". I am: "I definitely will go FF!" So why bother with EF-S lenses (of which I also have 2)?
Which brings us to point where I was "pretty dumb": I though Canon would do better, being the biggest fish in the pont. I though the 6D Mark II would be a 80D scaled to full frame.
I was wrong. Anyway, I got my full frame now, but I won't need the EF glass no more.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 9, 2017)

Well, if there is anyone on this site that is NOT a fanboy, it is Jack Douglas. If you have spent any amount of time here and don't know that, you just haven't been paying attention. 



testthewest said:


> Canonrumors is *only* about that. New tech rumors. Not about art, not about skill in photography....



Well, guess you are wrong about that, too. The site is Canon rumors. So we can discuss new cameras and equipment any way we want, including art, skill, or any other aspect of photography that deal with rumored and recently released equipment.

I can understand that you wanted better sensor specs. But, in all honesty, is that your fault or Canon's. I don't believe they ever promised you the sensor quality of a $3,500 camera in their $2,000 camera.

If all you are interested n is DR, then I guess you should be disappointed. I think the point many of us are making is that DR is not equal to IQ. And the differences in DR between cameras in real life shooting is anywhere from not noticeable at all - to very minimal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Posting pictures here is like writing a political article in a porn mag. It's pointless.



That's not funny, it's just sad. I feel a bit sorry for you. Just a bit.




testthewest said:


> What exactly does pictures posted have to do with DPR? Oh right, nothing.
> Actually, wonderful images can be taken with a 50 year old film camera. Single images are pretty pointless if you discuss specs and tech. And just be clear: Canonrumors is *only* about that. New tech rumors. Not about art, not about skill in photography, not about user made shots or even a weekly competition for the best shots.



Really? Did you know that all of the most popular topics on CR Forums, based on both views and replies, are about sharing images? Every one. Not a single one of the Top 10 in either category is about tech rumors. So, no matter what brings _you_ here, it's safe to say that most people here find *photography* – art, technique, skill, and particularly user-made shots – far more interesting than specs and tech. *4.7 million* views of just the two bird-focused image sharing threads which are the top two topics.

So what do pictures posted here have to do with anything? Oh right, they're what most people here care about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> I was "pretty dumb"



Good to know you can be right about one thing, at least.


----------



## Hflm (Aug 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Posting pictures here is like writing a political article in a porn mag. It's pointless.
> ...


4.7 billion???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2017)

Hflm said:


> 4.7 billion???



Thanks, typo fixed.


----------



## sdim (Aug 9, 2017)

I was waiting for this camera to buy as a backup for my 5d mark iv but it seems I'm going to get a used 5d mark iii


----------



## Hflm (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, you seem more biased then them. And in your fanboydom, you can't even see that.
> ...



Hmm. DR of the 6dii is nothing to brag about, when compared to peers. It certainly trails today's competition. I can't see it being close to the 5div at all (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr144_3=sony_a7rii&attr146_0=100_4&attr146_1=100_4&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=compare&widget=542&x=0.12683629912966343&y=-0.9785425435338782). 

PDR is even lower than the original 6d:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Canon%20EOS%206D,Canon%20EOS%206D%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D750

At base ISO it is trailing the 80D, as can be seen from the measurements, too. At higher ISOs this reverses.
A +2ev push is as noisy as a 5div 4ev push according to above's test scene. For some people that is important to note and they have all the right to complain about this. If you don't care, fine. You have all the right to like this camera for its positives. All that doesn't mean that you can't take great images with it.

Overall, I can't find fault with DPR's Review. They criticised the camera IQ in areas where it clearly trails the competition, but they also positively remarked the high ISO performance (already good in the original 6d), for example. Criticising the review style, as some here did is some kind of whataboutism for me and doesn't change the facts stated above.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > testthewest said:
> ...



My point was you are bitter at Canon because you made an error of judgement. 
You have to be 'bitter' (your word) about having bought FF lenses for a camera that did not materialise. If you aren't complaining about having bought the EF lenses, why are you bitter? I am just having problem following what it is you were 'bitter' about.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 9, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



Great point. There's more to it than simply specs, it's the system as a whole. Ultimately it's why I chose and stick with the Canon system, and I fully understand those that choose Nikon (and now, Sony) have their reasons and priorities too. I see no real need for all the brand wars, just use what works for you. However I think most of us can agree on one thing: no matter what system you go with, there is a compromise you're making SOMEWHERE. The question is what you can live with and what are the deal breakers?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 9, 2017)

The beatings will continue until morale improves!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 9, 2017)

Hflm said:


> Hmm. DR of the 6dii is nothing to brag about, when compared to peers. It certainly trails today's competition. I can't see it being close to the 5div at all (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr144_3=sony_a7rii&attr146_0=100_4&attr146_1=100_4&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=compare&widget=542&x=0.12683629912966343&y=-0.9785425435338782).



+2 stop push and it is very close, +3 stops it is pretty close. +4 stops and it starts to separate. 
You have to push it 4 stops to be able to say the 6D2 is not close?? Do you actually take photographs in the real world?

Like you, I cannot fault the DPR review. However, I think they have become like DxO where they provide data about ever more arcane aspects of performance and let people make their minds up how relevant it is to them.
Some people point at the information and say 'see, it is one of the worst cameras on the market'. Others look at the information and say 'that information has little relevance to the way I shoot'. That doesn't make it a poor tool, it makes it a tool that is not relevant to all circumstances.
If I want a back up FF camera for my 1dx2 my only question is 'does it fill the role I need for a back up camera or do I need to spend the money on a 5DIV'. 


It really will be interesting with the next round of releases from Nikon. Will there be cries of overpricing if the D750 replacement is more expensive than the D750 was on launch and it being poor value compared to the 6D2? Will there be screams of anguish that they use 'old tech' from 18months ago? Howls of derision when they have not improved DR in the newest model because they are using an 'old tech sensor'? 
Or are these responses peculiar to Canon customers?


----------



## reef58 (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Not that I fully agree, but I can relate, I think he is saying why all of the cloak and dagger and long wait for a camera that is basically a reconfigured 5dmk3. I certainly was not expecting Canon to lay an egg on the image quality evolution for this model. They did. It is a disappointment. Certainly 1st world problems. I shall endure. I was looking forward to a Canon full frame with a tilt screen for landscape work. The specs looked great, and myself and many others assumed the progress Canon has been making on their sensors would find its way to the 6d2. Oh well.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

I gather Canon is expected to be some people's personal servant. It's a free society we live in, free yourself and be mature and buy ________. You have my blessing. Enjoy it and post great award winning photos or anything really, but just be happy, don't fret and pass the vibes on to to others. 

Photography is fun irrespective of the camera brand!

BTW, I can relate too and understand but my goal is to behave in a way that keeps me from transmitting useless negativity everywhere. The key is, are you contributing in a way that is likely to have some positive effect even if is a criticism or a complaint. Nobody here is saying there isn't anything to complain about in the 6D2.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

"It really will be interesting with the next round of releases from Nikon. Will there be cries of overpricing if the D750 replacement is more expensive than the D750 was on launch and it being poor value compared to the 6D2? Will there be screams of anguish that they use 'old tech' from 18months ago? Howls of derision when they have not improved DR in the newest model because they are using an 'old tech sensor'?
Or are these responses peculiar to Canon customers?"

