# Hands on Field Test of the Canon EOS 6D Mark II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 1, 2017)

```
The folks at The Camera Store in Calgary, Canada have completed their hands-on field test of the brand new Canon EOS 6D Mark II.</p>
<p><strong>Description:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The original Canon 6D was the entry to full-frame shooting for many photographers, but it’s been getting a little long in the tooth. The new version brings a number of features from the excellent 80D, along with a controversial new sensor. Is the 6D series still a great entry point into full frame? Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake went to shoot BTS of a commercial film shoot to find out!</p>

<p>Special thanks to DDG (www.ddg.tv) John Cameron (www.metaproductions.ca), and Dave Patrick at Jet1</p></blockquote>
<p>I generally think these guys are about the most honest reviewers out there and they have come away feeling the EOS 6D Mark II is a bit of a mixed bag. The feature set, usability and low light performance are to be commended, but the lack of 4K video and the lack of dynamic range improvement seem to be weighing heavily on this camera.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
<div style="font-size:0px;height:0px;line-height:0px;margin:0;padding:0;clear:both"></div>
```


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 1, 2017)

A disappointment in several respects. Low light performance is good, but DR is behind the curve and no better than a Rebel Camera. I'm not a video guy, but the reviewer was sorely disappointed in the 6D2 video performance. Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 1, 2017)

Chris is a great reviewer and clearly passionate. But its clear he is disappointed and expects disappointment from Canon. 

He still sees the positives but is not afraid to point out the negatives.

Its obvious that in every review since the original 6D he has been disappointed with canon products apart from the original 6D and the 80D.

I decided to watch most of the canon DSLR reviews of the last 5 year and a few things stand out. Lack of innovation, refusing to compete, low DR, amazing handling, familiar, nothing revolutionary, solid dependable cameras but not pushing the envelope, amazing video AF but engineered softness and poor frame rates.

Ok the DR of the 6DMKII at 100 ISO isnt the best but at this price point the 80D and XXXDs outperforming it is a bummer when the sensor is so much bigger and you expect quality. Im not a 100 shooter most of my work is action and low light but must be disappointing for the landscapers who bought the original 6D and would be looking at this as an upgrade because lets be fair if your not a 6D owner im not sure who would buy this camera. Its made itself niche instead of the obvious entry level product.

Canon Giveth and Canon Taketh Away. 

Its a strange time to be a Canon fan some cameras knocking it out the park like the 5DMKIV and 80D others on the borderline 7DMKII and others simply head scratching 6DMKII.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 1, 2017)

Chris and Jordan give honest, straightforward reviews. Takeaways: 

Improved AF, low-light, resolution, handling and disappointing dynamic range. No 4K, no headphone jack, and lower bit-rate 1080p than the original 6D. Jordan's words on video are "Artificial handicapping."


----------



## stevelee (Aug 1, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.



You say that like it is something bad. I take really nice pictures with my old T3i. Perhaps I don't really need to upgrade at all. I started to buy an 80D but decided to wait for the 6D II.

When I travel I hardly feel limited by the G7X II, and haven't wished I had more gear along. When I was young I was rather serious about photography, and it got in my way on trips. They were more about taking pictures than doing and experiencing things. So I went about a decade leaving cameras at home. I traveled on four continents and got used to not lugging equipment around and mor importantly not being preoccupied. 

So my DSLR choice comes down to what features I need for very different sorts of photography. So I look at what I do now and consider the limitations I would like to get beyond if I decide on purchasing more stuff. Until recently that involved buying lenses. Since my best ones are EF, I can go FF without losing anything, thou I realize their roles will change.


----------



## woodman411 (Aug 1, 2017)

Chris Nicols reviews are not very in-depth, compare his reviews to Bryan Carnathan (the-digital-picture.com) and Dustin Abbott. In fact, some of Chris' information is incorrect - for example, he mentions benefitting from anti-flicker under large venues (warehouses, stadiums, etc), implying the only benefit of anti-flicker is under sodium vapor. He does mention fluorescents, but that's only to point out the mixed lighting. If he knew anti-flicker actually benefits under fluorescents, he would have mentioned under *almost any indoor lighting* one could benefit from anti-flicker, not just large venues. That's kinda important. And he doesn't even mention anti-flicker in his 5d4 review.


----------



## deadwrong (Aug 1, 2017)

UGH! Ok that was the final nail on the coffin. NOT buying this camera.

This is terrible Canon WTF.


----------



## AdamBotond (Aug 1, 2017)

transpo1 said:
 

> Jordan's words on video are "Artificial handicapping."


This is something that Canon has taken to a new level over the years. 5 years ago, the original 6D was considered to have one of the best sensor in the Canon lineup with good DR. Since then, Canon has introduced their on chip ADC, improving IQ at low iso in various models. Yet, they refused to use this tech in the successor, so they just turned a strength to a weakness in terms of DR. You want more DR? Go for 5Ds(R) or 5D IV. This is what you call artifical handicapping. Much like the 1/4000 shutter, the 1/180 flash sync, etc. Not too elegant way to push buyers towards 5D IV (or 5Ds/R).


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 1, 2017)

woodman411 said:


> Chris Nicols reviews are not very in-depth, compare his reviews to Bryan Carnathan (the-digital-picture.com) and Dustin Abbott. In fact, some of Chris' information is incorrect - for example, he mentions benefitting from anti-flicker under large venues (warehouses, stadiums, etc), implying the only benefit of anti-flicker is under sodium vapor. He does mention fluorescents, but that's only to point out the mixed lighting. If he knew anti-flicker actually benefits under fluorescents, he would have mentioned under *almost any indoor lighting* one could benefit from anti-flicker, not just large venues. That's kinda important. And he doesn't even mention anti-flicker in his 5d4 review.



For goodness' sake. Do you really think people would draw that nitpicking inference? Yet you turn it into a comment that Chris gives false information. 

'The 7D2 AF is good enough to photograph horses' 
'Oh, does that mean I can't photograph birds'.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.



It IS a FF Rebel.... This is the entry level FF camera....


----------



## Chris_BC (Aug 1, 2017)

I would say this convinces me more than ever that Canon has too many camera models. At least because they appear to have a strong desire to differentiate them for various reasons, such that certain models get certain handicaps. Presumably they opted to hamstring the 6D II in some ways so as not to cannibalize 5D IV sales. I'm a 5DsR owner, so I hope this worse than usual choice results in them learning a lesson for the II version there, and in general.


----------



## woodman411 (Aug 1, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> woodman411 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris Nicols reviews are not very in-depth, compare his reviews to Bryan Carnathan (the-digital-picture.com) and Dustin Abbott. In fact, some of Chris' information is incorrect - for example, he mentions benefitting from anti-flicker under large venues (warehouses, stadiums, etc), implying the only benefit of anti-flicker is under sodium vapor. He does mention fluorescents, but that's only to point out the mixed lighting. If he knew anti-flicker actually benefits under fluorescents, he would have mentioned under *almost any indoor lighting* one could benefit from anti-flicker, not just large venues. That's kinda important. And he doesn't even mention anti-flicker in his 5d4 review.
> ...



If you didn't know anything about anti-flicker, and you saw Chris' 5d4 and 6d2 review, what would you think of that feature? I would think a) it's not that important since he doesn't even mention it in the 5d4 review, and b) the only benefits are in a large venue. In reality, anti-flicker is a significant feature, and is used in almost any indoor shots. So in this case, yes, it is false information. But my point isn't to nitpick Chris's review - it was just an example to the lack of depth. Compare his information of anti-flicker to Bryan Carnthan, just one example.


----------



## JoSto (Aug 1, 2017)

If one doesn't do video, the 6d2 remains a very strong camera. I shoot Canon for many years now and I never felt limited with Cameras that do "just" 12 Stops of DR. 

On the other hand I have a very serious problem when I get the feeling that the camera was limited or "crippled" by design. I felt this so strong when i owned a 60D. Even when I don't need that feature I cant stand the feeling to be limited by purpose. I now have a 7d2 and bought a used 1dx just weeks ago. They doesn't have that much DR, i knew that when I bought both cameras, but I just dont care. 

The 1dx has just 18mpix, just 11.9EV DR and a 6 year old focus/image sensor but the thing I love most are the many settings, buttons, tweakable options and the feeling not being limited by a tool.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 1, 2017)

Personally, I was hoping to buy one of these to build a light-weight travel kit around. Waiting for more reviews before I decide but so far things don't seem to be going in the right direction. 

Generally speaking, when Canon's designers intentionally nerf their product releases it's in the area of features that require annoying work-arounds but don't significantly lower the quality of the final product. (ie. dual cards, MJPEG, intervalometer, etc.) At this price point I don't have a problem with Canon protecting their pro lines. I'm generally willing to pay more for convenience. In this case I'm not sure it's just a feature set.

If Canon had to choose between excellent low light performance and file malleability then I suppose that's something I may not like but would accept. The majority of users would probably get more benefit from the higher ISO's especially if they are using slow glass. 

However, If they intentionally didn't use the best sensor tech they had available that's a different thing entirely and in my opinion would be very troubling. 

I generally expose my images properly and I don't need to do three stop shadow lifts but if I can't change mid tones a couple of stops to get the tone curve I want then the camera is a non-starter for me. The samples I've seen so far indicate that might be a problem. BTDT and I'm not going back now that there are Canon cameras with excellent sensors. I shouldn't have to go to APSC to get a decent travel camera. I own a 1DX2 and a 7D2 so I don't want to buy a 5D4 just for this.

I understand that my needs/problems are mine but I can't be the only one that's looking for a high quality lightweight full frame from Canon.


----------



## Skywise (Aug 1, 2017)

Disappointing for me - I fully understand nerfing the product to protect the higher priced products and it's not a stopper for me as a "prosumer hobbyist". I can live without the dual cards and while the lack of 4k was disappointing but the other features were good enough coming from a 6D (better AF, better ISO, DPAF and built in IS for video) that it looked like a reasonable upgrade.

But if they've killed the bandwidth on the 1080 and the DR is WORSE than the 6D - two things which directly impact IQ and, let's face facts, for all the features were talking about IQ is the entire point. I'm not THAT good of a photographer and frequently try to correct my mistakes in LR in RAW (I've done some fantastic saves with that too)

Why should I upgrade? Why would an APS-C shooter migrate from the 80d?!

I'm looking at the 5DIV now but the 4k there isn't supposedly that great either and I don't need all the other features of it for an extra $1k.

So I guess I'm in a holding position for the next 5 years...


----------



## docsmith (Aug 1, 2017)

Ok...not to disparage the Camera Store, as I really do like their reviews, but they are tech guys and love new stuff. They put an emphasis on bells and whistles that might only be used by a few and de-emphasize common things that will be used by all.

I find it mildly disappointing that the 6DII did not receive a sensor upgrade. But there are real world factors that come into play in decisions like this that are beyond intentional nerfing a product. Such as cost and availability of the new sensors. Could be that the new sensor line is projected to be maxed out or is significantly more expensive so Canon turned to the old sensor line. 

Are we really going to get too bent out of shape? The original 6D sensor has been claimed to be better than the 5DIII sensor (which I still shoot). In 6 months this camera will be available for $1,500-$1,600, half that of the 5DIV. At a point, it isn't "nerfing" it is building a camera to hit a certain market at a certain price point. You can't put all high end materials into your entry level product. Then it wouldn't be entry level.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 1, 2017)

Skywise said:


> But if they've killed the bandwidth on the 1080 and the DR is WORSE than the 6D
> Why should I upgrade? Why would an APS-C shooter migrate from the 80d?!



The DR is reputedly worse at 200 and below only. If you don't need the full DR that others offer then you are more disappointed by the idea than any limitations on your photography.

The 80D may in theory have more DR at base ISO but you are also looking at the fact the quality of pixels on a FF sensor is better so it depends on how much you crop.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 1, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Ok...not to disparage the Camera Store, as I really do like their reviews, but they are tech guys and love new stuff. They put an emphasis on bells and whistles that might only be used by a few and de-emphasize common things that will be used by all.



I feel the same about them.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Aug 1, 2017)

Everyone harps on the DR. Keep in mind the DR is EXACTLY the same as the older 5D3. A DSLR that has turned out more photos that have won more awards then any other camera ever made. IMHO if you can not take an amazing photo with this camera, its not the camera. Its the photographer. Everyone I know that has purchased this camera so far loves it. As far as all those who are complaining saying they will not buy it.. Its the last nail canon. .blaa blaa. Just cry more. You would never have bought it even if it had 20 stops of DR, Clean images at ISO 51,000 and 4k down sampled from full sensor readout and all priced under $1000 bucks.. Just my thoughts..


----------



## woodman411 (Aug 1, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...not to disparage the Camera Store, as I really do like their reviews, but they are tech guys and love new stuff. They put an emphasis on bells and whistles that might only be used by a few and de-emphasize common things that will be used by all.
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## EduPortas (Aug 1, 2017)

Watched the video the day it came out and thought it misrepresented the actual pictures I saw onscreen.

Most of the indoor shots are absolutely great, thanks in part to blistering sharp 100mm F2 (or 85mm 1.8) used throughout the video.

The video part I can understand. No one expected them to give Canon a pat on the back, since you know, they are a store that sells cameras. Gotta move those potential buyers to 4K cams, new cards, SSDs, new lenses, etc. 

Now the original 6D remains a great camera in by itself. Low light quality images are outstanding. So how much can you really expect Canon to improve an entry model FF and still offer it at the price of the original model? I owned a 6D back in 2014, so yes I can attest to its quality, a true qualitative leap forward for anyone who has shot only APS-C models.

Finally, the issue about the DR. After the TCS review other YT outlets have started to pop up with various examples that show the exact opposite: the camera does have a broad range to correct terribly exposed shots and recuperate the shadows. Here's a clear example by the Fro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Po4Ct8B2Oo


----------



## meho1a (Aug 1, 2017)

docsmith said:


> Ok...not to disparage the Camera Store, as I really do like their reviews, but they are tech guys and love new stuff. They put an emphasis on bells and whistles that might only be used by a few and de-emphasize common things that will be used by all.
> 
> I find it mildly disappointing that the 6DII did not receive a sensor upgrade. But there are real world factors that come into play in decisions like this that are beyond intentional nerfing a product. Such as cost and availability of the new sensors. Could be that the new sensor line is projected to be maxed out or is significantly more expensive so Canon turned to the old sensor line.
> 
> Are we really going to get too bent out of shape? The original 6D sensor has been claimed to be better than the 5DIII sensor (which I still shoot). In 6 months this camera will be available for $1,500-$1,600, half that of the 5DIV. At a point, it isn't "nerfing" it is building a camera to hit a certain market at a certain price point. You can't put all high end materials into your entry level product. Then it wouldn't be entry level.



True. It is entry level or some say FF rebel. However, the price is 2100$. Dont you think that 500$-600$ rebel shouldnt have better image in any categories? 
There is nothing wrong with this camera. It is probably excellent but it is way overpriced for what it offers. For this reason i think canon made a mistake. The price can not be higher that pro level crop camera (7d) or 500$ higher than the same Nikon camera. It is just absurde.
The same thing happened with some lenses like 24 and 28 f2.8 is usm. Good lenses but nothing special for much to high price. Only when the price droped they became interesting. However, we are talking about lenses that dont get obsolete if made correctly. 
Canon 6d ii was in relation to price obsolete before even released.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 1, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.
> ...



Precisely!


----------



## rfdesigner (Aug 1, 2017)

What I was really hoping for was a 5DIII in a 6DII box with a modern era sensor, wait 12 months and hope to pick it up for £1500.

What canon has offered is a 6D mk1 sensor in a rebel.  

How about a 5DIII?.. Point is I do love the image quality of the 6D.. and getting a little more would have been great, but I know the 5DIII is a step back on the 6D (slight banding).. unlike some I'm happy to show grain in images.. but not banding.. so with the 6D I feel I can push shadows, so it gets a bit grainy.. that's part of the feel, but banding means I just can't push it anything like as much (been there with the 30D)

A 5DIV, more than ticks all my boxes (I even get 120fps! woo hoo), and with it being more petit than the 5DIII I'm willing to "lug" the extra few grams.. but grey I'm still looking at £2500 and that's a LOT of money (to me)

So, what I really want is the 5DIV, I'll just have to save for it, the longer I wait the more I'll save and the cheaper it'll get too. or maybe I'll get tempted by the dark-side.

In the mean time the 6D is still a great camera.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 1, 2017)

Chris_BC said:


> I would say this convinces me more than ever that Canon has too many camera models. At least because they appear to have a strong desire to differentiate them for various reasons, such that certain models get certain handicaps. Presumably they opted to hamstring the 6D II in some ways so as not to cannibalize 5D IV sales. I'm a 5DsR owner, so I hope this worse than usual choice results in them learning a lesson for the II version there, and in general.



They have four full frame lines: 5Ds(R) for high resolution; 1Dx2 for ultimate speed/robustness; 5D4 as an all-purpose/middle of the line model; and the 6D2 as an entry-level. That's too many, huh? Which would you cull?

What this seems to boil down to is, people want 5D4 features but they are forgetting the 6D2's much lower price. "Nerfing" (ugh!), "handicapping" and "crippling" (yuck!) just means 'I want more features but I don't want to spend more'. I have very little time for that attitude. ALL models from ALL producers of pretty much every type of product or service offer them at different price points with different qualities to match.

The DR thing is minor, and I'm surprised anyone expected 4K when Canon has been lukewarm with it in the more expensive current models. Even if they'd included 4K, it wouldn't have been better than the 5D4's which all the usual naysayers claimed was unusable for various reasons. So people would STILL have moaned about the 6D2!


----------



## MaxFoto (Aug 1, 2017)

Why do people give a crap what some click baiting, internet hack, have to say about anything?


----------



## the.unkle.george (Aug 1, 2017)

Skywise said:


> So I guess I'm in a holding position for the next 5 years...



Yup. 6D owner here. I see no reason to fork out +$1k for such a minor upgrade, or $2k to move to a 5DIV. If the 5d had IBIS and 4k I'd feel like I was actually getting something for my money. I expected the 6DmII value to at least match the d750 or K1.

I'm directly in the middle of the 'enthusiast' market segment. This is just a toy for me and I want the latest specs. I actually use it occasionally to take pictures. Laugh if you must, but the 'enthusiast' market is not small.
- Pros will just keep using their 5dII until the shutter dies, tape it up and keep going.
- Soccer moms will forever use the lens that came in the kit with their rebel, or their cell phone.

Sony, coming from the PC / Cell phone manufacturing side, understands this.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 1, 2017)

The af point spread is so awful! Practically, it's the same as the 9 point af system of original 6D! And this was supposed to be the main selling point of the 6d2 since it's lagging 5 years behind competition in almost every other aspect.

Keeps me thinking if canon just hired a bunch of incapable drunk engineers at the office and bunch of blind fan boys out of the office lol. It's really funny to see those fan boys defending this crap 6d2 when a 3 year old d750 outperforms it in most department! Yes some d750 have shutter issue and yes, nikon fixes that for free. 

Btw, I bought my first non canon mount lens today. A nikon mount 50 Art. Keeping an eye for a second hard d810/d750. Probably it's a new era for me after being loyal to canon for 7 years and frustrating last 3 years.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 1, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> The af point spread is so awful!



Just for reference, the 6D2 AF point spread is almost identical to the D750; a bit better spread in the vertical direction and a bit worse in the horizontal direction. The way the review presented it was a bit misleading.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 1, 2017)

the.unkle.george said:


> Yup. 6D owner here. I see no reason to fork out +$1k for such a minor upgrade, or $2k to move to a 5DIV. If the 5d had IBIS and 4k I'd feel like I was actually getting something for my money. I expected the 6DmII value to at least match the d750 or K1.



Have you considered that the market for this camera is *not* people upgrading from the 6D to 6D2 but people upgrading from xxD or xxxD?


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 1, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> the.unkle.george said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. 6D owner here. I see no reason to fork out +$1k for such a minor upgrade, or $2k to move to a 5DIV. If the 5d had IBIS and 4k I'd feel like I was actually getting something for my money. I expected the 6DmII value to at least match the d750 or K1.
> ...



Why 6d2 was needed for xxD or xxxD owners to upgrade?! They could very well upgrade to 6d if you want to put it that way! What's the point of this 6d2???!! In which other lame way you need to try to justify this awful mk ii version of a camera? How badly canon needs to poop to get people open their eyes? How far behind canon need to fall before they realize it's late?


----------



## BillB (Aug 1, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > the.unkle.george said:
> ...



Latest rant noted. No need to repeat. Either you are right or Canon is. We shall find out.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 1, 2017)

Looks like this review has sparked a bit more debate; personally, I have to agree with most of what is said in it. Everyone will have different wants and needs obviously, but I can't see the appeal coming from the original 6d, at least not for the cost. It has been said a few times that it is the entry level ff, or the ff revel, which to be fair, is where it sits in the overall line up, its just the cost that seems out of place. I'd think that given the feature list, it would seem better at closer to the 80d cost, yes it's full frame, so there will be a cost premium vs the other rebels, but it is missing the low Dr boost that the other rebel sensors have seen, and has been downgraded in video quality too. 

I'd love to see an in-between model, sitting closer to this price point where the sensor is that of the 5d mk4, with decent 1080 video and the flip screen. As it is, Canon have a fairly big gap here in the line up, at least for my purposes. I had really hoped the 6d was going upmarket as had been reported rather than the small evolution of the line


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2017)

Devils advocate here....

Nobody is going to argue that they don't want more DR, but how significant of a problem is this loss of DR at low ISOs?

If you are shooting action, you are at higher ISOs and it won't matter.....

If it is stationary objects, then you can use base ISO and you will get a bit better DR, but honestly, it is a very narrow range where that extra stop of DR is enough.... most of the time, by the time you realize that you need more DR, you should have already switched to HDR photography.....


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 1, 2017)

BillB said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...




Many of us feel same way and want to rant. 

I went Canon when I went SLR because they were innovative.. first to bring video to an SLR, many other features etc. It was a leader. 

I loved it and invested into their ecosystem and had hoped to work towards full frame, more pro bodies. But I don't make money from it and I can't afford to keep changing glass on each whim, so it's painful watching luke warm release after luke warm release while you see some really good innovation elsewhere. 

Still watching the reviews, but looking more and more like I'll be still waiting.. again.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 2, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Devils advocate here....
> 
> Nobody is going to argue that they don't want more DR, but how significant of a problem is this loss of DR at low ISOs?
> 
> ...



Great point, and for a number of situations, yes, hdr and merged images is going to be better.
Having said that, I've found the 6d lacking just often enough to be limiting, where my friends d750 with the extra 2 or stops has been able to recover much cleaner in the same shot. Tested this the other day and unfortunately the 6d is really very outclassed at the low isos. 
A lot of the time I'm shooting timelapse or with moving objects (clouds, waves etc) and I can't use blending without other problems. Higher iso and the 6d keeps up, but only after about iso 800. So, for my uses, the new 6d isn't a goer, it just doesn't fit the bill for my needs. 

I think the biggest disappointment isn't that it has lower dr than say the d750, but that we know canon can do better, and they don't look to have tried to improve this, over 5 years


----------



## slclick (Aug 2, 2017)

Meanwhile my 5D3 keeps on ticking without one single issue from early adopter times. Most of the time I see most shooters have fine to great bodies already, if you want GAS have glass GAS. It's tens times more fulfilling.


----------



## Gnocchi (Aug 2, 2017)

Interesting comparison of the focus point overlay withe the d750.
also the fro review is worth a watch.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

Interesting, " the D750 ...gives you basic better *everything*". Is he more of a Nikon guy?

Strikes me as more like, "I really like you, you're human and walk well and are a really good person, but ... your face is pretty ugly, so actually you're not worthy of my time". 

I've a reputation for controversial analogies, so maybe I'm off base here. 

Jack


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 2, 2017)

raptor3x said:


> Just for reference, the 6D2 AF point spread is almost identical to the D750; a bit better spread in the vertical direction and a bit worse in the horizontal direction. The way the review presented it was a bit misleading.



It's really interesting to see how many people keep harping on this fake issue after it's been proven to be a fake issue.


----------



## JonB8305 (Aug 2, 2017)

Skywise said:


> Disappointing for me - I fully understand nerfing the product to protect the higher priced products and it's not a stopper for me as a "prosumer hobbyist". I can live without the dual cards and while the lack of 4k was disappointing but the other features were good enough coming from a 6D (better AF, better ISO, DPAF and built in IS for video) that it looked like a reasonable upgrade.
> 
> But if they've killed the bandwidth on the 1080 and the DR is WORSE than the 6D - two things which directly impact IQ and, let's face facts, for all the features were talking about IQ is the entire point. I'm not THAT good of a photographer and frequently try to correct my mistakes in LR in RAW (I've done some fantastic saves with that too)
> 
> ...



+1

I'll just have to keep my 6d mk i until I decide to sell my canon glass, and switch to a company that doesn't egregiously gimp their products. (Some gimping is to be expected, but this is ridiculous)


----------



## BillB (Aug 2, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Just for reference, the 6D2 AF point spread is almost identical to the D750; a bit better spread in the vertical direction and a bit worse in the horizontal direction. The way the review presented it was a bit misleading.
> ...



Oh well, some people never get the memo.


----------



## Billybob (Aug 2, 2017)

snappy604 said:


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



Yes, today Sony and Nikon are vying for the innovation crown. Recent rumors for the D850 release are pretty heady. 45-46MP, a true ISO 50, improved low and high ISO DR, up to 10 fps continuous (not clear if this will be just in 20MP crop-sensor mode), D5 AF, tilty screen, and XQD card slot, and full-frame 4k video. Now, video AF will still pale compared to Canon's, but if true, most of these rumors are true, this will be an amazing camera. Of course this is a whole different category from the 6DMII. What it means though is that Nikon has created enough room below the D850 that it won't have to "nerf" the D750 replacement to create product differentiation. Nikon can release a (D780?) with a 30MP sensor, 8-10FPS, 4k video, dual-card slots and marginally improved sensor (if at all) and still have a far superior camera campared to the 6DMII. 

Yes, Nikon has had quality control problems, and yes, Canon's lens portfolio is a bit better. However, between Nikon's offerings and third party lenses, there is nothing that isn't covered from my perspective. 

Will this cut into Canon's lead? Probably not. The switching costs are simply too high. But since I'm not invested in Canon stock, their lead in market share does me absolutely no good. 

So bye bye Canon. I have a few L lenses in good shape--24-70mm L II, 70-300mm L, 100mm L, 85mm L II, and 100-400mm L II--that are going on the market soon. Selling these lenses should more than cover the purchase of D850 and Nikon 105E lens.


----------



## Frodo (Aug 2, 2017)

I have focused on image quality in the past and the move from a 5DII to a 6D was a step up.

The 5DIII was an extra $1000, so this needs justification when I don't earn a lot from photography.

Yesterday I did a photoshoot at an event. Biggest limitation was focus accuracy, especially when using (moderately) fast primes wide open the central focus point and then recompose (the other points are poor). I think the focus accuracy of the central point is overrated; its okay, but I'd really like functional focusing points at the four points where one third width and height lines intersect.

I do a lot of landscape photography and the 6D is usually fine (although more DR at base ISO would be nice). 

But price is an important consideration if bodies are to be changed every three years or so. Here in NZ, the prices of bodies are (NZD):
- 5D IV $4428
- 5DSR $4149
- 5DS $3739
- 5D III $2974
- 6D II $2828
- 6D $1719

I'm looking to a second FF body. At current pricing the 6DII does not look attractive.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

Billybob said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



This sounds pretty logical. Let us know how it all goes in a year or two.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

@ Frodo You may have camera price issues but you sure have wonderful photographic opportunities in NZ to counter that. Envy. 

