# Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR



## Adelino (Jul 9, 2017)

I really hope production models show different results but things do not look good. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1497323/25#14098826


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 9, 2017)

Wonder how many pre orders are being cancelled over it.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> Wonder how many pre orders are being cancelled over it.



I wonder how many people realize that you need to have a picture of a high DR scene to analyze the sensor for DR?

You can't use just any image......


----------



## Khalai (Jul 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder how many pre orders are being cancelled over it.
> ...



How about 15 minutes over sunset, camera straight into the sun, over glimmering sea without CPol and some jet black rocks in the foreground should qualify, right?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 9, 2017)

Sekonic DTS software analyse 3 (three) photo (in RAWformat) of the X-Rite Colour Checker Card at -3EV, 0EV, +3EV in order to determine dynamic range of the camera and taken at a particular ISO. There is obviously a reason why it takes 3 images for proper analysis and why it has to be photo of a specific colour card. 




Don Haines said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder how many pre orders are being cancelled over it.
> ...


----------



## David_B (Jul 9, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



This is a very interesting post. I've been following lots of 6D Mark II discussion and this is a real shocker.

There have been enough raw images from the 6D Mark II posted for someone to graph its entire ISO range. At ISO < 800, the 6D Mark II delivers lower results than the 6D. At ISOs over 800, the 6D Mark II is better by less than half a stop than the 6D. At ISO > 3200, it's similar to the 1DX Mark II:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1497323/30

What's Canon doing here? Is this just a pre-production camera that's not tuned in well?:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1497323/31#14100315

I feel rather happy that my 80D can still beat Canon's latest full frame DSLR in low ISO!

But I worry now that Canon will establish a pecking order and the the images from xxD will always be worse than 7D and so on, never the same or better. Very glad that I didn't pre-order the 6D Mark II.

Or maybe Canon will just give up certain types of photography and only develop for action photography now?


----------



## Khalai (Jul 9, 2017)

David_B said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



We'll have to wait and see for retail SKUs and more throurough reviews. This is just a preliminary result with demo camera and very probably beta software. After all, this is a new sensor and may very likely need a new demosaicing algorithms to start with.

But I full understand your concerns. If this would really be true, than Canon deserves to take a full hit in sales for this. However the realist part of me believes that this is fluke and since Canon themselves confirmed, that 6D II sensor is same technology as 5D IV or 80D, I really seriously doubt those results, until they have been either proven or disproven by multiple reviewers out there...


----------



## meho1a (Jul 9, 2017)

So this means that 700-800€ 77d has better DR than 2000€ 6d? Strange, realy strange. 
I hardly believe.


----------



## meho1a (Jul 9, 2017)

I am new to this forum but i realy like to read it. Since i have a fealling that a lot of you are pros with huge experiance. I would like to ask you what does this surprisingly low DR results mean for landscape and macro? I thought to upgrade from 600d. I was thinking about 6d mk2 instead of 80d. I quite frequently raise shadows to show more of the background at macro and even more for landscape. This are also my most frequent photos i take. Therefore i thougt that DR is very important for better photos. What do you think. I am realy surprised about these results. Kind regards


----------



## fentiger (Jul 9, 2017)

there's always ND grad filters to work around these problems, if you was a serious landscape shooter you would be nuts not to have these in your kit bag


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 9, 2017)

The criticisms of the 6D were its low grade AF and how it needed a tilty-flippy screen. 
Its got those so now people complain about its dynamic range.....from one test with images from a camera of unknown provenance.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 9, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



Well now, actually no. You don't want a strong light source actually in the image, as it will cause flare, making the shadows more difficult to analyse. ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2017)

CW, 'firsting' on this like champs :

https://goo.gl/fpjPR1

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > SoNikon fanboys sabotage, from Russia with love: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
> ...



It seems strange, though, because the truth will be out shortly, and the cancellation or prevention of a few pre-orders can't mean much against the enthusiasm if this turns out to be false. Just seems like there's very little to gain by this.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 9, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The criticisms of the 6D were its low grade AF and how it needed a tilty-flippy screen.
> Its got those so now people complain about its dynamic range.....from one test with images from a camera of unknown provenance.



Performed by one random person on the internet with no controls, credentials or credibility.

Oh yeah. Canon is *******. You all better cancel your preorders and start whining.


----------



## zim (Jul 9, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The criticisms of the 6D were its low grade AF and how it needed a tilty-flippy screen.
> ...



+1 happens every time


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 9, 2017)

zim said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Yes it does happen every time....in fact the person in question has done these same tests for the last 4-5 bodies released by Canon on early pre-release RAWs and guess what?.....every time his results were confirmed as correct by bigger sites like DXO and photonstophotos etc....

Remember Canon RAWs have a masked area making these type of tests really easy unless the entire photo is dark.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2017)

Well, some people here on CR complain that Canon doesn't innovate, so they should be more like Nikon and Sony. Nikon recently launched their flagship D5 with less low ISO DR than its predecessor. So maybe Canon is now innovating just like Nikon. That should make people happy, right?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 9, 2017)

I cancelled my order, but only because I decided I'd prefer the 5D IV, not due to DR.

I am still undecided as to a backup for it, a 6D MK II is still a possibility.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, some people here on CR complain that Canon doesn't innovate, so they should be more like Nikon and Sony. Nikon recently launched their flagship D5 with less low ISO DR than its predecessor. So maybe Canon is now innovating just like Nikon. That should make people happy, right?



If it turns out to be a high ISO killer instead of low ISO glory, I'll be very happy indeed. Both would be bacon.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 9, 2017)

Do reviews come out prior to shipping, or afterwards?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> Do reviews come out prior to shipping, or afterwards?



The more reputable reviews come out very shortly after shipping -- a week after, give or take. Don't trust any that come out _before _shipping as they may be on pre-production models.

- A


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > Do reviews come out prior to shipping, or afterwards?
> ...



Whats your take on these DR results? Hogwash or unknown?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2017)

For fun, I cross-checked the FM user 'cgarcia' -- who I presume must have a handle here as well -- against other DR predictions ahead of DXO, and here's what I found (link on each body name below):

1DX2:

4/23/16, cgarcia value: 13.55 at 8MP (12.89 at 20MP)
6/29/16, DXO published: 13.5 (they based this on an 8 MP downsampled shot, right?)

80D:

4/3/16, cgarcia value: 13.22 at 8MP (12.43 at 24MP)
6/15/16, DXO published: 13.2 

5D4:

9/5/16, cgarcia value: 13.38* (interestingly no 8 MP commentary this time)
9/14/16, DXO published: 13.6

(*cgarcia later updated their post indicating that some nutty RGB phenomenon was going on with the 5D4 not seen elsewhere which affected the result, see the link.) 

By no means am I buying this result. The wildcard here with the 6D2 is the RAW file itself, if it truly ran both ends of the histo, what camera it came from, what status that camera was, etc. *but... *unless dates are being doctored at FM, he/she is two-for-three at the base ISO value measurement. 

- A


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 9, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> For fun, I cross-checked the FM user 'cgarcia' -- who I presume must have a handle here as well -- against other DR predictions ahead of DXO, and here's what I found (link on each body name below):
> 
> 1DX2:
> 
> ...



In other words, there is a high probability this is all correct.

Great.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> In other words, there is a high probability this is all correct.
> 
> Great.



I'm not there at all. The methodology could be perfectly sound -- I defer to the much brighter people here than me on the minutiae of his/her approach -- but the RAW file and the camera that captured it is a colossal unknown. 

As usual, I'll wait for the DXO's and photons to photos folks to do their thing.

- A


----------



## dak723 (Jul 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, there is a high probability this is all correct.
> ...



Yes, we don't even know that this was legitimately a 6D II.
We don't know how or with what it was converted.
We don't know if this a complete hoax or a plant by Nikon or Sony.
So, by all means, panic, theorize, complain, and make fools of yourselves.


----------



## padam (Jul 10, 2017)

Raw files seem legit to me. If it is relevant from a testing point of view is another matter, so many different factors. Dynamic range is not that easy to measure, since some cameras have better headroom in the highlights and others in the shadows.

From dpreview: According to Canon representatives, the 6D Mark II should outperform the original 6D (which it very evidently does) but may not offer the same kind of dynamic range and absolute resolution of the EOS 5D Mark IV.

So it is pretty safe to say it won't be as good as a 5D IV but unlike that claim it may not be that different from the original 6D.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2017)

dak723 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



This and the companion threads are hilarious. All this panicking over a "test" done by some random person on the internet. Not to mention that even if actual, legitimate testing bears out these "findings," the results are insignificant to the real world use of the camera. 

Oh no! I just checked Amazon Best Sellers and this "news" is having a devastating effect on pre-orders...wait...let me check again...Never mind...the 6DII is the best selling full-frame DSLR on Amazon...followed by the 5DIV and the original 6D.

Where's Nikon?...Oh there it is...Number 27, just above the 5DIII at Number 28.

Canon is *******!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

So DPR has become DRP = DR Preview. 

Well, Amazon's rising star Rishi will be along any day to tell us how poor the 6DII's IQ is, compared to its 'best-performing peers' like the D810 and a7R II.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 10, 2017)

now, that would be one irresistably tempting camera body for all events shooters out there! note to self: keep on dreaming, boy! 



IglooEater said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Well, some people here on CR complain that Canon doesn't innovate, so they should be more like Nikon and Sony. Nikon recently launched their flagship D5 with less low ISO DR than its predecessor. So maybe Canon is now innovating just like Nikon. That should make people happy, right?
> ...


----------



## danyboyxd (Jul 10, 2017)

this is a jpg i found on this page https://www.shutterbug.com/content/canon-intros-6d-mark-ii-dslr-we-test-it-out-yellowstone-hands-preview-test-images.

i edited in LR5 ind pushed up the shadows and applied some noise reduction. this is a jpg editing so i believe that raw editing will be very impresive


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So DPR has become DRP = DR Preview.



#DRsnap


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So DPR has become DRP = DR Preview.
> 
> Well, Amazon's rising star Rishi will be along any day to tell us how poor the 6DII's IQ is, compared to its 'best-performing peers' like the D810 and a7R II.