Only time will tell, but if Nikon is going to stay afloat they can't discount all their cameras. The D750 can hardly be the price of the present 6D2.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 9, 2017)

reef58 said:


> Not that I fully agree, but I can relate, I think he is saying why all of the cloak and dagger and long wait for a camera that is basically a reconfigured 5dmk3. I certainly was not expecting Canon to lay an egg on the image quality evolution for this model. They did. It is a disappointment. Certainly 1st world problems. I shall endure. I was looking forward to a Canon full frame with a tilt screen for landscape work. The specs looked great, and myself and many others assumed the progress Canon has been making on their sensors would find its way to the 6d2. Oh well.



If (and that is a big 'if') that is what he meant then fair enough - but to talk about being 'bitter' just seems like a drama queen. 
If DR is essential, and the idea of having cutting edge sensor technology at your disposal is important, then given the history of Canon releases and the repeated haranguing they have had over the last 6 or 7 years on this issue, why do such people continually imagine that Canon will magically release something equal to Sony sensors? 

However, if they stay with Canon because other things (functionality etc) are more important than dynamic range for landscapes, why do they get so worked up about lack of DR? It shows a total lack of perspective. The alternative is to buy a SoNikon then post repeatedly on the SoNikon boards about how poor their functionality is compared to Canon.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > I was "pretty dumb"
> ...



Glad you got that cheap shot. Because that's about all you do: Evade most of the arguement and go ad hominem.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I fully agree, but I can relate, I think he is saying why all of the cloak and dagger and long wait for a camera that is basically a reconfigured 5dmk3. I certainly was not expecting Canon to lay an egg on the image quality evolution for this model. They did. It is a disappointment. Certainly 1st world problems. I shall endure. I was looking forward to a Canon full frame with a tilt screen for landscape work. The specs looked great, and myself and many others assumed the progress Canon has been making on their sensors would find its way to the 6d2. Oh well.
> ...



That's what I meant. All the wait for that. 
Actually I was even reinforced in my trust in Canon, when I heard about the 5DIV sensor, the only thing missing (for me) was the tilt-flip screen. I already had the 6DII on preorder, because I thought: I get the best DR Canon can build, a mediocre to weak autofocus and that tilt-flip screen for 2,5k €. I was even pleasantly surprised about the price. I was dealing with the narrow spread of autofocus points, since I don't need that too much, and I wasn't sad because of no 4K. But that DR nerf is unfair. It is also unprecedented with the 6D, which had a good sensor for its time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > testthewest said:
> ...



Yeah, I guess you missed the previous reply...or are you evading it? Maybe it was too long to read, so I'll summarize: you're wrong.


----------



## Talys (Aug 9, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > testthewest said:
> ...



Well first, being someone who owns both, I think 6DII is as close to an 80D scaled to full frame as you're going to get. It certainly isn't a lighter, smaller 5DIV + Flippy Screen for $2,000, which seems like what a bunch of people want/expect.

But anyways, perhaps as a takeaway lesson, don't buy glass that you're not going to take advantage of for half a decade plus. Not only do things change, but newer, cheaper, better stuff might come out, not to mention, there will be sales and used units. 

On the other hand, with very few exceptions (like EF50/1.8 or EFS17-55/2.8), if you want the best quality images out of fast primes, you're going to be looking at L lenses anyways, which are all EF. So, like, if you want a 100L or 85L or whatever, it's not like there was a cheap EFS you could have bought instead. And that's not just Canon; every single camera manufacturer does that. But it's also not like you can't use a 100L on APSC for great results... right? 

About, your comment, "I could have bought a 5DIII 5 years ago" -- well, sure you could have. Why didn't you? It was an awesome camera then. I suspect it's because it's because it was $3,500 at launch. Then the 6D came out. Why didn't you buy that? And then what really doesn't make a lot of sense to me was that if you could have bought a 5DIII at its launch price... why didn't you buy a 5DIV? Or a 5DSR?

If what you're actually saying is that you like Canon cameras, but you want the 5DIV features and output to drop down to the $2000 price range before you go FF, please just say that.

Personally, I DO NOT want a 5DIII/5DIV. It doesn't have an articulating screen, which is crucial for me, it is too bulky for my liking, and I won't take advantage of its ability to survive deserts, rainforests, arctic tundras and warzones. I'd just rather have a smaller camera that is more suited to my casual, fairweather and studio photography. Sure, I would prefer a better sensor; who wouldn't? But that doesn't mean I can't be happy with the 6DII sensor, which takes beautiful pictures, period.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> +2 stop push and it is very close, +3 stops it is pretty close. +4 stops and it starts to separate.
> You have to push it 4 stops to be able to say the 6D2 is not close??



Hmm. Here is what the Digital Picture says about the 6DII dynamic range (so, not DPReview, mind you):


In the Exposed -3 EV comparison, *the 5D IV shows significantly less noise at ISO 100 than the 6D Mark II* does and it still shows noticeably less at -2 EV ISO 100. 


So, the 5D IV shows *significantly less noise* at base ISO - and yet, they are somehow very close. LOL

And since we are it, the Digital Picture also says that the 80D has a 'slightly higher dynamic' than the 6DII.
So, a 2x cheaper camera with a 2.56x smaller sensor has dynamic range advantage.

If the 6DII is close to the 5DIV, then my 80D is even closer. LOL

Mike, get over it. You are not going to convince anyone with your arguments.


----------



## Talys (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > +2 stop push and it is very close, +3 stops it is pretty close. +4 stops and it starts to separate.
> ...



Herein lies the dangers of trying to scientifically and objectively grade a product that's designed to produce an image that's ultimately going to be graded subjectively.

Even on metrics that are both reasonably mathematically easy to calculate and visually approximate, like sharpness, it isn't always as simple as it seems. Everyone might agree with a mathematical formula that determines that image A is sharper than image B (based on edge contrast detection), but two-thirds of the viewers might say that image B is just a more pleasing photo to look at. So which is "better"?

When I bought the T2i, seemingly kazillions of years ago, it was because I liked the color rendition and the ease of use of the layout. How do you stick a number onto that?


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I gather Canon is expected to be some people's personal servant.



No. But please understand that the so called 'whining' is coming in large part from people who were waiting for this camera and were saving up to buy it.
In other words, the 'whining' (or certainly a large part of it) is coming from loyal Canon customers, who now feel cheated.

For me, personally, the issue with spending $$$ for a FF camera is about the (long term) commitment.
As a hobbyist, I can't justify upgrading to every new release.
Once I buy the camera, I expect to have it for years (or lose money selling it early). 

That's why you want to buy the latest and greatest when you spend $$$.
The 6DII doesn't give you that.

Of course once the price drops to $1500 and below, the 6DII will be perceived as a great value and the whining will stop.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 10, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I fully agree, but I can relate, I think he is saying why all of the cloak and dagger and long wait for a camera that is basically a reconfigured 5dmk3. I certainly was not expecting Canon to lay an egg on the image quality evolution for this model. They did. It is a disappointment. Certainly 1st world problems. I shall endure. I was looking forward to a Canon full frame with a tilt screen for landscape work. The specs looked great, and myself and many others assumed the progress Canon has been making on their sensors would find its way to the 6d2. Oh well.
> ...



It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment. The 6d was released as a low frills high image quality package.


----------



## BillB (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > +2 stop push and it is very close, +3 stops it is pretty close. +4 stops and it starts to separate.
> ...



You seem to place considerable faith in the value of DPR's adjectives. DPR Can find significance in some strange places.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

Talys said:


> Herein lies the dangers of trying to scientifically and objectively grade a product that's designed to produce an image that's ultimately going to be graded subjectively.