Jack


----------



## Frodo (Aug 2, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> @ Frodo You may have camera price issues but you sure have wonderful photographic opportunities in NZ to counter that. Envy.
> 
> Jack



Thanks Jack. yes I like it here. 

Its not just: "do I buy a 6DII or 5DIV or even a D850?" 
I have a discretionary budget for photography and have just invested the equivalent of a 6D body in something completely different.
I've just bought a new Epson P600 printer and lots of paper, ink and framing material. This has already done much more for my photography than a new 6DII would have.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 2, 2017)

Frodo said:


> I have focused on image quality in the past and the move from a 5DII to a 6D was a step up.
> 
> The 5DIII was an extra $1000, so this needs justification when I don't earn a lot from photography.
> 
> ...



Where are you finding those cameras so cheap? Local shop here in Christchurch has them all for about 600-1000 more expensive. The 6dmk2 sitting about 3.3k and the 5dmk4 sitting about 5.6k at cost to 4, the 5d would be getting close to palatable, even without the flip screen


----------



## dsut4392 (Aug 2, 2017)

I think I'm on the record in this forum saying that the IQ of the 6D was 'good enough', and that the only must-haves for me to upgrade to the 6D2 were the tilt flip screen and better AF. _Improved_ DR was on the wish list, but not a must-have. I don't think I contemplated that there would be a downgrade in DR...

On balance, I think the increased 'keepers' due to the improved AF will more than offset the reduced keepers when pushing shadows at base ISO, and the tilt flip screen will still be great for ergonomics (particularly with DPAF).

But psychologically a downgrade in IQ is hard to stomach, and I think will lose or at least delay a lot of upgrades from existing 6D users like myself.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

Frodo said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > @ Frodo You may have camera price issues but you sure have wonderful photographic opportunities in NZ to counter that. Envy.
> ...



Frustrating when finances get in the way. For me it was that way all my life until now with kids gone etc. I used to drool of various collector cars but now it's camera gear. Here in Canada I've gotten really good deals using Canonpricewatch but only after some time has passed. Do you have similar?

Jack


----------



## BillB (Aug 2, 2017)

dsut4392 said:


> I think I'm on the record in this forum saying that the IQ of the 6D was 'good enough', and that the only must-haves for me to upgrade to the 6D2 were the tilt flip screen and better AF. _Improved_ DR was on the wish list, but not a must-have. I don't think I contemplated that there would be a downgrade in DR...
> 
> On balance, I think the increased 'keepers' due to the improved AF will more than offset the reduced keepers when pushing shadows at base ISO, and the tilt flip screen will still be great for ergonomics (particularly with DPAF).
> 
> But psychologically a downgrade in IQ is hard to stomach, and I think will lose or at least delay a lot of upgrades from existing 6D users like myself.



From the curves that I have seen, I doubt that you would have worse results pushing shadows with the 6II than you would with the 6D. There isn't much difference in the curves, which is a huge disappointment to many of us, but that does not make it worse than the 6D. It just that it is not as good as we hoped it would be.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

dsut4392 said:


> I think I'm on the record in this forum saying that the IQ of the 6D was 'good enough', and that the only must-haves for me to upgrade to the 6D2 were the tilt flip screen and better AF. _Improved_ DR was on the wish list, but not a must-have. I don't think I contemplated that there would be a downgrade in DR...
> 
> On balance, I think the increased 'keepers' due to the improved AF will more than offset the reduced keepers when pushing shadows at base ISO, and the tilt flip screen will still be great for ergonomics (particularly with DPAF).
> 
> But psychologically a downgrade in IQ is hard to stomach, and I think will lose or at least delay a lot of upgrades from existing 6D users like myself.



I feel similar. However, it recently registered in my brain that in 4 years I've virtually never even pushed my photos more than 2 stops; mostly never more than 1 stop. When I would be shooting in situations that were awful I'd just consider some alternative or reject the opportunity. 

I'm not knocking folk who feel they need the big push just reminding myself that my style has not been to give DR a high mark in the check-off list. 

Now when it comes to photographing on my knees on a rock at a lake shore, I've sure felt that the tilty screen would be awful nice, especially on a second camera that's light and more likely to be with me on vacations. I think a person has to make a list of what they do the most and how worthy the 6D2 is in that regard. I'm pretty sure for me it will be worth it.

Jack


----------



## Frodo (Aug 2, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > I have focused on image quality in the past and the move from a 5DII to a 6D was a step up.
> ...



Expert Infotech in Auckland (www.einfo.co.nz). Often parallel-imported, but I've bought quite a bit of stuff through them without any problems at all.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 2, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I feel similar. However, it recently registered in my brain that in 4 years I've virtually never even pushed my photos more than 2 stops; mostly never more than 1 stop. When I would be shooting in situations that were awful I'd just consider some alternative or reject the opportunity.
> 
> Jack



Funnily enough, i also never used to use big pushes, mainly because I'd reject the opportunity due to knowing that my 6d wouldn't handle dark shadows and brighter skies together. It had only been got the last year or so, since I started shooting with a few Nikon shooters that, after seeing some of the shots they recovered when I didn't have a hope without huge noise, that I realised quite what I was missing. 

Sure, a number looked over cooked, but some were really nice images, from single files, and you start to notice all the shots you'd have liked to have taken, but weren't able to


----------



## tron (Aug 2, 2017)

Billybob said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...


Troll or simply illogical? You do not want to pay for 5DMkIV but you are willing to sell your excellent lenses to pay for ... D850 ?


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 2, 2017)

Billybob said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...


I understand your feeling, senior herpetologist Dr. Wolfgang Wuster who was Canon user for longest amount of time recently switched over to Nikon. He and few other people were the reason why I bought into Canon system, but doesnt look like I will upgrade either of my two Canon SLRs and might switch system as I only have two lenses in my bag- Sigma 150mm and MP-E 65mm. So when I get equivalent lenses in other systems I am also done shooting with Canon.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> the.unkle.george said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. 6D owner here. I see no reason to fork out +$1k for such a minor upgrade, or $2k to move to a 5DIV. If the 5d had IBIS and 4k I'd feel like I was actually getting something for my money. I expected the 6DmII value to at least match the d750 or K1.
> ...



6d2 launched overpriced and it under-delivers vs (optimists') expectations.
When it's price drops to $1500us or less then it's comparable to the competition and in line with what it delivers.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 2, 2017)

Billybob said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



Resale value on Canon lenses is ridiculously good (for no good reason) so you won't lose a lot.
Welcome to the dark side, brother.  Here we have no noisy band playing in the shadows.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 2, 2017)

Frodo said:


> I have focused on image quality in the past and the move from a 5DII to a 6D was a step up.
> 
> The 5DIII was an extra $1000, so this needs justification when I don't earn a lot from photography.
> 
> ...



So the 6d2 is launching overpriced in NZ too.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 2, 2017)

jayt567 said:


> Remember when the early rumors here had the 6D ii going "Up-market".....lol!



you got AF points and flippy-screen!


----------



## infared (Aug 2, 2017)

I have a 5DIII & 5DIV. I have to say I am realively happy with my cameras, especially the IV (It hits a sweet spot for me with image size and camera features)..but I feel that Canon is not as innovative as other companies, now. I have a lot of EOS-mount glass...so I am not switching any time soon...but I absolutely hear the disappointment about the 6DII. The sensor should have all-round improvement. And it just doesn't. I also read a lot of people here making excuses for this camera, and somehow rationalizing it into something that it isn't. 
When I read the specs for the Nikon D850 I have to admit it sounds fantastic and will be more camera for the money relative to anything that Canon will be producing to compete with it in its price/feature range. It's just true. I am not making any fanbois excuses for that fact.
Canon needs to do more.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 2, 2017)

tron said:


> Billybob said:
> 
> 
> > snappy604 said:
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=53f3756e83ed21cdae34510ac9750cac&topic=33164.0


----------



## kdsand (Aug 2, 2017)

Ugh if canon had even just released the 6D2 with the same sensor as the original & updated the auto focus I'd be less irritated. Having brand spanking newly developed (as stated) sensor & then saying it's on par with the old model.... What what? I'll be looking for some great deals on the original 6D for landscapes & portraits & use that & my 7D2 for action. Phooey on 6D2 at these prices.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 2, 2017)

infared said:


> I have a 5DIII & 5DIV. I have to say I am realively happy with my cameras, especially the IV (It hits a sweet spot for me with image size and camera features)..but I feel that Canon is not as innovative as other companies, now. I have a lot of EOS-mount glass...so I am not switching any time soon...but I absolutely hear the disappointment about the 6DII. The sensor should have all-round improvement. And it just doesn't. I also read a lot of people here making excuses for this camera, and somehow rationalizing it into something that it isn't.
> When I read the specs for the Nikon D850 I have to admit it sounds fantastic and will be more camera for the money relative to anything that Canon will be producing to compete with it in its price/feature range. It's just true. I am not making any fanbois excuses for that fact.
> Canon needs to do more.



I actually really hope the d850 rumors are true. It's exactly what I wanted the 5d4 to be - lots of detail and lots of speed.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 2, 2017)

It was a tough decision, but I picked a 5D MK IV rather than the 6D II for 1/3 more $$. That was a month ago.

I have yet to see any DR difference in my photos or to use 4K video. 

The two features I use are

1. The touch screen, I love it!

2. DPAF in live view works well with quick enough and accurate enough AF in most cases. It burns thru batteries. 

I also use wi-fi, but I'm not thrilled about it using my battery so quickly when tethered to a phone or tablet, but it worked well with them. I did tether it wirelessly to my PC via my wi-fi, that was a frustrating experience, waiting on a photo to appear. I'd use a eye-fi card to download photos to my pc via network access point over the Canon wi-fi any day.

GPS worked fine, but I really don't have a need for it 99% of the time.


----------



## geonix (Aug 2, 2017)

It seems the only way Canon would change its policy is by not buying their new cameras. 
But somehow their sales are increasing. The mirrorless products of canon are as mediocre compared to the competition as are a lot of their dslrs. Yet, it seems they sell well. 

So people like us, in forums etc., can complain and demand for improvement as long as we want.


----------



## Gnocchi (Aug 2, 2017)

geonix said:


> It seems the only way Canon would change its policy is by not buying their new cameras.
> But somehow their sales are increasing. The mirrorless products of canon are as mediocre compared to the competition as are a lot of their dslrs. Yet, it seems they sell well.
> 
> So people like us, in forums etc., can complain and demand for improvement as long as we want.


I think Canon is the whipping boy/girl of the photographic community, a little bit like Collingwood in the AFL.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

Gnocchi said:


> geonix said:
> 
> 
> > It seems the only way Canon would change its policy is by not buying their new cameras.
> ...



You are of course right!  

Jack


----------



## Talys (Aug 2, 2017)

Dunno what to say. After using 6D2 for a few days, I'm very happy with it. But perhaps it's all in the expectations.

I was not expecting a camera that was equal to or better than 5D4 for image quality. I don't care about and wasn't looking to do video, beyond extremely casual stuff that I could do with a smartphone. 

What I wanted was an 80D (which is a camera I'm ecstatic with), pretty much exactly the way it is, with a full frame sensor so that I could shoot wider on my EF lenses. That included a flippy screen, because without one, I pretty much have to attach a field monitor. What I expected was to pay a more than 80D, but less than 5D4. And I guess, the camera pretty much met my expectations, so I'm a happy customer.

I think the things that people want -- which is essentially everything equal to or better than 5D4 -- should be expected to be in the 5D5, and probably cost more than 5D4. At this point though, Canon could announce a 5D5 with a flippy screen, a ginormous DR boost, and 50 megapixels, and I'd shrug, because for the price, the 6D2 is pretty much perfect.

But of course, what I want (a full frame, tight space studio camera) isn't necessary what other people want. Perhaps the solution for Canon is to drop another model that sits between 6D2 and 5D4 (or successor). I just don't think it's reasonable to expect a $2,000 FF camera that essentially makes the 5D4 obsolete.

In a lot of ways, I think, what people were expecting was that the 6D2 vs 5D4 would be like 80D vs 7D2, and it just didn't turn out that way. I never expected that -- 5D4 is extremely popular (to an extent that 7D2 never was, though this is just my opinion), so why would Canon cannibalize those sales? The 6D was never really good enough for professional photographers who needed a 5D4, so why did anyone assume that the 6D2 would be? 

So anyhow... TLDR... I think I was just expecting less for a camera that's much cheaper than 5D4. Life's full of compromises, and the featureset of 6D2 versus its price is a pretty good compromise for me.


----------



## Pippan (Aug 2, 2017)

Gnocchi said:


> I think Canon is the whipping boy/girl of the photographic community, a little bit like Collingwood in the AFL.


The difference of course is that Canon's won the premiership for the last 14 years.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys, just say whoopee!  Or whine and grizzle that it doesn't have enough DR. 

I'd rather be happy than sad so you know which camp I'm in.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

Billybob said:


> What it means though is that Nikon has created enough room below the D850 that it won't have to "nerf" the D750 replacement to create product differentiation.



According to the Canon critics, simply not providing technology that is available in higher range models is 'nerfing'. But with Nikon it is market segmentation which seems to be bad when Canon does it.

Go figure.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

Yes go figure.  

I think I've about read enough to accept the camera as it is when hopefully the price softens a little after Christmas. Can't think of too many reasons why I desperately need it now. It will be interesting to compare notes in 2 or 3 years - success or failure for Canon. I lived through the 6D kerfuffle so my bet is on success. 

Jack


----------



## Joules (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys said:


> What I wanted was an 80D (which is a camera I'm ecstatic with), pretty much exactly the way it is, with a full frame sensor so that I could shoot wider on my EF lenses.


That's precisely the expectations that I had and from my point of view, leaving things like a headphone jack and On-Chip ADC off the 6D, that expectation wasn't met.

When the 6D came out I liked that Canon offered a way to get Images from the same quality as their best cameras at a lower price point, by simply reducing the experience. Now, the 6DII doesn't have the full experience, but it also doesn't have the same image quality as the higher end models.

The 80D and 800D seem to offer all the better value now that you could pay less to get one of those and still get more in some regards than you'd get with the 6DII. But as I use a 600D (T3i) and am looking to upgrade, those cameras weren't my first choices as they are still APS-C.

I mean, I agree that all these cameras are great and as the price will come down, the 6DII will get even greater. But all these excuses you hear are pretty annoying. Canon is pushing profits really hard currently, as you can tell from their reports and all the focus they put on entering new markets. They seemingly don't have the capacity to produce enough full frame sensors with On-Chip ADC, and because they could accept a compromise to their profit, so they didn't extend their capacity for now.

But if a current Canon users feels like he doesn't wants to compromise either, he's just told to be happy and pay. Sounds well enough, but at some point I'm forced to wonder if the internet isn't right and Canon users are just sheep who buy because it says Canon on the box


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

Joules said:


> But if a current Canon users feels like he doesn't wants to compromise either, he's just told to be happy and pay.



Who has said that. The only thing that has been said is 'make a choice for the right reasons'.
You (and others) constantly misinterpret quite reasonable comments then use that to build a straw man about shills, fanboys and sheeple.


----------



## tron (Aug 2, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Billybob said:
> ...


So what? D850 will be a 5DsR or 5D4 competitor not a 6D2 competitor! Billybob was disappointed with 6D2 not with 5D4... I insist on "troll or illogical"....


----------



## Joules (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Who has said that.


Yeah, good point. That's an issue with my perception, nothings that's been said by anybody here around. Reading YouTube comments isn't the best idea at any rate ;D

Reading multiple post, it's easy to take away only what's most impactfull from those, and these impacts add up until I get the impression that being disappointed in Canons choices is not allowed. Well, sorry for that, thanks for the hint.

I disagree though, I'm not for using shill and fanbody or sheep to label anybody. Everybody has their own reasons to get what they do, and those obviously are subjective and therefore perfectily fine.

it certainly doesn't help that a ton of bad wheather and a lot of stuff to do have kept me away from going out to shoot for weeks now. Just need to twist my perspective back around from "No camera offfers all I want" to "Any camera offers way more than I need".


----------



## Takingshots (Aug 2, 2017)

I guess when Canon put out the 5D mkiv, the camera itself does not have great 4K coverage. So I guess putting 4K into 6dmkii would have an overall negative effect on 5D mk iv. Secondly not sure why they did not upgrade the DR... I would even be willing to pay a little more money for this 6D mkii upgrade. 
Sure, there will be people who are willing to try this camera but also now it stands to lose more existing customers who want to upgrade. Also with the review, new customers (within this budget range) will probably shy away from buying it and consequently also not buying the L lenses. Sad ...


----------



## djack41 (Aug 2, 2017)

He keeps mentioning the Nikon D750. The D750 has a horrible reliability record. Beware the 750.


----------



## Yasko (Aug 2, 2017)

Very few people here seem to have a reasonable view of things (in my view ;D), some are too picky, some are too indifferent.

The 6D mk II is generally fine... ok, 2 card slots wouldn't have broken Canon's back and might have saved a few unlucky customers' photos one day... yet it prohibits to use a 6D mk II professionally for a lot of photographers, which still is fine because as a lot of people said: It must not cut 5D mk IV sales.

Beside the bells and whistles the camera has, what I expect to be top technology (always!) is the sensor. That is my personal view and sure it doesn't always come down to the best marketing decision a company can make. Still this is how I perceived the ideology behind the 6D. Less bells and whistles, but top Image Quality.
There is just no reason to not cripple a camera when it comes to the sensor.
That doesn't include that Canon may use a sensor that is already in production to safe on research & development or use a lower MP count to leave their top line at top position...
But generally DR and low light performance should go up (and they did, though the DR seems to be comparable as with the 5 year old predecessor).
That doesn't mean that the 6D mk II's sensor is a no go, it is just not the best that Canon might be able to offer (at least a lot of people think so).

Yet it somehow is incoherent. They put in a tilty screen, which is great even for stills. But especially in the video segment (where a smaller body size is also a good choice!) that would be ground breaking. If it only had 4K (not important for me) or at least a good 1080p output with good codec. But I guess, you know what you buy when you buy it. So it's everyone's own choice to do so.

The DR is only thing I am really disappointed about, because it feels like missing out on sthg for the time you have the camera. Yet still I find it different to find anologies.
Buying a small car, you wouldn'T expect it to drive faster than or accelerate faster than a more expensive car...
Sensor <-> Motor doesn't seem to get the point there .

Yet still, although you might miss DR, there are other things to be happy about with this camera (first flipscreenm on FF with DSLRs).

I am eager to hear about FF mirrorless news from Canon!
Cheers


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 2, 2017)

nope, incorrect. I am an existing Canon customer with 2 x 6D bodies. I was contemplating to step up to 6D II but then decided to step up to 5D III and 5D IV bodies instead. I have traded in one of my 6D bodies already for a nice 5D III and now am on look out for a low shutter count, mint 5D IV to replace my second 6D.
The person that purchased my 6D is now looking for a couple brand new FF zoom lenses. More business for Canon.



Takingshots said:


> I guess when Canon put out the 5D mkiv, the camera itself does not have great 4K coverage. So I guess putting 4K into 6dmkii would have an overall negative effect on 5D mk iv. Secondly not sure why they did not upgrade the DR... I would even be willing to pay a little more money for this 6D mkii upgrade.
> Sure, there will be people who are willing to try this camera but also* now it stands to lose more existing customers who want to upgrade*. Also with the review, new customers (within this budget range) will probably shy away from buying it and consequently also not buying the L lenses. Sad ...


----------



## freezehead (Aug 2, 2017)

I guest 6D1 "eat" too much 5D3's cake that pissed off Canon, that's not a good thing and they decide that will not happen with 6D2 & 5D4 haha


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

freezehead said:


> I guest 6D1 "eat" too much 5D3's cake that pissed off Canon, that's not a good thing and they decide that will not happen with 6D2 & 5D4 haha



I am not one of those who holds too much faith in the 'avoid affecting sales of...'. Canon does have a habit of deciding what is important to the target market and building to that. So with the 5DIV for example they did not put full 4k in the camera because in their view people who shoot video with such a camera will shoot short clips and not aim to do a full hour of documentary. Some will, of course, but not the majority of the market. And I think this is pretty accurate.

But camera acceptability is more than ever drive by internet chatter and I suspect camera design will follow the same path - even for Canon. 

I have been going to Fredmiranda recently and comments from those who have received the camera are really pleased with it. It seems that real-world users are finding the images far more acceptable than 'review sites' give it credit for. Which does not surprise me really. Review sites have to report on _something_ to give a people reason to visit their site and the differences they report are becoming ever more esoteric.


----------



## andyhewitt (Aug 2, 2017)

I am really surprised to see people making excuses for the company that takes their money. Come on! It is 2017! You may not want DR but someone does!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

andyhewitt said:


> I am really surprised to see people making excuses for the company that takes their money. Come on! It is 2017! You may not want DR but someone does!



Who is making excuses? Saying you understand why a company makes a decision is not the same as saying you agree with their decision, nor is it the same as saying 'I would complain if they included function X'. 

What makes me laugh is the number of people who complain about no dual card slots, no 4K video,poor DR....then end up buying Canon cameras anyway because that tells Canon they made the right design decisions.
The only way they will change is if huge numbers of Canon buyers stop buying their cameras. But they don't...why? Because the good things Canon does outweigh the things Canon are criticised for. It is called design consideration. 

If you want to look at compromises: Sony puts lots of (laughingly called) innovative technology into their cameras that have poor interface and even worse after-sales service. Sony make a limited range of high quality lenses that are generally more expensive than the Canon equivalents.And when you adapt Canon lenses the functionality drops significantly
Nikon use the Sony sensor, offer more 'bang for the buck' on the bodies but their lenses are more expensive than Canon.

Which compromise do you want? Do you go on Sony forums and whine about their compromises? Or Nikon?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 2, 2017)

Billybob said:
 

> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



May I assume I'm going to continue seeing you hang out and complain here for the next few years?


----------



## tencachon (Aug 2, 2017)

:-\
Photography is a hobby for me, I don't make much money from it but I've been following and using Canon for the past 8 years. The best thing about Canon products is the resell value in the aftermarket. I've been able to play and upgrade from Rebel T3 to T3i to T5, T6, 70D, 80D for almost no extra out of pocket money besides the initial camera purchase (thanks to all the Pixma Pro printer rebate) and swapping cheap lenses, etc...

I had a used 1DS Mark 3 to play around for couple months and felt in love with the FF so I sold my 80D and also 1DS 3 to get the 6D Mark II. Here's my 2cents on the 6Dii after 2 days of using it:

PRO:
- Focus is super quick and accurate with L lens, little bit slower on 3rd party lens (typical, Sigma Art and HSM lens).
- Great handling, very typical Canon, touch screen is good and responsive.
- Tilting screen - love this from the 70D/80D days
- Street price program ($100 off, yes at least I am getting it less than the "regular" price).
- 45 focus points, similar to the 80D, but the focus point range is a little bit narrower than the 80D I think.
- Battery is great

CONS:
- Like many other people said, $2000 is a little bit high for one who wants to step up from APS-C, so yes I do expect a bit more on the camera
- Error 70: maybe it's just me, but I can't use liveview with Sigma lens. The moment I take a picture through liveview, Error 70 appears, and the camera went dark with the red light constantly stayed on above the card memory slot. Does this qualify as defective product? I understand it's 3rd party lens, but I didn't run into issues with 70D, 80D buying brand new release before.
- DR is definitely worse than the 80D at low ISO (why????)
- Image quality, I can't really explain this until I take more shots, but it doesn't seem that sharp??

Not sure what I am going to buy after returning this "defective" 6D Mark II (already sold my 80D and 1ds mark III).


----------



## tomscott (Aug 2, 2017)

Its clear that for what ever reason that it doesn't justify its price.

Hasnt even been out a week and DREV had it for sale for £1595

Its already down to £1489!!!

https://store.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii/MTEwNTc1Ng_A_A

Good preowned 5DMKIIIs with 20-30k on them are £1400-1500 currently at London Camera Exchange with a 6 month warranty.

The 5D MKIII is still £1649! £160 more expensive and at the minute the only reason to buy a MKIII new is because it has 2 card slots slightly more advanced AF. The sensors seem to produce about the same IQ but the 6DMKII having better high ISO performance and better colour noise and banding control.

Seems like a no brainer... Im a bit tempted since ive been on the fence on what to buy since my 5DMKIII got stolen. My 7DMKII has been really impressing me since and been using the 70D with its flippy screen and its been really handy. Only issue im having is neither cameras nail focus even close to the 5DMKIII they both miss seemingly for not much reason, not like the its front or back focusing but nothing in the frame is in focus... Can be frustrating.

The 5DMKIV seems the best option but will need another £1000 to buy one.


----------



## andyhewitt (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> andyhewitt said:
> 
> 
> > I am really surprised to see people making excuses for the company that takes their money. Come on! It is 2017! You may not want DR but someone does!
> ...



I think plenty of people whining about their products on Sony and Nikon forum, which I think is the right thing to do. At least the company knows what aspects they need to improve. Yes, 6D II may sell well and many people don't care or don't know about DR. But as a consumer, we don't want compromises. Especially knowing that Canon has that tech and still refuse to implement it into a product that releases 4 years after its predecessor.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Its clear that for what ever reason that it doesn't justify its price.
> 
> Hasnt even been out a week and DREV had it for sale for £1595
> 
> ...



DREV prices are grey imports at tax free cost. You simply cannot take that as a marker of genuine market price.
The 5D4 on DREV is 2,400 - still a 1,000 difference to the 6D2.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

andyhewitt said:


> But as a consumer, we don't want compromises.



What a ridiculous statement. All products by all manufacturers at all price levels (yes, even...GASP!....Sony) compromise on features vs cost. If they did not every camera manufacturer would have only one model. 
Sony compromise by lower build quality and crap after sales service and less efficient focus tracking. And imagine the incompetence of Sony in not being able to design an efficient interface. That is probably the easiest bit in camera design and they still get it wrong!


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 2, 2017)

The sky is falling the sky is falling... It doesn't have "MORE" DR than other cameras that are out, gasp... How much DR did the 10D have? like 5? Seriously now. He talks about shooting proper exposures like it is a bad thing and being able to push your images 5 stops like it is the holy grail. Who the heck shoots like that on a consistent basis in which this would even be a nuisance, other than a simple mistake shot where you forgot to properly account for the exposure? Exposure used to be photo 101 stuff, not just shoot something and hope to fix it in post! Lastly, he's griping there's no 4k video... really? And if there was 4k, he would gripe it wasn't red quality... pass... stop complaining, pick up your camera and just freaking shoot!


----------



## BillB (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> freezehead said:
> 
> 
> > I guest 6D1 "eat" too much 5D3's cake that pissed off Canon, that's not a good thing and they decide that will not happen with 6D2 & 5D4 haha
> ...



Word of mouth from 6DII owners will kick in, and that may quickly counterbalance all the Internet craziness. Tilty flippy screens and touchscreen focussing may sell themselves as soon as people learn about them. The toughest sell may be convincing people to pay more for the 6DII when the 80D is an alternative. Of course, Canon long ago reconciled itself to writing off the DPR disciples, at least as far as the 6DII is concerned. I do wonder about Canon's choice for the 6DII sensor though. Cost management, I guess.