Let the fun begin! Rishi, where are you?

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

So much for folks not repeating the error of testing rando RAW files -- now PtP is getting in on it:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59811093

"The preliminary results are based on the same CR2 files that have been discussed elsewhere." 

:

- A


----------



## M42 (Jul 10, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Yes, we don't even know that this was legitimately a 6D II.



There are two series of CR2 leaked. The first was by a well known photographer from New Zealand who has a long history on FM and was self hosting the shots. The second is from some random guy in Asia who took the files during a demo. There is a third guy on DPR who claims to have some files now.
The read-out noise numbers are matching between the images of the two first series, for multiple ISO values, as well as the EXIF data. Here's one of the EXIF :

```
ExifTool Version Number         : 9.74
File Name                       : IMG_9317.CR2
Directory                       : .
File Size                       : 27 MB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2017:07:09 15:00:50-07:00
File Access Date/Time           : 2017:07:09 21:48:42-07:00
File Inode Change Date/Time     : 2017:07:08 15:22:31-07:00
File Permissions                : rw-r--r--
File Type                       : CR2
MIME Type                       : image/x-canon-cr2
Exif Byte Order                 : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Image Width                     : 6240
Image Height                    : 4160
Bits Per Sample                 : 8 8 8
Compression                     : JPEG (old-style)
Make                            : Canon
Camera Model Name               : Canon EOS 6D Mark II
Preview Image Start             : 63856
Orientation                     : Horizontal (normal)
Preview Image Length            : 1847768
X Resolution                    : 72
Y Resolution                    : 72
Resolution Unit                 : inches
Modify Date                     : 2017:07:09 15:00:17
Artist                          : 
Rating                          : 0
Copyright                       : 
Exposure Time                   : 30
F Number                        : 4.0
Exposure Program                : Aperture-priority AE
ISO                             : 100
Sensitivity Type                : Recommended Exposure Index
Recommended Exposure Index      : 100
Exif Version                    : 0230
Date/Time Original              : 2017:07:09 15:00:17
Create Date                     : 2017:07:09 15:00:17
Components Configuration        : Y, Cb, Cr, -
Shutter Speed Value             : 32
Aperture Value                  : 4.0
Flash                           : Off, Did not fire
Focal Length                    : 35.0 mm
Macro Mode                      : Normal
Self Timer                      : Off
Quality                         : RAW
Canon Flash Mode                : Off
Continuous Drive                : Single
Focus Mode                      : One-shot AF
Record Mode                     : CR2
Canon Image Size                : n/a
Easy Mode                       : Manual
Digital Zoom                    : None
Contrast                        : Normal
Saturation                      : Normal
Metering Mode                   : Evaluative
Focus Range                     : Not Known
Canon Exposure Mode             : Aperture-priority AE
Lens Type                       : Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Max Focal Length                : 35 mm
Min Focal Length                : 16 mm
Focal Units                     : 1/mm
Max Aperture                    : 4
Min Aperture                    : 23
Flash Activity                  : 0
Flash Bits                      : (none)
Zoom Source Width               : 0
Zoom Target Width               : 0
Manual Flash Output             : n/a
Color Tone                      : Normal
SRAW Quality                    : n/a
Auto ISO                        : 100
Base ISO                        : 100
Measured EV                     : -1.50
Target Aperture                 : 4
Target Exposure Time            : 1
Exposure Compensation           : +1/3
White Balance                   : Shade
Slow Shutter                    : None
Shot Number In Continuous Burst : 0
Optical Zoom Code               : n/a
Camera Temperature              : 19 C
Flash Guide Number              : 0
Flash Exposure Compensation     : 0
Auto Exposure Bracketing        : Off
AEB Bracket Value               : 0
Control Mode                    : Camera Local Control
Measured EV 2                   : -1.5
Bulb Duration                   : 0
Camera Type                     : EOS High-end
ND Filter                       : n/a
Canon Image Type                : Canon EOS 6D Mark II
Canon Firmware Version          : Firmware Version 1.0.2
Canon Model ID                  : Unknown (0x80000406)
Thumbnail Image Valid Area      : 0 159 7 112
AF Area Mode                    : Flexizone Single
Num AF Points                   : 63
Valid AF Points                 : 1
Canon Image Width               : 6240
Canon Image Height              : 4160
AF Image Width                  : 6240
AF Image Height                 : 4160
AF Area Widths                  : 552 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AF Area Heights                 : 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AF Area X Positions             : 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AF Area Y Positions             : -576 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AF Points In Focus              : (none)
AF Points Selected              : 0
Time Zone                       : +12:00
Time Zone City                  : Wellington
Daylight Savings                : Off
Bracket Mode                    : Off
Bracket Value                   : 0
Bracket Shot Number             : 0
Raw Jpg Size                    : Large
WB Bracket Mode                 : Off
WB Bracket Value AB             : 0
WB Bracket Value GM             : 0
Live View Shooting              : On
Focus Distance Upper            : inf
Focus Distance Lower            : 81.91 m
Flash Exposure Lock             : Off
Internal Serial Number          : KK0003551
Dust Removal Data               : (Binary data 1024 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Crop Left Margin                : 0
Crop Right Margin               : 0
Crop Top Margin                 : 0
Crop Bottom Margin              : 0
Exposure Level Increments       : 1/3 Stop
ISO Speed Increments            : 1/3 Stop
AEB Auto Cancel                 : On
AEB Sequence                    : 0,-,+
AEB Shot Count                  : 3 shots
Safety Shift                    : Disable
AI Servo Tracking Sensitivity   : Standard
Acceleration Tracking           : 0
AI Servo Tracking Method        : Main focus point priority
AI Servo First Image Priority   : Equal priority
AI Servo Second Image Priority  : Equal priority
AF Assist Beam                  : Emits
Lens Drive No AF                : Focus search on
Select AF Area Select Mode      : Disable; Flags 0x57
AF Area Select Method           : AF area selection button
Orientation Linked AF Point     : Same for vertical and horizontal
Manual AF Point Select Pattern  : Stops at AF area edges
AF Point Display During Focus   : On
AF Microadjustment              : Disable; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 0; 101; 84; 9; 216; 255; 255; 255; 255; 255
Viewfinder Warnings             : Monochrome, WB corrected, [6], [7]
Dial Direction Tv Av            : Normal
Custom Controls                 : 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Aspect Ratio                    : 3:2
Cropped Image Width             : 6240
Cropped Image Height            : 4160
Cropped Image Left              : 0
Cropped Image Top               : 0
Tone Curve                      : Standard
Sharpness                       : 4
Sharpness Frequency             : n/a
Sensor Red Level                : 0
Sensor Blue Level               : 0
White Balance Red               : 0
White Balance Blue              : 0
Color Temperature               : 5200
Picture Style                   : Landscape
Digital Gain                    : 0
WB Shift AB                     : 0
WB Shift GM                     : 0
Measured RGGB                   : 248 1024 1024 1096
VRD Offset                      : 0
Sensor Width                    : 6384
Sensor Height                   : 4224
Sensor Left Border              : 132
Sensor Top Border               : 56
Sensor Right Border             : 6371
Sensor Bottom Border            : 4215
Black Mask Left Border          : 0
Black Mask Top Border           : 0
Black Mask Right Border         : 0
Black Mask Bottom Border        : 0
Color Data Version              : Unknown (15)
Custom Picture Style File Name  : 
AF Micro Adj Mode               : Disable
AF Micro Adj Value              : 0
Warning                         : Invalid VignettingCorrUnknown2 data
Peripheral Lighting Setting     : On
Chromatic Aberration Setting    : On
Auto Lighting Optimizer         : Standard
Ambience Selection              : Standard
Grainy B/W Filter               : Off
Soft Focus Filter               : Off
Toy Camera Filter               : Off
Miniature Filter                : Off
Miniature Filter Orientation    : Horizontal
Miniature Filter Position       : 0
Miniature Filter Parameter      : 0
Fisheye Filter                  : Off
Painting Filter                 : Off
Watercolor Filter               : Off
User Comment                    : 
Sub Sec Time                    : 18
Sub Sec Time Original           : 18
Sub Sec Time Digitized          : 18
Flashpix Version                : 0100
Color Space                     : sRGB
Exif Image Width                : 6240
Exif Image Height               : 4160
Interoperability Index          : R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version        : 0100
Focal Plane X Resolution        : 6673.796791
Focal Plane Y Resolution        : 6720.516963
Focal Plane Resolution Unit     : inches
Custom Rendered                 : Normal
Exposure Mode                   : Auto
Scene Capture Type              : Standard
Owner Name                      : 
Serial Number                   : 015021000025
Lens Info                       : 16-35mm f/0
Lens Model                      : EF16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Lens Serial Number              : <REMOVED>
GPS Version ID                  : 2.3.0.0
Thumbnail Offset                : 54424
Thumbnail Length                : 9431
Photometric Interpretation      : RGB
Samples Per Pixel               : 3
Rows Per Strip                  : 416
Planar Configuration            : Chunky
Strip Offsets                   : 3469128
Strip Byte Counts               : 24905249
Raw Image Segmentation          : 0 6384 6384
Aperture                        : 4.0
Drive Mode                      : Single-frame Shooting
Image Size                      : 6240x4160
Lens                            : 16.0 - 35.0 mm
Lens ID                         : Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
Preview Image                   : (Binary data 1847768 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Scale Factor To 35 mm Equivalent: 1.5
Shooting Mode                   : Aperture-priority AE
Shutter Speed                   : 30
Create Date                     : 2017:07:09 15:00:17.18
Date/Time Original              : 2017:07:09 15:00:17.18
Modify Date                     : 2017:07:09 15:00:17.18
Thumbnail Image                 : (Binary data 9431 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Circle Of Confusion             : 0.020 mm
Field Of View                   : 37.4 deg
Focal Length                    : 35.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 53.2 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance             : 15.48 m
Lens                            : 16.0 - 35.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 24.3 - 53.2 mm)
Light Value                     : -0.9
```
And to remain objective : yes the EXIF can be modified by an external and does not constitute, by itself, a sufficient proof of authenticity.



dak723 said:


> We don't know how or with what it was converted.