What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality. 
They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.

That is, Canon evidently cut some corners when making this camera.
And since they did that, they shouldn't be expecting buyers to get excited, praise the camera and pay the full price.
So, Canon did it to themselves, really. 

But let the price drop by 30-40% and we'll talk again.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

BillB said:


> You seem to place considerable faith in the value of DPR's adjectives. DPR Can find significance in some strange places.



Umm, I quoted a non-DPR review. 

That was the whole point, as some here believe that DPR is crooked.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

reef58 said:


> It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment. The 6d was released as a low frills high image quality package.



What streak? It seems you've forgotten the 5DIII, which delivered merely one additional MP and sensor performance that was essentially identical to the 5DII. Of course, it had substantial improvements in AF, metering, frame rate, etc. Gee whiz, that kinda sounds like the 6DII compared to the 6D (except the 6DII got a much bigger MP boost). 

Complainers gonna complain, whiners gonna whine, DRoners gonna DRone, and measurebaters gonna measurebate. Meanwhile, _photographers_ gonna go out and take pictures.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
> They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.



Probably because the better technology would cost more to implement. So, like every company, they cut corners to save production cost.

Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 10, 2017)

I own three EF lenses. None of them have made me bitter.

The first was the 75-300mm I got for $100 with my first Rebel. It is not a great lens, but no more often than I shoot longer telephoto, it fills it purpose. I've shot some rather clear pictures of the full moon with is, so I trust I'll get some passable eclipse pictures with my T3i on the 21st is the weather cooperates. 480mm equivalent is not bad, assuming that the moon will be about the same size in the daytime as it was when I shot it at night.

Back when I shot with my FT-QL, I had an 85mm f/1.8 (I think it was). I loved the pictures that lens produced. I tried to figure out what would be a good substitute for it on the T3i. I decided that for portraits, it was the distance from the subject rather than the lens focal length physical characteristics I wanted (and of course bigger lens opening than the kit lens), so I bought the 50mm f/1.4. It does just what I wanted.

I had some cheap extension tubes and enjoyed playing around with taking some macro shots. One was even good enough to frame and display. But shooting wide open with almost zero depth of field got old, so I decided to buy the 100mm macro. It's a great lens as a quasi-160mm telephoto on the T3i, too. 

So I made what still seem like rational decisions in buying lenses to use with the equipment I have now. It would not have occurred to me to buy EF lenses to put in my Hope Chest waiting for a Full Frame Prince Charming to be sent by Canon to wake them up.

In the likely event that I buy a 6D2 some time soon, all three lenses will still be of use, though they will change in function. The 100mm f/2.8 will be the portrait lens for a while until I decide to buy something else, or not to. And, of course, it will still take great macro shots, just with more in the frame, for any given magnification.

Last year I seriously considered buying an 80D, but decided to wait and see what the 6D2 was like, since I thought if I'm spending that kind of money, I should consider FF. It turned out to be a much longer wait than the rumors would have suggested. I did check this site and other internet rumors over those months in anticipation. I didn't spend the time concocting fantasy specifications, so I didn't wind up bitter at life or at Canon when the camera finally came out. But in the meantime I did take a bunch of nice pictures with the T3i and even more with the G7X II that I take with me when I travel.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?



Heh. Great question!

I'm prepared to pay $2200 max for a FF camera. 
So, if this theoretical 6DII with a 5DIV sensor was priced higher, I would have waited until the price drops to $2200.
But I certainly would have bought one, eventually.

As it stands today, I won't be buying the current 6DII at all - even after the price drops.


----------



## daphins (Aug 10, 2017)

Talys said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Going to have to disagree here. I bought a 60D and my first lens as a 50 f/1.2L. Yes it cropped on the 60D, but the aperture is unparalleled and allows me to shoot literally in the dark for about 6 years. I then added a 16-35, and a 70-200 IS II. With my entire kit I was able to spend 2k on a 6d mkii and shee an incredible array of lenses at my disposal, and years of using them under my belt.

I'd punt money in glass, they'll always stay awesome. Bodies age very quickly.


----------



## Talys (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Herein lies the dangers of trying to scientifically and objectively grade a product that's designed to produce an image that's ultimately going to be graded subjectively.
> ...



If you define "cut corners" as Canon producing a $2,000 camera that has inferior image quality to their current, $3,200 camera released _less than one year ago_, then yeah, I guess you got them there. 

I mean, serious question: why is it the expectation for a $2,000 camera's sensor in July 2017 be as good as the $3,200 camera's sensor released in August 2016? And, have all the other features that differentiate the two, like 4k video and dual sim? Sometimes, I thing some people forget just how new 5D4 is. Do you think it's overpriced? If not, what features would you cut out to reduce the cost by 40%?

I think it sits comfortably between 80D and 5DIV, which are both 2016 cameras, making neither camera irrelevant. I don't think anyone has bought one and posted an overall negative experience. 

I totally agree that if you can wait, you'll get better value by waiting for a sale or some unbundled price. You can get 80D and 5D4 now for significantly less than launch prices.

Regarding my original comment, I stand by it. There are now tons of photos produced by 6D2 out there for everyone to see, and ultimately, people judge the photographs, not the technical specifications of the camera that took them. If you took the same shot with four modern FF cameras and compared them after you processed them, one of two things will happen: you will have 4 good photos... or you'll have 4 that aren't. Post processing, if you removed the EXIF, I really doubt anyone would be able to tell them apart.

Part of it is that you reach a point of diminishing returns, so extra megapixels and extra DR, at some point, is less impactful. I'm not saying that it's meaningless, but ultimately, it's just numbers that don't reflect whether you can get "wow" pictures out of the camera or not.




daphins said:


> Going to have to disagree here. I bought a 60D and my first lens as a 50 f/1.2L. Yes it cropped on the 60D, but the aperture is unparalleled and allows me to shoot literally in the dark for about 6 years. I then added a 16-35, and a 70-200 IS II. With my entire kit I was able to spend 2k on a 6d mkii and shee an incredible array of lenses at my disposal, and years of using them under my belt.
> 
> I'd punt money in glass, they'll always stay awesome. Bodies age very quickly.



I think you misunderstood me 

I have nothing against putting money on great glass. Before I owned a 6DII, I didn't have a FF camera, and had several pricey lenses, including 24-70 f/4, 70-200 II 2.8, and 100L 2.8.

I just don't think you should put money on great glass _if you're not going to do anything with it for five years_. Yeah, they have a really good longevity, and will last a lot longer than bodies, but ultimately, in 5-10 years... other options or a new version become available. Or price drops!


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 10, 2017)

Talys said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



On the other side, the sl2 has higher dr at iso 100, so I think the argument could also be, why does the 2k camera have an inferior quality here than an $500 entry level crop? 
I think that is where some of the frustration has come from. 

Don't get me wrong, I think the expectation of some that the 6d should be a cheap 5dmk4 without giving anything up are probably a bit optimistic, but I thought the sensor being shared would have been a positive step.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

Talys said:


> I mean, serious question: why is it the expectation for a $2,000 camera's sensor in July 2017 be as good as the $3,200 camera's sensor released in August 2016?



I'm on record for defending the 6DII for its lack of 4K video support and for having only a single card slot.
So, I don't think I have unrealistic expectations of what a $2K FF camera needs to have.