----------



## andyhewitt (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> What a ridiculous statement. All products by all manufacturers at all price levels (yes, even...GASP!....Sony) compromise on features vs cost. If they did not every camera manufacturer would have only one model.
> Sony compromise by lower build quality and crap after sales service and less efficient focus tracking. And imagine the incompetence of Sony in not being able to design an efficient interface. That is probably the easiest bit in camera design and they still get it wrong!



Compromise on features vs cost that is manufacturer's consideration. I am not saying you pay little and get a camera that is better in every aspect. So maybe that is the best Canon can offer.


----------



## Takingshots (Aug 2, 2017)

tencachon said:


> :-\
> Photography is a hobby for me, I don't make much money from it but I've been following and using Canon for the past 8 years. The best thing about Canon products is the resell value in the aftermarket. I've been able to play and upgrade from Rebel T3 to T3i to T5, T6, 70D, 80D for almost no extra out of pocket money besides the initial camera purchase (thanks to all the Pixma Pro printer rebate) and swapping cheap lenses, etc...
> 
> I had a used 1DS Mark 3 to play around for couple months and felt in love with the FF so I sold my 80D and also 1DS 3 to get the 6D Mark II. Here's my 2cents on the 6Dii after 2 days of using it:
> ...


That really disappointing based on the test shots. Wonder if it has to do with the sensor since its 6D mk ii sensor is not identical to 80D. Until more field tests with different lens are done we will never know....


----------



## tomscott (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Its clear that for what ever reason that it doesn't justify its price.
> ...



In the UK you would be mad to do otherwise. There is at least a £500 increase and you still get the same warranty in the UK with the same products they even have a UK office. I have always bought from them and had issues and repairs sent to CPS no problems.

My 7DMKII had an issue that the dioptre seized after about 11 months... Sent to CPS fixed under warranty. 70-200mm MKII arrived with a spec of dust in the lens was sent to CPS and cleaned. Even all postage was paid for. 

In my experience I dont really care where I get it from as long as I get a good service. I dont know why I would spend an extra 1/3rd which it is, its more than the added tax in the UK.

IMO its a pretty good early indicator.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

tomscott said:


> In the UK you would be mad to do otherwise. There is at least a £500 increase and you still get the same warranty in the UK with the same products they even have a UK office. I have always bought from them and had issues and repairs sent to CPS no problems.



That is fair enough. But to use a site that avoids duty as a guide to the correct street price is misleading (to put it politely).


----------



## Talys (Aug 2, 2017)

tencachon said:


> - Error 70: maybe it's just me, but I can't use liveview with Sigma lens. The moment I take a picture through liveview, Error 70 appears, and the camera went dark with the red light constantly stayed on above the card memory slot. Does this qualify as defective product? I understand it's 3rd party lens, but I didn't run into issues with 70D, 80D buying brand new release before.
> - DR is definitely worse than the 80D at low ISO (why????)
> - Image quality, I can't really explain this until I take more shots, but it doesn't seem that sharp??
> 
> Not sure what I am going to buy after returning this "defective" 6D Mark II (already sold my 80D and 1ds mark III).



1. The only Sigma lens that I have now is 150-600. Live view and DPAF seem to work great. No error 70. Maybe so that others can be forewarned, which were you using?

2-3. I couldn't observe any DR or sharpness difference with 80D at ISO 100. Frankly, studio shots taken from a tripod and with excellent lighting were indistinguishable to me, both in terms of image quality when zoomed out to fit a Surface Studio's excellent 4k screen, and when zoomed in to 100% for sharpness. By indistinguishable, I mean that if I took 20 ISO 100 keepers and mixed them all up, I'd never be able to tell which was taken with which camera. 

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a DR difference with 80D, but it's not like photos from one appear to pop and photos from the other look flat (to me). For sharpness, using 50mm 1.8, 100mm L macro, and 24-70L/4, both 80d and 6D2 were awesomely sharp.


----------



## Talys (Aug 2, 2017)

andyhewitt said:


> I think plenty of people whining about their products on Sony and Nikon forum, which I think is the right thing to do. At least the company knows what aspects they need to improve. Yes, 6D II may sell well and many people don't care or don't know about DR. But as a consumer, we don't want compromises. Especially knowing that Canon has that tech and still refuse to implement it into a product that releases 4 years after its predecessor.



I think people should spend less time whining about their Canon, Sony or Nikon cameras and more time shooting photos 

As a consumer, YES, I want compromises. Not just with cameras, with everything. I can't afford stuff that doesn't have any compromises, and I don't want to wait forever for products to be perfected. I want the right product for me, at the right price and the right time. I don't want the unicorn that I can't have today; I'm willing to buy something that I can afford to make me happy today, and buy something in a few years that makes me happy then.


It's like finding a relationship with no compromises -- this is a great way to stay single for the rest of your life


----------



## tencachon (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys said:


> tencachon said:
> 
> 
> > - Error 70: maybe it's just me, but I can't use liveview with Sigma lens. The moment I take a picture through liveview, Error 70 appears, and the camera went dark with the red light constantly stayed on above the card memory slot. Does this qualify as defective product? I understand it's 3rd party lens, but I didn't run into issues with 70D, 80D buying brand new release before.
> ...



Thanks for helping me to confirm on the error message.
I tried it on the Sigma art 35mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.4, and also the 50mm f1.4 HSM lens, all gives me the Error 70 message. No issue with the native canon EF lens. I'll try it again tonight and repost with a picture or maybe a short youtube video clips.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys said:


> I think people should spend less time whining about their Canon, Sony or Nikon cameras and more time shooting photos
> 
> As a consumer, YES, I want compromises. Not just with cameras, with everything. I can't afford stuff that doesn't have any compromises, and I don't want to wait forever for products to be perfected. I want the right product for me, at the right price and the right time. I don't want the unicorn that I can't have today; I'm willing to buy something that I can afford to make me happy today, and buy something in a few years that makes me happy then.
> 
> ...



Life is what happens while you are waiting for something else. John Lennon's version was "Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans."

Obviously technology is even more exaggerated in that regard. I spent $500 to add 16k to my Apple II. Even if I had known that eventually I would be carrying around in my shirt pocket a device with orders of magnitude more speed and power and thousands of times as much memory, I would still have done that, rather than waiting 35 years to get anything. 

If I live another 10 years and am not too blind or senile to take pictures, I'm sure my present gear will seem primitive. My first digital camera was a Casio in 2002. They were trying to go more high-end with their products, and put a Canon lens on this model. By the time the great reviews came out, they decided not to go that route any more, and threw in an IBM hard drive (which was the only way to get an affordable decent amount of memory in a card) as incentive. I bought the camera prior to an Alaska cruise. From here at my desk I can see the framed picture of a glacier printed on 13" x 19" paper. It is gorgeous. It is a not-quite-4-megapixel camera. You can't tell that from the print, though I don't understand why. That camera is underneath something in the back of my closet, probably, along with my FT-QL film camera that served me well from 1969 to the early part of this century, when I used it to make pictures of the moon and Jupiter through an old telescope.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 2, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Personally, I was hoping to buy one of these to build a light-weight travel kit around. Waiting for more reviews before I decide but so far things don't seem to be going in the right direction.
> 
> Generally speaking, when Canon's designers intentionally nerf their product releases it's in the area of features that require annoying work-arounds but don't significantly lower the quality of the final product. (ie. dual cards, MJPEG, intervalometer, etc.) At this price point I don't have a problem with Canon protecting their pro lines. I'm generally willing to pay more for convenience. In this case I'm not sure it's just a feature set.
> 
> ...



You're not the only one looking for a high-quality, lightweight camera from Canon- the 5DIV almost fits that bill except for its crippled 4K video ability. As a filmmaker, I am, admittedly skewed towards video shooting, though. But it needs to be in a great stills camera for me to buy.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Its clear that for what ever reason that it doesn't justify its price.
> ...



Could you explain that a bit more?
To I have to pay customs on the gear if I buy from them? Or is the price asked the price I actually pay?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys said:


> It's like finding a relationship with no compromises -- this is a great way to stay single for the rest of your life



Exactly. And different partners have different advantages and trade offs. For example, Canon may have less Dynamic Rhythm in their base, but they also have cylinders with blue goo inside. I guess that's why some people use more than one system.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Could you explain that a bit more?
> To I have to pay customs on the gear if I buy from them? Or is the price asked the price I actually pay?



They promise that all duty is paid so the price on the website is the price you pay. I have found several web discussions where people have tried to get DigRev to confirm VAT/Duty is paid on delivery and to confirm that they will get a proper VAT receipt - but DigRev answers always seem evasive and non-committal. 
So the best way I can see how it works is that they export from Hong Kong to UK. If they get caught by Customs and Excise (and a big 'if') then you send the invoice to DigRev and they pay it - so it is no additional cost to you. But they sell enough bits of gear and make enough profit to cover the few times that the item is identified by Customs. 
I am not saying that DigRev is doing anything wrong and I am sure all their deliveries have informaton that meets requirements. But they 'play the system'.

There is another form of grey market and is (I believe) the one followed by HDEW in UK - they are a genuine UK-based store and their stock comes largely from kits that have been split or from stores wanting to clear stock. prices from HDEW are similar to DigRev without the problems arising from 'based in Hong Kong': on my 6D I got a 3-year warranty with HDEW and they apparently use the same service company as do Canon.


----------



## testthewest (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Could you explain that a bit more?
> ...



Ok, I just placed an order with DigitalRev. The money saved was enough to give it a try. Furthermore, they aren't no-name and their reputation researched through google search seems good. 

I know I could get burned, but saving 1k € is an offer I can't refuse...


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Could you explain that a bit more?
> ...



I think you've got it pretty well right - which is why grey imports have little attraction to those of us who can reclaim the vat on the purchase - in other words vat registered business users.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys said:


> andyhewitt said:
> 
> 
> > I think plenty of people whining about their products on Sony and Nikon forum, which I think is the right thing to do. At least the company knows what aspects they need to improve. Yes, 6D II may sell well and many people don't care or don't know about DR. But as a consumer, we don't want compromises. Especially knowing that Canon has that tech and still refuse to implement it into a product that releases 4 years after its predecessor.
> ...



+100


----------



## scyrene (Aug 2, 2017)

Joules said:


> Reading YouTube comments isn't the best idea at any rate ;D



More than anywhere else on the internet, 'don't read the comments' is good advice for YouTube (whatever the video!).


----------



## scyrene (Aug 2, 2017)

Talys said:


> Perhaps the solution for Canon is to drop another model that sits between 6D2 and 5D4 (or successor).



I had idly wondered a while back if they would squeeze another FF camera into the lineup - there seemed to be room in the pricing with the 5D4 being more expensive than the 5D3, but whether the 6D2 sits above or below it, I didn't know. At $2k RRP perhaps this must indeed the lowest model, but then what features they'd add to it for a higher-level model (or subtract from the 5D4) is hard to see, so I'd be quite surprised now if they did pursue that strategy.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 2, 2017)

Frodo said:


> I have focused on image quality in the past and the move from a 5DII to a 6D was a step up.
> 
> The 5DIII was an extra $1000, so this needs justification when I don't earn a lot from photography.
> 
> ...



Focus accuracy is tricky... while the 6D2 ought to be a bit better than the mark 1, I'd still suggest considering a used(?) 5D3 or 1Dx.

As for the price, I personally would never buy when something is released, but rather wait a little until the price drops a touch (of course, if the naysayers are correct, then the 6D2's price will drop a fair bit; that remains to be seen).


----------



## scyrene (Aug 2, 2017)

stevelee said:


> [M]y FT-QL film camera that served me well from 1969 to the early part of this century, when I used it to make pictures of the moon and Jupiter through an old telescope.



That's commitment! I'd genuinely love to see what sort of shots were possible back then, if you have digital versions?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 2, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Graphic.Artifacts said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I was hoping to buy one of these to build a light-weight travel kit around. Waiting for more reviews before I decide but so far things don't seem to be going in the right direction.
> ...



Why do you insist on having a great video camera and a great stills camera in one? This obsession people have with having a full video wish list in a DSLR is just puzzling.


----------



## Takingshots (Aug 2, 2017)

Any used 6D MK ii for sale ....  just saying


----------



## masterpix (Aug 2, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> A disappointment in several respects. Low light performance is good, but DR is behind the curve and no better than a Rebel Camera. I'm not a video guy, but the reviewer was sorely disappointed in the 6D2 video performance. Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.



The question is very simple, does an entry level FF camera should "compete" with the higher end FF cameras at all? The 6D is the entry level FF camera, not the 5D or the 1D, and as such is meant to have less features. When I by the Rebel, I don't expect to get a 80D and when I buy the 80D I don't expect to get the 7D. One need to make their decision based on value per money in this case. I wish there is a camera that has the 1D capabilities with the 5Ds (sr) resolution in having the rebel price tag. It simply does not work.


----------



## slclick (Aug 2, 2017)

masterpix said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > A disappointment in several respects. Low light performance is good, but DR is behind the curve and no better than a Rebel Camera. I'm not a video guy, but the reviewer was sorely disappointed in the 6D2 video performance. Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.
> ...



this


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 2, 2017)

masterpix said:


> The question is very simple, does an entry level FF camera should "compete" with the higher end FF cameras at all?



Depends on how you view it  Clearly an entry level camera does not compete on every level with a top end one, but in some areas they do; it's a question of how important those areas where they do and don't sit with the potential user. 

For instance the Nikon D610 does not compete with the D810 on mp, but it does on "DR", and so for those people who believe that DR=IQ, both the "entry level FF" and the high end are on the same level. Form my experience in working the raw files they are both as malleable as each other. With Canon the new 6DII falls short of the 5DIV in this metric, and even some of the crop alternatives, so that is a 'failing' when compared with Nikon.

The 6DII doesn't excite me personally for a number of reasons, but then that was clearly Canon's intention


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 2, 2017)

As a long time Canon customer/user I made my peace a long time ago with Canon's "feature set bingo". It is what it is. No CLOG for my IDX2, fine. No internal intervalometer?, whatever. Come up with a workaround and move on.

What concerns me is that having patiently stuck with Canon through the period where the sensors in many of their cameras clearly lagged behind the competition I felt like they had turned that corner. I believe they are on record as saying they always use "the best sensor available". 

Is this the best sensor available? What I see is noise that is little improved from the 5D2 I bought in 2008 and clearly lags behind pretty much every camera they've put out in the last few years in that regard. 

The 6D2 appears to be a nice little camera with excellent features and most of the things that I'd like in a travel body. I'd like to buy one. But, I've shot hundreds of thousands of images with 5D2/5D3/7D2's and the shadow noise is terrible. Don't know how else to say it. 

Are the pictures that I've taken with them terrible. No, I don't think so but that's a false argument. 

Do I want to go back to having to deal with that noise. No way. The on-chip A/D sensors are vastly better and they've put them in cameras that cost a lot less than the 6D2. Whataboutisms and deflections don't make that fact go away. 

Follow the proven path. Slap the 5D4 sensor in it. Nerf the feature set so that pro's and advanced amateurs will covet the 5D4 and call it a day. I just can't see the logic of this. I may end up buying it when the price drops and I'm certainly not switching systems but I think Canon dropped the ball here. 

Just my opinion. I'm sure lots of folks will buy it and love it.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Is this the best sensor available? What I see is noise that is little improved from the 5D2 I bought in 2008 and clearly lags behind pretty much every camera they've put out in the last few years in that regard.



Comments on other forums from people who are actually using the 6D2 suggests the sensor is pretty damned good with noise that is much more manageable. 
It seems to me that Canonrumors is getting a reputation for being populated by very vocal DR freaks.


----------



## slclick (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Graphic.Artifacts said:
> 
> 
> > Is this the best sensor available? What I see is noise that is little improved from the 5D2 I bought in 2008 and clearly lags behind pretty much every camera they've put out in the last few years in that regard.
> ...



Exactly, lots of comments here from non buyers/users, just chart and spec sheet jockeys.


----------



## andyhewitt (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Graphic.Artifacts said:
> 
> 
> > Is this the best sensor available? What I see is noise that is little improved from the 5D2 I bought in 2008 and clearly lags behind pretty much every camera they've put out in the last few years in that regard.
> ...



They feel it's good does not mean it is actually good. Are you saying that all those review and Lab test are making false statements? DR is not everything but it is still an important part of the image quality and that is why so many tests use it as an indicator. Even Canon itself admits that their sensor lags behind their competitors and needs to improve. The reason I bought 5D4 is that I see Canon is catching up and it is willing to address its weakness. If Canon still puts a slightly improved 5D3 sensor into 5D4, I will just stick to my 5DII.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

andyhewitt said:


> They feel it's good does not mean it is actually good.


What???



andyhewitt said:


> Are you saying that all those review and Lab test are making false statements?


No. But reviews are there to differentiate between different products and those differences are getting ever smaller and ever more irrelevant. You need to jack ISO up to 16,000 then underexpose by 5 stops and recover it? Seriously - who does that? 
The most common comment I hear is 'if I screw up the image and the client wants that one, I can still give it to them'. Really....?



andyhewitt said:


> DR is not everything but it is still an important part of the image quality and that is why so many tests use it as an indicator.


Yes and yes. But at what level is it making a difference to people? Serious landscapers will appreciate the wider dynamic range of the Sony/Nikon/whatever but they are not the mass market.
And the comments I have read on real-world use of the 6D2 is that the images are distinctly cleaner than the 6D and more easily edited even though on paper the DR is not much better.
I found the same with the 7D2 - the DR was probably between 0.5-1 stop better as shown in the lab tests. But the way the 7D2 rendered noise made it easier to manage and gave me an almost effective 1.5 stops better image. Now that is subjective but many people people have said the same thing.

But one great thing in Canon's favour (and is a point made by even some of the most vocal disappointed) is that they major on ergonomics and usability. And even Sony enthusiasts say that Sony have a long way to go on this one. I am one of those who get annoyed when something just doesn't work and to me the interface I use should be something that 'works' and what I read of the Sony, the interface wold drive me nuts. Heck, I have read blogs by several professionals explaining that is precisely why they went back to Canon/Nikon after the DR shine wore off. 
Plus the fact that in Canon I have a complete system - something even Sony seems to be addressing now that they have pretty much topped out on their sensor and Canon are catching up. 

So overall, yes I can understand why the real-world user who is not comparing cameras to the nth degree will have views that seem to go against what they lab results and spec-sheet warriors say.


----------



## Jerryrigged (Aug 2, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> nope, incorrect. I am an existing Canon customer with 2 x 6D bodies. I was contemplating to step up to 6D II but then decided to step up to 5D III and 5D IV bodies instead. I have traded in one of my 6D bodies already for a nice 5D III and now am on look out for a low shutter count, mint 5D IV to replace my second 6D.
> The person that purchased my 6D is now looking for a couple brand new FF zoom lenses. More business for Canon.
> 
> 
> ...



I also had two 6Ds. Just bought the 5D4 a few months ago. I use the cameras side-by-side, and the 6D still provides excellent results. However, I'm getting a bit more into video now, and really love the dual pixel AF in video on the 5D4! In addition to the A6500 which is my B-cam, I'm thinking of getting a 6DII as a replacement for my two 6Ds and as a C-cam for video. I'm holding off to see how the 6D2 fares in reviews of its 1080p video quality. I know it is a more compressed video codec, but will wait for some real-world video tests before deciding. I shoot weddings - both photo and video - so the low-light performance is a prime factor for me. If the 6D2 performs as well as expected in low light, it might be a real good option for me as a hybrid shooter.

Oh, and re. the Camera Store review... just one item of note: The joystick on the 5D bodies is NOT superior to the 6D's rocker for moving AF points. The rocker is faster in my experience! I'm sure this will be a minority opinion, but I've never been a huge fan of the joysticks (I used to have a 7DII with the joystick).


----------



## andyhewitt (Aug 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> What???


I mean, their feeling is subjective and a lab measurement is more convincing.



Mikehit said:


> No. But reviews are there to differentiate between different products and those differences are getting ever smaller and ever more irrelevant. You need to jack ISO up to 16,000 then underexpose by 5 stops and recover it? Seriously - who does that?
> The most common comment I hear is 'if I screw up the image and the client wants that one, I can still give it to them'. Really....?


Base on the test, N/S is not slightly better in DR, it is several times even more better. You will notice that even if you lift up 1 or 2 stop. But as you said, the need for that thing only consist of a few people and you can sometimes use bracketing to compensate it.




Mikehit said:


> But one great thing in Canon's favour (and is a point made by even some of the most vocal disappointed) is that they major on ergonomics and usability. And even Sony enthusiasts say that Sony have a long way to go on this one. I am one of those who get annoyed when something just doesn't work and to me the interface I use should be something that 'works' and what I read of the Sony, the interface wold drive me nuts. Heck, I have read blogs by several professionals explaining that is precisely why they went back to Canon/Nikon after the DR shine wore off.



Yes, same thing here, I have to agree Sony is a little tricky to use and the buffer time is just unbearable. For far less DR, in mirrorless system, I prefer to use a Fuji and this may just justify your point that DR is not everything . I also have a complete system in Canon and won't switch to any other brand in the foreseeable future. Sometimes I just wish they push a little harder I guess.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 3, 2017)

andyhewitt said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > What???
> ...



The whole of photography is based on subjective assessments. In the says of film, you can measure the shape and size of the grain but that does not tell you how acceptable that grain is when it turns up on a print. 

If someone finds the files of the 6D2 easier to work with (than the 6D) that is for me important information because it tells me that the picture has qualities that are not easily measured. If several people say the same thing it becomes more convincing and in the case of the 7D2 the 'only a half stop greater noise handling' from the tech reviews started to ring to me quite hollow in the face of people who were actually using it. And the 6D2 is sounding more interesting the more I read.


----------



## Talys (Aug 3, 2017)

Jerryrigged said:


> Oh, and re. the Camera Store review... just one item of note: The joystick on the 5D bodies is NOT superior to the 6D's rocker for moving AF points. The rocker is faster in my experience! I'm sure this will be a minority opinion, but I've never been a huge fan of the joysticks (I used to have a 7DII with the joystick).



Yeah, me too. I'm not a joystick fan at all, and I'm glad they didn't put one in 6DII. Also, I disagree with the review about the (lack of) pop-up flash. For 99% of the people who would use them because they just have a bunch of money and want to enter photography with FF, pop-up flash is a great way of turning a $2000 camera into a 10 year old rebel.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 3, 2017)

scyrene said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > [M]y FT-QL film camera that served me well from 1969 to the early part of this century, when I used it to make pictures of the moon and Jupiter through an old telescope.
> ...



Yes, I did some scans and posted them linked from http://www.stevelee.name/astro/index.html. Today I would just put the pictures on the same web page and not mess with the buttons, but back then there were folks still using dialup.

Don't take these as an indication of what was possible in those days. People were doing much better stuff even then. I didn't know what I was doing, and just trying it out for fun. The clock drive wasn't very accurate, and I'm sure I didn't have the polar alignment just right or anything, so Jupiter is much fuzzier in the pictures than it looked to the eye through the telescope. It was too dark for me to see to focus, anyway. I had just focused on something distant during the day, and hoped that the temperature change at night didn't alter the focus too much. I could see the moon through the camera eyepiece, I think, since it was so much brighter and I was using less optics. I guess the moon shots are overexposed. Maybe the film's lack of DR was preparing me for my future 6DII purchase.

I was given the telescope by a friend who said it could gather dust in my garage just as well as it did in his. It really is more trouble than it is worth to use, but fun to play with when I lived in a darker environment. A modern 'scope would have much more sophisticated tracking, and maybe I'd use it more. But my not having the old one out of its trunk in over 10 years suggests to me that I would just have more expensive stuff gathering dust if I bought a new one.

My one more recent astronomical foray was right after I got the Canon S120. It has star trail and time-lapse movie modes. So I tried out the latter just setting up a tripod on my deck and pointing the camera above the trees behind the house. Even though I was facing away from the lights of Charlotte, I maybe could see one star with my naked eyes. But this is what I got: http://www.stevelee.name/startrails/MVI_0012.MP4

You can see Cassiopeia as a sideways W that moves up. Right at the end of the video, the Pleiades pop up in the lower-right corner.


----------



## ShootTheStars12 (Aug 3, 2017)

I am extremely interested in upgrading to an entry level FF camera, but I honestly can't see what makes this camera better than the Pentax K-1 (which is a little cheaper). I'm definitely not a Canon hater, I just demand good value. Can anyone with more expertise explain this to me?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 3, 2017)

ShootTheStars12 said:


> I am extremely interested in upgrading to an entry level FF camera, but I honestly can't see what makes this camera better than the Pentax K-1 (which is a little cheaper). I'm definitely not a Canon hater, I just demand good value. Can anyone with more expertise explain this to me?



Depending on how you intend to glass up the K-1 it could be considerably more expensive. The prime lenses are old designs and very expensive. Also there isn't the option to stock up on glass from the used market. Same with flash etc.


----------



## ShootTheStars12 (Aug 3, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> ShootTheStars12 said:
> 
> 
> > I am extremely interested in upgrading to an entry level FF camera, but I honestly can't see what makes this camera better than the Pentax K-1 (which is a little cheaper). I'm definitely not a Canon hater, I just demand good value. Can anyone with more expertise explain this to me?
> ...



I most likely would just get 3 lenses to cover the 16-200mm range, and then a rokinon wide angle (maybe 24mm) for astrophotography


----------



## Yasko (Aug 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> andyhewitt said:
> 
> 
> > They feel it's good does not mean it is actually good.
> ...



So you 'rant' about the user experience of the Sony system, still you shake your head about those 'ranting' about the DR.
Imagine a Canon camera with an up to date Sony sensor. One may dream on .


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 3, 2017)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> The 6D2 appears to be a nice little camera with excellent features and most of the things that I'd like in a travel body. I'd like to buy one. But, I've shot hundreds of thousands of images with 5D2/5D3/7D2's and the shadow noise is terrible. Don't know how else to say it.



And I've shot hundreds of thousands of images on the 5D, 5DII and 6D with no shadow noise at all. If you don't want noise in raised shadows on these cameras you have to shoot accordingly. 

However I can understand those who were looking forward to the 6DII now feeling cheated.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 3, 2017)

Yasko said:


> So you 'rant' about the user experience of the Sony system, still you shake your head about those 'ranting' about the DR.
> Imagine a Canon camera with an up to date Sony sensor. One may dream on .



Rant? You seem to have a low discursive threshold. 
How many times do I (and others) need to say this: I have no problem with people with people saying they want a camera with more DR (or 4K). Fine, it is their preference. But when they extend that personal wish to then draw the conclusion that Canon are incompetent, do knot know what the market wants, and (the more extreme) Canon are ******* that is when it gets ridiculous. 
My more recent comments with andyhewitt were simply that the response from people _actually using _the camera are that it is better than the spec warriors are saying. And my point was that that there are parts of the performance that are very difficult to measure and often take time to fully appreciate, and time is what reviewers rarely have because they have so many other products to review. 

As for Sony, yes, I do find it amazing that after all these years they still get an interface that is so clumsy and that, plus the lenses, are the main reasons I have not bought into it. They are things that genuinely affect my photography. I have the Olympus and Panasonic MFTs for on spec travel. I like them both and they both produce wonderful images - I prefer the haptics and the image quality of the Panasonic and I prefer the DSLR-feel of the E-M5. They are great for lightweight travel but I prefer the handling and greater responsiveness of the Canons. But just because I do not like what I read about the Sony I did not predict their downfall, I did not claim that my needs were the needs of everyone else. 
But you do have to ask, if the Sony has been superior to Canon for the last 5 years (at least!) in what some see as a key metric, how come that across their whole market portfolio Sony is barely a blip against Canon's success? Surely 'usability' is a part of that and we can argue forever as to whether Sony have put the cart before the horse. 