The CR2 was directly dumped to a 16 bits TIFF via DCRAW, no modifications, no debayering. We are only interested in measuring the read noise from the masked portions of the sensor. This is also a sufficient information to deduce a peak dynamic range and compare to other models, all without being dependent on the scene shot.
What we see is that the two cameras have more read-noise in DN than the 5D4 as well as the original 6D and the 80D at low ISO. This is very surprising.



dak723 said:


> We don't know if this a complete hoax or a plant by Nikon or Sony.



Pretty elaborate hoax then. The data looks legit at the moment.



dak723 said:


> So, by all means, panic, theorize, complain, and make fools of yourselves.



I am personally not panicking. I just want to know what kind of performance the camera has before spending 2K$+ on it.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 10, 2017)

Those curves are from Bill Claff (PhotonsToPhotos.net) who is very respected, so they should be taken seriously.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 10, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So DPR has become DRP = DR Preview.
> ...



if low ISO noise performance is what you're after, 6d2 likely will be disappointing compared to a d810 no matter what.

But will it be disappointing compared to the original 6D?..
Certainly hope not for the sake of all you Canonites... Cuz if the 6d2 low iso IQ continues to suck, I might choke a little on my lunch while I'm chuckling.... again. 

... won't know until shipping product is tested by someplace like DxOmark...
Cross your fingers, Canon-faithful... prepare to be disappointed because _pleasantly surprised_ is not something you get very often from this co.


----------



## Otara (Jul 10, 2017)

Anything is possible and I can hypothesise Canon having fears over the 6D2 being too close to the 5DIV, but its hard to make sense of this result as given.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Those curves are from Bill Claff (PhotonsToPhotos.net) who is very respected, so they should be taken seriously.



Actually, my respect for Bill dropped a notch with this analysis of a leaked RAW file from a preproduction camera, with potential unknown (and unknowable) differences from the production units not yet available.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 10, 2017)

Neuro, Bill was upfront that this analysis is only preliminary and far from being final. 



neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Those curves are from Bill Claff (PhotonsToPhotos.net) who is very respected, so they should be taken seriously.
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2017)

Yet we have reports from France of the same performance as the 5D4.....

There is too much noise from too many trolls.... too many rumors discussed as if they are facts.....

Wait until someone reputable takes a camera off of a retail shelf and tests it properly......

Until then, all is noise.....


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 10, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro, Bill was upfront that this analysis is only preliminary and far from being final.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that Bill's data is appropriately caveated. Being first out with information is irresistible and appreciated by many. One step beyond rumors. Most have assumed that the sensor implementation in a 6D II would be of the same DR class as 80D and 5D4, but this new info is reason enough to question that assumption and at least give a moments pause to those considering a pre order. So, in that sense it is a service to potential buyers. A month of patience and the final data will be available for all to kick around.
I'm now thinking that the 6D II will have the effect of increasing 5D4 sales. Clever


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro, Bill was upfront that this analysis is only preliminary and far from being final.



Nevertheless, he drew a conclusion and supported others who have drawn the same conclusion. 



Bill Claff]
That said said:


> I agree that Bill's data is appropriately caveated.



Bill is smart enough to know that his data will be disseminated without any reference to those caveats.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 10, 2017)

I agree with you. I would do the same.



neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, Bill was upfront that this analysis is only preliminary and far from being final.
> ...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 10, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Neuro, Bill was upfront that this analysis is only preliminary and far from being final.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's a reason actual journalists triple-source and don't just go repeating something they heard from some guy on the internet. It speaks poorly of him, no matter how he couches it, because as we can see, people are taking it as the gospel truth despite that disclaimer. And he must have (or should have) known they would.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So DPR has become DRP = DR Preview.
> 
> Well, Amazon's rising star Rishi will be along any day to tell us how poor the 6DII's IQ is, compared to its 'best-performing peers' like the D810 and a7R II.



I realize that you have a thing for DPR, but to be fair, all they have done in this whole tempest in a teapot is repeat a statement from Canon. It is others who are stirring this up and making mountains out of something that doesn't even quality as a molehill.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that Bill's data is appropriately caveated.
> ...



I'm with Neuro here. At a minimum, a clear 'Potentially Pre-production Model' next to the 6D2 listing in the legend was in order.

- A


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 10, 2017)

The internet does not have any standards for truth or excellence. Most of us understand and accept that. Use it for good or ill as you will.


----------



## lightwriter (Jul 10, 2017)

On one hand, canceling my pre-order is starting to look like a good move. On the other hand, I would hope this would still be a good upgrade from my T4i.


----------



## tr573 (Jul 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



Notes:
Canon EOS 6D Mark II measurements are estimates pending complete results.

Putting that in red right under the chart is not enough? He posted pre-production estimates for the A9 also, with the same sort of caveat there.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

tr573 said:


> Notes:
> Canon EOS 6D Mark II measurements are estimates pending complete results.
> 
> Putting that in red right under the chart is not enough? He posted pre-production estimates for the A9 also, with the same sort of caveat there.



No, it's not, because this happens:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg674196#msg674196

People can just forward the chart without caveat. All we have to see is a footnote marker "(e)" in the legend.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2017)

Think about this from the chip designer's point of view...... Canon is shifting ALL sensors to a finer fabrication line.... they have had to redesign their sensors to fit, and EVERY other sensor so far has the ADC on sensor and has greatly improved DR.....why would the 6D2 be different? Canon would have had to deliberately designed an inferior sensor for this model only, knowing full well that it would impact sales and profits..... That's right, they would have had to have made an additional expenditure of money and resources in order to deliberately sabotage their best selling FF camera knowing that it would cost them even more money, and at the same time, drive people to the competition..... not very damn likely!


----------



## tr573 (Jul 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Notes:
> ...



I have a real hard time blaming people reporting on things for the chicken littles of the world


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 10, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> The internet does not have any standards for truth or excellence. Most of us understand and accept that. Use it for good or ill as you will.



A sign of the times; we're in Trumpland. A certain minority will always enjoy trashing anything for a lark or for a misguided conviction, after all we see examples in the news daily.

Here we have the world's most amazing cameras in all of history and folk want to diminish them to equivalent to trash (whatever brands), in spite of the amazing photos that we're seeing from amazing photographers using them in recent years. Almost amusing but actually sad to think that I might excuse my crummy shots in this way if I purchase a 6D2. I've loved the 6D and the new version has lots of upgrades and I'm now to believe it'd be trash in my hands?? 

And, in my 4 years of 6D I've shot probably 75% at ISO 1250 (mostly wildlife). For me higher ISO capability would be great since I never seem to have enough light out in the bush. It's higher ISO capability that is making me appreciate having the 1DX2, heavy beast that it is. Never imagined I'd be able to live such a dream in the latter years of life.

Jack


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 10, 2017)

tr573 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...



I have an easy time blaming people who use the veneer of journalism to lend credence to "some dude on the internet said this, so I'm going to 'report' on it".

When it's someone on FM it's someone on FM. When a "respected" site repeats the claim, suddenly it appears much more legitimate. This, again, is why journalists are supposed to multi-source and verify.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Think about this from the chip designer's point of view...... Canon is shifting ALL sensors to a finer fabrication line.... they have had to redesign their sensors to fit, and EVERY other sensor so far has the ADC on sensor and has greatly improved DR.....why would the 6D2 be different? Canon would have had to deliberately designed an inferior sensor for this model only, knowing full well that it would impact sales and profits..... That's right, they would have had to have made an additional expenditure of money and resources in order to deliberately sabotage their best selling FF camera knowing that it would cost them even more money, and at the same time, drive people to the competition..... not very damn likely!



Agree 100%. I believe most of us here were assuming we'd see the 13+ EV DR (+1.5-ish EV bump over the prior model) that the 1DX2 / 5D4 / 80D all demonstrated, so no, this makes no sense at face value.

Neuro is quick to point out the D5 experience, where it appears Nikon abandoned base ISO DR opportunities (I believe to pursue better performance at high ISO). But why Canon would deliberately do that as the start of their FF portfolio after just updating two other FF models differently makes very little sense.

My money remains on this being a RAW file from a pre-production model. It may have been properly analyzed -- the PtP person is not without cred -- but the file may not be the final output people see with their production 6D2s.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

Aglet said:


> ... won't know until shipping product is tested by someplace like DxOmark...



DxO... https://m.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

We all should be thankful to those controversial pre-productional RAWs and to the folks who did the test. Now we have so much discuss, otherwise the forum was getting boring


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> We all should be thankful to those controversial pre-productional RAWs and to the folks who did the test. Now we have so much discuss, otherwise the forum was getting boring



No, I think a 7D3 in 2018 rumor  is handling that just fine.

- A


----------



## M42 (Jul 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > why would the 6D2 be different?
> ...



Nobody is claiming it does, and I especially can't believe people saying Canon deliberately crippled this model to protect the 5D4 sales. But it is is also unlikely that they would distribute pre-production samples which are extremely different from the end model, particularly if this difference is on the sensor which is the core component of the camera. As a potential buyer, I just want to hold off for now and wait for better testing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

tr573 said:


> I have a real hard time blaming people reporting on things for the chicken littles of the world



I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means. For example, 'It is belived that...' really means 'I think'; 'It is widely believed that...' really means 'Me and a few colleagues think'; and 'A representative example is shown' really means 'the best example is shown'.

So just for fun, let's apply similar translations to Bill's post:

[quote author=Bill Claff on DPR]
The preliminary results are based on the same CR2 files that have been discussed elsewhere.
[/quote]
_...means: 'I downloaded files from the internet, from unverified sources, and given that Canon generally doesn't permit dissemination of RAW files from preproduction units, those files are most likely illicit, and I then proceeded to analyze those files and I will call the results preliminary.
_
[quote author=Bill Claff on DPR]
It's not unusual for my initial estimates to be low particularly for low ISO Settings.
[/quote]
_...means: My preliminary results are often wrong.
_
[quote author=Bill Claff on DPR]
That said, as has been discussed elsewhere, the 6D Mark II does not appear to have significantly better PDR than the 6D.
[/quote]
_...means: Other people on the internet are saying the 6DII is no better than the 6D, and my preliminary results (which are often wrong) based on those same leaked images show the same thing, so it must be true. 
_

[quote author=Bill Claff on DPR]
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at http://www.PhotonsToPhotos.net )
[/quote]

Well, I'm not sure that I trust someone who analyzes unverified source material, admits those preliminary analyses are often incorrect, then proceeds to draw conclusions from those data. 