Let me ask you this:
Do you expect that FF cameras should have at least 1-stop ISO advantage over crop cameras?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

I'm pretty sure that you take the ISO advantage of FF as a given and you don't even think about it.

Well, for me at least, it's the same for dynamic range. 

So yes, I fully expect that in a $2000 FF camera announced in 2017 will have better dynamic range than crop cameras - just like it is expected (given, actually) that said camera will have better ISO as well.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> On the other side, the sl2 has higher dr at iso 100, so I think the argument could also be, why does the 2k camera have an inferior quality here than an $500 entry level crop?
> I think that is where some of the frustration has come from.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think the expectation of some that the 6d should be a cheap 5dmk4 without giving anything up are probably a bit optimistic, but I thought the sensor being shared would have been a positive step.



Heh, you beat me to it. My thoughts exactly!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Let me ask you this:
> Do you expect that FF cameras should have at least 1-stop ISO advantage over crop cameras?
> Is that an unrealistic expectation?
> 
> ...



For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way. 

So yes, we can take the ISO advantage of FF as a given, thanks to physics. Your expectation that a larger sensor should automatically have a DR advantage is just that – _your_ expectation. 

Let me ask you this:
Do you believe that a $6500 camera with a FF sensor should have better DR than a $1200 camera with an APS-C sensor that's a year older?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

Well, you should go and compare the Nikon D5 with the D7200, and after seeing that the older and much cheaper camera with the smaller sensor has >2 stops more DR at base ISO, you may want to consider what implications that has on how realistic your personal expectations really are.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask you this:
> ...



With this, what are the main factors for increasing DR? It seems like the full frame sensors are able to get higher dynamic ranges (d810, a7r2), I had thought (completely without research) sensor size had some impact, but design was also important? Or am I way off on that one?


----------



## Hflm (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask you this:
> ...



Image noise (let's just concentrate on photon shot noise) _increases_ with more light gathered (signal S), due to the random nature of photons collected (Poisson distribution), it scales with sqrt(S). But S/N ratio = S/sqrt(S) = sqrt(S) increases, too. I think, however, that you meant that.
For DR read noise is extremely important and moving the ADC on sensor in the 5div, 1dxii, 80D or newer Rebels has decreased it. It is not as low as in the Sony sensor or Toshiba sensor models, but it is something I personally don't want to miss.

For me DR is important, as we often have contrasty scenes and I need to underexpose at weddings and push in post to protect highlights. If you don't do that, a 6dii certainly is a good entry level camera. But what will many people do? People now compare a 6dii to its peers. They have Dxo, Bill Claff, Dpreview, You tube "reviewers" (see quotes) etc. The Pentax, Sony and Nikon models (e.g. D750) in a similar price region compare favourably. Personally, I would always chose a D750 (two slots, incredible sensor, excellent AF system) over the 6dii. 
With the 5div it is different. We use two at weddings and we are really happy with them. Really great cameras. However, owing a Sony A9, too, we see what is possible now with mirrorless technology. Hope Canon will counter accordingly.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I evade the biggest bs there is, if I can. That's true.
Perhaps you simply open canonrumors main site and just look at the topics presented there instead of the forums, which have next to no exposure in comparison. The main page is where its at. That's where google funnels the visitors of this site. This is where the topics are set. This is the face of canonrumors, not some forums in the back of the site. Also I take any bet that people coming here come for rumors on gear, not pictures.

*And that's fine!*

But one should accept that's the way it is. There are other rumor sites that do differently btw. Where photos of users are discussed *on the main page*! Again, I don't say Canonrumors should do that, but please realize that this site is not about photos.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

reef58 said:


> It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment.



Yes, it will be. But I sure as heck won't go flouncing around forums talking about how I have been 'cheated' and how I feel 'bitter'. I will decide what is best for my next move in a camera and buy the appropriate body. And in the meantime continue to take great photos with my current set up knowing that it is highly unlikely a new camera would have made such a significant jump in quality as to change the way I take photos.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?
> ...



But yousaid



> Of course once the price drops to $1500 and below, the 6DII will be perceived as a great value and the whining will stop



and 



> But let the price drop by 30-40% and we'll talk again.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

Hflm said:


> Image noise (let's just concentrate on photon shot noise) _increases_ with more light gathered (signal S), due to the random nature of photons collected (Poisson distribution), it scales with sqrt(S). But S/N ratio = S/sqrt(S) = sqrt(S) increases, too. I think, however, that you meant that.
> For DR read noise is extremely important and moving the ADC on sensor in the 5div, 1dxii, 80D or newer Rebels has decreased it. It is not as low as in the Sony sensor or Toshiba sensor models, but it is something I personally don't want to miss.



I probably should have stated I was referring to 'image noise' as noise perceived in a captured image, as amplified by the chosen ISO setting. 




Hflm said:


> For me DR is important, as we often have contrasty scenes and I need to underexpose at weddings and push in post to protect highlights. If you don't do that, a 6dii certainly is a good entry level camera. But what will many people do? People now compare a 6dii to its peers. They have Dxo, Bill Claff, Dpreview, You tube "reviewers" (see quotes) etc. The Pentax, Sony and Nikon models (e.g. D750) in a similar price region compare favourably. Personally, I would always chose a D750 (two slots, incredible sensor, excellent AF system) over the 6dii.
> With the 5div it is different. We use two at weddings and we are really happy with them. Really great cameras. However, owing a Sony A9, too, we see what is possible now with mirrorless technology. Hope Canon will counter accordingly.



People compared the 6D to its peers. People compared the 5DIII to its peers. There were DPR, DxO, Bill Claff, and YouTube then, too, and the competition had better low ISO DR. Despite that, the Canon bodies seem to have substantially outsold their peers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

testthewest said:


> I evade the biggest bs there is, if I can. That's true.
> Perhaps you simply open canonrumors main site and just look at the topics presented there instead of the forums, which have next to no exposure in comparison. The main page is where its at.



I see. In that case, perhaps you should simply restrict your participation in this site to viewing the main page. You won't be missed here on the forums.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment. The 6d was released as a low frills high image quality package.
> ...



I am not complaining, but merely pointing out many were expecting a bump in image quality since Canon has been putting out better sensors with their latest cameras, 1dx2, 80d, 5d4 as examples. Canon did not provide it, so be it. I was empathizing with the poster who had been waiting for the camera and had high hopes. Again Canon doesn't owe the poster nor myself anything. I get that. I am not sure why pointing out the IQ of the 6d2 is a disappointment needs to be mocked. I don't think Canon is *******, and I am not selling all my gear. I am just considering an alternative since the 6d2 is a capable camera, but not exactly what "I" was hoping to get. Can we not discuss this? 

I agree the updates to the focusing and frame rate are nice, but there is not a whole lot of difference between the 6d2 and the 5d3. Take out the articulating screen (actually my favorite upgrade) and you would be hard pressed to pick between the two. 

I will be as equally disappointed if the 7d3 shows a similar level of image quality increase over the 7d2. I think many are expecting quite a bit less noise. Remains to be seen. Canon does not owe me a sensor with less noise, but why bother really is that weak link is not addressed. 

That is all.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 10, 2017)

dak723 said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
> ...



Yes, but since the R&D is already done on the 5d4 sensor and the production is in place. The 6d2 is a new sensor with separate costs, but maybe the design allows decreased production costs to make up for the additional development costs.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

reef58 said:


> Yes, but since the R&D is already done on the 5d4 sensor and the production is in place. The 6d2 is a new sensor with separate costs, but maybe the design allows decreased production costs to make up for the additional development costs.