And I totally agree with you, a Canon camera that has a sensor of the capability of the Exmoor would be great. But would it change the way I take photographs? Probably not. I would file that under 'nice to have' not 'essential'.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 3, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.



That is all the 6D series was ever meant to be - an entry level camera that just happens to be full-frame. When you look at the original 6D when it came out, it was behind the curve in almost every operational area compared to anything higher than a Rebel and even the latest contemporaneous Rebel had it beat in a number of areas (rear dial and center AF point excepted). The sensor was considered great, but really was that due to anything that separated it from other FF cameras, or was it because it was a "typical" FF sensor offered in an relatively affordable, but competent, body?

The new model brings the operational capabilities up to par with the current models, and keeps a decent, if not cutting edge sensor. Fringes, such as HDR and 4K (even video in general) aren't optimized for.

I can't help thinking what this would sound like if we were talking about cars:
The new Escape is a great all around car, and more capable than 99 percent of folks really need. But sorry - I won't recommend it because it doesn't have the cargo capacity of the Chevy Suburban, or even Ford's own Expedition, and the off-roading just doesn't hold a candle to the Cherokee or LandRover Discovery.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2017)

WoodyWindy said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.
> ...



Wait, you mean it's not supposed have all the features of a 1D X II and just be a lot cheaper? Shocking...simply shocking!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 3, 2017)

In the UK Canon are really suffering with the new 6D MKII as you have to wait now until the third week of August to get one as they are on back-order. Complete failure as all the launch stock is sold. 

As for second-hand they are such bad cameras none are available.


----------



## derekmccoy (Aug 3, 2017)

Different pricing tiers should be differentiated based on features that actually cost money to implement, not software or even stuff that costs next to nothing like a headphone jack or UHS2.

Magnesium bodies, weather sealing, more modern ICs, better LCDs, more robust shutter mechs - thats what costs more to put in a camera.

In the case of the 5D4 and 6D2, they are being held back by software/firmware. Magic Lantern proves that the hardware is more than capable. It's Canon's decision to not port firmware features into those cameras to force buyers up to more expensive models. Users can see through this and it's not cool at all. Car analogies don't apply here, it's all software.

As for the sensor, it would have been completely acceptable to keep the same 20MP resolution but with an on-board ADC or whatever it is that gives it the 5D4 and the 80D extra DR. Instead they opted to twist peoples' arms into spending more knowing they have an investment in the glass. You want 4K? we could add 10 lines of code to the firmware....... But no, you need to could fork out for a C200.

Arguing the opposite is just apologetic bias for Canon's shady practice as of late. This is not the same Canon from the 5D2 days.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 3, 2017)

derekmccoy said:


> Arguing the opposite is just apologetic bias for Canon's shady practice as of late.



blah, blah....cripple...blah...blah...fanboys....blah...blah...apologists...

Ever thougth of having a discussion instead of throwing around unfounded insults?


----------



## Talys (Aug 3, 2017)

derekmccoy said:


> Different pricing tiers should be differentiated based on features that actually cost money to implement, not software or even stuff that costs next to nothing like a headphone jack or UHS2.
> 
> Magnesium bodies, weather sealing, more modern ICs, better LCDs, more robust shutter mechs - thats what costs more to put in a camera.
> 
> ...



As someone who has worked in both manufacturing and in software development, I could not disagree more.

No successful company that manufactures devices bases its pricing formula on cost of materials + markup. Every company that wants to succeed needs to consider the cost of running the entire company, including research, marketing, storage, unsold inventories and markdowns, cost of capital, unprofitable products, executive pay, technology licensing and a thousand other factors that may be fixed or variable costs.

For example, Sensor X costs $30 million and 8 years to design. The cost of manufacture is $30 per sensor. But the pricing of Sensor X is not based on the $30; it's based on the number of units of Sensor X that can be sold in its lifetime, and making enough money to pay for Sensor Y. Plus, paying for Sensor Z, which failed 3 years ago.

The reality and practicality of it is that every manufacturer will sell mass-produced goods for less, and goods for incrementally smaller target markets for exponentially more. The reality of it is that professionals will pay much more than enthusiasts, who will pay much ore than those who are looking for baseline functionality, and why shouldn't a company capitalize on that?

The mission of a company is not to give you stuff for what it costs to make plus some small profit. It's to maximize its returns to its stakeholders -- which is a worthy mission, because it's the only way that the company will be incentivized to make new stuff for you. Competition balances that against what you get and are asked to pay, and therefore, even if you are a Nikon or Sony fan, you should be happy that Canon is there building cameras -- or vice versa.

There are other goods like prescription drugs which dramatically illustrate this whole principle. The cost of manufacturing most drugs is very low. Yet, the cost of research is high, and the goal of drug companies is to make profit -- which is not bad, because if drug companies don't profit, they won't develop new drugs. Some very new treatments can cost thousands of dollars every month, while other life-saving drugs that cost the same to produce can cost pennies a pill.

On the software end, obviously, cost of materials are nearly zero, and certainly identical for nearly all products. The argument that everything should be sold for about what it costs to make -- well, that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Keep in mind, I certain don't have a problem with the notion that the 6D2 just doesn't have the features you want, at the price you want, or that Nikon or Fuji or Sony or whomever has a product has a product that fits you better. I think that's a healthy part of the competitive process. It's just the whole notion that product X should is priced too high because its materials are not much more than those in product Y just doesn't hold any water with me, because that just isn't how the world works.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 3, 2017)

Boy, how many '+' can I give you. 
But I fear that will be falling on deaf ears of the boo-boys.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:



> Boy, how many '+' can I give you.
> But I fear that will be falling on deaf ears of the boo-boys.



Falling on deaf ears...or flying right over their heads.


----------



## ShootTheStars12 (Aug 3, 2017)

I still haven't seen a reply of how this is a better camera than the Pentax K-1. I am genuinely interested in seeing arguments for each, as they are in the same general price range.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 3, 2017)

Talys said:


> Keep in mind, I certain don't have a problem with the notion that the 6D2 just doesn't have the features you want, at the price you want, or that Nikon or Fuji or Sony or whomever has a product has a product that fits you better. I think that's a healthy part of the competitive process. It's just the whole notion that product X should is priced too high because its materials are not much more than those in product Y just doesn't hold any water with me, because that just isn't how the world works.



You risk being banned from CR for making far too much sense. Please refrain from making sense in the future. We can not have someone who understands the workings of business educate those who think they know better. How the world works is too dangerous an idea for those who believe that the everything should be done to serve their personal wants and needs.

In order to return to the good graces of this forum, please learn the following phrases and make sure you use them in your next post: "Canon is crippling their cameras" and "Canon is *******." :'(


----------



## IglooEater (Aug 3, 2017)

ShootTheStars12 said:


> I still haven't seen a reply of how this is a better camera than the Pentax K-1. I am genuinely interested in seeing arguments for each, as they are in the same general price range.


I think you might find an EF mount to be a big enough difference for many. AF system, dpaf, touchscreen, and vlog style flippy screen also come to my mind.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 3, 2017)

ShootTheStars12 said:


> I still haven't seen a reply of how this is a better camera than the Pentax K-1. I am genuinely interested in seeing arguments for each, as they are in the same general price range.


There is no such thing as a camera that is better than another. You have to evaluate ecosystem against ecosystem for what you want to do in a price range that you can afford. Cost, physical size, ergonomics, features, lenses, accessories, and even what your friends/travel buddies have is all important.

For example, let's say that you and 3 friends are going on a safari together. Your friends are all shooting Canon, so it makes sense for you to get a Canon so you can swap lenses and commonality of batteries, but if those friends were all shooting Nikon, then Nikon becomes the better choice.....


----------



## dak723 (Aug 3, 2017)

ShootTheStars12 said:


> I still haven't seen a reply of how this is a better camera than the Pentax K-1. I am genuinely interested in seeing arguments for each, as they are in the same general price range.



If you think the Pentax K-1 is a better camera and suits your needs better, than you should get the Pentax. If you think the Canon is better, you should buy the Canon. It really is that simple. You shouldn't buy a camera based on a debate by other folks who may have a totally different set of wants and needs. 

Since a camera is part of a greater system - and most folks will already have invested in lenses, flash, and other accessories - camera brands rarely compete with one another. So the fact that they are in the same general price range has little actual meaning unless you are starting from scratch.


----------



## Talys (Aug 4, 2017)

Keeping it real... I'm happy to report that my Yongnuo RT system works great -- the controller, three 600EX-RT (one of them is a 600EX-RTII), and a couple of remote receivers that I use to attach non-RT flashes.

Of course, my Canon speedlites work (430, 430II, and 580II). Also, my Elinchron Skyports work -- the original as well as the HS that looks like a RT controller. Obviously, the Elinchron strobes themselves work fine.

Also, the 2.4GHz Neewer FC-16 remote trigger, works great (both as a remote trigger and as a remote flash/receiver, though the latter has no HSS).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2017)

ShootTheStars12 said:


> I still haven't seen a reply of how this is a better camera than the Pentax K-1. I am genuinely interested in seeing arguments for each, as they are in the same general price range.



The 6DII is a far better camera, because it's compatible with my ~$30,000 worth of EF lenses. Of course, your needs may differ.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ShootTheStars12 said:
> 
> 
> > I still haven't seen a reply of how this is a better camera than the Pentax K-1. I am genuinely interested in seeing arguments for each, as they are in the same general price range.
> ...



And I'll be able to use it with my 400DO II X2 III with AF. Haven't honestly checked what the best Pentax long lenses are like so maybe they'd have me covered? I'm guessing not.

Jack


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 4, 2017)

WoodyWindy said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Seems more like a FF Rebel than anything else.
> ...



I'm starting to wonder if any of you have ever shot a Rebel. The 6D/6D2 have so little in common with the Rebel. Just the pure ergonomics/handling alone put it in a different class. Rear dial, dedicated buttons on top, dedicated AF back button, and on and on. The ability to AFMA a lens is another important checkbox. I couldn't give two hoots about stuff such as 1/4000th max shutter speed, the stuff I think some of you think makes it a "full frame Rebel". That matters not in real world shooting 99.9% of the time. Not being able to AFMA fast glass? Can get you on every shot.


----------



## Talys (Aug 4, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> I'm starting to wonder if any of you have ever shot a Rebel.



I couldn't agree more. 

It's actually almost like some people have never even picked up a Rebel at a Best Buy or Costco. I mean, _build quality_. They don't even feel remotely similar, never mind if you attach a big, heavy lens to a Rebel, compared to a 6D/6D2. It's the difference between wobble/give and a solid, confident connection.

Take a few seconds, and anyone short of blind would see the difference in the OVF. Actually use it to you know, take pictures, and the differences in functionality are instantly apparent. Stuff that never makes the top line spec sheet like electronic level, flicker sync for fluorescent lights, CFn, or PC wifi liveview can make all the difference in the world.

But hey, they all have a mirror, they all have DPAF now, and none of them take 4k video, so, right, t7i, 80D, 6D2, same thing.


----------



## Yasko (Aug 4, 2017)

Well there is truth in it. But still 1/8000 matters. Has happened quite often when shooting beach volleyball that I needed 1/5000 or faster shutter speed. May be wih ISO 400 but again, I dont want to adjust that on the fly when shadowy shots on different parts of the field (I am always at the net) have only 1/1000 or 1/1250 s speed. Yeah, no sports camera... my 70D has 0.5 more fps and I use it for that... and every rebel has 1/8000 which you guys aboth me discussed.
Another story is 1/250 flash sync, but ok, 1/180 is still fine most of the time.

The discussion about features that set a higher line apart has already led to nowhere. Yet still I assume that a headphone jack would have cost 5$ extra... I may be wrong there, but I have to do with electronics parts too in my profession, and it really shouldnt be much more. Of course that amounts to a no lonher neglibile sum when considering other featires, too...
When separation is purely about the feature and not real costs (just an assumption, not saying that is Canons approach), I get the idea yet I also get crinkles on my forehead. What about state of the art, we are not talking top level here .

Btw just for fun: My old account got banned and I have no idea why. Not one swear nor bullshit talk, I looked up all my posts during the last months with that account... just because you mentioned one should continue booing Canon to not get 'banned' (I get the sarcasm).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 4, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



A FF Rebel is not the best comparison. Right now, there is a 6D2, a 5D2, a 7D2, and a 60D sitting on top of the desk. The similarities between the 60D and the 6D2 are striking! Size, controls, shoulder display, tilt/swivel screen, and build are pretty well the same..... the 6D2 is a FF 80D.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 4, 2017)

With a new contract I have been doing a lot of studio work and have been using the 70D and its articulating screen a lot with using studio lights there isnt really much worry for shadow lifting etc and the images have been great.

So I thought to myself I really like the features like the tility screen of the 70D and love the 7DMKIIs "modern" features like the viewfinder II. Ive been waiting for the price drop of the 5DMKIV and it hasn't happened yet.

Never really felt the 5DMKIIIs IQ was an that much of an issue just hated the banding and purple muddy noise if that 1 image didn't come out the way I wanted and I had to push more than I would usualy. The 6DMKII from the files I have looked at look much better in that regard although the overall IQ is similar which is fine by me!

As most of you know unfortunately I was burgled and had my 5DMKIII stolen along with other items that I have had to replace which has cost me quite a lot. A hard lesson learned (now everything is noted on the insurance as they were very difficult to deal with) So spending £3k on a 5DMKIV has been on the back burner until I had recouped the saving I have spent replacing other items. 

I was wanting to get by with a pre owned MKIII but i was dissatisfied with it compared to my 7DMKII when it got stolen for the reasons above and it was feeling 5 years old with 2 new shutters and the body was battered and bruised.

So this morning I ordered a 6DMKII!

In the UK preowned 5DMKIIIs with under 30k actuation's are running anywhere from £1400-£1700

Picked up a 6DMKII this morning for £1489 which for its feature set is awesome IMO. Hard to resist and worth a punt.

This will be an interim cam for me until the 5DMKIV comes down a bit. If I dont like the 6 i will most certainly buy a 5. 

My only reservations are the lack of 2 card slots and missing thumb stick for AF. I do shoot weddings so the 2 card slot is an issue but I have never had a card fail in the 10 years I have been shooting professionally so im not too concerned although it is a small concern. I was thinking the remedy is just to stick a big card in and not touch it until I offload.

It is not the best camera for all my needs but I travel a lot too, love GPS for this reason, so I think this fits the majority of the bill. I find myself grabbing different cameras for different needs so will probably keep it anyway.

I am looking forward to the multiple AF points at F8 and cant wait to use the 100-400mm MKII with 1.4x to try it out with some wildlife.

Also really excited to get all my L glass out! 16-35mm F2.8, 24-70mm F2.8, 24-105mm F4! As I have had the EF-s 17-55mm F2.8 for most of my shoots because the 24-70/105 isnt wide enough on crop making it inconvenient for a standard lens and the 16-35 is the same focal length without IS. Most of my lenses have been sat in a box for the last 4-5 months.

Anyway I will share my thoughts when I get it. I have a shoot with Laing O Rourke on Tuesday focusing on PPE products glasses etc (a huge internationally engineering enterprise currently working on the Manchester tram system to the Trafford center). I have a wedding on Friday also so should be able to put it through its paces.

The 6DMKII and the 7DMKII I think will make a great pairing.

Cant wait.


----------



## candyman (Aug 4, 2017)

When I go through the various 6D MKII threads on this forum I read that there is a lot of discussion going on about the 6D MKII but mainly based upon specifications of the camera. However I suggest to rent the camera – upon availability – and give it a thorough workout. This enables you to judge this cameras features and image quality based upon your own RAW files (and/or JPG) instead of making a judgement based on images that others took. The real impression about this camera can only be achieved by using the camera yourself. I am very impressed by the improvements over the 6D. This is why I bought the camera. It shines on high ISO and it has a lot of plus features/improvements over the 6D. Not for one moment I expect it would perform as good as or better than the 5D MK IV. That is a 2000 euro more expensive camera. 

I took a JPG photo with in-camera +3 noise reduction on 40000 ISO and that JPG came out with impressive quality. In those rare occasions this ISO level can really save you a nice shot.

I noticed that you can work very well with high(er) ISO’s – quality is better than on the 5D MK III (I use that camera since 2012 with great pleasure). The overall image quality of the 6D MK II is good. Though I still need to give it a landscape workout and include long exposures (using filters). We have some bad weather here but look forward to do so in the next few days. I have no regrets about the purchase of the 6D MK II


----------



## tomscott (Aug 4, 2017)

candyman said:


> I noticed that you can work very well with high(er) ISO’s – quality is better than on the 5D MK III (I use that camera since 2012 with great pleasure). The overall image quality of the 6D MK II is good. Though I still need to give it a landscape workout and include long exposures (using filters). We have some bad weather here but look forward to do so in the next few days. I have no regrets about the purchase of the 6D MK II



Thats good to know 6400 was about as far as I would push on my 5DMKIII.


----------



## hbr (Aug 4, 2017)

candyman said:


> When I go through the various 6D MKII threads on this forum I read that there is a lot of discussion going on about the 6D MKII but mainly based upon specifications of the camera. However I suggest to rent the camera – upon availability – and give it a thorough workout. This enables you to judge this cameras features and image quality based upon your own RAW files (and/or JPG) instead of making a judgement based on images that others took. The real impression about this camera can only be achieved by using the camera yourself. I am very impressed by the improvements over the 6D. This is why I bought the camera. It shines on high ISO and it has a lot of plus features/improvements over the 6D. Not for one moment I expect it would perform as good as or better than the 5D MK IV. That is a 2000 euro more expensive camera.
> 
> I took a JPG photo with in-camera +3 noise reduction on 40000 ISO and that JPG came out with impressive quality. In those rare occasions this ISO level can really save you a nice shot.
> 
> I noticed that you can work very well with high(er) ISO’s – quality is better than on the 5D MK III (I use that camera since 2012 with great pleasure). The overall image quality of the 6D MK II is good. Though I still need to give it a landscape workout and include long exposures (using filters). We have some bad weather here but look forward to do so in the next few days. I have no regrets about the purchase of the 6D MK II



+1 here. Love mine.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 4, 2017)

tomscott said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that you can work very well with high(er) ISO’s – quality is better than on the 5D MK III (I use that camera since 2012 with great pleasure). The overall image quality of the 6D MK II is good. Though I still need to give it a landscape workout and include long exposures (using filters). We have some bad weather here but look forward to do so in the next few days. I have no regrets about the purchase of the 6D MK II
> ...



Really? I've shot at wedding ceremonies with no flash (Flash is kinda distracting and unprofessional at a ceremony), and i've had shots go as high as 20,000 ISO with little to no noise when printed at 8x10. There's barely any noticeable noise at full resolution either... When you properly expose an image and dont try these crazy over processing of images, noise isn't that big of an issue, up to that ISO in my 5d3 in my opinion. Then again, clients are usually blown away you got the shot rather than look at any grain in the image.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 4, 2017)

awinphoto said:


> Then again, clients are usually blown away you got the shot rather than look at any grain in the image.



And it is for that reason that I have believed for a long time that a lot of guff spoken about 'image quality', and 'only use the best gear', is more about the photographer's ego than it is about what clients expect to see.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2017)

Tom,
I can confirm that you can push 6D II RAW files about 2/3 of a stop further if the resulting jpeg was down sampled to the size of 5D III image. I am talking about noise levels only. The loss of details in the resulting image is a different story though. you get a very nice and even noise but your details still suffer a great deal.



tomscott said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that you can work very well with high(er) ISO’s – quality is better than on the 5D MK III (I use that camera since 2012 with great pleasure). The overall image quality of the 6D MK II is good. Though I still need to give it a landscape workout and include long exposures (using filters). We have some bad weather here but look forward to do so in the next few days. I have no regrets about the purchase of the 6D MK II
> ...


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, clients are usually blown away you got the shot rather than look at any grain in the image.
> ...



Exactly. In my career, I've never had a client ask or comment about noise, about DR, about settings or Megapixels or whatever... Did you get the shot? If so you get paid. Simple.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 4, 2017)

awinphoto said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...


As has been said so many times in the past, "Nobody cares what the DR is of a blurry photo"


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, clients are usually blown away you got the shot rather than look at any grain in the image.
> ...



This last week, i had a conversation with a professional videographer... and gasp, a large chunk of his gear is Canon 5d's and the like... he makes bank... i mentioned this forum and thread how a review complained about how you cant push un underexposed image 4-5 stops without it falling apart and we had a good laugh asking the obvious question? Who doesn't know how to properly expose images in which this is a big problem? Seriously, if you are so bad that you are underexposing on a regular basis and cant get it right in camera, google the exposure triangle, learn some photo 101, and stop blaming the camera.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 4, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Very true =) I welcome discussions about AF and keeper rates as that is critical to "getting that shot"... discussion about DR and high ISO, by now, makes me less and less involved with this forum...


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 4, 2017)

awinphoto said:


> This last week, i had a conversation with a professional videographer... and gasp, a large chunk of his gear is Canon 5d's and the like... he makes bank... i mentioned this forum and thread how a review complained about how you cant push un underexposed image 4-5 stops without it falling apart and we had a good laugh asking the obvious question? Who doesn't know how to properly expose images in which this is a big problem? Seriously, if you are so bad that you are underexposing on a regular basis and cant get it right in camera, google the exposure triangle, learn some photo 101, and stop blaming the camera.




...but..but what if his flash does not go off and that is the only photographer of Aunt Edna dancing drunk on the table and who died of Ebola the following week while climbing the North Face of the Eiger in celebration of her 95th birthday? You cold be sued for millions!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> ...but..but what if his flash does not go off and that is the only photographer of Aunt Edna dancing drunk on the table and who died of Ebola the following week while climbing the North Face of the Eiger in celebration of her 95th birthday? You cold be sued for millions!



Clearly, it's the camera's fault and if a Canon camera was used, Canon should be held liable for not making a camera where the exposure could be pushed 6 stops in post without any loss of IQ.


----------



## awinphoto (Aug 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > This last week, i had a conversation with a professional videographer... and gasp, a large chunk of his gear is Canon 5d's and the like... he makes bank... i mentioned this forum and thread how a review complained about how you cant push un underexposed image 4-5 stops without it falling apart and we had a good laugh asking the obvious question? Who doesn't know how to properly expose images in which this is a big problem? Seriously, if you are so bad that you are underexposing on a regular basis and cant get it right in camera, google the exposure triangle, learn some photo 101, and stop blaming the camera.
> ...



Lol... That's where 2 very lovely and vital clauses come into play with my wedding contracts... 

A) we welcome photo requests and will make every attempt to fulfill the requests but we cannot guarantee or be held liable that any specific photo will be captured due to the nature and spontaneity of the wedding event. 

and 

B) Do lawsuit may be brought forth regardind our services greater than the total ammount paid within this contract (brought about thanks to that guy in LA where he got paid $1,000 for a wedding shoot and burn and they tried suing him for crazy money)... 

But on a serious note, we will push that image but at the end of the day, it is what it is.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 4, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> A FF Rebel is not the best comparison. Right now, there is a 6D2, a 5D2, a 7D2, and a 60D sitting on top of the desk. The similarities between the 60D and the 6D2 are striking! Size, controls, shoulder display, tilt/swivel screen, and build are pretty well the same..... the 6D2 is a FF 80D.



Agreed,

The 60D/70D/80D and 6D/6D2 follow the same, what I like to call, "4 button single use" layout in front of the LCD screen where the 5 and 7 series use the "3 button dual purpose" layout. The former seems to have gone to flippy screens and has the D-pad, the later is joystick. All in all the xxD/6D form factor layout is much much closer to the 5D/7D series then to a Rebel. Just the sheer size of all those cameras are in the same ball park. Even the weather sealing on the 6D2 isn't suppose to be half bad. Every time I pick up my sister's 650D it just feels like a toy in comparison.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 4, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > WoodyWindy said:
> ...



When the 6D came out, compared to its contemporaries, it was behind the curve in most areas except the sensor and the magnesium build (the control layout isn't necessarily anti-Rebel, if you consider the later T6s/760D). The 60D was already 2 years old, and the 70D was still 9 months away.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos60d&products=canon_eos650d&products=canon_eos5dmkiii&products=canon_eos6d&products=canon_eos700d&products=canon_eos70d&sortDir=ascending


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2017)

Ephotozine just posted Canon 6D II sample photos.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-sample-photos-31251

This is truly amazing.. I am looking at the photo of the X-Rite ColorChecker taken at ISO 12800 and could not believe the IQ at such a high ISO level.. about 1.5 high ISO advantage over the 6D Original to my eyes.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 4, 2017)

WoodyWindy said:


> When the 6D came out, compared to its contemporaries, it was behind the curve in most areas except the sensor and the magnesium build (the control layout isn't necessarily anti-Rebel, if you consider the later T6s/760D). The 60D was already 2 years old, and the 70D was still 9 months away.
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos60d&products=canon_eos650d&products=canon_eos5dmkiii&products=canon_eos6d&products=canon_eos700d&products=canon_eos70d&sortDir=ascending



It is a fair point about the latest "high end rebels" are getting closer to the ergonomics of the higher end bodies.

As for the 6D following 70D or whatever, as someone who owned both at the same time I'm well aware which came out first. I was merely stating that all those models are following the same ergonomic layout and can be grouped together.


----------



## tron (Aug 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ...but..but what if his flash does not go off and that is the only photographer of Aunt Edna dancing drunk on the table and who died of Ebola the following week while climbing the North Face of the Eiger in celebration of her 95th birthday? You cold be sued for millions!
> ...


Maybe but even so aunt Edna wouldn't be able to sue Canon so everything would be OK ;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 4, 2017)

6d II vs 5D IV @ISO 12,800:

https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EOS-6D-Mark-II-6499/highres/Canon-EOS-6D-II-ISO12800-IMG_9894_1501769013.jpg

https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EOS-5D-Mark-IV-6184/highres/Canon-EOS-5D-MKIV-ISO12800-7S0A0048_1474037456.jpg

as good as it gets.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, clients are usually blown away you got the shot rather than look at any grain in the image.
> ...



I think we have seen that demonstrated over and over again on this forum. People have actually said they want to have bragging rights when they get together with their photographer buddies. Why people equate IQ with DR or noise is totally incomprehensible to me as an enthusiast photographer of 35 years. I almost never even look for or reduce noise in my photos while post processing. Color (both accuracy and ability to pick up subtle color gradations) and contrast are far more important to me when it comes to IQ.


----------



## Woodwideweb (Aug 4, 2017)

So, where are we on the graph? 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/rogers-law-of-new-product-introduction/


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 4, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > When the 6D came out, compared to its contemporaries, it was behind the curve in most areas except the sensor and the magnesium build (the control layout isn't necessarily anti-Rebel, if you consider the later T6s/760D). The 60D was already 2 years old, and the 70D was still 9 months away.
> ...