All in all, I think it's rather sad that he's stooped to this level.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > We all should be thankful to those controversial pre-productional RAWs and to the folks who did the test. Now we have so much discuss, otherwise the forum was getting boring
> ...



Yes, but Dynamic Range is so much more fun. Primarily because it is so much more pointless. The arguments are so bitter because the stakes are so low.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2017)

Just a thought. 

Let's assume for a millisecond that the new 6DII does have slightly less dynamic range than the 5DIV. Here is the conclusion I would draw from that.

The 5DIV sensor is turning out to be something very special. We already knew that it controls noise at high ISO at a level that rivals the lower megapixel and more expensive 1DX II. Not quite as good, but much better than one would expect given its higher pixel density.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that Canon put some extra effort and expense into designing and manufacturing this new sensor so that it would be the best possible tool available to event and wedding photographers (one of its primary target audiences). After having produced an original 6D that "beat" the 5DIII in low light (marginally at best), it is logical that they decided they really needed to step things up for the 5DIV.

The result could, plausibly, be a sensor design and manufacturing process that requires more care and expense than is typical. Perhaps some costly tweaking of the photo cells, I don't know, I'm not a sensor designer.

But, my point is simply this: If (and it is a big "if" that is currently fueled only by internet rumors) the 5DIV sensor outperforms the 6DII sensor, why on earth would anyone find it surprising? After all, the 5DIV is the more expensive camera. Would anyone expect a car manufacturer to put a superior engine in its budget model and a weaker engine in its premium model? 

Oh, I can hear the whines right now: "But they did it last time. Therefore I am entitled to Canon continuing that same mistake in all future generations." Sorry, but no. Grow up.

Now, if it turns out that for some reason the 6DII underperforms the original 6D that would be surprising and concerning, but I doubt that will be the case.


----------



## M42 (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, I'm not sure that I trust someone who analyzes unverified source material, admits those preliminary analyses are often incorrect, then proceeds to draw conclusions from those data.



True. I was in the same position a few days ago, so I downloaded the data and I ran my own tests. For the moment, I have no reason to believe that the CR2s were doctored in any way : the distribution of the read noise (in ADU) is consistent in shape with other camera models (a simple Gaussian), including the 6D and the 5D4. It is just much more spread out (actually more spread out than even my old T3). The files come from a well-known source with a sample "pre-production" unit, not some kind of engineering sample. So there is still a slim chance that these units use a lower sensor grade than the final product, but it seems very unlikely that Canon would share a botched product with external entities for preview.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

Did anyone else get the pre-order email advertisement from Adorama? If so, did you read it carefully?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did anyone else get the pre-order email advertisement from Adorama? If so, did you read it carefully?



Hahahahahaha well done

- A


----------



## tr573 (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, I'm not sure that I trust someone who analyzes unverified source material, admits those preliminary analyses are often incorrect, then proceeds to draw conclusions from those data.
> 
> All in all, I think it's rather sad that he's stooped to this level.



I guess I'm not disappointed or sad because this isn't a new thing. He's done it before, with the same caveats provided (or lack thereof if you translate them with your guide  ) I don't expect him to wait until the camera ships because he doesn't if he has the chance to publish numbers early. It's hard to be disappointed if you already know Santa isn't real.

And I certainly don't blame him for people running wild with it. The world is full reactionary doom and gloomers. The whole business model of cable news is built on it.


----------



## tr573 (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did anyone else get the pre-order email advertisement from Adorama? If so, did you read it carefully?



LOL

The sad thing here is that I really starting to enjoy forums free of people have post processing pissing matches with each other over who could torture a bland photo the most to "prove" how sufficient Canon's DR was. I hope this is all wrong just so I don't have to go back to those days.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

unfocused said:


> But, my point is simply this: If (and it is a big "if" that is currently fueled only by internet rumors) the 5DIV sensor outperforms the 6DII sensor, why on earth would anyone find it surprising? After all, the 5DIV is the more expensive camera. Would anyone expect a car manufacturer to put a superior engine in its budget model and a weaker engine in its premium model?



You make perfect sense from the good-better-best market segmentation perspective: the 5D4 logically _should_ have a better sensor than a 6D2 in general terms.

But on base ISO DR, Canon of late has simply been putting in the latest gen of tech in there -- not _everywhere_, but certainly once you leave Rebel territory. The 1DX2 / 5D4 / 80D (and I believe EOS M5/M6?) all got the 'on chip ADC bump' over its predecessor. Why wouldn't the 6D2 be afforded that same courtesy?

I don't see that as 'the 6D1 sensor outperformed the 5D3 sensor _so that always should be true_' sort of entitlement, I see it as Canon has upped it's base ISO DR game and every camera should eventually reap that benefit. So -- if this somehow turns out to be true with production 6D2s (and we are not there yet) -- the news would be much more about a 6D2 not getting the 'on chip bump' over the 6D1 than anything to do with the 5D4. 

- A


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did anyone else get the pre-order email advertisement from Adorama? If so, did you read it carefully?



Weird, mine came slightly different...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

Mine was altogether different 8)

- A


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

Seems like Neuro got us a really great idea to exploit ;D

ND grands are awesome btw. Tried them first time last Sat and was very impressed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Seems like Neuro got us a really great idea to exploit ;D
> 
> ND grands are awesome btw. Tried them first time last Sat and was very impressed.



A lot of stuff is on first use, wait until you have used them more and hit their limitations regularly. They suck 95% of the time they are inflexible and have several severe limitations, put the fact that blending gives a much better result 95% of the time and they look like a very poor investment.

People interested in knockout landscape images are far better spending $20-40 on a blending program/plugin than three to ten times that on ND grads.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like Neuro got us a really great idea to exploit ;D
> ...



I have and use NDs (non-grad) frequently, up to 10-stop and all round/screw-in. I had a Lee setup for use with grad NDs for a while, used it a few times initially, sold it a while back. The guy who bought the kit from me brought his camera to try it out – it was a Sony a7R II. ;D


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > But, my point is simply this: If (and it is a big "if" that is currently fueled only by internet rumors) the 5DIV sensor outperforms the 6DII sensor, why on earth would anyone find it surprising? After all, the 5DIV is the more expensive camera. Would anyone expect a car manufacturer to put a superior engine in its budget model and a weaker engine in its premium model?
> ...



No disagreement. The 6DII should (and I expect that it does) have on chip ADC and the resultant improvements over its predecessor. As I stated, if it should turn out that it doesn't have some improvement over the original 6D, that would be a logical basis for complaints or as least disappointment. Even the models prior to on-chip ADC improved from generation to generation (7d vs. 7D II is a good example). So, I would be sympathetic to the complainers if that turned out to be the case. I'm just dismissing that possibility as I don't find it credible in the least and instead focusing on those who will cry "crippling" if they don't get a better sensor in the 6DII than that in the 5DIV. Those are the whiners that will find no sympathy from me.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like Neuro got us a really great idea to exploit ;D
> ...



What program would you recommend for that price?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



I use RayaPro, it costs $44.99 now and is a PS plugin.

http://www.shutterevolve.com/raya-pro-the-ultimate-digital-blending-workflow-panel-for-photoshop/

Mind you, there isn't a thing it does you can't do 'longhand' in PS, but it is a real timesaver. Look at some of his tutorials on YouTube, he normally explains how todo it with the plugin and without.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I am not a fan of the 'HDR' cartoony look. His pictures look nice. 

I'll look into the plugin.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



I was looking at a program, https://sites.google.com/site/longexposurestacker/ over the weekend that gives different options for the long exposure ND style image. I got there via the well reviewed companion app https://sites.google.com/site/starrylandscapestacker/home .

One of the main draws for the programs is the cost and size issues we have now with such extreme lenses. Don't see how we can ever get around the polarizer filter though, funnily enough that is the only one I now carry.


----------



## hbr (Jul 10, 2017)

I, for one. did not cancel my preorder.

Every new Camera from Canon that I have purchased has always been better than the previous model. 
Each new camera out of the box has worked as expected and kept on working.
Why would Canon change that now? I am very skeptical of this information and am quite sure he has not seen a production RAW file yet.

Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I was looking at a program, https://sites.google.com/site/longexposurestacker/ over the weekend that gives different options for the long exposure ND style image. I got there via the well reviewed companion app https://sites.google.com/site/starrylandscapestacker/home .
> 
> One of the main draws for the programs is the cost and size issues we have now with such extreme lenses. Don't see how we can ever get around the polarizer filter though, funnily enough that is the only one I now carry.



Not going to help blur passersby out of an image, which is one of my main uses for a 10-stop ND. That can also be done in post with multiple short exposures, but I find the ND to be the easier solution.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not going to help blur passersby out of an image, which is one of my main uses for a 10-stop ND. That can also be done in post with multiple short exposures, but I find the ND to be the easier solution.



Yes the program does remove passersby, it is just a glorified multiple short exposure blending program with mean and median options.

Now I am using the 11-24 more than the TS-E17 I can't find myself willing to go the filter route, though on first look the rear mount ND's looked interesting I'm not sure how that would actually translate to real world use with focus etc. 

We all find our own solutions to these issues but few would argue my original point, ND grads are often scene limited and 'better' results can more often than not be achieved more cheaply with blending techniques.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like Neuro got us a really great idea to exploit ;D
> ...



I didn't notice any limitations... I tried blending in PhotoShop and ND grads, both work perfectly together. ND grads work especially well combined with "big stoppers", when you don't have much time for multiple exposures (each exposure takes a few min, and every minute is critical during sunsets/sunrises).


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Why would anyone buy a special plugin, if all it takes is to add a gradient mask and adjust it slightly with a brush for a perfect blending? As long as you keep paying for CC subscription monthly... 