Since the 5DIV was released, Canon has not magically created a sensor of the 6D2 in the last 9months. The 6D2 sensor and 5DIV sensor will have been in development and production in parallel -if they used the 5DIV sensor in the 6D2 all that development for the 6D2 would have been binned and the price of the 6D2 will have had to cover those costs - plus the costs of redesigning the internals of the 6D2 for the change in direction.


----------



## BillB (Aug 10, 2017)

reef58 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > reef58 said:
> ...



I agree with you about the articulated screen being a useful feature, and I also think that the touchscreen focussing associated with the new dual pixel technology is useful as well, both for Liveview and video. The inclusion of a sensor with ADC on board would have led to lower noise levels when lifting shadows at low ISOs, and I was surprised and disappointed when this did not happen. Whether this rises to the level of quite a bit less noise is I think a discussable point on which opinions can vary. Certainly, under most circumstances, the better sensor wouldn't produce any changes in noise levels at all. On the other hand, if raising shadows after shooting at bases ISO's is a big deal for you, it could be pretty important for you, especially if you like to make large prints


----------



## reef58 (Aug 10, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but since the R&D is already done on the 5d4 sensor and the production is in place. The 6d2 is a new sensor with separate costs, but maybe the design allows decreased production costs to make up for the additional development costs.
> ...



I didn't say they did. They obviously had a reason to develop the sensors concurrently instead of just one sensor for both cameras. My point was directed to a possible manufacturing cost benefit.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 10, 2017)

dak723 said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
> ...



Final point I am not a cheapskate I would literally pay $5000 for a 5d4 with an articulating screen and 10fps.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.



Actually, _theoretical_ dynamic range scales the exact same way too. 
Did you skip physics classes by any chance? LOL

Anyway, my expectations are not based on physics. 

We are in 2017 and Canon themselves make crop sensors that perform well in terms of dynamic range.
Their premium FF models should perform better or at least equally well; certainly not worse. 

That's not some personal wish but quite expected - the same way you expect premium service in a premium restaurant.



> Well, you should go and compare the Nikon D5 with the D7200, and after seeing that the older and much cheaper camera with the smaller sensor has >2 stops more DR at base ISO, you may want to consider what implications that has on how realistic your personal expectations really are.



The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.



Or it could be your expectations for the 6D2 do mot match the design plans for the 6D2. In other words, Canon did not get it wrong - you did.


----------



## Talys (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Actually, _theoretical_ dynamic range scales the exact same way too.
> Did you skip physics classes by any chance? LOL



That's ridiculous. The primary benefit of a larger sensor to dynamic range is that you get less noise, and less noise means higher potential dynamic range. That should be all you "expect" out of going Full Frame.

To increase the theoretical dynamic range of a camera's ability to record, you need to mess with the analog to digital converter and that isn't a trivial exercise. There are other considerations too -- just because you can technically record more dynamic range doesn't necessarily mean that the conversion to color tones are more pleasing to the human eye. You certainly don't want an image that looks posterized.

Anyways, my point being, DR is not directly a function of sensor size, except that noise inhibits maximum DR. There are plenty of small sensors with high dynamic range at base ISO. There are no small sensors with low noise at high ISO.



x-vision said:


> Anyway, my expectations are not based on physics.



That's a good way to set yourself up for disappointment. Ignoring physics, I would expect Trek-like tech -- we should have sensors that don't require line of sight, and that can record and reconstruct perfect 3D holographic imagery. Will trade camera for tricorder.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.
> ...



Noise is only one half of the equation. But hey, if you want to consider only the floor and neglect the ceiling, you go right ahead. Don't let the fact that a range has defined values for two ends (by definition) bother you in the least. You clearly have better things to do than comprehend physics. 




x-vision said:


> The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.



Nice job of parroting DPR. : I mean, it's not like you need high DR for sports. It never happens that one team wears black and another wears white, in a stadium that's half in full sun and half in shadow. 

It's too bad that the 6DII doesn't meet your expectations (or is that 'wishes'?). I'm sure Canon knows their target market, and designed the camera to meet the needs/wants of that market. It's also too bad that some people feel the camera should have been designed just for them and wasn't. But that's their (and your) problem, not Canon's.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Or it could be your expectations for the 6D2 do mot match the design plans for the 6D2. In other words, Canon did not get it wrong - you did.



As I said many times, I expect premium performance for the premium price. 

If Canon is expecting me to pay the FF premium without getting a premium performance in return, that's their problem, not mine.


----------



## x-vision (Aug 10, 2017)

Talys said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, _theoretical_ dynamic range scales the exact same way too.
> ...



Hmm, I don't get it. You to fully agree with me ... after you've slammed my statement as ridiculous ??



> To increase the theoretical dynamic range of a camera's ability to record, you need to mess with the analog to digital converter and that isn't a trivial exercise.



That's not _theoretical_ DR. What you are saying is implementation-specific.
Let's not confuse theory with implementation.

Neuro's original argument was that DR doesn't scale with sensor size - when in fact it does. 
That's the theory and it's correct. 

In practice, Canon's off-chip ADC implementation makes the theory look wrong. 
But if you look at Sony sensors, FF sensors generally have better DR than crop sensors - in line with the theory. 

But Canon apologists live in alternate reality, where DR is not correlated to sensor size. 
Keep the faith, guys. LOL


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> If Canon is expecting me to pay the FF premium without getting a premium performance in return, that's their problem, not mine.



Lol. So you think Canon gives a damn whether or not you personally buy a 6DII? Talk about living in an alternate reality. LOL. *LOL.* *LOL.*


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon is expecting me to pay the FF premium without getting a premium performance in return, that's their problem, not mine.
> ...


Cut the guy some slack. I bought the 6D MKII overall its a big step-up from the 6D (which was hugely underrated) but I'm also human. Improved DR enabling shadow recovery with minimal noise would have been possible for Canon to do and STILL separate the performance of the 5D MKIV and I doubt anyone who has bought the 6D MKII would disagree. Yes Canon knows its market, has budgets to live within and margins it wants to make but given the advances in sensor design and the pace of that change not moving the performance on from the 6D is odd and regardless of what we think will inhibit some potential customers from buying it. 

All that said 95% of the time it will not matter at all but equally I know times when it will


----------



## bedford (Aug 10, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Since the 5DIV was released, Canon has not magically created a sensor of the 6D2 in the last 9months. The 6D2 sensor and 5DIV sensor will have been in development and production in parallel -if they used the 5DIV sensor in the 6D2 all that development for the 6D2 would have been binned and the price of the 6D2 will have had to cover those costs - plus the costs of redesigning the internals of the 6D2 for the change in direction.



Interesting point. Perhaps the 6D development process was even finished before the process for the 5D IV. Lower goals --> shorter project time --> lower costs. Then the reason for the lower DR would more have to do with controlling/accounting at Canon than production cost or technology.

Oliver


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.
> ...


This is the narrative DPR was spreading during their D5 review days. Same time they were very hard on 7d2. D5 is a $6000 camera. So, it is ok for $6000 camera to be worse than crop counter part even though 1dx2 does exceptionally well at both ends. Basically specialized camera with worse DR than canon crop and worse live view implementation than few years old rebel.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> But Canon apologists live in alternate reality, where DR is not correlated to sensor size.
> Keep the faith, guys. LOL



Yes, they sure do have a lot of convoluted reasoning for favoring continued mediocrity.
It's quite amusing. ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > But Canon apologists live in alternate reality, where DR is not correlated to sensor size.
> ...