Thanks.  In any case, I'm not one of the ones complaining about the specs or positioning of the 6D (Mk I or II), just stating where I see it relative to everything else. I'm also not one who worships at the altar of DR or (as "another website" has coined the phrase) ISO Invariance. If I were in the market for an entry-level FF body, I'm 98% sure the 6D2 would be at the top of my list. I may be there someday - possibly sooner rather than later. For now, I have other priorities in my life, and I'm quite content with my Rebel T6s.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 4, 2017)

awinphoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



+1 on all the quoted comments. While people who are not even in the market for this camera will spend time pontificating on this forum the failings of this release, I'm going to take my 6D2 out and take photos with it. Crazy concept huh?  In all fairness I'm looking to find just a bit of time this afternoon to AFMA a lens or two and then I'm going to take my daughter to the park, let her run around and have fun, while I get a feel for the new rig.

Most people (aka not photo geeks) appreciate a photo for the real reasons, stirring an emotion, raw beauty, etc. Their not checking off criteria like it's a point system weighing noise, DR, was rule of thirds followed, etc. My original 6D gave me this image. And if the 6D2 sensor is just as capable I'll be MORE than happy.



Sparklers! by Ryan Ludwig, on Flickr


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 4, 2017)

^
Great shot !


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 4, 2017)

WoodyWindy said:


> Thanks.  In any case, I'm not one of the ones complaining about the specs or positioning of the 6D (Mk I or II), just stating where I see it relative to everything else. I'm also not one who worships at the altar of DR or (as "another website" has coined the phrase) ISO Invariance. If I were in the market for an entry-level FF body, I'm 98% sure the 6D2 would be at the top of my list. I may be there someday - possibly sooner rather than later. For now, I have other priorities in my life, and I'm quite content with my Rebel T6s.



And to be clear, I'm not disparaging the Rebel line. I shot a T2i for a number of years and was plenty happy with what it could do. Trust me, with this guy the tech is very very rarely the shortcoming of the the produced product.  My only argument is calling a 6D(2) a full frame Rebel is a bit disingenuous. 

While I DID pre-order the 6D2 and that appearance alone would make it look like I have far too much disposable income lying around (I'm just an enthusiast after all), I am normally much much more pragmatic in my purchases. Aka, continuing the logic above I know I am the limiting factor of my photography and not the tech. I've picked up some solid L glass (examples: 70-200 f/2.8L, 100mm f/2.8L macro, 135mm f/2L) all second hand for very solid prices. In the last 18 months I've dipped my toes into the Fuji XF system. It makes a great travel system. And while many today on forums debate the X-T2 vs the competition, eagerly await for the X-E3, I've quietly picked up a couple of last gen cameras (X-trans II 16 MP) in an X-E2 and X-T10 for Rebel or less prices. Great little cameras for vacation photography. My point in this rambling? People can and will debate the tech all they want, but any of these cameras in the past how many years now will make excellent images in capable hands.

So I enjoy they forums, sometimes I come for the entertainment alone, but you won't fine me uploading any test charts, or worrying about the "limited" DR at base ISO. I'll just be out shooting. 

Cheers!


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 4, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> ^
> Great shot !



Are you sure? even at the 2048px web res you can see noise. 

Seriously though, thanks!


----------



## WoodyWindy (Aug 4, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> WoodyWindy said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks.  In any case, I'm not one of the ones complaining about the specs or positioning of the 6D (Mk I or II), just stating where I see it relative to everything else. I'm also not one who worships at the altar of DR or (as "another website" has coined the phrase) ISO Invariance. If I were in the market for an entry-level FF body, I'm 98% sure the 6D2 would be at the top of my list. I may be there someday - possibly sooner rather than later. For now, I have other priorities in my life, and I'm quite content with my Rebel T6s.
> ...


In full accord here. My first DSLR was an old EOS D60 (that I was on the waiting list for forever, and absolutely loved), from which I played the upgrade game for a couple generations to the EOS 20D before coming to my senses.  I had a Rebel XT for years, and (briefly) an XSi, which I gave to my sister when she was getting into photography. Then I shot a T2i almost from its intro until the T6s came out. I only jumped then because I was going on an anniversary trip to Italy, and Canon had finally introduced a successor to their 18MP workhorse sensor. Little did I know that I had jumped a generation early (kinda like getting stuck at the T1i) and missed out on the DPAF and 45-point PD array. On the plus side, I still get to use a grip.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 4, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ^
> ...



Absolutely. Never even noticed any noise. Do you think that when you look at that image in thirty years time you're gonna think "what a shame about the ISO performance we had in 2014" ?


----------



## Yasko (Aug 5, 2017)

Right exposure is a must have. The discussion is about what you can save if you fail but more importantly what you can shoot when the scene covers a DR the camera can't naturaly cover.
This is when DR becomes important and enables you to take a shot (exposed for equally u der and over exposed regions or slightly under/overexposed in one direction - depending what the camera can cope with better) that gives you different quality results with different cameras but with the same (or comparable) lens and same or equal settings.

I guess thats what some are bothered with. Especially with some not so common landscape scenes with darker shadows and bright sky... dont steer it solely into the direction of recovering a horrible exposed shot :-/.


----------



## andyhewitt (Aug 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 6d II vs 5D IV @ISO 12,800:
> 
> https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EOS-6D-Mark-II-6499/highres/Canon-EOS-6D-II-ISO12800-IMG_9894_1501769013.jpg
> 
> ...



According to a lab test I've read, the number they gave is that the 6D2 high ISO performance is better than 5D4 and only slightly behind 1DX mark ii. Which makes it a very capable camera for astrophotography. I don't understand why people call something like spec worrier or sth. Because for me, I always wait for the review/test to come first before I decide to purchase instead of buying whatever they sell you. If the benefits outweigh the bad, I'll go for it.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 5, 2017)

I doubt many are shooting Astro at ISO 12,800.


----------



## andyhewitt (Aug 5, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> I doubt many are shooting Astro at ISO 12,800.



No one says it has to be exactly 12800.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 5, 2017)

some photogs do not care about the IQ and focused on finacial side of the issue: do I get paid fot this shot? No worries then, I will deliver whatever crappy photo the client is happy with.. For these people Low IQ is non-issue. Some wouldn't even understand the problem exist. there are tons of mediocre pros in the trade. this is a norm.
other people put their own vision of photography first and will never ever show an image to their client they are unhappy with. These people are also motivated by outcomes, but put their art above monetary reason. These photographers would rather destroy the image they are unhappy with. Art comes first, income comes second.

You cannot accept every single opinion on this forum at its face value. Discernment is in order. Read this thread again and you will discover that some people claimed that the noise level has nothing to do with image quality. 

Well, let's read this statement:

"..*.Noise levels are a primary image quality concern* and another one of the major benefits of full frame sensors, with their large surface area capturing a larger amount of light than the smaller format options, is the very high signal-to-noise ratio they deliver..."

(c) Bryan Carnathan

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

p.s. I highly recommend this review. It is well balanced and provides valuable opinion about the subject.



andyhewitt said:


> According to a lab test I've read, the number they gave is that the 6D2 high ISO performance is better than 5D4 and only slightly behind 1DX mark ii. Which makes it a very capable camera for astrophotography. I don't understand why people call something like spec worrier or sth. Because for me, I always wait for the review/test to come first before I decide to purchase instead of buying whatever they sell you. If the benefits outweigh the bad, I'll go for it.


----------



## Talys (Aug 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> (c) Bryan Carnathan
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx



Brian's reviews are usually very meticulous. I generally enjoy them, and frankly, I far prefer written reviews than video ones. Plus, he has the best and most consistent photos of cameras. I recommend reading the review too.


There are a few things he's said that I'd like to quote. I couldn't agree more with this:

"...I'm struggling to pick a winner. If you can't easily see a difference in these test chart results, you will not see a difference in real world images."


This is one of the reasons that I really enjoy photography with Canon cameras:

"Showing great maturity and making use of the LCD are Canon's very easy to use and logically laid out menu systems."


And for pixel peepers (I must be too, frequently), this is often lost:

"While the electronic level feature seems minor and insignificant, the small improvement can make a big difference in the quality of your images if pixel-level-destructive image rotation is no longer required during post processing."


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 5, 2017)

Talys, I was glued to my 75" screen last night for at least an hour picking up any meaningful diferences in noise characteristics of 6D II and 5D IV at all ISO levels starting with 100 and all the way up to 25,600 that I could find and I found none. hence my conclusion: 6D II sensor is as good as it gets with regards to noise levels. I would not hesitate recommending 6D II to anyone who is looking for a descent FF high ISO capable camera.



Talys said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > (c) Bryan Carnathan
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Talys, I was glued to my 75" screen last night for at least an hour picking up any meaningful diferences in noise characteristics of 6D II and 5D IV at all ISO levels starting with 100 and all the way up to 25,600 that I could find and I found none. hence my conclusion: 6D II sensor is as good as it gets with regards to noise levels. I would not hesitate recommending 6D II to anyone who is looking for a descent FF high ISO capable camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is really good to know.
Do you have any comments on AF tracking? Or do you not do enough of that to comment?


----------



## hbr (Aug 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Talys, I was glued to my 75" screen last night for at least an hour picking up any meaningful diferences in noise characteristics of 6D II and 5D IV at all ISO levels starting with 100 and all the way up to 25,600 that I could find and I found none. hence my conclusion: 6D II sensor is as good as it gets with regards to noise levels. I would not hesitate recommending 6D II to anyone who is looking for a descent FF high ISO capable camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't done any "scientific" thests with my 6D2 versus my 6D1 but I feel that the 6D2 image quality is quite a bit improved over the original and I would recommend the new camera to anyone.

Brian

P.S. Plus it is a lot more fun to use.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 5, 2017)

stevelee said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



Thanks very much!


----------



## candyman (Aug 5, 2017)

hbr said:


> <snip>
> 
> I haven't done any "scientific" thests with my 6D2 versus my 6D1 but I feel that the 6D2 image quality is quite a bit improved over the original and I would recommend the new camera to anyone.
> 
> ...


I agree. The vari-angle touchscreen is just great. I used it yesterday night when taking photos of the moon in Liveview. Good response from the screen and easy to adjust settings (aperture, shutterspeed, iso and other) including zooming.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 5, 2017)

Mike,

I cannot comment on the AF performance as I was going by the x-rite colorchecker sample photos taken at various iso levels provided by ephotozine. see links below:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-expert-review-29771/performance

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-sample-photos-31251

I saved all photos of the colourchecker card to my computer and then was inspecting 6d II and 5D IV sample photos side by side at all iso levels. colour uniformity is also very good to my eye. I hope it helps.




Mikehit said:


> That is really good to know.
> Do you have any comments on AF tracking? Or do you not do enough of that to comment?


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 5, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> A FF Rebel is not the best comparison. Right now, there is a 6D2, a 5D2, a 7D2, and a 60D sitting on top of the desk. The similarities between the 60D and the 6D2 are striking! Size, controls, shoulder display, tilt/swivel screen, and build are pretty well the same..... the 6D2 is a FF 80D.



I think that is my main complaint. It is too much a FF 80D. It has the exact same autofocus sensor. So it does not have good coverage for full frame. There have been no improvement in the Video Codec side and the 6D2 has (supposedly worst video than the 6D.) I find the lack of USB3 and SD-UHS II a continuation of a disturbing trend. Is Canon simple coasting on their good brand recognition? Is the DIGIC processor group not innovating fast enough or are they technically incompetent? Is there marketing group tonedeff and overly cautious? 

Regardless I expected more from the moving up market comment. Without SD UHS II there is no chance of 4K. I really wanted to see some kind of general improvement over the 80D beside the larger sensor. I think that the 6D II was a good response to the Sony A7II it is just late. It is not a bad camera it is just lackluster for 2017. It would have been fine if they released it in 2016. It is going to look really dated when Sony releases the followup to the 7DII. 

Sadly perception is often more important than reality. The collective blogosphere criticism of Canon cameras is likely going to have an eventual effect. Sooner or later if you use Canon you're a Dinosaur. Or at least that will likely be the perception.

Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D. I hate the 5D/7D body ergonomics they are just too big for my hands. So upgrading to a 5D IV just is not going to happen. So do I just continue buying Sony equipment because it is a better fit? 

I have been thinking of getting a vlogning camera. Canon has a better Camera for this than Sony. It would have been nice to get a replacement for the 6D I sold at the same time. I really see little reason to buy the 6D II over the 80D. On paper it looks like the 80D is better at video and has better DR. Sure the 6DII has better ISO performance but I find the 7DII good and the 80D is reported as being better. I already have a full frame Sony camera so I can get the full frame look so that is not important. 

I think I will just buy a 80D out of the refurb store on black friday and call it good.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 5, 2017)

I carefully read the Carnathan review and found it very helpful in a variety of ways. I'll refer to it again after I buy the camera. 

I had about decided that for my purposes the non-L kit lens was the better choice. I had not thought about the focus tracking advantage, so his comment reinforced that decision.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 5, 2017)

tcmatthews said:


> I think that is my main complaint. It is too much a FF 80D.


Jeez! 
Before the 6D2 was announced the most common request was to have 'a full frame 80D' Now we have that people are complaining. What exactly did you want?



tcmatthews said:


> It has the exact same autofocus sensor. So it does not have good coverage for full frame.


It has pretty much the same AF coverage as the 5DIV and the 1Dx2. 
AF is limited by the vignetting of lenses and that is the same for all bodies. The fact is that that area is a greater % of the APS-C sensor and there's nothing you can do about it. 





tcmatthews said:


> There have been no improvement in the Video Codec side and the 6D2 has (supposedly worst video than the 6D.)


That's been done to death so often its hardly worth resurrecting. Tough.




tcmatthews said:


> I find the lack of USB3 and SD-UHS II a continuation of a disturbing trend. Is Canon simple coasting on their good brand recognition? Is the DIGIC processor group not innovating fast enough or are they technically incompetent? Is there marketing group tonedeff and overly cautious?



No, no, and no. They have decided that the average buyer of the 6D2 does not need UHS-II in the 6D2.




tcmatthews said:


> Regardless I expected more from the moving up market comment. Without SD UHS II there is no chance of 4K.


And with no 4K there is no need for UHS-II (see previous comment)



tcmatthews said:


> I really wanted to see some kind of general improvement over the 80D beside the larger sensor.


Like?
There is an improvemement - it is called a FF sensor.



tcmatthews said:


> I think that the 6D II was a good response to the Sony A7II it is just late. It is not a bad camera it is just lackluster for 2017. It would have been fine if they released it in 2016. It is going to look really dated when Sony releases the followup to the 7DII.


When.....
I suspect you will be sadly disappointed in the lack of mega-technical improvements. 



tcmatthews said:


> Sadly perception is often more important than reality.


And perception is built on uninformed and unrealistic dreaming.



tcmatthews said:


> Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D.


You have the swivel screen, but if that is the only thing you wanted, shy all the complaining? 



tcmatthews said:


> I have been thinking of getting a vlogning camera.


So why is the 6D2 not a good vlogging camera? Do you know how little ontent in the interet is actually 4K - yet I don;t see reams of people complaining about it only being 1080. Do you? 
Or is this for your own personal ego?




tcmatthews said:


> Canon has a better Camera for this than Sony. It would have been nice to get a replacement for the 6D I sold at the same time. I really see little reason to buy the 6D II over the 80D. On paper it looks like the 80D is better at video and has better DR.


On paper...so buy the 80D. You will win out and have more money to spend on lighting and lenses for your video. Canon lose on not selling a 6D2 and will listen to the market



tcmatthews said:


> Sure the 6DII has better ISO performance but I find the 7DII good and the 80D is reported as being better.


Reported as...on the technical benches. I mark that as 'interesting'and wait to see what real world users can get out of it. But hey, buy on spec sheet and test benches if that floats your boat.

Is this heavy with sarcasm? Yes. Do I apologise for it? No
All these arguments were had on announcement over several threads amounting to a couple of hundred pages. This thread is about real world hands-on testing to see what it is actually capable of so people can actually make their minds up. So pleas forgive my irritation at someone resurrecting old, old arguments in a thread that I hoped would take a different direction and give me some real, practical ideas of whether it is worth buying.


----------



## hbr (Aug 5, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > I think that is my main complaint. It is too much a FF 80D.
> ...



I own both the 6D2 and the 7D2 and there is no comparison between the two. With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens. With the 6D2 I just shot a picture early in the morning at ISO 40,00 at f/9.0 and was able to salvage it. If you want to see the link to that picture, it is:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing.

Brian


----------



## Talys (Aug 5, 2017)

tcmatthews said:


> Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D. I hate the 5D/7D body ergonomics they are just too big for my hands. So upgrading to a 5D IV just is not going to happen. So do I just continue buying Sony equipment because it is a better fit?



If you think the 6D (and by extension, 6DII, since it's almost identical physically) is close to perfect ergonomically, I'm very surprised that you would enjoy the ergonomics of the Sony ILCs :X




tcmatthews said:


> I think I will just buy a 80D out of the refurb store on black friday and call it good.



Save yourself the time and just get it on Amazon now  The 80D is a fine camera. If you don't need fully weather sealed and you don't need full frame -- specifically, either being able to shoot wider or at with less noise at high ISO -- the 80D is Canon's _best_ choice in my opinion. It opens up the whole universe of excellent EFS lenses that cost a fraction of what's available on EF and L lenses. 

Forget the price of the body: you're going to spend a fortune to get the equivalent of the 10-18 STM for your FF. And you'll need to buy a 24-70/4 at three times the price and one third the focal range to do much better than the nano USM 18-135, which is great in the middle of its focal range. The EFS17-55/2.8 is a pretty awesome deal too. Sure, everyone would prefer the EF24/70/2.8 on a FF, but look at the price difference.

Also, if you don't need all that weather sealing or f/2.8 telephotos, the EFS lenses are just way, way, way lighter. My 70-200/2.8 II weighs like... as much as 3 EFS zoom lenses plus a EF70-300.

The great thing about an 80D is that you can buy the L lens for the one focal range that it's really critical to have awesome glass for, and buy much cheaper lenses that are good enough for everything else. If you buy a FF body, there is a tendency to try to buy L for everything, even if you don't shoot that much in that FL. And then for each of those, you need to agonize between f/4 and the twice-as-expensive f/2.8, because hell, you're already half-way there anyhow.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 5, 2017)

hbr said:


> With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens.



Did you really just say that... LOL! 

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wheres the ROFL emoji.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 5, 2017)

hbr said:


> I own both the 6D2 and the 7D2 and there is no comparison between the two. With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens. With the 6D2 I just shot a picture early in the morning at ISO 40,00 at f/9.0 and was able to salvage it.



You're doing something very wrong if you are seeing a difference of several stops between the 7D2 and the 6D2. Available non-anecdotal data agrees with common sense and the laws of physics and gives the expected difference of a little over a stop. See, for example, The Digital Picture. If you could salvage a 6D2 photo shot at ISO 40000, you could just as well salvage a 7D2 photo shot at ISO 12800. I'd be inclined to believe you if by "7D2" you actually mean the EOS D30 from year 2000.


----------



## slclick (Aug 5, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the 6D2 and the 7D2 and there is no comparison between the two. With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens. With the 6D2 I just shot a picture early in the morning at ISO 40,00 at f/9.0 and was able to salvage it.
> ...



No doubt! I mean yeah, the common complaint of the original 7D was noise levels above 6400, so if you're having issues with the MUCH improved Mark 2 then it's user error.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 6d II vs 5D IV @ISO 12,800:
> 
> https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EOS-6D-Mark-II-6499/highres/Canon-EOS-6D-II-ISO12800-IMG_9894_1501769013.jpg
> 
> ...



Thanks for this link. Hadn't seen this. High ISO does appear to be very good for straight images that wont require a lot of tone adjustment in post. Especially for JPG's which are bit-constained regardless. I want to believe that Canon optimized the camera for high ISO. It would make the lack of low ISO DR in RAW's a bit more palatable. Despite my initial disappointment I could probably make this work as a travel camera until Canon releases a fully developed mirrorless solution. Probably going to have to spend a lot more time in photoshop than I would have liked. Not ready to pull the trigger yet though. I'll wait until all of the reviews are in.


----------



## hbr (Aug 5, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the 6D2 and the 7D2 and there is no comparison between the two. With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens. With the 6D2 I just shot a picture early in the morning at ISO 40,00 at f/9.0 and was able to salvage it.
> ...



Guys, I'm serious. I don't know if I was just unlucky and just got two bad copies or what. I purchased the first one to take photos of all the birds in my back yard along with the 400 5.6 L. From the beginning I was disappointed with the noise levels even in strong sunlight. I was going to sell it until I did some landscape shots with several of my f/2.8 lenses. The shots were incredible and the colors perfect, so I kept it. That camera was stolen and the second camera was no better. I am often jealous when I see beautiful shots with little noise and great detail from other photographers using the same setup as me.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear that others wit this camera are happy with it, but it has been a disappointment for me. I often felt that I got cleaner pictures with my XSi.
therefore, sorry for the erroneous post.

Brian


----------



## Talys (Aug 5, 2017)

Here's a bird taken on a cloudy day with 6DII and 70-300mm II @ 300mm f/5.6, 1/1250, ISO 1250:

Cropped -






Uncropped - http://versadyne.com/talys/chickadee.jpg


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 5, 2017)

Sharlin, 
You made a fair call. I would say that 6D II unedited RAW files advantage over 7D II file is around 1 1/3 of a stop. What strikes me though is how well 6D II files comes out past noise reduction in raw editing software. 

My guess is the better qualities of noise in 6D II files make noise reduction job easier for the software. Noise is more random, no banding, no colour blotches. I see difference even compared to 6D original files. Probably 2/3 of a stop advantage after noise reductions was applied. I hope it makes sense. 



Sharlin said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the 6D2 and the 7D2 and there is no comparison between the two. With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens. With the 6D2 I just shot a picture early in the morning at ISO 40,00 at f/9.0 and was able to salvage it.
> ...


----------



## Adelino (Aug 5, 2017)

Yasko said:


> Btw just for fun: My old account got banned and I have no idea why. Not one swear nor bullshit talk, I looked up all my posts during the last months with that account... just because you mentioned one should continue booing Canon to not get 'banned' (I get the sarcasm).


 
Well, you did just swear right there...


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 5, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Sharlin,
> You made a fair call. I would say that 6D II unedited RAW files advantage over 7D II file is around 1 1/3 of a stop. What strikes me though is how well 6D II files comes out past noise reduction in raw editing software.
> 
> My guess is the better qualities of noise in 6D II files make noise reduction job easier for the software. Noise is more random, no banding, no colour blotches. I see difference even compared to 6D original files. Probably 2/3 of a stop advantage after noise reductions was applied. I hope it makes sense.



You're right and I should probably have elaborated. The noise quality in all of Canon's new sensors seems to be improved and more amenable to noise reduction (zero of which is applied in eg. TDP and DPR reference images). It's good to know that holds for the 6D2 as well even if numerically the sensor is disappointing to many. Goes to show, again, that numbers don't tell everything.


----------



## Talys (Aug 5, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> The noise quality in all of Canon's new sensors seems to be improved and more amenable to noise reduction



Bingo! 6D2, 5D4 both have images after noise reduction that are extremely pleasing, without jumping through any hoops. Just use the default DPP settings, and you're off to the races. It's effortless and consistent. 

Sure, the unedited RAW file is important, but not compared to what you get after processing them, because that's what you're actually going to use, and ultimately, nobody else cares what your picture looked like before they got to see it. 

I should add the caveat that as someone who rarely shoots high ISO, there are no doubt better ways to get rid of noise that I just haven't explored because it's not super important to me. But being able to really easily use a high ISO image is a great feature, even -- or perhaps especially -- if you don't use it much.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 5, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> That is really good to know.
> Do you have any comments on AF tracking? Or do you not do enough of that to comment?



This is just preliminary, but I took my 6D2 out with 135 f/2L and shot it wide open yesterday. Put the camera in AI Servo and used zone mode (9 points) and moved along the top (left, center, right) and took a few dozen shots of my daughter running around on a playground, swinging, etc. etc. and came away very happy. Everything just seemed to hit. So my initial impressions are this is a huge step up from the original 6D and was my reason for upgrading.

Obviously I look forward to continue to test out the AI tracking but initial impressions are very solid.


----------



## xseven (Aug 6, 2017)

Hi!
Maybe here I will have more luck!
Will anyone who already has a 6D II be kind enough to post some raw files (high contrast scene + some under/over exposed variants, a "lens cap" ... just think of what sort of raw files you would have liked to inspect prior to buying the camera  )
Google drive, dropbox, wetransfer ...
Thank you!


----------



## hbr (Aug 6, 2017)

xseven said:


> Hi!
> Maybe here I will have more luck!
> Will anyone who already has a 6D II be kind enough to post some raw files (high contrast scene + some under/over exposed variants, a "lens cap" ... just think of what sort of raw files you would have liked to inspect prior to buying the camera  )
> Google drive, dropbox, wetransfer ...
> Thank you!



Hi xseven,

I am working on that, but it is a slow process as time and weather has been against me. I already have several unedited RAW files on Google Drive that you are welcome to download and edit to your hearts content in the editor of your choice. I will continue to add photos as I have the time to go out and shoot some photos. The link is:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing

These shots are directly out of the camera with no further processing other than my initial camera setup.

Brian


----------



## jd7 (Aug 6, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > That is really good to know.
> ...



OK, these sorts of comments in this thread from people who have actually bought the 6DII, and a few similar comments I've seen elsewhere on the internet, have just about got me over the line ... Looking forward to hearing my reports about the AF tracking in due course!


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 6, 2017)

Talys said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D. I hate the 5D/7D body ergonomics they are just too big for my hands. So upgrading to a 5D IV just is not going to happen. So do I just continue buying Sony equipment because it is a better fit?
> ...



First of all I have a full set of full frame lens for Canon. I have just been using them on a Sony camera since last year when I sold my 6D. I also have the EFs 15-85 so unless I am getting STM for video I do not need any mid focal range Canon Lens. The 16-35f4 L IS destroys the image quality of the 10-18 STM. I bought mine just before I sold my 6D. I also bought one of those 10-18 STM when they first came out and though it was broken it was so soft in comparison to my Sony E 10-18f4. At the time I had a EOS M and did the test shots on that. It looked soft in the preview. Though I had focus issues so I put it on my 60D. Still soft thought it was broken. When got a tripod and focused it in live view still looked a little soft. Thought I had just gotten use the the weaker Sony AA filter from months of not using my 60D. So I when and got my Nex 6 and metabones adapter. The lens was focusing correctly but it had no sharpness in the corners. It did improve around f8 but my Sigma that went for the swim on my first 60D was better. Come to think about I am sure I have written about my experience with the 10-18STM in a post on here somewhere. 

Anyway, I traded it in when I traded in the 6D, EOS-M and my Nex 6. I will not buy another 10-18STM to see if that one was a lemon. There is no point I will buy a better lens. 

No if anything I am one of those trapped with Canon glass I like but wanting a better camera to use them on. I have been contemplating a 5D spec camera likely a 5DSR for over a year. But realize it will just sit at home like my 7D II. It only leaves the house when I want to use my Tamron 150-600mm. On that lense it does not matter that the camera is huge.  

The 80D is currently running around 799 on the Canon refurb shop. It was running around that 2 months ago with a kit lens. I paid slightly less for the 7D II body only. I am in no hurry. I will wait for the sale.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 6, 2017)

jd7 said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > This is just preliminary, but I took my 6D2 out with 135 f/2L and shot it wide open yesterday. Put the camera in AI Servo and used zone mode (9 points) and moved along the top (left, center, right) and took a few dozen shots of my daughter running around on a playground, swinging, etc. etc. and came away very happy. Everything just seemed to hit. So my initial impressions are this is a huge step up from the original 6D and was my reason for upgrading.
> ...