Anyway folks, seems like GND and blending solve all DR issues (if they really exist).


----------



## bholliman (Jul 10, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



+1


----------



## bholliman (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > What program would you recommend for that price?
> ...



+1 I use RayaPro and love it, excellent plug-in and value.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 10, 2017)

https://youtu.be/jv26s0BHKuQ?t=2m10s

#MarketingGuy


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Why would anyone buy a special plugin, if all it takes is to add a gradient mask and adjust it slightly with a brush for a perfect blending? As long as you keep paying for CC subscription monthly...
> 
> Anyway folks, seems like GND and blending solve all DR issues (if they really exist).



Wow, that isn't all it takes!

Ever take a picture with reflections, a horizon and vertical elements like trees/cliffs/people/buildings/etc etc? How about out of or into a cave/doorway/window/etc etc? Or even just include any of those elements? Anything with irregularly illuminated objects in it?

Blending is a very very powerful tool, it has probably done more to push image quality than any and all sensor development in the last six years. Post processing capabilities and techniques have vastly outstripped camera development in this area for years, anybody looking for improvements in low iso IQ 'static' subjects need look no further than post processing programs.

That doesn't mean there haven't been huge improvements in camera development, high iso capabilities, higher iso invariance, auto focus, frame rates, customization, etc etc have all added to the toolbox of capabilities, but the biggest area of IQ improvements for low iso landscape style work has been in post processing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I didn't notice any limitations...


keep using them, you will.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Ever take a picture with reflections, a horizon and vertical elements like trees/cliffs/people/buildings/etc etc? How about out of or into a cave/doorway/window/etc etc? Or even just include any of those elements? Anything with irregularly illuminated objects in it?



Manual blending is a process of stacking multiple layers together with masking / unmasking certain elements. If some elements don't have a desired look in any of the available layers, that won't be blending, but something else. Good quality blending will take more time compared to GND+some dodging/burning.



privatebydesign said:


> Blending is a very very powerful tool, it has probably done more to push image quality than any and all sensor development in the last six years. Post processing capabilities and techniques have vastly outstripped camera development in this area for years, anybody looking for improvements in low iso IQ 'static' subjects need look no further than post processing programs.



100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore  The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't notice any limitations...
> ...



Large objects going to the sky could be a problem, even with soft GNDs, but otherwise it's pure profit!  Yeah, we shall see, I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I was looking at a program, https://sites.google.com/site/longexposurestacker/ over the weekend that gives different options for the long exposure ND style image. I got there via the well reviewed companion app https://sites.google.com/site/starrylandscapestacker/home .
> ...



I didn't have time to play with my ND toys "in city", but it seems like it should take at least 4 minutes to completely eliminate people walking in the frame. How do you fight thermal noise then?


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

Pretty good chart on long exposures:
www.bwvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Exposure-chartv1.1.jpg


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> 100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore  The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake



Not true, just look at some of the tutorials on the link I provided. A ND Grad is a sledgehammer, great if you take pictures of railroad spikes, far too limited for much else.


----------



## sebasan (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Ironically, the person who creates rayapro uses the nikon d810


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 10, 2017)

sebasan said:


> Ironically, the person who creates rayapro uses the nikon d810



An awful lot of landscapers do, it doesn't stop them wanting a more.  Funny that the DRones never point that out...

He used to use a 5D MkII or III but moved to Nikon pre the 5DS/R due to the much higher MP and resolution numbers.

As I said, post processing is where the highest IQ is for this type of image the sensor is close to irrelevant, certainly DR is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> I didn't have time to play with my ND toys "in city", but it seems like it should take at least 4 minutes to completely eliminate people walking in the frame. How do you fight thermal noise then?



In daytime, I'm usually in the 30-60 s range. It really depends on the scene and the people. At blue hour, around 3 min, but the biggest problem there is cyclists with lights.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 10, 2017)

Just to stir the pot a bit more...

Today was another local hands-on with PREPRODUCTION 6D II camera (just a single one unfortunately for 20 people, that was like tentacle hentai, really...). I've had a little chat with Canon rep. He was not allowed to discuss details (NDA is still going), but he basically admitted that 6D II should be on par with 5D IV, sensor wise. There were some hints, that he is not allowed to discuss certain goodies about sensor - that really intrigued me. But in the end, I was told to wait for retail samples, which is what we all are doing I guess.

So I really hope he was right and we're about to be pleasantly surprised after this preliminary mumbo-jumbo. And if he's wrong, then Canon will disappoint me gravely and I'll be the first here to admit I was wrong and will openly criticize Canon for such move in 6D line...


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 10, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Just to stir the pot a bit more...
> 
> Today was another local hands-on with PREPRODUCTION 6D II camera (just a single one unfortunately for 20 people, that was like tentacle hentai, really...). I've had a little chat with Canon rep. He was not allowed to discuss details (NDA is still going), but he basically admitted that 6D II should be on par with 5D IV, sensor wise. There were some hints, that he is not allowed to discuss certain goodies about sensor - that really intrigued me. But in the end, I was told to wait for retail samples, which is what we all are doing I guess.
> 
> So I really hope he was right and we're about to be pleasantly surprised after this preliminary mumbo-jumbo. And if he's wrong, then Canon will disappoint me gravely and I'll be the first here to admit I was wrong and will openly criticize Canon for such move in 6D line...



I suppose that is encouraging. But as others have said in this thread (and else where) already, all of Canon's latest cameras/sensors all appear to have moved to the new fabrication process. It doesn't make sense on any level for them to not do the same with this camera.

Either way, my pre-order is in place and I'm hoping it ships slightly earlier then expected and I arrives before my canoe trip at the end of the month. Com'on Canon, get some early stock out!


----------



## fentiger (Jul 10, 2017)

In daytime, I'm usually in the 30-60 s range. It really depends on the scene and the people. At blue hour, around 3 min, but the biggest problem there is cyclists with lights. 
[/quote]

Cyclist+Lights!!!! thats an oxymoron Here in England them two words in the same sentence don't exist, especially in Cambridge.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't have time to play with my ND toys "in city", but it seems like it should take at least 4 minutes to completely eliminate people walking in the frame. How do you fight thermal noise then?
> ...



I've also heard you can use the Median Filter function in PS to eliminate folks with multiple exposures. Effectively, this method only outputs what is visible in every shot, so if you do it over an appreciable period of time (say 5 minutes), unless someone is sleeping or sitting/eating in frame, you'll only see the landmark and not the people around it. Apparently, it's a decent hack for really touristy areas where you never can pull everyone out of frame.

Of course, I'd imagine you'd need very consistent light to do that, so twilight/sunset or changing street lights could lead to some weird Median filter output. But I've never tried it myself -- has anyone here?

- A


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > 100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore  The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake
> ...



Frankly I don't remember I said anywhere GND will cure AIDS, ebola and cancer  It's doing what it's supposed to do - _gradually reduce light_. As long as it can also _reduce processing time_ - it's a tool worth using. Same as camera DR, strobes, light meters, and a million of other photography tools. One can re-create and render a _whole_ scene in 3ds max, but it will probably take longer compared to taking a picture.It's simply not correct to say GNDs suck only because they can't be used absolutely everywhere.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't have time to play with my ND toys "in city", but it seems like it should take at least 4 minutes to completely eliminate people walking in the frame. How do you fight thermal noise then?
> ...



Along with ND filters major photography stores should also offer traffic cones and signs "No Cyclists with Lights" and "Cycling? Turn off your lights!"


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Frankly I don't remember I said anywhere GND will cure AIDS, ebola and cancer  It's doing what it's supposed to do - _gradually reduce light_. As long as it can also _reduce processing time_ - it's a tool worth using. Same as camera DR, strobes, light meters, and a million of other photography tools. One can re-create and render a _whole_ scene in 3ds max, but it will probably take longer compared to taking a picture.It's simply not correct to say GNDs suck only because they can't be used absolutely everywhere.



Some people absolutely have no patience for compositing/masking, HDR tools, etc. while others hate fiddling with grads or shooting non-ideal horizons with them. I see both as tools in our toolboxes that can be brought to bear as circumstances dictate.

I'm neither a post-processing junkie nor a classic 'get it right in-camera' person. People should use what they like and feel more comfortable with. 

Personally, though, I am a frantic day-to-day photographer as my family is in constant motion, so I never take enough time to do things properly (I have terrible habits like relying on Auto ISO, avoiding M mode due to constantly changing lighting, etc.). _But landscapes are my delightful getaway from that_, so I actually love how grads and high stop NDs force. me. to. slow. down.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Jul 10, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly I don't remember I said anywhere GND will cure AIDS, ebola and cancer  It's doing what it's supposed to do - _gradually reduce light_. As long as it can also _reduce processing time_ - it's a tool worth using. Same as camera DR, strobes, light meters, and a million of other photography tools. One can re-create and render a _whole_ scene in 3ds max, but it will probably take longer compared to taking a picture.It's simply not correct to say GNDs suck only because they can't be used absolutely everywhere.
> ...



LOL that's exactly my story


----------



## stevelee (Jul 10, 2017)

As I have said in another thread, I'm upgrading from a T3i, which is still not a half-bad camera, but surely the 6D II is a significant improvement. If I had a 6D or even an 80D, I probably wouldn't be thinking about an upgrade at this point, and probably wouldn't be reading these messages. That is just me, though, and no reflection upon those who do want to upgrade. 

And my DR concerns come mostly with church interiors when I travel, and I'm shooting with a G7X Mark II, so not even in DSLR territory. I want the interior not to be too murky, and I don't want the stained glass colors to wash out. I bracket and then stack in filmstrip mode in Adobe Bridge for HDR. Results don't look quite natural enough to suit me, but still usable. For example the shot in the Order of the Thistle chapel in St. Giles, Edinburgh is one I plan to print out and put in a frame in my hallway, since I'm changing a couple of the pictures there. I have a more straight-on version with corrected verticals, but I like this wonky one better. It looks more like it looked to me when I was looking up at it.







If you guys have cameras that can do that or better in one shot, I'm impressed.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

Jopa said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



Dude, that is a pretty crappy misrepresentation of what I said. 