My 1DX MkII's have better DR than either the Nikon D5 or Sony A9, remind me again how, exactly, I am in denial?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...


Jeez... It's not all about the _DR_ all the time. LOL
Canon is steeped in mediocrity all across the board!


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 10, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > bedford said:
> ...



It does impact the impression of RAW latitude which is what DR is all about - and was a key negative of the 5DS/R according to DPR review. Here's what DPR themselves following complaints highlighted under their Dynamic RAW test which runs over 2 web pages (as we wait)... _"Note: Comparisons are slightly complicated by the aggressive tone curve ACR is applying to the 5DS R files that are crushing its blacks, and potentially decreasing the levels of visible noise by making them darker. We expect a later version of ACR to fix this, at which point we will re-process and revisit these results."_


----------



## reef58 (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I think that is absurd. I think the frustration arises from there not being one perfect camera for me made by anyone. I will take Canon's warts for now, but have considered Sony for landscape. Canon just get bashed more because they are king of the hill. They do a lot of things well, but the sensor development on the 6d2 was not one of those things. 5d4 good sensor, 1dx2 good sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 10, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



If the RAW data was stored the same way in the different RAW file protocols then a 'same development' comparison might have a small amount of value. The trouble is the RAW information is stored very differently inside the various protocols.

Nikon RAW files have a fixed black point. Canon RAW files do not have a fixed black point, using a blacks crushing tone curve is precisely what not to do to a floating black point file. The first thing you have to do is establish a suitable black point, all this means is raising the blacks slider until a suitable area of the image is black.

This is so fundamental to getting the best out of the RAW files I can't believe anybody puts any weight on the bullsh!t DPReview 'comparisons', they are not comparisons by any reasonable measure of the word.

Flip the methodology, set the Canon black point to where it should be and dial in an entirely arbitrary value on the black slider for any Nikon RAW file then compare, is that a comparison of any value?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 10, 2017)

stevelee said:


> 75-300mm . . . I've shot some rather clear pictures of the full moon with is, so I trust I'll get some passable eclipse pictures with my T3i on the 21st is the weather cooperates. 480mm equivalent is not bad, assuming that the moon will be about the same size in the daytime as it was when I shot it at night.



So today my eclipse filter came in the mail. It's rated for 18 stops, or something ridiculous like that. When held up to the light, it looks opaque. The sun has been popping in and out today. During a short period of sunlight, I tried taking its picture through the filter. I'm glad I tried practicing rather than waiting for the eclipse to try the filter. Focusing is a challenge, trying to see the dim image on the screen in bright sunlight. I'm glad to have the T3i's flippy screen and am more convinced that I will be glad to have one on the 6D2. I guess I need a black cloth to put over my head and the screen during the partial phases of the eclipse, though having the horns of the moon's shadow to focus on should help. The 480 equivalent gives a small image, but I might not want it a lot bigger when I'm photographing corona. I guess I should crank up screen brightness, too. I'm using features that I don't normally use enough to remember where they are, or even that they do exist.


----------



## bclaff (Aug 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ...Nikon RAW files have a fixed black point. Canon RAW files do not have a fixed black point, using a blacks crushing tone curve is precisely what not to do to a floating black point file. ...


Perhaps you can clarify this.
I've never seen a Canon raw file with a non-integral BlackLevel (black point).
There's four values, one for each osition in the Color Filter Array (CFA); but they are always integers.
Older Nikon cameras used to always use 0 but this is no longer true.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 10, 2017)

x-vision said:


> The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.



Did DPR say that about the 7D, 7D2, and 1DX too? Or does that only apply for high-specialized _Nikon_ sports cameras?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2017)

bclaff said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...Nikon RAW files have a fixed black point. Canon RAW files do not have a fixed black point, using a blacks crushing tone curve is precisely what not to do to a floating black point file. ...
> ...



Probably not to your satisfaction, and I certainly can't talk to your level of understanding. I can point you to some links and add that I find Canon files to be far more sensitive to black slider input than anything else I have processed, and I do process a variety of camera outputs for printing.

Now if I have misspoken on a technical term I apologize in advance, but like I say, whatever the reason, I have always found Canon files to respond better once the black levels slider is moved. That might be an incomplete work around for a far deeper technical difference, or it might not, but it makes the image output better so call it what you will. 

http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/floating-point-dcraw.html
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12280

If you find those old flawed and irrelevant,

I certainly trust Roger Clarks understanding of the underlying physics and maths.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/canon.raw.processing1/


----------



## bclaff (Aug 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


OK. So perhaps you erred in offering your rationale for what you observed. 
I can certainly see how different sensors could respond differently to changes in black level during post processing.
This has nothing to do with the BlackLevel in the raw data.
The most likely technical explanation is that the Photon Transfer Curve (PTC) slopes are different in that region so moving a slider will have more/less effect depending on that slope.


----------



## Talys (Aug 11, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...



Omg. How do I put this in easy words?

Bigger sensor does not mean more DR at base ISO. 

Bigger sensor DOES mean less noise at higher ISO. So at higher ISO, you have less noise, meaning photos shot at high ISO will take a smaller hit. But who shoots ISO 3200 for high DR? Still, 6DII at ISO 3200 will have less noise than 80D, and therefore, the DR will suffer less as ISO goes up. 

There are plenty of small sensors (even smartphone sized) that have excellent DR at base ISO. So going from a Galaxy S8 or iPhone 6S to some point and shoot, or even a $150 APSC will probably be a DR downgrade at base ISO, even though the sensor is bigger. But even versus cheap APSC, the smartphone will have crappy low light performance. 

Regarding premium product expectations: the 6DII is not a premium FF camera. It is an entry level FF camera, that is barely more expensive than top-end APSCs, and 40% less than Canon's premium FF (5DIV).


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2017)

bclaff said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



So in your terminology what does this statement mean _"Nikon's raw files have no bias (no offset). Canon's do,"_? Because Roger Clark made it about Canon cameras as recent as the 6D.

Further, I base my understanding (though complete technical lack thereof) on this statement and example of post processing


> "Raw image data from Canon's cameras have more dynamic range than what people commonly show on the internet. Canon raw data needs to be processed differently than Nikon raw files. Nikon's raw files have no bias (no offset). Canon's do, so that one can do proper statistics at the low end. Thus, to show proper dynamic range the offsets need to be properly managed."


Combined with my personal experience of using RAW files from many cameras his comments 100% align with my personal observations.

Also would you agree that my basic point is valid? Using a "blacks crushing tone curve" will give an entirely distorted impression of a cameras capabilities if said camera file was particularly sensitive to a boosted blacks level slider?


----------



## bclaff (Aug 11, 2017)

Talys said:


> ...
> 
> Bigger sensor does not mean more DR at base ISO.
> 
> ...


This depends on the context of what is meant by "DR".
If you're talking DR that has been normalized to a consistent print size and viewing distance, like Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos or Landscape Score like at DxOMark then yes a larger sensor area will produce a higher DR (in general).
If you're talking about at the pixel level, well, that's "apples to oranges" and all bets are off.