For sure. I know this is the "Full Frame 80D" but I've never shot an 80D. However, I did own a 70D for close to 2 years and that was my "action camera" and I felt confident shooting (action) with it. Just the little bit I used the 6D2 yesterday gave me that same feel and level of confidence.

I'm going to attempt to upload a shot and a 1:1 crop. I don't think I've done this before so I apologize if I screw this up.


----------



## xseven (Aug 6, 2017)

hbr said:


> I am working on that, but it is a slow process as time and weather has been against me.
> Brian



Thank you for your understanding and time! 

PS: is it ok if I post some edits of your photos?


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 6, 2017)

Excellent, it looks like the upload worked! I was a bit impressed by the tracking because I was following on her face but from the angle I had her face would disappear (be blocked) as she swung forward with her feet high in the air. Either way, the camera either compensated for that (at default tracking settings) or just re-acquired the lock fast enough it was a none factor. Surely the fast focus speed of the 135mm f/2L didn't hurt, but shooting at the narrow f/2 probably didn't help either. 

Most my family left for a week long vacation on a lake today. I've been fortunate enough this year to be on vacations to Asia, Northern California, France, and I just got back from 5 days in the BWCA. In short I'm light on vacation time right now.  However I'm going to join everyone towards the end of next week and I plan to do some more "real world" testing of the focus system.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 6, 2017)

Well, after viewing this page, I've clicked notify again ... perhaps until Aglet appears - ugh. I should really stay away because I have every confidence that there will be plenty of good reports of well focused, well exposed shots from happy campers.

Jack


----------



## hbr (Aug 6, 2017)

xseven said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > I am working on that, but it is a slow process as time and weather has been against me.
> ...



Sure, I would like everyone to see them.

Brian

PS - I am loving this camera more every day and I am hoping a lot of people who are afraid to purchase it because of all the DR talk will enjoy the photos I am putting on that site and be able to make a good decision by looking at real photos. Not all the photos will be good photos as I am trying to learn the limitations of the camera and I am purposely taking some bad shots so that people can see the good, the bad and the ugly.
Just make mention of me in your postings so that everyone knows where the photos came from.
Thanks,

Brian


----------



## xseven (Aug 6, 2017)

hbr said:


> Brian



Brian took the time to share some raw files ... Thank you!  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing

A 12800 ISO DR example ... not bad resized la 2024px


----------



## jd7 (Aug 6, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> For sure. I know this is the "Full Frame 80D" but I've never shot an 80D. However, I did own a 70D for close to 2 years and that was my "action camera" and I felt confident shooting (action) with it. Just the little bit I used the 6D2 yesterday gave me that same feel and level of confidence.
> 
> I'm going to attempt to upload a shot and a 1:1 crop. I don't think I've done this before so I apologize if I screw this up.



Looks good to me Luds34!


----------



## jd7 (Aug 6, 2017)

hbr said:


> xseven said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



Thanks very much for uploading the files Brian. I've downloaded a couple and am looking forward to having a play with them as soon as I get a chance.


----------



## reef58 (Aug 6, 2017)

jayt567 said:


> Chris_BC said:
> 
> 
> > I would say this convinces me more than ever that Canon has too many camera models. At least because they appear to have a strong desire to differentiate them for various reasons, such that certain models get certain handicaps. Presumably they opted to hamstring the 6D II in some ways so as not to cannibalize 5D IV sales. I'm a 5DsR owner, so I hope this worse than usual choice results in them learning a lesson for the II version there, and in general.
> ...



I am certainly no economics professor, but there are only so many DSLR sales to be had to matter what you put in the camera. If Canon put in the best of everything and offered it at $1500 they are not going to sell that many more units than they will already. Someone sitting at home who hasn't bought a DSLR isn't suddenly going to rush the camera stores because he heard a 6D2 has 50 stops of dynamic range. There is a large percentage of one time dslr buyers, so they are not upgrading. They probably haven't changed the dial from the little green square. There is just not a huge amount of untapped sales to be had from an innovative camera.


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 6, 2017)

reef58 said:


> jayt567 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris_BC said:
> ...



I agree they seem to be making too many camera models for a shrinking market. All these different models have associated R&D cost. I think that there would be far more savings in the R&D if they were making fewer camera models. For this reason I think no more than 3-4 Crop DSLR Canon Models. One Rebel one XXD, and one semi-pro XD. I would also argue that it is time to drop the yearly Rebel and start providing fewer but more substantial releases. 

I for one think they could have stuck the 5D IV sensor in the 6D II and not affected sales. When I compare the 1DX II, 5D IV, and the 6D II I am no longer really looking at the sensor. Other than a check mark for good enough. They could all have the same sensor for all I care. So why did they bother developing 3 sensors when it has to be more efficient to run just one. 

Should there be different features sure, but Canon has taken it too far. While Sony in many ways adds to many pro features in the entry level cameras leading to a confusing user interface.


----------



## BillB (Aug 6, 2017)

reef58 said:


> jayt567 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris_BC said:
> ...



The market for DSLR may not be fully saturated, but it is more saturated than it used to be, so it is harder to generate sales. Part of the reason that it is more saturated than it used to be is that a lot of us have cameras that we are pretty happy with.

There are several ways that Canon can compete for sales, including cost, camera features, service and brand ecosystem, particularly EF lenses. Apparently, the 6DII was designed to compete on price, service, full frame entry into the EF lens ecosystem, and a bundle of features that did not including meeting DPR's standards for shadow lifting at low ISOs. Nor did it include 4K video, which has never been a feature of a FF camera introduced for less than $3000, or a second card slot. It is what it is, and we shall see how it plays out. We will never know whether know how much money Canon left on the table by not putting in a sensor that had an ADC sensor on board.


----------



## tencachon (Aug 6, 2017)

I am good at finding more bugs. Any existing 6DII user see this circle added on the image? I only get it on 3rd party lens (this is the 35mmf1.4 Sigma art that will turn off my camera if it gets on live view). LR will take care of the circle automatically added by the camera but I thought it was just odd.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 6, 2017)

tencachon said:


> I am good at finding more bugs. Any existing 6DII user see this circle added on the image? I only get it on 3rd party lens (this is the 35mmf1.4 Sigma art that will turn off my camera if it gets on live view). LR will take care of the circle automatically added by the camera but I thought it was just odd.



Turn off peripheral illumination correction. The camera doesn't have data for third-party lenses anyway and they usually fake their identity to the camera, leading to such glitches.

Because PI correction is a JPEG-only thing, it's not that LR takes care of it in any way but that it only exists in the preview embedded in the RAW, so "vanishes" once LR has rendered the actual RAW.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 6, 2017)

It's not a 6D II bug, it a third party lens bug to be precise


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Aug 7, 2017)

tcmatthews said:


> I for one think they could have stuck the 5D IV sensor in the 6D II and not affected sales. When I compare the 1DX II, 5D IV, and the 6D II I am no longer really looking at the sensor. Other than a check mark for good enough. They could all have the same sensor for all I care. So why did they bother developing 3 sensors when it has to be more efficient to run just one.



Yes! Thank you! Not sure you could drive 30MP through the 1DX2 at 14 FPS but I can't think of a single reason why the 6D2 and 5D4 couldn't share a sensor. If the sensor isn't obviously deficient, or use-specific, than very few purchasers would chose a camera model on that alone. They would simply buy the camera that has the feature set they need, want or can afford just as they appear to do with other brands. 

Say what you will, but Canon is burning through a lot of good will with it's customer base with many of these choices. Good will that many companies would kill for. Even if you believe the criticism is overdone or unwarranted, you would think Canon would make a greater effort to repudiate it. 

Yes I know, they're still #1 and they're competitors all have problems of their own but that can change quicker than many people on this forum would like to believe. 

Don't want to seem overly dramatic about it. I can probably work around the 6D2's unnecessarily high noise floor for my intended use. It appears to be a bit better than the 5D3 which I used for years. But every time I end up with an image that's obviously less than it could have been with the on-chip ADC sensors Canon has available right now, I'm going to withdraw a little good will from Canon's piggy bank.

edit: I have owned each of the 5D, 5D2 and 5D3 but have been using a 1DX2 as my primary body since it launched last year. In my experience that sensor has neutral shadows, less mid-tone noise in unedited RAWs as well as dramatic improvements in the ability to edit in post without hitting the noise floor. I spend way less time in photoshop blending images or having to create masks. Not sure I've ever shot a jpeg with it so I can't speak to that. And no, I'm not talking about fixing underexposed images. It appears that the 5D4 sensor received similar benefits but I don't own one of those.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 6d II vs 5D IV @ISO 12,800:
> 
> https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EOS-6D-Mark-II-6499/highres/Canon-EOS-6D-II-ISO12800-IMG_9894_1501769013.jpg
> 
> ...



good enuf...

not only are general exposure and WB quite different but even the lighting angle could be different as it seems to have added glare to the 5d4 shot visible in the colorchecker outer frame (upper R) and some of the color patches.

if I'd present this kind of incosistent comparison data here I'm sure a few here would be cr*ppin all over it!

Still, have a closer look at the darker tones in the non-glare areas. The 6d2 seems to use a more contrasty tone curve that pushes the low tones darker to help hide the noise. I mean, _to appeal to the customer base this camera is aimed at._ 
Or is there too much DR on a paper target scene for the camera to handle? 


apples-to-crabapples comparison

5d4 is in a whole different league, overall, but the 6d2 is plenty good enuf for most things at hi iso.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2017)

Aglet said:


> ...the 6d2 is plenty good enuf for most things at hi iso.



That sounds just like what DPR said about the Nikon D5 and Sony a9.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 7, 2017)

Not sure what you are on about. The only purpose of my post was to see how high ISO noise characteristics of 6D II stack up against the same of 5D IV and at the same ISO level.
See if you can cut back on the number of coffees daily. You seems overreacting a lot.
For the record, I do not see these cameras being in the same league but am curious about high ISO performance of the new camera. 




Aglet said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > 6d II vs 5D IV @ISO 12,800:
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Not sure what you are on about. The only purpose of my post was to see how high ISO noise characteristics of 6D II stack up against the same of 5D IV and at the same ISO level.
> See if you can cut back on the number of coffees daily. You seems overreacting a lot.
> For the record, I do not see these cameras being in the same league but am curious about high ISO performance of the new camera.



I understood what you wanted to compare.
I pointed out that the examples from that site were not well suited for that purpose but even tho, you can see the difference in tone curves applied between the 2 systems and how one could end up thinking the 6d2 was really good because, subjectively, it appears cleaner due to that difference in output processing and sample lighting.


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 7, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > ...the 6d2 is plenty good enuf for most things at hi iso.
> ...



If true they wouldn't be wrong.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 8, 2017)

I don't understand the locking of "Anything shot with a 6D2". My thought is that we now are moving to a thread where CR members will simply be posting their pics and describing their experiences. If anything the more gear oriented 6D2 threads should have been locked considering the unlimited nonsense that we've endured.

There was an "anything shot with a 6D, 1Dx ... , why not 6D2?

Jack


----------



## Aglet (Aug 8, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I don't understand the locking of "Anything shot with a 6D2". My thought is that we now are moving to a thread where CR members will simply be posting their pics and describing their experiences. If anything the more gear oriented 6D2 threads should have been locked considering the unlimited nonsense that we've endured.
> 
> There was an "anything shot with a 6D, 1Dx ... , why not 6D2?
> 
> Jack



+1
seemed like a most logical location


----------



## Billybob (Aug 8, 2017)

tron said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



If you define "troll" as anyone critical of your favorite brand, then I guess that includes me. My first DSLR was a Rebel 300D followed by 40D, 7D, and 7DMII. I've also owned all 3 5D FF cameras (yes, I have a bad case of GAS). 

But I've been trending towards Nikon since 2009. My first camera was the Nikon 90D and I currently have 4 Nikon bodies (I need to shed two of them). I am now down to just the 80D on the Canon side. I never fully transitioned to Nikon because there are some things that Canon just does better. Canon cameras seem a bit more responsive, and as I said before, I have some amazing Canon glass, so I held out hope that Canon would produce cameras bodies that compete in IQ with the rest of the competition. But Canon doesn't compete with other brands. As long as it produces amazing glass and minimally addresses the needs of its user base, it doesn't need to match the offerings of other companies.

So my illogic was sticking with Canon as long as I have. I foolishly thought that they would do something different even though they were not losing market share. A company that feels no pressure to compete is great for shareholders, but horrible for users. I realize now that Canon has mastered the art of providing modest improvements to its camera bodies. Just enough to keep its user base locked in but not enough to generate any excitement. 

I'm fortunate. I already have a foot out the door (actually, much more than a foot). It's just time for me to completely leave.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 8, 2017)

I spent the whole of Sunday on Dartmoor under less than ideal lighting conditions most of the time shooting with the 6D and the 6DMKII. It was grey and bleak for August but ideal conditions to shoot long exposures of the West Dart river. I limited myself to a Big Stopper to freeze the water / or .6 medium ND grad to balance sky to foreground exposure. I deliberately under & over exposed some shots so I could pull them back in Lightroom etc. 

My initial impressions are as follows purely subjective and not particularly scientific based on using the 6D for landscape since early 2013. Scientific tests will follow when its less manic at work. 

The cameras were set at 100 iso and 400 iso, apertures were f5.6 and f11 and once in Lightroom I played with my normal go to settings for sharpening and exposure adjustment, saturation etc. 
The 6D shots showed less noise in the shadow detail of underexposed shots recovered by 2 stops but it was marginal. The 6D MKII shots as to be expected looked sharper and I will need to tweak down my go to sharpening preset otherwise they look over sharpened. Colours looked very similar to the 5DS out of the 6D MKII and better than the 6D. I shot a very flat grey sky and with the 6D could provoke banding at 400 iso whereas the 6D MKII didn't show any. The performance of the 6D MKII regarding noise seemed better at 400 iso than it did at 100 iso which I didn't expect. 

These were not exhaustive tests and different conditions could provide different results (sunny blue skies were sadly missing), but having shot on Dartmoor in similar conditions and having hundreds of shots to go back & compare too I would say in real world shooting the main obvious difference is not DR they appear close but the sharper shots from the 6D MKII. More noise in pulled shadow shots especially just two stops is not a feather in the cap for Canon but if you never enlarge more than A3 then your not particularly notice it either. 

What I am disappointed with is the restricted coverage of the AF points being used to the 5DS as well as the 6D this is a limitation that I know will cause problems in certain situations. The lighter body is surprisingly noticeable seeing as on paper its not much of a change and the tilting / flippy screen was a great bonus with the camera low to the floor shooting long exposures of the river. 

For those where DR improvement is what you were looking for (I would have liked it), this is not the camera for you, for those that want the extra versatility the flippy screen brings (the touch screen is great) then its worth the upgrade for the easier framing it presents (its huge in low tripod framing). 

I will use the camera on a model shoot I have this coming weekend to see how I fair with the larger number of AF points, even with the 5DS I have to often lock focus & reframe. It will also be interesting to see how it fairs with studio lighting & the Chiaroscuro set-up I will shoot.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 8, 2017)

Jeffa4444 thanks for posting your initial impressions. Refreshing to see your comments without the drama that has infected this thread.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 8, 2017)

Billybob said:


> So my illogic was sticking with Canon as long as I have. I foolishly thought that they would do something different even though they were not losing market share. A company that feels no pressure to compete is great for shareholders, but horrible for users. I realize now that Canon has mastered the art of providing modest improvements to its camera bodies. Just enough to keep its user base locked in but not enough to generate any excitement.
> 
> I'm fortunate. I already have a foot out the door (actually, much more than a foot). It's just time for me to completely leave.



Before you actually leave, perhaps you could post some photos taken with both your Nikon gear and your Canon gear that demonstrate the differences in IQ that you believe separate the brands. Modest improvements are all that is possible between camera generations, in the belief of many folks - regardless of brand - so something more concrete than words would help us all understand how Nikon has surpassed Canon in your experience.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 8, 2017)

The last two posts align with my thinking. Oft repeated, all the cameras out there are good.

Jack


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 8, 2017)

Billybob said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...


I'm lucky I get to play with cameras I don't own like the Sony A7S II, its an unbelievable camera in low light but the controls really suck and the colours are well awful in my opinion yet others love it. 

I read the reviews of the pre-production Canon 6D MKII and I went back and read the reviews of the Canon 6D. The 6D was berated by hardened Canon users as well as Nikon users scoffing at it against the D600 (we all know how that camera went!) on paper. 
Fact is Ive loved the 6D one of the most underrated cameras in my lifetime and Ive shot over 60,000 shots with mine with my only real gripe being low level banding in grey or certain blue skies. Made money out of it too which was not part of the plan. 
So my decision to buy the 6D MKII was really as a replacement for the 6D and to access better AF coverage, better metering and the flippy screen (which I liked on my seldom used 760D), yes I would have liked better DR but it was not a deal breaker and the cost is not too dissimilar to the £ 1,950 I paid for the 6D (£ 1,999) and now it has a two year guarantee not one. 
The fact that it feels lighter, is well made, the controls are basically the same, it uses the same batteries, SD cards & lenses just means you don't need to think how to use it and can focus on composition & exposure or what you buy it for the photography. Its a tool not jewel and ALL tools have compromises but after reviewing shots taken in not optimal conditions this past weekend I'm not full of buyers remorse and Canon will remain my camera manufacturer of choice. Yes more DR and less noise in recovered shadows would be better but hell its not the difference between life & death.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 8, 2017)

jeffa4444, I'm not the least bit surprised, of course nothing is perfect. I gave my Nikon D5100 crop to my daughter when I bought the 6D and it was a good camera but when she needed menu help from me after I'd been shooting the 6D for months it reinforced how much better the Canon ergonomics were IMHO. 

6D, AF - I just used the center 95% of the time. It was so easy to have AI servo on AF-ON and just release my thumb gently while pressing the shutter after the composition was locked. Thus focus and recompose became a trivial issue, etc. 

I'll be fine when I get my 6D2 with no complaints. 

Jack


----------



## Aglet (Aug 8, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> ..my only real gripe being low level banding in grey or certain blue skies.


absolute deal-breaker for some of us


----------



## Aglet (Aug 8, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> jeffa4444, I'm not the least bit surprised, of course nothing is perfect. I gave my Nikon D5100 crop to my daughter when I bought the 6D and it was a good camera but when she needed menu help from me after I'd been shooting the 6D for months it reinforced how much better the Canon ergonomics were IMHO.
> 
> 6D, AF - I just used the center 95% of the time. It was so easy to have AI servo on AF-ON and just release my thumb gently while pressing the shutter after the composition was locked. Thus focus and recompose became a trivial issue, etc.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what you shoot, Jack. d5100's AF system wasn't great for anything moving faster than a turtle but on a static scene with a tripod I'll take a raw from from it over the 6D for a large print.
d5100's base ISO IQ is outstanding for a cheap old consumer camera.
it's sensor to viewfinder misalignment is really annoying tho.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444, I'm not the least bit surprised, of course nothing is perfect. I gave my Nikon D5100 crop to my daughter when I bought the 6D and it was a good camera but when she needed menu help from me after I'd been shooting the 6D for months it reinforced how much better the Canon ergonomics were IMHO.
> ...



Actually, the D5100 AF is not that bad in capable hands. My present gear is listed at the bottom. 

I think you have a tendency to exaggerate with your Canon complaints. Talk is cheap. There isn't a product in existence that couldn't be better in some way. Talented individuals work for all the companies, so best is unlikely to permanently exist under a given banner. Best brand today is not necessarily best brand tomorrow or it even may go out of existence. This is continuous jockeying and poor reason to be jumping ship every few years. I decided to move to Canon and unless they falter big time that's where I'll happily stay. 

Shooting long with heavy glass means a small camera is actually a negative for me although lighter would be helpful.

Jack


----------



## Aglet (Aug 9, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Jack, fellow Canadian and guy who lives near where I'm going to retire in a few years and who shows mature restraint and sense in his posting here... 

I think you should be shooting Olympus. Seriously. it's great for us... _mature_ folk who like to shoot nature. 

Flagship Oly is Cheaper than a 5d3 and outperforms the heck out of it in most situations.
I've posted this info elsewhere but it's worth a look.

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

and here's a former Nikon embassador on the subject:

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

Check it out and let me know what you think, especially if you haven't looked at this brand before.
No store near you? You can buy direct in Canada. I used the Cdn site link above.

Lenses?..

http://www.getolympus.com/ca/en/mzuiko

No. I don't work for Olympus.
But I'd like to. ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 9, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...


I bought into the system when it was 4/3rds with the E-500 then when it changed to micro 4/3rds first with adaptors then replacing the lenses to micro 4/3rds. Ive currently a OM-D E5 II and a OM-D E10 and they are rarely if ever used anymore. Ive used compact cameras, APS-C cameras you name it but FF is like a drug once you've experienced it everything else is a compromise (except wildlife / birds where APS-C excels). 

The 6D MKII feels much more lighter against the 6D than the stats suggest and its marginally smaller and I'm the wrong side of sixty to lug more weight than needed. Yes lenses are larger & heavier but optically much better than micro 4/3rds.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 9, 2017)

Here is my initial impressions of shooting the 6DMKII

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


----------



## Aglet (Aug 9, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I bought into the system when it was 4/3rds with the E-500 then when it changed to micro 4/3rds first with adaptors then replacing the lenses to micro 4/3rds. Ive currently a OM-D E5 II and a OM-D E10 and they are rarely if ever used anymore. Ive used compact cameras, APS-C cameras you name it but FF is like a drug once you've experienced it everything else is a compromise (except wildlife / birds where APS-C excels).
> 
> The 6D MKII feels much more lighter against the 6D than the stats suggest and its marginally smaller and I'm the wrong side of sixty to lug more weight than needed. Yes lenses are larger & heavier but optically much better than micro 4/3rds.



I've experienced some of the best "FF drugs" available with some of the best glass for it as well.
Yes, definitely an almost addictive experience when seeing the output. 

But carrying all that stuff all the tim? No thanks.
The latest MFT gear is capable of delivering 5d3 level IQ (or better?) in a much easier to carry package.

As for the lenses... plenty of crop detail presented in that page I linked, a few posts above, from the former Nikon pro that exhibits what MFT and Oly glass can do. It's a nearly 30MB web page showcasing the abilities, and shortcomings, of Oly's flagship body. Certainly an educational read and exactly the topic of that page. 
He compares it to a D5 and a D810, as a system, in many cases, quite favorably.


----------



## slclick (Aug 9, 2017)

I have the latest Oly MFT and NO, it will not, does not and cannot outperform my 5D3 and EF glass in any way shape or form. It will compliment it but that's where the comparisons stop. Ridiculous.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> The latest MFT gear is capable of delivering 5d3 level IQ (or better?) in a much easier to carry package.



They must sell some high quality seeds and buds in that little 'garden' shoppe where you hang your images.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > I bought into the system when it was 4/3rds with the E-500 then when it changed to micro 4/3rds first with adaptors then replacing the lenses to micro 4/3rds. Ive currently a OM-D E5 II and a OM-D E10 and they are rarely if ever used anymore. Ive used compact cameras, APS-C cameras you name it but FF is like a drug once you've experienced it everything else is a compromise (except wildlife / birds where APS-C excels).
> ...



I have seen some excellent photos with the latest Olympus bodies and Oly 300mmf4 or Panasonic 100-400 . But when viewed large on a 24" screen the image quality deficiencies compared to FF (of any marque) become apparent. Your words 'quite favourably' are right, but given your interesting description of your demands from a camera system you seem to be over-egging the pudding when talking about MFT.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

I note that slclick did not talk specifically about DR. But you seem hung up on this. 
Dynamic range measured in a lab may be better, but the sensor is 1/4 the size of the FF and when you blow it up to the same size you have more problems than just DR.

And the difference between 5DIII and Olympus is not even 1 stop. Is that really going to revolutionise your photography.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > The latest MFT gear is capable of delivering 5d3 level IQ (or better?) in a much easier to carry package.
> ...



Images of what? Underexposed back of a lens cap and pushed seven stops? What's the name of the coffee shop again? Ye olde DRone & Measurebator?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet claims otherwise but clearly he's just having fun agitating and I think it counterproductive to engage.

I won't. May I suggest others don't. It'll leave more time for important matters like shooting with whatever wonderful camera you have! 

Jack


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 10, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Aglet claims otherwise but clearly he's just having fun agitating and I think it counterproductive to engage.
> 
> I won't. May I suggest others don't. It'll leave more time for important matters like shooting with whatever wonderful camera you have!
> 
> Jack



Please yes. He will get bored if he doesn't get a reaction, and he's clearly not interested in an actual discussion.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 10, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I note that slclick did not talk specifically about DR. But you seem hung up on this.
> Dynamic range measured in a lab may be better, but the sensor is 1/4 the size of the FF and when you blow it up to the same size you have more problems than just DR.



no, I don't like noise and pattern noise especially, Canon's specialty. DR is related but less of an issue.



> And the difference between 5DIII and Olympus is not even 1 stop. Is that really going to revolutionise your photography.



The difference in DR... a little, yes.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DOZEN OTHER AMAZING FEATURES THE OLYMPUS HAS THAT ARE USEFUL IN REAL LIFE EVERY-DAY SHOOTING THAT NO CANON EVEN HAS?!? 
Didn't look at those, did you.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I present an argument about the Olympus flagship, whose little sensor (2 stops smaller) and data acquisition allows it to perform pretty much on-par with a Canon 5d3 in image quality, while being priced like a 6d2


Since 6D actually has better IQ than the 5D3 this is hardly an impressive argument to present to a Canon fan boy as it makes the Olympus flagship sport inferior IQ for the same price... Gotta sharpen your sword by focusing your argument.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I am constantly amused by how you Canon fan boys can't engage in a real debate when it challenges your primary choice



I can engage and that is what I was doing. I was explaining why I think the Olympus is not as good compared to Olympus as you make out it is. I could switch your argument around and ask why you cannot engage in a reasoned debate without you having to call someone a fanboy when they disagree with you. It seems that you can criticise Canon (supposedly objectively) but anyone who disagrees has no other motive than being 'scared' about why they made those choices.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
> (It's nearly 30 MB of images so beware if you're trying to view this on a smart-phone w-o a good data plan.)
> 
> http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html
> ...



I did comment on those samples - but I guess you were too busy deciding my opinion is worthless because I am a fanboy. I said that resulting from the smaller sensor, the images do not meet what I would want to see in my photos. I don't give a damn if they have higher DR, or what other features the Olympus has if the images start to break up when I view at a size I want to view them.

As I have said several times: I have Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses and choose what I need for what I want to do.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Aug 10, 2017)

[quote author=Aglet 
The difference in DR... a little, yes.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DOZEN OTHER AMAZING FEATURES THE OLYMPUS HAS THAT ARE USEFUL IN REAL LIFE EVERY-DAY SHOOTING THAT NO CANON EVEN HAS?!? 
Didn't look at those, did you. 
[/quote]

Not really been engaging on this thread but I am curious as to the "THE DOZEN OTHER AMAZING FEATURES THE OLYMPUS HAS THAT ARE USEFUL IN REAL LIFE ". I have played with some of the newer Olympus Cameras and they seem pretty good to me for general use. Unfortunately I don't see great high ISO performance (perhaps I am wrong here?) and I don't see any long lenses (100-400 Max?). Please correct me if I am wrong but I am not sure if they (Olympus) have optical viewfinders? This is absolutely critical for my photography as even the best EVF viewfinders that I have tried are hopeless for my uses (wildlife).