Do what you want, I don't care and I hope you have fun doing it, I was, like most people here, just relaying my experiences (actually most people here just talk a load of sh!t that they know absolutely nothing about and have no experience in). Over time everybody finds ND grads are more and more limiting from a compositional and results point of view, further, I never seemed to have the optimal one with me, either grade or hard or soft graduations. 

I don't care about in camera 'purity' or tools you need, I care about getting the results I want and am happy with. When I look through sites with photographs I respect and want to achieve virtually none use ND grads anymore, but that is me, you take what you want with whatever you want however you want. In a couple of years come back and tell me how much you are using those grads and if you are still happy with them, I was just trying to save you some time and I did it constructively by offering a cheaper and more flexible alternative that gives higher quality results. Clearly that was my mistake, sorry.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 11, 2017)

stevelee said:


> As I have said in another thread, I'm upgrading from a T3i, which is still not a half-bad camera, but surely the 6D II is a significant improvement. If I had a 6D or even an 80D, I probably wouldn't be thinking about an upgrade at this point, and probably wouldn't be reading these messages. That is just me, though, and no reflection upon those who do want to upgrade.
> 
> And my DR concerns come mostly with church interiors when I travel, and I'm shooting with a G7X Mark II, so not even in DSLR territory. I want the interior not to be too murky, and I don't want the stained glass colors to wash out. I bracket and then stack in filmstrip mode in Adobe Bridge for HDR. Results don't look quite natural enough to suit me, but still usable. For example the shot in the Order of the Thistle chapel in St. Giles, Edinburgh is one I plan to print out and put in a frame in my hallway, since I'm changing a couple of the pictures there. I have a more straight-on version with corrected verticals, but I like this wonky one better. It looks more like it looked to me when I was looking up at it.
> 
> ...


A church interior with detailed shadows, and keeping the stained glass windows colored, will not be possible with a DR of 14 stops, without multiple exposures and HDR treatment. It would take more than 20 stops to achieve this in a single exposure, and no camera today is capable of this.

Coming from a T3i, you only get a maximum of 2 HDR stops with the new models. I know it is a heresy, but a bounced flash would allow a better balance between internal and external lighting.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 11, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> A church interior with detailed shadows, and keeping the stained glass windows colored, will not be possible with a DR of 14 stops, without multiple exposures and HDR treatment. It would take more than 20 stops to achieve this in a single exposure, and no camera today is capable of this.
> 
> Coming from a T3i, you only get a maximum of 2 HDR stops with the new models. I know it is a heresy, but a bounced flash would allow a better balance between internal and external lighting.



No surprises there. I was being a bit cute when I suggested that you guys with more modern cameras perhaps could. Using flash there would have got me kicked out, perhaps even before I shot if anyone saw me in time. The G7X's little flash thingy does have a spring on it so that with sufficient dexterity, one can bounce its flash.

I have no idea how the DR of the G7X II compares with that of the T3i, newer technology vs. larger sensor. But two more stops DR than the T3i doesn't sound half bad to me, and maybe 14-bit RAW files vs. 10-bit(?) will give me more to play with in ACR. Usable ISO range is likely much greater in the 6D II, however it compares with existing and past FF bodies. And the T3i has obviously much lower noise than the older body I had before.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 11, 2017)

stevelee said:


> And my DR concerns come mostly with church interiors when I travel,
> 
> ...
> 
> If you guys have cameras that can do that or better in one shot, I'm impressed.



'One shot HDR' inside of churches becomes this 'how much can I abuse this RAW shadows/highlights sliders' sort of exercise. It's a bad habit, but, sometimes yours truly [cough] a friend I know has been known to do it. :

If you are shooting handheld, FF will get you more dynamic range at the higher ISOs you'll probably be using in low lit interiors. But as ajfotofilmagem said, no camera I can think of can one-shot churches perfectly -- it's an absurdly difficult ask of any camera's latitude. So I'd peg FF as a 1-2 stop better helper, but not a silver bullet.

Given that, I'd honestly take the T3i + a tripod over the 6D2 without one in this unique instance, but I appreciate that's rarely allowed for these venues.

- A


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 11, 2017)

Private, 
You are absolutely correct in all what you said. ND grads never worked 100% for me. There is not enough flexibility. I am not going to repeat all you have as you ar speaking from a solid, robust experience. 
However, let me explain how I understand the situation:
Jopa enjoying the process. This what he is doing photography for. Hence loves his toys. Which is perfectly fine. 
And for you getting from point A to point be in a most efficient and timely manner is utmost important since you are after results. Process is less important to you. Which is understandable again. 
So let boys play with their toys and enjoy the process. 
The passion for photography is what we all have in common and this is great. 



privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Private,
> You are absolutely correct in all what you said. ND grads never worked 100% for me. There is not enough flexibility. I am not going to repeat all you have as you ar speaking from a solid, robust experience.
> However, let me explain how I understand the situation:
> Jopa enjoying the process. This what he is doing photography for. Hence loves his toys. Which is perfectly fine.
> ...



^^ This. This for days. ^^

Why we shoot, what we shoot and how we shoot rarely devolves down to a single best practice. Some folks are output driven, other folks are complexity driven, process driven, gear driven, efficiency driven, etc. and I've learned it's best to respect those differences.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Jul 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 'One shot HDR' inside of churches becomes this 'how much can I abuse this RAW shadows/highlights sliders' sort of exercise. It's a bad habit, but, sometimes yours truly [cough] a friend I know has been known to do it. :
> 
> If you are shooting handheld, FF will get you more dynamic range at the higher ISOs you'll probably be using in low lit interiors. But as ajfotofilmagem said, no camera I can think of can one-shot churches perfectly -- it's an absurdly difficult ask of any camera's latitude. So I'd peg FF as a 1-2 stop better helper, but not a silver bullet.



Some of the landscapes that I bracketed on the recent Britain trip I wound up not stacking. The "shadows/highlight exercise" worked just fine, sometimes using the mid-exposure, sometimes the one-stop-under. In the Rockies last fall, not long after I got the G7X II, I was taking pictures in the Garden of the Gods near sunset. Bracketing did help those pictures a lot, generally one exposure for the sky and one for the rocks, and one I didn't use. That helped me preserve the colors I had seen in each more than anything else.

In churches where the stones haven't moved significantly in eight hundred years and the windows have been in place at least from the nineteenth century, taking multiple exposures handheld is not that big a problem. I think Photoshop does an amazing job aligning them. I seem to have better luck with the HDR from ACR's filmstrip mode than with doing it directly in Photoshop, even though I have more experience with that. 

My next trip of any consequence will be to Hawaii the end of the year, so almost for sure very different challenges. The 6D II will still be my new toy, so I might decide to take it instead of or along with the G7X II.

I am thinking about doing a staycation before then and renting a TS lens for a week, probably the 24mm.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 11, 2017)

tr573 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm not sure that I trust someone who analyzes unverified source material, admits those preliminary analyses are often incorrect, then proceeds to draw conclusions from those data.
> ...



+1
He does early analysis on every camera when RAWS are provided to him and labels it as such. He doesn't have any ads on his site so not like he is just trying to drum up clicks or ad revenues like CW is by posting the story.

Somehow I doubt we'd be seeing any of this criticism or doubt if these early RAWs showed a DR equalling the 5D4. Funny how people get so defensive when negative news comes out and doubt everything, seeing conspiracies everywhere. If these results showed 5D4 DR everyone would be raving about it, no one would be saying the RAWs are fake, the RAWs are preproduction, the RAWs are from a prototype sensor or what else.

If I could put money on it, I'd be laying down a lot on the bet that these early RAWs will turn out to be an exact representation of the production, consumer bought sensor. I will have no problem and be happy for potential 6D2 customers if somehow the DR is up to 5D4 levels.

The thing is, I have no interest in a 6D2 type body but if someone offered me to swap this 6D2 sensor (with low DR) into my 1DX2 without losing any other 1DX2 features (like FPS) I'd take it no questions asked simply for more MPs (5D4 would be even better of course). I don't use ISO 100-400 where the DR is different. After 400 all the cameras are almost equal (other than the D5 which dominates high-ISO DR as it should because the D5 is made for high-ISO shooting anyways and I wish the 1DX2 sensor was geared more like it sacrificing low-ISO DR for high-ISO DR and noise handling)


----------



## Jopa (Jul 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I think it was a great discussion. Way better than talks about DR of an unreleased camera coming from an unknown source 

I do like my results so far, here is a shot taken a few days ago, with a 10 stops ND and a GND, and it's also a blend of two images. Could I take it without a GND? Yes. Could I take it in one image? Yes. Could I take it even without a 10 stops ND? Why not... But it would be a different image. It's all art and there is no right or wrong, there is no "approved" or best technique that suites everybody. It's also not about what others do, that's about what I do, what I like and what I learn in the meantime. A few years ago I saw an article on SAR about Sony developing a sensor with variable exposure (unlikely true). Now imagine this kind of sensor in a consumer camera... If this ever happen - then yes, I will though all my GNDs away


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 11, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> If I could put money on it, I'd be laying down a lot on the bet that these early RAWs will turn out to be an exact representation of the production, consumer bought sensor. I will have no problem and be happy for potential 6D2 customers if somehow the DR is up to 5D4 levels.



I believe you will see returned units if its turn out to be true.

I feel somewhat bad for the 6D owners who sold their cameras anticipating an upgrade.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > ... won't know until shipping product is tested by someplace like DxOmark...
> ...



if all you look at is the final rating mark you've missed 97% of the highly valuable *measurement* data DxOmark publishes.
You can learn quite a bit from that published data, especially the SNR chart.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2017)

Jopa said:


> It's all art and there is no right or wrong, there is no "approved" or best technique that suites everybody. It's also not about what others do, that's about what I do, what I like and what I learn in the meantime.



+1!


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.



thanks for confirming you are a trained as a professional BS artist LOL


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 11, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > If I could put money on it, I'd be laying down a lot on the bet that these early RAWs will turn out to be an exact representation of the production, consumer bought sensor. I will have no problem and be happy for potential 6D2 customers if somehow the DR is up to 5D4 levels.
> ...