----------



## daphins (Aug 11, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Funny! I am having a similar experience. I'm taking a trip to NZ ina. Fee months, and a huge goal of mine is to take photographs of their cave glow worms. I've been waiting for the mkii to come out for awhile. I've been practicing in my basement at night trying to focus on LED's from our smoke alarm. Focusing on near dark is HARD. DPAF is useless, have to go manual and work to get it even visible. It's easy to be so out of focus that you don't even see the LED
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bclaff (Aug 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


This statement was once true but is now outdated (was outdated at the time Roger wrote that.)
The following Nikon cameras, at a minimum, no longer have a Black Level of zero:
D3300, D5, D500, D5300, D5500, D7200, D750, D7500, D810, D810A.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2017)

bclaff said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



So most modern RAW files are sensitive to where the black slider is? So in your estimation how relevant is a comparison between RAW files that simply have an exposure slider change?

And again, would you agree that my basic point is valid? Using a "blacks crushing tone curve" will give an entirely distorted impression of a cameras capabilities if said camera file was particularly sensitive to a boosted blacks level slider?


----------



## bclaff (Aug 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I think it's circular to say that a sensor is "sensitive" to boosting black based on how the result appears to you.
You haven't proven any cause and effect.

That said. This is one of the primary reasons I only do measurements on raw data (prior to any tone curve).


----------



## testthewest (Aug 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > I evade the biggest bs there is, if I can. That's true.
> ...



These threads are linked on the main page for discussing the gear and topics presented there. That's what I do. If you can't take someone being critical about Canons offereing, how about *YOU* just stop reading here? Make your own echo chamber, if you really can't take it. Just put your 21K posts on rotation on your screen, perhaps then your fine.
And wheter someone is missed or not, is not yours to decide btw. I think alot of readers here could live without your input as well.


----------



## BillB (Aug 11, 2017)

bclaff said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Right you are. But apples to oranges discussions are what keep the posts coming. At this point, DR means pretty much whatever the poster wants it to mean. Signal to noise ratio is independent of sensor size. Apparent noise in a print of a given size (viewed at a given distance) is related to sensor size, at least in most cases. How significant is all this? Don't even ask. It would spoil the fun, and might reduce the level of those all important clicks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2017)

BillB said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



+1

I agree that a larger sensor will have less noise and therefore more DR, all else being equal. But when is all else equal? Outside comparing a cropped image to an uncropped image from the same sensor, pretty much never.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 11, 2017)

Part of the issue is the 'Limited" testing reviewers do. To get an accurate performance reading on the 6D MKII or any other camera testing one is unrealistic. We tested 10 Sony F55 cameras and found variances that affected dynamic range and for certain visual effects shots apparently that matters. 
Senscore tested one each the Canon 5DS and the 5DSr the only difference should have been resolution but they rated the dynamic range greater on the 5DSr. Ive been told on this forum that its not an issue but I challenge that statement because batch testing cameras from some pretty serious high end manufacturers we have seen the opposite i.e. variances. 

Our test equipment and testing conditions replicate major manufacturers as does the software we use to interpret results. So many components can affect the final output and regardless of what we think human interpretation that I believe batch testing is the only true measure and the only source regularly on here that does that is lens rentals.


----------



## bclaff (Aug 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...


In choosing a camera for a purpose the apples to apples part (all things being equal) is the final print size and viewing distance.
This is why for a technical test you want results that are appropriately normalized such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos.
(I don't consider DxOMark properly normalized, but that's a different rat-hole  )


----------



## Hflm (Aug 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



Less "apparent" noise, in my opinion. The shot noise increases (same f-stop, shutter speed, ...).
"Thus, as the signal grows, the photon shot noise also grows, but more slowly; and the signal-to-noise ratio increases as the square root of the number of photons collected. The higher the illumination, the less apparent the shot noise; the lower the illumination, the more apparent it is."
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/#shotnoise


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Hflm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



yes,
and NR software has become very good are mitigating the appearance of that random noise so that even small sensors at hi iso can clean-up surprisingly well to produce an acceptable or at least usable image.

Pattern noise... not easy to improve the look of that w-o using post work to effect noise frame subtraction.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 14, 2017)

Any other 6D MKII users out there that have now passed their results through LR / PS CC? 

We need more practical in the field results not lab tests.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 14, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Any other 6D MKII users out there that have now passed their results through LR / PS CC?
> 
> We need more practical in the field results not lab tests.



I shot a wedding on Friday il post some images later tonight.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Any other 6D MKII users out there that have now passed their results through LR / PS CC?
> 
> We need more practical in the field results not lab tests.



I could help, but I don't want to let the cat out of the bag 

First shot is at ISO1250.....

Second shot is at ISO102400, and the lightsouce is moonlight through the trees!


----------



## Ryananthony (Aug 14, 2017)

Don, What were the shutter speeds/ apertures of those two shots?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> Don, What were the shutter speeds/ apertures of those two shots?



Both shots were with a 6D2 and a 70-200F4 IS. I have not done AFMA on the lens yet, and I am now fairly sure that I should.

The first shot is 1/50th of a second at F5.6, lens at 180mm
The second shot is 1/60th of a second at F4.0, lens at 185mm


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

mppix said:


> I don't think your approach is viable for many from a financial and practical standpoint,



True. it certainly isn't! 
not many can have 5 fairly well equipped major systems to choose from so when I'm comparing them and presenting information it's coming from a source few individuals can match.




> so I doubt its good advice for anyone except most extreme cases needing low iso latitude. However, those people tend to know their stuff and shoot film



I only shoot film for fun these days.
And frankly, it's not that much fun any more. LOL




> For what it is worth, my 5DIV has more shadow detail than what I need at virtually any ISO. I even go so far to say that if low ISO DR is regularly a problem, a good photo workshop on lighting is a better investment than a new body.



That's just not practical for most of the outdoor world tho. That's why better image capture tech is used in those conditions.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

mppix said:


> Whether you are a reasonable source depends whether your can take pictures.
> I (we) surely don't need advice about a next car purchase from a guy with Ferrari that cant drive and has the need to brag in an Internet forum about it.
> Frankly, statements like "film is little fun" (u kidding?) and "5D4 is impractical for the outdoor world" (seriously?) don't gain street credits nor suggest any skills.



HAHA! 
I've shot film since the 70s.. I've had enough. I'm not that patient any more and, frankly, have you seen what you can do with digital?!? It's amazing! 

I did not say the 5d4 was impractical for the outdoor world. It's the most practical camera I think Canon's ever made. FWIW.
LIGHTING is impractical for the outdoor world. LOL


----------



## Aglet (Aug 17, 2017)

mppix said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > LIGHTING is impractical for the outdoor world.
> ...



you must be thinkin' small or you have a _huge_ lighting budget 

let's see you light the shadow-side of a mountain range so it looks natural across 3 miles of view


----------



## Talys (Aug 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> mppix said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



There is a way to light up a mountain range, by the way; wait for the sun to move  There are a lot of shots where you just have to take it at a different time of day, under different conditions, or in a different season to get the desired shot.

But jest aside, there are _lots_ of outdoor shots that aren't landscapes or vista where lighting can be the difference between something that looks like professional photography, and something that looks like a cell phone pic. Strobes, softboxes, beauty dishes are all key to overpowering natural lighting and getting the shot you need when you need it. It's a lot of experience, and if I'm honest, something that I'm not very good at -- because I rarely do those shots. But whether it's a person, hummingbird, or flower, lighting can definitely help a lot of shots.