Olympus have always made good cameras and some rather nice lenses but I am not familiar with many of their current products - hence my curiosity.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 11, 2017)

Aglet

As Ive posted Ive owned Olympus 4/3rd and micro 4/3rd cameras and lenses since they started the system. I don't own the OM-D E-M1 II but I do own the OM-D E-M5 II and a OM-D E-10 plus a number of lenses, so I don't consider myself a Canon fanboy! 
Lets get straight to the picture quality or fundamental differences. The m4/3rds system has a larger apparent depth of field compared to the Full Frame system so people confuse this as meaning its sharper, its not. Enlarging from m4/3rds and from Full Frame after using comparable high performance lenses I invariably have more sharper detail in the Full Frame shots the larger I increase the shot because its a smaller enlargement for the full frame camera. Obviously you know all this. 

Olympus use Sony sensors (Sony is also a shareholder of Olympus) and this definitely improved their sensor performance over the sensors provided by Panasonic (and in the past Kodak) but they are not silver bullets and if you have the money for the pro lenses Olympus now make that's great but their regular consumer lenses are pretty awful relying greatly on in-camera corrections (and no support in LR unlike Canon & Nikon). 
The m4/3rds system was designed with concentric lens design in mind but Olympus uses a tight image circle partially to limit the lens size but also to save cost. The lens choice whilst better since the arrival of the original OM-D E-M1 is still limited compared to Canon or Nikon and if I were making a living from my cameras I would not chose m4/3rds but for recreation its fine.


----------



## slclick (Aug 11, 2017)

Aglet said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I have the latest Oly MFT and NO, it will not, does not and cannot outperform my 5D3 and EF glass in any way shape or form. It will compliment it but that's where the comparisons stop. Ridiculous.
> ...



Now, if you gave yourself a minute or two do you think it would have been possible to rephrase your post in a non inflammatory and insulting way? Think on it.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
> ...



I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.

That review does in no way convince me that m4/3 is a full frame replacement for me. It does the opposite.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 11, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.
> 
> That review does in no way convince me that m4/3 is a full frame replacement for me. It does the opposite.



+1
My experience exactly


----------



## slclick (Aug 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.
> ...



I love my mft, however I am not delusional about it's capabilities when it comes to DR, IQ and noise. Hell, it's a tiny sensor. Size, weight and space saving attributes do nothing to a photographs quality. Every time I shoot with my Oly gear I accept it's limitations, when I shoot with Canon FF it's usually my own limitations that handicap me.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 11, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I am constantly amused by how you Canon fan boys can't engage in a real debate when it challenges your primary choice of equipment platform. Are you that insecure and-or suffering from inferiority?



I am constantly amused by how a troll gets to stay on this site so long when they don't debate - but rather just make totally biased comments regarding Canon cameras and inflammatory statements regarding those that use Canon equipment. I have found that anyone incapable of taking excellent photos with Canon cameras and believes them to be "mediocre" may be placing the blame at the wrong end of the camera, so to speak. 

I really like my Olympus E-M1. While I have owned it since it first came out, I have also owned a Canon 6D, SL-1 and now the M5. Yes, Olympus makes excellent camera and lenses, but there are limitations to the MFT system's smaller sensor. To argue that the IQ of MFT's images are equal to Canon FF is just plain stupid. Yes, when viewed small - and in relatively simple daytime conditions - I have taken pics with each system and found them to be virtually identical, but try and print large - or take pics in low light - and Canon FF and crop outperform MFT. I do a lot of sunset pics and the Olympus does a nice job on those, too, but in very low light - if I try and lift shadows from essentially black silhouetted areas - the MFT sensor is too small to get much if any color information. Both the crop and FF cameras do a much better job on those types of shots. View or print large? Same benefit.

So, feel free to keep making ridiculous statements about cameras that you probably don't even use - or if you do , probably don't know how to use well. Your bias is so obvious - and very unwelcome on this site.


----------



## Talys (Aug 11, 2017)

The last Olympus camera that I owned was an E-P5. This was actually the last, expensive non-Canon body that I owned.

At the time, nearly all the photography that was important to me was either macro (miniature subjects about 2" tall), or garment stills, where it was important for something like a sweater to fill at least about 12MP (3500x3500 or higher resized), have a both a pleasing image when zoomed out, and clearly see the thread and yarn of the fabric when zoomed in, with no softness anywhere on the garment. Things that were really important were, for example, the ability to perfectly represent embroidered logos, since the application allowed you to move a magnifying glass over any part of the garment and see it at pixel-level, based on a 12MP-ish image (chosen because of file size).

Though I generally enjoyed the camera, unfortunately, the Olympus E-P5 was not really great at either task, though it was dubiously acceptable. Eventually, I sold it. Is the current generation of Olympus going to do the task? Maybe, but I would be surprised. I'm not really willing to take the time and energy and cost to try, now, and besides, I'm happy with Canon.

Specifics: The sharpness that I can get out of a 50mm 1.8, 100 L 2.8, and 24-70 L 4 on an 80D is simply amazing. Even at full resolution, going to 100% gives me perfect crispness on any corner of the image, which future-proofs my unresized photos -- it's very possible, as 4k monitors and faster internet become more common, the client may one day ask for higher resolution than 3,500 x 3,500. Since most garments fit a rectangular bounding box rather than square, it's quiet easy to get 6000x6000 out of a 24MP image, and since I did all my post based on the maximum image size, I could charge a whole bunch of money for doing, well, nothing.

Now, who knows, maybe I was doing something wrong with Olympus, but when photographing miniatures (models that are a few inches tall at the most) for the purpose of reprint onto full page letter/A4 sized magazines, the Olympus did not really produce acceptable results at all. I can't recall what lens I had anymore, but I'm sure I spent close to $3,000 on the system, and added to it for a while. I made my images work with Photoshop, but it was a real chore. With 80D, the most I have to do is get rid of tiny specs of dust that manage to get onto the subject between being cleaned off and being photographed. 

It's also worth noting that the RAW support in various tools is just WAY better for Canon cameras and lenses than Olympus. Again, maybe that's changed, but I don't really care anymore, because I'm happy where I am. 

The main reason I got a 6DII (other than, I wanted one) is because it allows me to take larger subjects on where space is constrained. There are some that are really huge, like work coveralls, or sometimes, I have a request to photograph items on a mannequin or live model, but in a space that isn't very large.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 11, 2017)

slclick said:


> Now, if you gave yourself a minute or two do you think it would have been possible to rephrase your post in a non inflammatory and insulting way? Think on it.



What fun would that be?

And it might require some thought and maybe a bit of rational argument.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 12, 2017)

Larsskv said:


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



And worse (for me) they're all stationary (or relatively) stationary targets: landscapes, models, perched birds, landed insects. Not a single one of an athlete, or even the moment a dog catches a Frisbee (unless I missed it in the endless landscapes). If it can't do that, it's useless to me. If it can, why not show it?

Yes, it's an unconvincing argument.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 12, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



No there are some good looking bird in flight images in there, all be it cl9se to take off from perch stuff, and running people but mostly across the frame.

Yes there are some interesting bits of tech in there, but they mostly seem like compromises to get around poor technique or the smaller sensor size. It certainly isn't a good advert for people looking to print big or crop hard.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I have seen some excellent photos with the latest Olympus bodies and Oly 300mmf4 or Panasonic 100-400 . But when viewed large on a 24" screen the image quality deficiencies compared to FF (of any marque) become apparent. Your words 'quite favourably' are right, but given your interesting description of your demands from a camera system you seem to be over-egging the pudding when talking about MFT.



what are you going to see on a 24" screen that it going to make a big difference between FF and MFT? And there's a lot more to photos than long tele's.

unless you're comparing the same scene and composition in the same conditions the only FFs that are going to _beat_ Oly's EM1v2 are the 5d4, 1dx/2 and the SoNikons, 5ds by a hair. OK, so that's most of them out there.  But I'm beating it against the 5Dx and 6Dx series here, where the Oly is not gonna get embarrassed and certainly not considering the price difference and feature sets.



> Dynamic range measured in a lab may be better, but the sensor is 1/4 the size of the FF and when you blow it up to the same size you have more problems than just DR.





> Dynamic range measured in a lab may be better, but the sensor is 1/4 the size of the FF and when you blow it up to the same size you have more problems than just DR.



*Like what, for example?..*


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Images of what? Underexposed back of a lens cap and pushed seven stops? What's the name of the coffee shop again? Ye olde DRone & Measurebator?



it's the one where we take REAL Canon lenses and use them for coffee mugs.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
> ...



Well, you did not mention what model of Oly you had experience with, did you? If you did I missed it.
If it's anything less than the latest EM1 mk 2 it's not relevant because it's that big a jump ahead in metrics.

Don't be put off by the term fanboy, it's not aimed at anyone specific as there are plenty here who will jump to defend their platform choice almost religiously without first having a serious look a the information available in this comparison. 
I used to be one of them, back when I knew less..


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> Not really been engaging on this thread but I am curious as to the "THE DOZEN OTHER AMAZING FEATURES THE OLYMPUS HAS THAT ARE USEFUL IN REAL LIFE ". I have played with some of the newer Olympus Cameras and they seem pretty good to me for general use. Unfortunately I don't see great high ISO performance (perhaps I am wrong here?) and I don't see any long lenses (100-400 Max?). Please correct me if I am wrong but I am not sure if they (Olympus) have optical viewfinders? This is absolutely critical for my photography as even the best EVF viewfinders that I have tried are hopeless for my uses (wildlife).
> 
> Olympus have always made good cameras and some rather nice lenses but I am not familiar with many of their current products - hence my curiosity.



Well, for one thing, if your avatar is any indication along with your post, you like wildlife/bird photography? 
All the recent and current Oly cam's are pretty good... I'm not into their little compact units without an EVF, they're no good to me for outdoor shooting and they're not meant for demanding conditions.

Small, light, fast are a few things the new EM1v2 is. 
Good battery life too.
very good focus system
very high frame-rate and deep buffer + pre-release capture when you need to get the picture you missed before you pressed the shutter release. love it!
And an EVF that may surprise you with how well it works, especially when dealing with low contrast subjects. If you haven't tried THIS camera's EVF you haven't tried one of the present very best.  I find it better than optical VF and can't think of a time I would have wished for optical when using it.
an optional optical targeting device to help you locate your subject when using long lenses
easy manual focus overide with focus peaking in the EVF when you need to get past branch or grass clutter to the subject when normal AF might be confused
fantasic IBIS so you can handhold long focal-length lenses for most shots and thus quickly react to different shooting conditions.
Hi ISO performance that, despite the arguments here, competes with Canon's mainstream FF bodies. Their 1Dx series is certainly better, as is the 5d4... bigger , heavier, costlier...

Lenses. 

Oly 40-150mm f/2.8. Equivalent to FF 80-300mm in focal length, still 2.8 for light gathering but ~ 5.6 for DoF. 

300 f/4 - like a fast 600mm

Panasonic 100-400mm. It's decent optically, at least up to the 300mm (600 equiv)... I'm not a big fan of the controls.. they felt a little ... stiction. maybe it loosens up with use, not sure.

I don't have much need for long teles so the only one I use is the Oly 75-300mm variable aperture. It's slow but it works plenty well enough for the few shots I need to use it for and it's cheap and very light and small. I had poor AF performance with it too until I put it on an EM1 where the keeper rate jumped up many-fold.

If you're ever around a well-equipped camera store that stocks the Oly gear, try it out. You may be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Aglet
> 
> As Ive posted Ive owned Olympus 4/3rd and micro 4/3rd cameras and lenses since they started the system. I don't own the OM-D E-M1 II but I do own the OM-D E-M5 II and a OM-D E-10 plus a number of lenses, so I don't consider myself a Canon fanboy!
> Lets get straight to the picture quality or fundamental differences. The m4/3rds system has a larger apparent depth of field compared to the Full Frame system so people confuse this as meaning its sharper, its not. Enlarging from m4/3rds and from Full Frame after using comparable high performance lenses I invariably have more sharper detail in the Full Frame shots the larger I increase the shot because its a smaller enlargement for the full frame camera. Obviously you know all this.
> ...



I do not disagree with anything you've stated here. .. except maybe the cheap kit lenses... they're not fabulous but they're not bad either. At least the newer versions I've had deliver pretty well and if considering the price and physical characteristics, very well. Software effectively manages the optical shortcomings and suits the intended market. Plenty of seriously good glass is available.

I would say, however, that the new EM1v2 is good enough that it can be used professionally in many circumstances where it fits.
Certain specialty lenses are still lacking in the MFT system, yes. But mainstream imaging with good (not necessarily the pro grade) lenses it's in the ballpark and will outperform any Canon crop body before the 80D where it's nearly equivalent across the ISO range.
Just Check out the photonstophotos.net PDR charts for that metric. For any others I'll take the Oly's feature set and any day and the ergo's are great too, for me anyway. It's a very enjoyable camera to use.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

slclick said:


> Now, if you gave yourself a minute or two do you think it would have been possible to rephrase your post in a non inflammatory and insulting way? Think on it.



Well i did mean it to be a _little_ inflammatory because I'd like to make the point that you did not come out and say you have and are using an EM1 mk2. It's a big leap over everything else Oly's made so far so if you're comparing it to a lower level body your argument loses cred and I've seen many poor arguments made here already.
You also made no reference to the large number of really good real-world shooting examples available in the link I provided.
So if you are comparing it to YOUR EM1v2, please say so. I can't read your mind, I only see you dissin' a solid argument with no backup.

I did not mean to insult you, my apologies if I did. 
I do mean to take a little poke at your 5d3 tho. 
Can it defend itself against the best ML cameras with smaller sensors?
Because if you think it can, you may want to have another look at the specs and features of those 2 very different camera bodies. I'm tellin' you, the new Oly's not gonna get beat at much, and, it has way more tricks built into it that are useful in many shooting conditions that flappy-mirror cameras can not compete with.. Tho Nikon is apparently gonna give it a try with the D850.

ML cameras aren't coming of age.. 
They are more than good enough for most things right now and, in many ways, far better already.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.
> 
> That review does in no way convince me that m4/3 is a full frame replacement for me. It does the opposite.



I found very few examples oversharpened, not that it's a system issue anyway since most of the processing was done in 3rd party software so sharpening was done however the author wished. For the most part I think his sharpening was well done for the intended medium.
Are you accustomed to mushy muddy images after having to NR them or you just prefer them softer?

As for the DoF characteristics you're looking for, he covers that pretty well too. perhaps you missed it.
There's little you can do with APSC or FF you can't do with MFT as far as shallow DoF in a practical way.
It does require a bit of a different approach.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I am constantly amused by how you Canon fan boys can't engage in a real debate when it challenges your primary choice of equipment platform. Are you that insecure and-or suffering from inferiority?
> ...



well, you contradict yourself in some ways but let's got get technical about your argument skills and instead refute what it seems you're trying to say. 

Let's start with the camera's being compared.
I'm talking about the EM1 mk2, not the original EM1. FWIW, I own and use BOTH along with other models.
The new mk2 is a huge leap over the previous model in every metric. see graphic below.

If you have a look at the measured metrics, you'll find the only Canon cameras beating the EM1v2 are the 5d4 and 80d plus the 1dx bodies. I made the initial argument against the 5d3 and by association the 6d and 6d2 as they are quite similar in overall IQ.

So, what point were you trying to make?... Please try not to get distracted.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Talys said:


> The last Olympus camera that I owned was an E-P5. This was actually the last, expensive non-Canon body that I owned.
> 
> At the time, nearly all the photography that was important to me was either macro (miniature subjects about 2" tall), or garment stills, where it was important for something like a sweater to fill at least about 12MP (3500x3500 or higher resized), have a both a pleasing image when zoomed out, and clearly see the thread and yarn of the fabric when zoomed in, with no softness anywhere on the garment. Things that were really important were, for example, the ability to perfectly represent embroidered logos, since the application allowed you to move a magnifying glass over any part of the garment and see it at pixel-level, based on a 12MP-ish image (chosen because of file size).
> 
> ...



You're doing some interesting product shots in apparently less than ideal conditions but none that should really make any particular system that much better. Frankly, with controlled lighting, smaller sensors than FF should have no problem accomplishing what you need.

EP5 was eons ago in tech time. It was capable little compact camera, similar to an EM10 i still use.
EM1 v2 is a big leap ahead in many ways.

I use DXO pro when I need it. I find the MFT products are pretty well supported.
I think Capture 1, Irridient Developer and others also have good support and LR/ACR probably does better now too.

If you're content with the Canon results then that's cool.
but if you're really after good resolution and depth of field, Oly's glass is good, resolution is improved and noise further reduced by multi-shot hi rez mode, and you have focus-stacking/bracketing built into the camera as well if you need more DoF.

I don't think there's anything you're doing that can't be done just as readily with an Oly at the same or lower price with equivalent results.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> And worse (for me) they're all stationary (or relatively) stationary targets: landscapes, models, perched birds, landed insects. Not a single one of an athlete, or even the moment a dog catches a Frisbee (unless I missed it in the endless landscapes). If it can't do that, it's useless to me. If it can, why not show it?
> 
> Yes, it's an unconvincing argument.


there are shots of birds in the middle of some serious maneuvering or nearly head-on in flight you may have missed in all the other examples.

yes, I agree, he should have had the model do more running towards or away instead of all those side shots or included some other common sports and action work.

But overall it's a good showing of what the EM1v2 can and can't do well.

FWIW, i've done some fast action work with it (horses) using the 12-100mm zoom and CAF tracking hit rate was impressive. Probably around 90% or better keeper rate if I didn't lose the subject to my own error.

I would pit this Oly directly against a 5d3 in any circumstance, it won't lose often.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 14, 2017)

There is a difference between having an opinion and forcing your opinion. Perfect examples going on in this thread.

Since actually getting my 6DMKII and shooting 2 paid shoots with it im finding little wrong with it and finding some of these comments rather amusing.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes there are some interesting bits of tech in there, but they mostly seem like compromises to get around poor technique or the smaller sensor size. It certainly isn't a good advert for people looking to print big or crop hard.



yes, lots of interesting tech stuffed into that little camera. much of it useful. Like great 5-axis IBIS that also works very well for video, in-camera focus-stacking and focus bracketing, crazy high frame rates, big buffer and pre-release capture mode (cuz FF users have separate time-machines), 4k and cinema 4k, WiFi, hi-rez mode, weatherproof, more AF points than you can shake a joystick at, touch-screen functions, etc...

HAHA! Yup, somehow that compensates for smaller sensor or poor technique. ;D

I'm sure I can make a really nice 30 to 36" print from the EM1v2 at lower ISOs without much effort. Probably even larger near base ISO.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 14, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.
> ...


_You_ linked that site as an example of what the EM-1 can do and both Larssky and I have said we find them unacceptable so you now say that is the fault of the user. Those images are about on par with others I have seen on the internet so I don't go along with the claim of processing style.

Don't get me wrong - I have taken some great photos with my MFT gear and several professionals have gone full bore to MFT - and I note that most are studio photographers with controlled lighting and street photographers who value the discretion of the small size. It may suit your style but certainly not mine. But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 14, 2017)

Aglet said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > And worse (for me) they're all stationary (or relatively) stationary targets: landscapes, models, perched birds, landed insects. Not a single one of an athlete, or even the moment a dog catches a Frisbee (unless I missed it in the endless landscapes). If it can't do that, it's useless to me. If it can, why not show it?
> ...


Should you not be posting on the 4/3rds forum clearly you dislike Canon and are not really offering anything constructive or engaging in an even handed review. As I said I'm invested in both Canon and Olys m4/3rds system and work professionally in both Still rental and motion picture rental where we try to be even handed about equipment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.



Counterclaims...and being thought of as completely out of touch with reality. Not that that's a a surprise to anyone.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 14, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.
> ...



I found almost every picture to be oversharpened. I hate seeing sharpening artifacts. Additionally, it makes it hard to get a real impression of the true resolution of the lenses. And since I use FF and good glass, I rarely need or apply sharphess or NR at all. ;D

I really do think mft is a good system. The system offers a variety of good small, light and compact lenses, that takes advantage of the smaller sensor. It makes sense.

What you seem to claim is that the best mft camera is better than all other Canon FF cameras, than the 5DIV and 1DX/II. In some technical aspects, you are correct. In terms of how good the pictures look, which I really do care about, you are flat out wrong. Give me a soon to be 10 year old 5DII and a 20 year old 35L, or the even older 85 L (version 1), and I could take pictures that look substantially better than anything I could make with any mft camera/lens-combination. And the link you provided illustrates that point to me.


----------



## BillB (Aug 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.
> ...



If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 14, 2017)

BillB said:


> If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.



In one of his posts, Aglet says he prints 36"+ and claims MFT is as good as anything up up to 5D4 and I can only take his comments in that light.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 14, 2017)

BillB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



He has very regularly derided the 5D MkIII IQ as being horrific and unusable, yet is saying the Olympus is nearly as good?

At this point it is clear he is just out to get a reaction from people here and his main focus is tech and toys rather than actual images as an end product. Which are both fine if you have the time and inclination to play his game and/or are also more interested in features in a body than images that come out of it.

As for printing large, it always depends on subject matter and people's personal ideas of acceptable. I find 24mp 135 format prints to 20"x30" about as big as I am critically happy. The 50mp 135 format can easily go out to 24"x36" but in truth, generally, I am not happy with them much bigger. Even if the 4/3 outperformed the 135 format on a per area basis that would put prints or crops from that system at around half the area, or 18"x24" without cropping, plenty good enough for most users most of the time but certainly not a big print/heavy crop capable system.

I just printed a series of abstracts by other photographers for an exhibition, one image was easy to print to 30cm x 40cm even though it was very low resolution because it had no fine detail and was blurred, another printed to the same size used every pixel of its 26MP as it was a hyper sharp image of architectural trusses and the sharpness was a critical element to the image.


----------



## BillB (Aug 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.
> ...



Well, one interpretation of what he is trying to say is that nothing short of a 5D4 (and he has at times mentioned an 80D IIRC) is much better than a good MFT camera (at least under certain largely unspecified conditions.) As far as 36" is concerned, anything can be printed at 36". As far as print quality is concerned, opinions can vary.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 14, 2017)

Bigger prints often come with longer viewing distances. The extreme example would be billboards. You don't need a lot of resolution for them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 14, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Bigger prints often come with longer viewing distances. The extreme example would be billboards. You don't need a lot of resolution for them.



And often they don't. Billboards are a poor example because relatively few people exhibit their prints on billboards. What I do know is however big I print people will, if they are physically able, walk right up to it, that doesn't necessarily give them the best viewing experience, but it is the same with large paintings. People who have more than a passing interest in the image will look at the details, the brush strokes (in a painting), they want to experience all that the image can give them, basically the 'rules' of viewing distance go out the window when people get the opportunity to ignore it.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 14, 2017)

Aglet said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



My points?: 

Point 1: My argument skills are fine. My comments clearly state that in real life experience, my MFT camera can not equal the IQ of a FF Canon camera under many conditions. Not sure what you didn't understand about that. Your chart - however nice it looks - does nothing to refute that. You may notice that there is no mention of any overall IQ improvement between the E-M1 and E-M1 II, so your chart does not address the question we are discussing. 
Point 2: I am not at all distracted. 
Point 3: The fact that you need to insult me is the best proof that you, in fact, have no legitimate argument. 

I hope these relatively simple sentences were clear enough for your understanding.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 14, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Bigger prints often come with longer viewing distances. The extreme example would be billboards. You don't need a lot of resolution for them.
> ...



They make an extreme example, as I said.

I have a 13" x 19" print of a photo I made of a glacier on Glacier Bay in Alaska. The print is framed and hangs with others down my hallway. It was shot in 2002 with the not-quite-4-megapixel camera I used at the time. Yes, you can walk right up to it. From 4" away it looks a little blocky, but you can't view the whole picture very well. If you move back to 18" to two feet away until you can see the whole picture comfortably, it looks great. That resolution may not work so well with other subject matter at that size, but this picture is just fine. Printed 4" x 5", you'd probably hold it six or eight inches from your face.

At art museums I enjoy looking up close to paintings by French Impressionists. And then I step back gradually (trying not to run into other people). At some viewing distance the little dots or blobs suddenly look like water and other surfaces with light playing off of them. I still wonder how the painter can stand close enough to the canvass to put the paint on, and yet still have some sense of how it all will work out when viewed from many feet away.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2017)

isn't this thread about the 6D2? How is comparing 5D series against Olympus relevant?

Have you considered moving this traffic to a relevant thread?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

BillB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Thank-you BillB 

You have read and understood me correctly.

I'm wondering why others who are replying are exaggerating what I've stated and are often missing the point.


----------



## zim (Aug 14, 2017)

Been following this thread for a while and I think I’ve just had an epiphany!

You can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, the latest Oly IQ is about as good as a 5D3
Therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 5D3

The 6D and 6D2 have similar IQ to the 5D3
Therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 6D
and therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 6D2

The 5D4 and 1Dx2 have generally better IQ than the latest Olys and 5D3 and therefore the 6D and 6D2
Therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 5D4
And therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 1Dx2

Unfortunately I have none of these cameras so I can neither prove or disprove anything.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I think you are still missing the point of the argument.
_Your_ MFT camera is not an EM1v2 or you'd be quick to confirm that.

Since you missed that most salient point more than once how can you properly engage in this discussion?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

zim said:


> Been following this thread for a while and I think I’ve just had an epiphany!
> 
> You can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, the latest Oly IQ is about as good as a 5D3
> Therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 5D3
> ...



BINGO! Another one who gets it!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I'm wondering why others who are replying are exaggerating what I've stated and are often missing the point.



A lot is the nature of the internet and how hard it is to have a logical discussion when people get overly emotional. As well, it is very hard to express that emotion or "body language" over a keyboard. Confusion and misunderstanding is almost certain to creep in. Throw in some conformational bias and personal viewpoints presented as the wishes of the masses and all hope of a reasonable discussion are ended.

When you post something that lists both good points and bad points, some will fixate on the good and some will fixate on the bad.... this is very hard on maintaining a balanced viewpoint.

................................................................................................

Speaking as someone who has both Olympus and Canon in the stable:

Olympus has been far more innovative than Canon, but Canon is more stable.

Both take fantastic pictures in good light. There is not an appreciable difference between Oly and APSc in poor light, but Canon FF is most definitely better in poor light.

Canon has a better lens assortment.

Oly is better sealed.

Oly lenses and cameras are far lighter than Canon APSc....

Oly has a lot of features that I wish Canon had...

I greatly prefer the Canon (non-rebel) ergonomics. ( This is a PERSONAL opinion )

When it comes down to make a decision, Canon FF ( or 7D2) against Oly, I would pick Canon, as it is a superior product FOR MY NEEDS...... but if I were starting out and wanted to make a decision between the Canon M series and Oly, it would be no contest and Oly wins out with better bodies and better lenses.

.................................................................................

So which one is better? NEITHER! IT DOES NOT MATTER! What is important is to understand the plusses and the minuses and to evaluate them against your needs, and for all of us to realize that our personal needs are not representative of the masses.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


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



I think's someone is exaggerting my position. 

We're both pretty critical about our print quality and that's why I went ABC, Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.