I still think the 6D2 will be a decent upgrade from the 6D. If one was really looking for DR and high-ISO noise improvements then obviously it won't be anymore. But otherwise one will be getting way better AF module including f/8 AF if needed. Flip screen is useful, I really liked it on my 80D but mostly because I could flip it over and protect the screen when in my bag. Other improvements and features that have been brought into the entire Canon line over the past 5 years.

But I do agree if all these early tests turn out to be true then it is a disappointment compared to expectations (including my own) but will still be a nice little FF camera. IMO the price is too high based on these results but so is 5D4 and I ended up buying that.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Private,
> ...



Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 11, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> Funny how people get so defensive when negative news comes out and doubt everything, seeing conspiracies everywhere. If these results showed 5D4 DR everyone would be raving about it, no one would be saying the RAWs are fake, the RAWs are preproduction, the RAWs are from a prototype sensor or what else.



+1000



> If I could put money on it, I'd be laying down a lot on the bet that these early RAWs will turn out to be an exact representation of the production, consumer bought sensor.



Exactly. 

The production cameras will not show 1.5 EV stops better DR vs these pre-production RAW files.
So, when DxO does their thing, they will simply reiterate these results (within the margin of error). 

Sorry for those who feel disappointed (myself included) - but what we are seeing is the real thing.

As I said in another post: 
By the look of things, the 6DII sensor uses the the same sensor tech as the 5DS(R) and 7DII.
These are newer designs (vs the 5DIII and 6D) - and yet, they don't have on-sensor ADCs.

No idea why Canon went with the older sensor tech; most likely because it is somehow more cost-effective for them.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 11, 2017)

I am sorry if I did harm your feelings, my intention was just a friendly ( the key word) conversation rather than fight. My undestanding is that majority of forum users (trolls aside) are here for a simple reason: to share photographic knowledge, skills and experience with like minded individuals.



privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 11, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > And my DR concerns come mostly with church interiors when I travel,
> ...



I don't want to disagree with ajfotofilmagem either, in my experience he knows his stuff. I agree with what was said... However, playing a bit of devil's advocate (and agreeing with ahsanford that there are less perfect ways) it does depend on the church and the outside lighting at the time. That shot looks like was probably a mid, bright, sunny day. Amazing what even cloud cover can do. It's not always easy, allowed, convenient to shoot an HDR shot done "right". Heck, I just came back from France and the nature of the trip was more run and gun, family snapshot photography. So if you can't "do it right" a good full frame camera with "as good as it gets" DR may just be enough to pull shadows and recover highlights to make a single shot work. Maybe not in this particular case, but for sure it can get the job done in some cases. I tooks shots inside at least 3 churches/cathedrals on this recent France trip with a crop sensor (Fuji Xtrans II) and was able to come away with a few usable shots.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I am sorry if I did harm your feelings, my intention was just a friendly ( the key word) conversation rather than fight. My undestanding is that majority of forum users (trolls aside) are here for a simple reason: to share photographic knowledge, skills and experience with like minded individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No apology needed, your comments were on point and relevant and I thank you for them. I wasn't directing my reply to yours.

I felt the same way about this place, the idea was to share experience and knowledge, but it seems people are so close minded and dismissive of people who actually have experience, and actual experience seems to be in very short supply 

I am an inveterate traveler and well know the joy is generally in the journey. But one thing that disappoints me in looking back at old images of mine taken during my photographic journey is the relative inexperience I had and the frustration at taking images I never can again but are flawed for so many reasons. 

Oh well, back to DR arguments I suppose.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



It depends entirely on the difference between the interior and exterior light levels, if it is bright sun shining directly through the windows nothing short of a NASA camera will do it. If, however, there are some lights inside and it is cloudy and overcaste outside then the scene will fall within the range of a single shot.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.



Pick a fight? Good trolling pal! Here is how you started your _friendly_ conversation:



privatebydesign said:


> They suck 95% of the time they are inflexible and have several severe limitations, put the fact that blending gives a much better result 95% of the time and they look like a very poor investment.
> 
> People interested in knockout landscape images are far better spending $20-40 on a blending program/plugin than three to ten times that on ND grads.





privatebydesign said:


> I felt the same way about this place, the idea was to share experience and knowledge, but it seems people are so close minded and dismissive of people who actually have experience, and actual experience seems to be in very short supply



My open-minded friend, why would you think anybody would listen to your expert advise, if nobody ever saw your work? Yes, yes, I know, you're probably too busy working with blending plugins in PhotoShop and trolling on CR, so you can't post anything, right?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 11, 2017)

Oleg, Private expressed rather an opinion and shared his personal experience. It could be of some value or not for yourself or other (less experienced) forum members. It is only an opinion. I feel that you have over reacted. Probably you may like to reconsider?
BTW, nice shot, my friend. And finally, see the image attached.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 11, 2017)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I have a little 'cheat sheet' for scientific publications that helps lay folks interpret what standard phrasing really means.
> ...



Speaking as a scientist I found it quite accurate.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



None of those phrases would be allowed a properly peer-reviewed scientific journal without citations to back them up. To be fair to Claff, he explicitly stated that he is likely to be underestimating the DR in preliminary experiments, a caveat that I take to be in his favour.


----------



## soloyc (Jul 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


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



Actually, to defend Neuro, knowing the issue with scientific publishing does not mean one is using the tricks. 
I've also seen my share of such phrases ("it is believed", "we believe", etc) without any references in scientific papers. When I do see them when reviewing papers submitted to journals, I ask authors to list their references. But a lot of them go through nevertheless. The review process is time-consuming (and an act of scientific charity because unpaid), and some of us who review a large share of papers before acceptance can't keep up the pace imposed by editors nowadays. So I am sure there is indeed a lot of BS in papers, even some published in high-impact journals. Few reviewers dare asking their peer authors for better statistics, for example. And everyone knows that you can make stats say whatever you want... especially when stats refer to a case study (n=1).........
I'm not in the market for a 6DII (not until the price drops after a year or two), but I am hopeful that the DR will be improved from the 6D, especially if they used similar sensor tech as the 5D4 and 80D. But frankly, this is not the main thing I wanted improved in the 6D line. For me, the AF is the main issue, as well as the f/8 focussing (can't use extenders with f/5.6 lens on a 6D...) If weather sealing is also improved, then that's even better (do we have more detail on this BTW?) DR boost at base ISO is only icing, but I can understand how this can be critical for some shots.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 11, 2017)

soloyc said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I am a senior editor of a couple of scientific journals, which is a good education for not taking review sites and their measurements seriously (_n_ = 1, undefined methods, lack of controls etc, apart from Roger C and Brandon D on Lensrentals).


----------



## soloyc (Jul 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


> soloyc said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I'm actually happy only reviewing papers occasionally for journals. As editor, I can only assume you've also seen your share of claims!!  I always try to be objective when reviewing, but I often find that papers I review in which major flaws can be found were nevertheless going through the final cut because the other reviewers found them innovative. In this I cannot fight with other reviewers; just trying to convince authors to improve their papers is already difficult. This was in "top-of-their-field" journals too, which is sad IMHO...

BTW, sorry for the off-topic comment; this was not meant to debate who's right or wrong, just to vent out about how "bad" research (or at least, badly referenced) can still be published sometimes.

For the topic discussed here, I would not assume that DR tests were badly done or reported. But I'm curious if other base-ISO images will yield similar results, especially when taken with production units. That would be more convincing, and probably close the debate one way or another...


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 11, 2017)

Yes, when production units are available for testing the debate will end (I hope). The pre-production DR measurement is just a piece of early data that we can have fun debating. I for one would rather have this data available than not available. It's amusing to me that some are applying Scientific journal publishing standards to an individual's web site. 

DxO, cited in this thread a few times, is frequently kicked in the teeth in CR for their questionable methods of testing, or quantifying results.


----------



## Woody (Jul 11, 2017)

If the 6D shows a return to the old Canon sensor DR, DPReview will have a field day making derogatory remarks about Canon's latest entry-level FF camera. ;D


----------



## M42 (Jul 11, 2017)

AlanF said:


> I am a senior editor of a couple of scientific journals, which is a good education for not taking review sites and their measurements seriously (_n_ = 1, undefined methods, lack of controls etc, apart from Roger C and Brandon D on Lensrentals).



It's N=2 actually, the calculations were clearly detailed by multiple people but I can also share my Matlab code for you to read and replicate my results... There are at least three persons computing similar curves at the moment.

So, now that we have cleared this out, does your argument of authority make you a "good scientist"?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2017)

M42 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > I am a senior editor of a couple of scientific journals, which is a good education for not taking review sites and their measurements seriously (_n_ = 1, undefined methods, lack of controls etc, apart from Roger C and Brandon D on Lensrentals).
> ...



If 50 people analyze the same image, it's not n ≠ 50.

Regardless, seems you missed that Alan was referring generally to lens testing sites, e.g. photozone, lenstip, TDP (although Bryan sometimes tests and shows qualitative results from multiple copies of a lens), etc.


----------



## Pookie (Jul 11, 2017)

Jopa said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously I agree, which is why I started the body of my reply with "Do what you want, I don't care, and I hope you have fun doing it" and included "you take what you want with whatever you want however you want". It seems 90% of the time here people aren't even interested in the words written they just want to pick a fight with whichever poster is getting on their nerves.
> ...



+1000 Jopa... I'm glad someone else can read through and see this BS. Being a contact of yours I know you actually are a photographer that takes real photos. This is the problem with this site in a nut shell, forum warriors with lots of opinions but when it gets down to brass tacks... not a whole lot of substance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

Pookie said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Hang on, let me reframe what I actually said and tell me what is incorrect.

ND grad filters suck 95% of the time, they are compositionally and scene limited.

Blending gives results with higher IQ and a decent blending program is cheaper, it is also not compositionally or scene limiting.

People interested in the highest quality landscape imagery would be better advised to invest the time and effort in learning blending techniques.

I thought one of the reasons for this site was to share and learn from our collective experience.