I remember my wife thinking I that I had lost it when I dragged out softboxes, light stands, strobes and power into the back yard, just to get some photos of cherry blossoms the first year we moved into our home


----------



## Aglet (Aug 17, 2017)

mppix said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > mppix said:
> ...



well, "making it" would likely require an airburst from a small nuke with a suitably robust set of barn doors. LOL
sadly, no "modelling-mode" for setting up.



> If you can't, you don't get the same IQ. There are a series of techniques available but a 1/2 stop (or even more) base DR difference hardly saves the day. ..or just show us that we are wrong and back up your words with images!



HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4. 
Yes, there's not a big difference between that camera and the ABCs I use for landscape but what about your lesser brethren shooting things like 5d2/3 or 6d2/3 or older crop?...
There are definite advantages to having every bit of noise-free DR possible in tough situations. more is _always_ better here.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4.
> Yes, there's not a big difference between that camera and the ABCs I use for landscape but what about your lesser brethren shooting things like 5d2/3 or 6d2/3 or older crop?...
> There are definite advantages to having every bit of noise-free DR possible in tough situations. more is _always_ better here.



And at the time they bought their 5D2/3, what FT alternatives were available? Oh, yeah those same predecessors to the E-M1 mkII that you way were so bad. So instead of switching systems to the model you claim is superior it would make sense to get the 5D4.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 17, 2017)

Talys said:


> I remember my wife thinking I that I had lost it when I dragged out softboxes, light stands, strobes and power into the back yard, just to get some photos of cherry blossoms the first year we moved into our home



Yes, those unfamiliar often think we're nuts when we pull out lighting gear on a sunny day... until they see the difference. 
I actually carry a small reflector with me in my daily backpack! It's just a piece of white coroplast I cut out which doubles as a stiffener for one of the compartments but also gets plenty of use directing ambient light to fill shadows when I'm taking close-ups or macro shots of stuff as part of my day-job. It's also used as a shade to block unwanted reflections in similar situations.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4.
> ...



I had then, still have now, a pile of high end Nikon and Pentax gear. 
I only added MFT in the last few yrs as an alternative to Fuji and fixed-lens compacts I sometimes carry when traveling light.
MFT became _good_ when the EM5 came out.

- compare them here... any surprises? 

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M5

edit:
I'm done playing with Canon for now; overpriced for performance. Can't really see going back to buying them unless they make something seriously compelling but I doubt they ever would. They don't lead any more, their innovations are all baby-steps.
I like the variety of features other mfrs include. They're fun and useful and they're on cameras that can deliver great IQ.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



Oh look, the E-M5 doesn't go down below 200. How can you possibly consider it to be a 'good' camera?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 18, 2017)

mppix said:


> ..you are bashing a system on a single feature...



no, not at all. You haven't been reading my posts thoroughly enough.
I recommend you do. 

DR is great to have, the more the merrier, especially in daylight landscape and other harshly lit scenes.
I bash Canon for just making generally noisy images, especially when it's pattern noise.
I also bash them for being kind of pricey considering the performance level they provide.
And for being less innovative than the competition.
Hmmm.. let's see... what else?.... Boring?.. 




> However, extreme situations require extremely skilled and experienced photographers to even get reasonably good pictures (have you tried 11mm, f1.0, or ISO 51,000+ ?).



nope, no need for such a lens.
But if you lent me one, preferably in Nikon or Pentax mount, I'll show you how to use it.
I'm pretty good at keepin my feet out of the picture. 




> A 5D4 can raise them but the picture is (almost certainly) still rubbish.



really?... then maybe it's not as good as I thot it was.
Glad I didn't buy one.




> You are simply buying into the manufacturers' talk that you need the latest and greatest to get a good picture.



Well, the general camera-buying populace is likely to fit that claim...



> Many choose Canon because they have a track record of, arguably conservative, innovation that makes our lives easier.



Having used most major systems I think that is subjective. But they are comfortable and easy to use as I've often stated.
Some of their shortcomings, however, made _my_ life miserable until I found a solution(s).




> ...please stop making misleading claims that Canon systems aren't up to snuff in particular lining them up vs. everybody else.



So you'd like me to not compare your favorite marquee against the competition?...
Well, you asked nicely. But, alas, I cannot abide.

Not-comparing is something you do to maintain marital harmony by not fostering insecurities in your partner.
Cameras are _tools_ and they're gonna get compared! ;D
And there's nothing misleading about my claims. They're backed up with sound data and perspective.




> Canon systems will continue to produce tons of award winning pictures.



Or, many award winning photos will be made by people (despite) using Canon cameras.




> ..its a given that Canon will continue to provide us with better cameras, lenses, and accessories in the time to come.



I've learned that I'd rather use the best tool I can get my hands on NOW.
If it stops working then I'll get the best one available at that time.


Oh my, did you bond with Canon products in some sort of ceremony? ???


OK, so that was fodder for some humor, IMO. 

You have the 5d4. You made a good choice. You're better equipped to capture more challenging images than most people and if you have the knowledge and experience to push it to its limits it's not holding you back in any meaningful way from the competitor's tools.
I'm glad Canon has finally produced at least a few very good IQ bodies that those faithful to the system can choose if they like and can afford them.
I hope they extend that improved IQ capability across their entire line so more people can experience the difference a (n ALL-around) great imaging tool makes over one that's just good or mediocre. But as we've seen with the 6d2, they're not going to do so just yet.

But that won't stop me or others from comparing these photographic tools every time a new one comes out.
Cuz that's how people _learn_ stuff.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2017)

Aglet said:


> And there's nothing misleading about my claims. They're backed up with sound data and perspective.



You mean like the pattern noise in the 5D vs EM1 that you showed a couple of days ago where your 'sound data' was that it was no better but 'it will probably cleanup better'? 

Like how you claimed the MFT produced superior images to any Canon model up to 5DIV/1Dx then when challenged you backed off and made the more reasonable statement that the functionality of the MFT overrode any shortcomings in mage quality? 

I have no problems with you comparing the models, but I think you overstate your claims to get attention.


----------



## BillB (Aug 18, 2017)

Aglet said:


> mppix said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



For quite a while now, you have been bashing the Canon 5D2, 5D3 and 6D, and ridiculing the people who continue to use them. During this period, you have spent a fair amount of money buying new cameras, and recently got the new MFT Olympus, which you say has IQ almost as good as, or perhaps comparable to, the Canon's you have continually bashed. At the same time, Canon buyers that you ridicule, without needing to spend any money on new cameras, have continued to use the cameras that you bash, cameras with IQ comparable to, or perhaps slightly better than your new Olympus MFT. If the IQ is acceptable when you shoot with your Olympus, why wasn't it acceptable when they shot with their Canons?

You say that you are enjoying your photographic journey, and I wish you well in that journey. I also hope that you can see the humor in the current situation. All of us camera geeks are at least a little ridiculous.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 18, 2017)

This thread is frankly a snore fest.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 18, 2017)

tomscott said:


> This thread is frankly a snore fest.



I disagree.....

The thread is very educational. I have learned that I can replace my Canon system with four other systems.... I have learned that if you compare Olympus's 2017 flagship camera against a ten year old Canon mid-range camera, that the 2017 flagship is ahead in some areas.... and most important of all, I have learned that the 6D2 is the worst camera ever built and has extreme fixed pattern noise!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ...extreme fixed pattern noise



Relax, Don. That's just your cat purring loudly.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is frankly a snore fest.
> ...



LOL! The colors seem to be awful too. I can help you recycling your camera if you'd like.


----------