However, I think people here, maybe you as well, are merely arguing against me not because they've evaluated the data, but because it's _me_ who presented it.


perhaps a different reference may be useful:

*Imaging-Resource does their final evaluation by PRINTING.*

so, from the following 2 reviews of the Olympus EM1 mk 2 and Canon 5D mk 3:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-iiA.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-ii-image-quality.htm#print-quality


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA.HTM



... some relevant excerpts:

"
*Canon 5D Mark III Print Quality*

*Good quality 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200; ISO 3,200 shots still looked good at 16 x 20; and ISO 51,200 made a good 4 x 6.*

ISO 100 images were incredible at 30 x 40 inches, with crisp detail and gorgeous color rendition.

ISO 200 shots also looked great at 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 400 shots look spectacular at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 800 images started to show a very slight indication of softness due to noise suppression, but all major elements still looked quite good at 24 x 36 inches.

Canon 5D Mark III Print Quality

Good quality 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200; ISO 3,200 shots still looked good at 16 x 20; and ISO 51,200 made a good 4 x 6.

ISO 100 images were incredible at 30 x 40 inches, with crisp detail and gorgeous color rendition.

ISO 200 shots also looked great at 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 400 shots look spectacular at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 800 images started to show a very slight indication of softness due to noise suppression, but all major elements still looked quite good at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 1,600 images were a little softer in the red leaf swatch, but other than that, these images still looked good at 20 x 30 inches.



*Olympus E-M1 II Print Quality Analysis (native resolution)*

*A terrific 30 x 40 inch print at ISO 64/200, a good 16 x 20 inch print at ISO 800, and a nice 5 x 7 at ISO 12,800.*

ISO 64 prints look absolutely superb at 30 x 40 inches (except for reduced dynamic range), with super-sharp detail, excellent color renditioning and an amazing amount of three dimensional "pop" to them. These are simply superb prints in every regard.

ISO 200 images also look quite good at 30 x 40 inches. They're not quite as super-crisp as the prints at ISO 64, but still offer an amazing amount of fine detail for this size, with rich colors as well.

ISO 400 yields outstanding prints up to 20 x 30 inches, with terrific detail and only a mild softening in our tricky red-leaf swatch. The 24 x 36 inch prints here are certainly usable as well for wall display purposes and less critical applications, anything but the most critical of printing needs.

ISO 800 shots at 20 x 30 inches come oh-so-close to passing our "good" grade, as there is still a very good degree of fine detail available, but mild softening in the red channel and some apparent noise in flatter areas of our target prevent us from officially calling these "good". You'll be fine for less critical applications, but for your more critical prints we advise a reduction in size to 16 x 20 inches here, which is still a nice size and offers virtually no apparent noise nor artifacts from noise reduction processing.

ISO 1600 prints at 16 x 20 just pass our good seal of approval and offer plenty in the way of fine detail. There is a mild amount of noise in flatter areas and minor issues with softening in a few areas, but it still makes a good overall print. For absolute critical prints here we recommend the 13 x 19's."


So, how far behind is the latest MFT, really? 
Certainly not the 1/4 print area of a FF that was suggested! LOL
Even when you get to the hi iso levels it's only behind by about a stop and that's based, AFAIK, on using OOC jpgs in this comparison so both would benefit from proper PP on raw files and the Oly may gain more than the Canon because it doesn't suffer the same fixed pattern noise in its files that the older Canon bodies do.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering why others who are replying are exaggerating what I've stated and are often missing the point.
> ...



Thanks Don. 

And those are basically the points I'm making as well but trying to make people aware that the very latest MFT is actually so much improved that they can be considered nearly equivalent in image quality to the previous generation of Canon FF bodies while offering a lot more features for the price.

So I'd add to that, IMO, the Olympus is a far better overall value but that still doesn't mean it's for everyone. However, it's far more worthy of consideration than it was just a year or so ago.

And yes, it's easy to get a little testy with each other having these discussions online but hopefully everyone can keep a sense of humor about it and not get too insulting or offensive when challenged.
I'll put up my finger to include myself in the group of those who has crossed that line on occasion. :-[


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

so back to the 6d2:

Buy it if you want it! 

I'm just sayin... for the same money you get another company's _flagship_ camera, complete with all the extra performance and useful features that includes, in a smaller, lighter package that makes few sacrifices to practical images, even at larger print sizes, and may actually provide you the ability to get BETTER images because of those unique features.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.



Jeez Aglet, what are you smoking ?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 14, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I think's someone is exaggerting my position.
> 
> We're both pretty critical about our print quality and that's why I went ABC, Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.



I am not exaggerating your position.
You say Canon files do not hold well beyond 18" but MFT do. I disagree strongly.
I would say prove it by posting to side by side shots - one Canon (even a 5DII) with the best possible lens and the EM1 with the best possible lens. You have made the claim so instead of quoting a site who has done 2 reviews at different times, I think you should show 2 images that demonstrate this. 
I have not seen MFT images that would suggest they would be superior to FF Canon but I am more than happy to say 'fair enough' if you can because it could save me thousands.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 14, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.
> ...



HAHA! I'm smokin' Canon's with my luvly new EM1 mk2! 

more seriously, I'd reviewed images I shot with my 60D and 5d2 that were printed at 12x18" and compare them to ABC bodies, also at base ISO and printed at the same size.
The ABC produced images were just cleaner and easier to print larger without showing the artificial textures in smooth tonal gradations that Canon's noise created. 
Blue-sky was a prime area where Canon files did not look as good because of noise. 
Lower midtones, especially neutral or no hue areas could also exhibit unwanted noise, especially if they were in scenes where there was a lot of DR and those areas were pulled up a bit to make a more pleasing overall image.

So, same as always, Canon noise and FPN forced me to search for better image capture tools.
Fortunately, better options (for me) were/are everywhere!


----------



## dak723 (Aug 14, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> When it comes down to make a decision, Canon FF ( or 7D2) against Oly, I would pick Canon, as it is a superior product FOR MY NEEDS...... but if I were starting out and wanted to make a decision between the Canon M series and Oly, it would be no contest and Oly wins out with better bodies and better lenses.
> 
> .................................................................................
> 
> So which one is better? NEITHER! IT DOES NOT MATTER! What is important is to understand the plusses and the minuses and to evaluate them against your needs, and for all of us to realize that our personal needs are not representative of the masses.



Don, you always are very rational and present your thoughts very well. The problem with others is their exaggerations and in some cases, totally incorrect comments meant only to inflame.

As someone who has been a big booster of The MFT Olympus E-M1, I could not agree more that it is an excellent camera and that in many ways and under many circumstances the images one gets from FF, APS-C and MFT can be very comparable. I do think it is important that people get the facts from people actually using the cameras and that have no bias. Yes, creating an acronym for Anything But Canon, reveals total bias and is obvious to everyone (with one possible exception). When the M5 came out, I compared it in real life shooting with my E-M1. Even though the E-M1 has a smaller sensor and less MPs. the sharpness and general image quality are virtually identical. Definitely a plus and a good selling point for the MFT system. However, the one weakness of MFT that I mentioned once before, was its weakness in low light. In some cases, when lifting shadows. their is a lack of color information. In similar situations. the APS-C performs noticeably better. FF, of course, is better still.

Of course, the biggest advantage to the M5 is the size and weight. The E-M1 (original and and mark II) are possibly the largest MFT cameras and has no size advantage over the smaller APS-C cameras.

So, as you say, whatever advantages and disadvantages there are between cameras and brands will differ based on the a person's individual need. There is no reason, on this forum or any other, to give dishonest information, propaganda, or try and mislead folks just because of personal disappointment with a brand's products. Thankfully, folks like you do it right.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2017)

Spock said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > HAHA! I'm smokin' Canon's with my luvly new EM1 mk2!
> ...


I have an Olympus E620 (2009) and a 6D2 (2017)

NO COMPARISON!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10Mp VS 26Mp
ISO1600 VS ISO 102,400, and the Oly is grainier at ISO1600 than the 6D2 is at 40,000
and the Oly had 3 AF points and a blistering 3FPS!

Try to guess which is which


----------



## reef58 (Aug 15, 2017)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



You seem very passionate and I myself love my Olympus m4/3. That being said it is hard to quantify the terms good, excellent, and spectacular as they are not really defined. That seems subjective.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

reef58 said:


> You seem very passionate and I myself love my Olympus m4/3. That being said it is hard to quantify the terms good, excellent, and spectacular as they are not really defined. That seems subjective.



My MFT has become my main go-to, especially the new EM1v2.
It's not the best IQ in my inventory, but it's the best overall camera by being the most versatile and fun to use and easy to take along.

I agree, it's difficult to compare images subjectively, which is what a lot of people here are doing, mostly, it seems, based on past experience with older MFT systems that were decent but not as good as the latest.

But when provided with more objective results, like this:

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

..then I hear the opposite request about how well it performs in real world and real pictures.
The best I can do is provide that info and hopefully people will look at it and at least scratch their heads when they think about making a choice.

It may be hard for some people to acknowledge that a modern MFT camera can pretty much keep up with Canon's previous generation of FF imagers while at a lower price and higher functionality.

The D800s now only come out when I need bigger print ability, cropping or some application where it's warranted.
Otherwise MFT is plenty good for most things these days.
Looking fwd to the new EM10 mk 3


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHER ON USING OLYMPUS MFT GEAR

Scott Bourne's Bird Photography Gear Guide
MFT Olympus edition (2017-08-14)

https://spark.adobe.com/page/WuwmbVyXe6NLl/

his Canon based list: (2016-07-07) with Panasonic MFT also mentioned

https://photofocus.com/guides/scott-bournes-bird-photography-gear-guide/


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 15, 2017)

Aglet said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem very passionate and I myself love my Olympus m4/3. That being said it is hard to quantify the terms good, excellent, and spectacular as they are not really defined. That seems subjective.
> ...



Now that is a much more reasoned view. If you had said it in those terms initially you would not have had the flak you did.
It really is becoming difficult to discuss with you because you make inflammatory statements (and previously admit to doing so on purpose), defend yourself, then make a much more reasoned statement later.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 15, 2017)

Aglet said:


> ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHER ON USING OLYMPUS MFT GEAR
> 
> Scott Bourne's Bird Photography Gear Guide
> MFT Olympus edition (2017-08-14)
> ...



I agree with every bit of that.
But I note that he talks in terms of the quality of the Olympus _in relation to the size and cost of DSLRs_ - he is not talking in absolute quality of image. But also note that he is a professional and pros are great to listen to because they buy equipment that gives them sales and who cares if the quality is not the same as a 1Dx2+600mm? If the public buy the image it is job done. 

But that is far from saying (as you started off) that the IQ of the MFT is the same as DSLR. I very nearly went full MFT myself a year or so ago with the E-M1 v2 (or Panasonic) and 100-400 but decided I wanted the absolute image quality. 

My comments on the images he posted - the picture of the boobie is starting to get crunchy and the third image (the blue and orange bird) is not what I would consider sharp at all and showing smearing. But as I say, if this gear gets him sales then as a pro that is the main point for him.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 15, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Blue-sky was a prime area where Canon files did not look as good because of noise.



What planet are you on ? Here's a typical blue sky shot on the 5DII at 100 ISO with zero noise reduction. 100% crop, the whole image is shown for reference. Where is the noise ? It's as clean as anything else from Nikon or Sony - certainly cleaner than MFT.

I just don't get this "colour noise" and "FPN" crap that you throw at the Canons, especially the 5DII.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 15, 2017)

Can we get back on topic now.

Move your Olympus stuff to the Third Party section, sick of seeing it.


----------



## weixing (Aug 15, 2017)

Hi,
May be Canon should follow Nikon and remove the bias (offset) information from their raw file, so that those people who said Canon low ISO is noisy guy will be happy, but I think if they do this Astrophotographer using Canon DSLR will be quite angry... ha ha ha 

Have a nice day.


----------



## Talys (Aug 15, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Can we get back on topic now.
> 
> Move your Olympus stuff to the Third Party section, sick of seeing it.



+100


----------



## Talys (Aug 15, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> What planet are you on ? Here's a typical blue sky shot on the 5DII at 100 ISO with zero noise reduction. 100% crop, the whole image is shown for reference. Where is the noise ? It's as clean as anything else from Nikon or Sony - certainly cleaner than MFT.
> 
> I just don't get this "colour noise" and "FPN" crap that you throw at the Canons, especially the 5DII.



There's nothing wrong with blue sky on 6DII, either. It's just a blue sky.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 15, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Blue-sky was a prime area where Canon files did not look as good because of noise.
> ...



All the "crap" that Aglet throws at Canon is just that - crap.

He's a TROLL. IGNORE HIM. He's pretty much hijacked every 6D II thread, so please everyone IGNORE HIM.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Blue-sky was a prime area where Canon files did not look as good because of noise.
> ...



My 5d2 was one of the early ones, early adopter here, back when. You know, swayed by the fanboy enthusiasm when it first arrived.

The noise mine produced was more obvious to me than your example but pattern noise is there in your example too. I can see it even on my everyday machine with my low end Dell display.
... just have to look a bit closer for it.

Here, I've popped it up a bit to make it easier for you to see it.
I just took a crop from the upper left of your crop so no cloud fragments, enlarged it 4x and did a quick de-sat and contrast kick with Preview to make the patterning more obvious.

Can you NOW see all the stripey vertical noise and pixel non-uniformity?
I don't want that kind of junk in _my_ i mages. I find it visible on-screen and in moderate (12-18") size prints. 
Others may not notice it, most don't, but I see it and I'm the one who needs to be satisfied with my images. 

So no, it's not as clean as from ABC, sorry. Even MFT with it's extra shot noise has less or no pattern issues.
Those old Canons were rife with pattern noise. Whether from multi-channel read noise issues or pixel non-uniformity as I've learned from Bill Claff's articles on his website. Net result is the same.
My 5d2 had channel read noise issues AND significant non-uniformity issues as a picket fence right across the middle third of the sensor. Yup, sure would have returned it if I'd have figured it out in time.
My 5d2 - _most disappointing camera I ever owned._
I shouldn't have listened to the raving fanboys back then.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Can we get back on topic now.
> 
> Move your Olympus stuff to the Third Party section, sick of seeing it.



I agree, Tom.
care to post a 100% crop of blue sky at 100 iso from your shiny new toy?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

Talys said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > What planet are you on ? Here's a typical blue sky shot on the 5DII at 100 ISO with zero noise reduction. 100% crop, the whole image is shown for reference. Where is the noise ? It's as clean as anything else from Nikon or Sony - certainly cleaner than MFT.
> ...



I'd like to see it... 
post an unscaled crop of the upper right corner of your example and I can evaluate it for myself.
can't tell anything from such a reduced size example.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Blue-sky was a prime area where Canon files did not look as good because of noise.
> ...



OMG! Look at all the noise! Canon is *******!!!!!!

BTW, got the 6D at work and the 6D2 at home. I don't care what the biased tests say, the 6D2 is better than the 6D. Period!

My SO has a 5D2 and is amazed at what the 6D2 does at high ISO....

Most of the negative bias seems to be coming from a very few, very suspect sources......


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...


Yes, those cat-in-a-sack shots were actually pretty impressive hi ISO performance.
AF still quick to lock in those conditions?


----------



## Talys (Aug 15, 2017)

@Anglet -

Top right 750 [email protected]%





Respectfully, I think if you're going to the amount of effort that you did to try to find if something is flawed, you're spending too much time trying to analyze a photo. I mean, I look at the final image on its intended size and medium (print, screen) and ask, "do I like it?". I think that's infinitely more important than whether you can see an unpleasing pattern if you apply desaturation, magnification, and apply contrast.

To put it another way, if the overall image is not pleasing, _who cares_ if 4 millimeters in the corner exhibit a pattern; and if the overall image looks great, who cares if it does? 

And I'm not talking about the photographer's skill -- I mean, the same subject taken with two different cameras. If one image is holistically better than the other (ie judged in its entirety), I'm happy to say so. But to try to say that there is a pattern that no human will ever be able discern with their naked eye is unpleasing is not meaningful to me. For example, that sigma 100-400 to Canon 100-400 comparison indicated that the Sigma was actually holistically better or indistinguishable in image quality to the much more expensive Canon counterpart, but several factors make it less suitable (or unsuitable) for certain types of photography like birding. That's a useful comparison.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


AF was not as fast as normal to lock, but I am amazed that it did lock!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 15, 2017)

Aglet said:


> My 5d2 was one of the early ones, early adopter here, back when. You know, swayed by the fanboy enthusiasm when it first arrived.
> 
> The noise mine produced was more obvious to me than your example but pattern noise is there in your example too. I can see it even on my everyday machine with my low end Dell display.
> ... just have to look a bit closer for it.
> ...



You are the one making claims of inadequacy of the 5D against MFT. It is therefore beholden on you to show a comparison of the two systems to demonstrate that superiority - and until you do all you are trying to convince us of is blather.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 15, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Here, I've popped it up a bit to make it easier for you to see it.
> I just took a crop from the upper left of your crop so no cloud fragments, enlarged it 4x and did a quick de-sat and contrast kick with Preview to make the patterning more obvious.
> 
> Can you NOW see all the stripey vertical noise and pixel non-uniformity?
> ...



When the sky looks like that, I don't go out taking pictures. In the Midwest, I would seek shelter.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, those cat-in-a-sack shots were actually pretty impressive hi ISO performance.
> ...



and with a long-ish f/4 lens yet. that's pretty good low light AF!


----------



## Aglet (Aug 15, 2017)

Talys said:


> @Anglet -
> 
> Top right 750 [email protected]%
> 
> ...



Thanks for providing that sample.

I don't have to expend any effort to see pattern noise, to me it's obvious and distracts from whatever image it may be part of. 

I do seem to have to accentuate it so that others can see and understand that it's there.

So your sky sample is considerably darker than Sporgon's sample.
I stiill did pretty much the same thing; 4x scale, de-sat, change overall exposure and contrast to enhance the variability in what should be a really smooth part of the scene and selected a crop from near the middle.

I think had to use more overall gain to bring out the "grit" than I did with the previous sample so the amplitude of the noise will appear greater in your sample than it otherwise would.

However, what's quite noticeable is that there's almost no fixed pattern noise on a fine vertical scale here like there was on the 5d2 sample. The noise is mosly random so looks more natural, even with some de-mosaicing type artifacts caused by some pixel level noise.
There is still some slight larger scale non-uniformity (horizontal and vertical) but that's harder to notice in real images than fine repetitive patterns.

So in this repect, it looks like the 6d2 is actually delivering a good performance compared to previous off-sensor-ADC bodies. 

It's still rather noisey but your camera is not showing any significant _pattern_ noise in this sample.
There can be sample variation, however, so it looks like you have a decent one. 

Some of the samples posted by DPreview had some obvious banding and other artifacts and some others have also mentioned banding in moderately lifted shadow areas too. I'd not be surprised if this is still the case but at least your 6d2 is not putting stripes in normal exposure range blue sky some some of the older bodies did and that by itself is a good IQ improvement.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2017)

By having to resorting to such extreme manipulation in order to demonstrate any weakness in the 5DII's data Aglet has inadvertently shown my I still use the 5DII for quality work 

Do the same thing to an Olympus file and it is much less pleasing than the example from the 6DII. Not that it really matters as no one goes there except Aglet ;D


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> By having to resorting to such extreme manipulation in order to demonstrate any weakness in the 5DII's data Aglet has inadvertently shown my I still use the 5DII for quality work
> 
> Do the same thing to an Olympus file and it is much less pleasing than the example from the 6DII. Not that it really matters as no one goes there except Aglet ;D



You _do_ quality work. 
So you could potentially step up the technical quality of it even more by ditching the 5d2/3 and get something that's not adding so much noise to your workflow.
I don't understand why so many creative people choose to work with a _dull tool_. ???
Do you really need the extra challenge? LOL


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > By having to resorting to such extreme manipulation in order to demonstrate any weakness in the 5DII's data Aglet has inadvertently shown my I still use the 5DII for quality work
> ...



This part of the discussion arose because of your claims about MFT. So show us a comparison.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

Y'all asked for it. 

Here's an original image; scaled from a full rez Olympus EM1 mk2 OOC jpg at base iso (200) with no tweak and default sharpening. (a tad too high... slight halo visible)
EDIT - in camera noise filter is set to OFF

I took a 100% crop from the right area and did the same thing I did to samples from Sporgon and Talys; de-sat, crank contrast and exposure amp to make the noise structure visible.

Yup, kinda noisey too.
But very film-grain-like with no significant patterning visible and no worse than Canon's FF with off-sensor ADC.
I even prefer this noise structure to the Canon's and it would clean up, if needed, quite nicely in DXO-pro with one click.

I stand by my claim.
EM1v2 IQ is comparable to previous generation of Canon FF in IQ.


----------



## Talys (Aug 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> You _do_ quality work.
> So you could potentially step up the technical quality of it even more by ditching the 5d2/3 and get something that's not adding so much noise to your workflow.
> I don't understand why so many creative people choose to work with a _dull tool_. ???
> Do you really need the extra challenge? LOL



I don't know if you realize it, but saying that someone's good work could just be so much better if they just did it your way... is awfully patronizing. 


By the way, I see nothing superior (or inferior) about your sky. Congratulations; it's blue. It looks like sky. I think it's a bit noisier than mine, but, whatever. If you think it's a more beautiful sky, all the power to you


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Y'all asked for it.
> 
> Here's an original image; scaled from a full rez Olympus EM1 mk2 OOC jpg at base iso (200) with no tweak and default sharpening. (a tad too high... slight halo visible)
> 
> ...



Thankyou. So it seems no superiority but equivalence which is somewhat different to you original statements - and to be honest to be expected at pixel level nowadays for all manufacturers.

The difference is, of course, if you view the MFT and FF images at the same viewing size the MFT is being being magnified twice as much and the MFT noise will become more apparent


----------



## Talys (Aug 16, 2017)

Keeping it real, here's the 3 side by side:

6D2-5D2-EM1MkII





Keeping in mind that this isn't apples to apples, because the lighter the color, it's harder it is to see noise.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

Talys said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > You _do_ quality work.
> ...



I like Sporgon's images and we spar on such topics occasionally. I don't mean to be patronizing and it's not directed at him, really. Many creative people, here and elsewhere, get comfortable using a particular tool, whether it's a camera or a paintbrush, and it seems to become part of their comfort zone or even style.
I like using the best tool I can justify to do the job. I do not like being handicapped in any way by my tools.
HAHA! You should see the welding machine i have!

It may be a bit noisier, I'll grant that. 
But it's the kind of noise that cleans up better and easier than stripes from the older systems.
I shot film starting in the 70s so I don't mind an organic film-like grain to an image, I'm not keen on screen-door artifacts. I have the same issue with digital projectors too. HD aint HD enuf.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

Talys said:


> Keeping it real, here's the 3 side by side:
> 
> 6D2-5D2-EM1MkII
> 
> ...



HAHA! That looks like something the National Art Gallery of Canada might buy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=voice+of+fire

Also, I just checked my camera to make sure and edited my example post. 
I have in-camera NR turned completely off. 
That way I can see what's happening and I do my NR work in post for any images that get produced.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Y'all asked for it.
> ...



The latest MFT will fall behind in overall IQ as the iso goes up but because of the noise structure I would push it as high as 3200 or 6400 iso with good NR vs a 5d2/3 or 6d2/3.

Where I think this MFT wins is in all the cool extras it includes at the same or lower price point.
That's why it's quickly become my favorite camera. It makes it easy to get an image and it's good enough to go fairly big, if needed.

As for the MFT noise being more apparent than FF at the same viewing size. 
The short version is yes, it should be so.. but there are various caveats that may tend to equalize things a little.

In this exercise, I did not accentuate the noise from each of these 3 samples in exactly the same way so they are not directly comparable, unfortunately.. This was just meant to examine the _structure_ of the noise of each system.

To do a proper comparison an identically exposed image would need to be shot by each system, of the same patch of sky at the same time, etc... so we have the same relative RGB blend, and processed from respective raw files.
The MFT file _should_ have more visible noise as it's pixels are more prone to shot noise and random effects since they're about 1/4 the area of the FF pixels and therefore collecting fewer photons given the same shutter speed and aperture on the same scene.
There's even more interfering with that too.. because each camera's ISO is not the same either.
That's why I prefer to look at the full SNR chart on DxOmarks' website as they correct for things like actual ISO.
That one chart tells me a LOT.


----------



## BillB (Aug 16, 2017)

Assuming that the 6DII and the latest Olympus can produce comparable images, and that at least some photographers can be satisfied with the images that each produces, what are the choices? The cameras cost about the same. The Olympus is smaller and has some very neat features. The 6DII has an articulated screen and touchscreening focussing in Liveview, which at least some of us regard as pretty neat features.

I don't see a problem here folks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 16, 2017)

BillB said:


> I don't see a problem here folks.



The 6DII is better, because I like it better. I used to use Olympus, but I've discovered that ABO is a much better choice. Everyone should have that choice, and anyone who chooses ABO will get better images and be happy. 

Nope, no problem here...except one.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 16, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see a problem here folks.
> ...



Don't knock Aglet, he has good taste  He's just a little misguided as to where the priorities lie in photography


----------



## scyrene (Aug 16, 2017)

They say converts are more evangelical and fundamentalist than other believers, and I think this thread is a good demonstration.

I'm comfortable in the photographic choices I've made, I don't feel the need to convert all others to my position. I recognise it's a compromise, and that everything is a compromise. And I've seen no evidence here or elsewhere that my life would be blissful if I chose different equipment in the same price range.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

scyrene said:


> They say converts are more evangelical and fundamentalist than other believers, and I think this thread is a good demonstration.
> 
> I'm comfortable in the photographic choices I've made, I don't feel the need to convert all others to my position. I recognise it's a compromise, and that everything is a compromise. And I've seen no evidence here or elsewhere that my life would be blissful if I chose different equipment in the same price range.



HAHA! Yup!
I've converted to FOUR other systems after using Canon and, except for the latter, kept them all.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > They say converts are more evangelical and fundamentalist than other believers, and I think this thread is a good demonstration.
> ...



That's your mistake, you see. Four whole systems to replace one Canon camera. And you say we are fools for staying with Canon! ;D


----------



## Aglet (Aug 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


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



let's just say it's four times the luv ;D


----------



## Point22 (Aug 17, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> The folks at The Camera Store in Calgary, Canada have completed their hands-on field test of the brand new Canon EOS 6D Mark II.</p>
> <p><strong>Description:</strong></p>
> <blockquote><p>The original Canon 6D was the entry to full-frame shooting for many photographers, but it’s been getting a little long in the tooth. The new version brings a number of features from the excellent 80D, along with a controversial new sensor. Is the 6D series still a great entry point into full frame? Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake went to shoot BTS of a commercial film shoot to find out!</p>
> 
> ...


http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-firmware-update-coming-september-2017/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-firmware-update-coming-september-2017


----------



## Point22 (Aug 17, 2017)

Point22 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The folks at The Camera Store in Calgary, Canada have completed their hands-on field test of the brand new Canon EOS 6D Mark II.</p>
> ...


 ********** = canon..........)))(((watch


----------



## yungfat (Dec 27, 2017)

May I am a bit late to comment here, but I finally tested 6D Mk II for around 10 minutes.
Coming from a 6D user, I can immediately felt the improvement that have been done and delivered by Canon. Not sure about the dynamic range, but so far my 6D delivered the results I want, I assumed the new camera should perform similarly. 
Great improve on the AF system, but still not wider / about the same than original.
As an 6D user, still looking at 5D Mark IV for my upgrade path. 
Anyway, 6D Mark II still a great camera for a first full frame from Canon line.


----------