At no point did I say anybody using ND grads is wrong, indeed I specifically said "shoot what you want how you want why you want", and "the journey is part of the pleasure", essentially, using ND grads is a step along the way and enjoy using them on your photographic journey, if you want to skip that step then blending is the next one.

Now, what about that is incorrect?


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jul 11, 2017)

Here's my two cents - I've been reading through this thread, and re-checking the source of the file(s) to be sure... the files are in the numerical range of 9000+. 


A quesiton that keeps popping into my mind - if this is "a random guy" on the internet or even a seasoned professional of some sort of repute, would image 9000+ be the one you'd post that would draw questions? or would you have checked the DR on say image 100 or so, or even lower? 


Presumably, the firmware was set to start at 0001? 


Also - I'm noting that the file - seems to not follow the canon format of starting the file name with "_" for RAW's. (edit - as I posted, I recall that this is only for AdobeRGB and doesn't apply to sRGB photos as set in camera - but for RAW - moot??? anyway... just noting that it might not be relevant - or at least not as much as I had thought, initially). 



I'm not suggesting one thing or another, just observations that are causing some head-scratching.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 11, 2017)

mnclayshooter said:


> Here's my two cents - I've been reading through this thread, and re-checking the source of the file(s) to be sure... the files are in the numerical range of 9000+.
> 
> 
> A quesiton that keeps popping into my mind - if this is "a random guy" on the internet or even a seasoned professional of some sort of repute, would image 9000+ be the one you'd post that would draw questions? or would you have checked the DR on say image 100 or so, or even lower?
> ...



The whole thing is head scratching.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 11, 2017)

Pookie said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Whilst you guys are bitching about private I've downloaded the blending software that he recommended earlier in the thread, and I'm quite excited about it


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 11, 2017)

Private,

Why did your choose Raya Pro over Lumenzia?

Just preference?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Whilst you guys are bitching about private I've downloaded the blending software that he recommended earlier in the thread, and I'm quite excited about it



;D

I wish I was on commission, that is three from this one thread that I know of! 

Glad to hear you are excited about it, the more you delve the deeper it gets, I actually find the second, newer, panel gets more use. The InstaMask panel contains so much stuff I do repetitively it is a real time saver for me.

I also really appreciate the videos and support you get from Jimmy, and the fact that he shows you how to do all the adjustments without buying anything.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> Private,
> 
> Why did your choose Raya Pro over Lumenzia?
> 
> Just preference?



No, honestly I didn't know about Lumenzia!

I did know of several free actions and panels for luminosity masks, it just seemed to me Jimmy's panel had a wealth of useful stuff and he has so many instructional videos posted that go as deep as you want it seemed the right tool. It helped that the Instamask panel came too as I find I use that more often for my pictures.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > Private,
> ...



I trust your opinion, but I also do a bit of research on it myself.

I found this guy to be helpful;

https://www.exploringexposure.com/blog/2017/3/10/luminosity-mask-panel-review


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



Oh no don't trust my opinion! Trust the process, but the tool is entirely dependent on personal preference. I would point out that RayaPro has changed dramatically since the review but if the reviewer makes other points I'd go with whatever he points to, certainly TK V5 looks very interesting and is a touch cheaper.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 11, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst you guys are bitching about private I've downloaded the blending software that he recommended earlier in the thread, and I'm quite excited about it
> ...



I'm using Easy Panel from Jimmy, if that also counts. But I'm also a big fan of LEE GND filters and LEE Stoppers, so it's a bit schizophrenic


----------



## applecider (Jul 11, 2017)

The exploring exposure guy Is David Kingham I'd give him another thumbs up.

I've taken some workshops with him and find he does two things well. He finds great locations, often with hiking required, for landscapes day or night, and teaches luminosity masks on down times. 




CanonCams said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...


----------



## Aglet (Jul 11, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> I found this guy to be helpful;
> 
> https://www.exploringexposure.com/blog/2017/3/10/luminosity-mask-panel-review



as we go from "photography" to "Photoshopery" we still like to argue merits of imaging hardware metrics...

Cool. 

Thanks for link on masking tools compared..
I'll check that out sometime.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

Aglet said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > I found this guy to be helpful;
> ...



I used to talk about developers, agitation schedules and temperatures, why wouldn't I talk about modern processing tools? As others have said, it is far more relevant than arguing the merits, or not, of RAW files with no provenance.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2017)

Aglet said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > I found this guy to be helpful;
> ...



P.S. Mind you, I asked a purely camera related question the other day regarding settings people use every single day and not one single person had an answer.


----------



## foo (Jul 11, 2017)

I'll start with saying that I'm no expert in this stuff, so take this with a pinch of salt...

I was intrigued with the analysis and how seemingly random it was. Looking at only the black level in an area of the sensor that's seemingly unused doesn't appear particularly useful. Extrapolating from a small unused corner to the rest of the sensor also seems odd as any flaw in the masked area isn't relevant to your images.

So I downloaded the code and the raw file, built it all and ran the various things described on the FM page to get the exact same result. No surprise there.

One of his steps says 'Open the PGM file with an image editor and visually determine the area of the masked pixels at the top and left'... which is where things got interesting. I initially had some problems finding something to view the 16 bit binary formatted PGM, however one thing I tried seems to misinterpret the 16 bit file as 8 bit and that shows up something quite clearly that otherwise requires pushing the levels a lot.

Basically the first row (or two) in the supposedly masked black area has some unexpected pattern noise.

The hraw program seems designed to mask off the top left corner, I couldn't find an obvious way to get it to ignore the first couple of rows. Don't know what effect this noise would have on the measurements, but I can't see it being zero.

Doing the same steps to a raw file from the 5D4 doesn't show the same pattern. 

I've attached a jpg that shows just the top corner of the PGM files from the posted 6D2 raw and one from my 5D4, the red outline shows approximately the bit being measured by hraw. I wouldn't read too much into the aparrent noise in these two being different as the settings were certainly different as were the images.

Can someone else re-create the PGM file from the raw and see if they can see anything in the first row or two? If you have something better than I do to examine the PGM it may take a substantial push to see anything in that otherwise black corner.

I don't think it's worth reading anything at all into any of this, a one pixel high anomoly in a masked out area isn't going to affect normal images at all. No way to tell if it's a case of an early, imperfect, sensor or whether Canon have noticed this person and are yanking his chain by screwing with his results on pre-release files. Not sure I believe Canon has that much of a sense of humor tho


----------



## foo (Jul 11, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I wonder how many people realize that you need to have a picture of a high DR scene to analyze the sensor for DR?
> 
> You can't use just any image......



As far as I can tell the test isn't analyzing the image at all, it's simply looking at a 120x44 pixel area in a part of the sensor that's not exposed to light and working out the difference between the theoretical max value and the noise floor. I expect there's a lot of other stuff to consider for real images as it gives little clue as to how the sensor and other algorithms have been tuned.


----------



## Freddell (Jul 11, 2017)

Looking st the image posted 6dII looked worse than 6d.
Looking at DR calculation, if the results stay true then Canon have deceived us, because they ensured in 
interview last year that for every new camera they will use the best available sensor. Thus clearly no longer true. 
Even the hidden image above, 6DII looks much noisier and hideous.
Let's wait for production samples but initial reaction does not look good at all.
I ignored dpreview comments on the issue, because I know they hate Canon, but when you can see using your own eyes then it becomes a different matter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> P.S. Mind you, I asked a purely camera related question the other day regarding settings people use every single day and not one single person had an answer.



Missed that topic. Found it, had a go at answering it.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 12, 2017)

*Bill Claff Chimes In*

My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
This includes the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that I created in 2007 (a year before DxOMark even existed).
In those past 10 years I have tested over 150 camera models.
I've been lurking here for a while but thought this might be an opportune time to chime in.

Let's recap the current state of Canon EOS 6D Mark II dynamic range measurements.

Ciriaco Garcia performed read noise measurements on raw files and followed the DxOMark algorithm to adjust for pixel size to anticipate their Landscape Score.
As far as I can see the approach has some minor technical flaws but these would not have a significant impact on his results.
Garcia has a good track record of predicting DxOMark Landscape Scores using this approach.
He posted those results on a Fred Miranda forum.

Using raw files available in that Fred Miranda thread I measured Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR).
PDR is not computed from read noise but rather by locating a Signal on the Photon Transfer Curve (PTC) that has an appropriate (pixel size adjusted) Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).
I also performed separate read noise measurements.
Both the PDR and the read noise are available at PhotonsToPhotos.net
The PDR substantially agrees (in relative terms) with the Garcia read noise results.

Because the measurements were made from images other than my standard test target I have marked the Canon EOS 6D Mark II results as estimated (e).
I don't generally post estimated results but wanted people to have an independent verification of Garcia's work.

In those 10 years and 150 plus camera models of experience I have yet to have my estimates (which I don't normally publish) fall far from the mark.

FWIW, I don't find the results particularly surprising.
Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.

The feature set chosen by Canon might not what some people wanted or expected but I'm sure it will be a very capable camera.


----------



## davidj (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



bclaff said:


> Using raw files available in that Fred Miranda thread I measured Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR).
> PDR is not computed from read noise but rather by locating a Signal on the Photon Transfer Curve (PTC) that has an appropriate (pixel size adjusted) Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).
> I also performed separate read noise measurements.
> Both the PDR and the read noise are available at PhotonsToPhotos.net
> The PDR substantially agrees (in relative terms) with the Garcia read noise results.



Wow, assuming the estimates are correct, the 6D II has the same dynamic range as the original 7D from eight years ago at ISO 100!


----------



## Aglet (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



davidj said:


> Wow, assuming the estimates are correct, the 6D II has the same dynamic range as the original 7D from eight years ago at ISO 100!



I had that original 7D.. and FWIW... it sucked as base ISO! Lots of fixed pattern noise!
I think that Canon has at least improved that FPN problem a little even if the average read noise is still higher than we'd like. That would make it suck less than the 7D.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. Mind you, I asked a purely camera related question the other day regarding settings people use every single day and not one single person had an answer.
> ...



Thanks Neuro, I'm not surprised most didn't know/have an opinion but was surprised nobody had a stab. I wonder how thoroughly many here actually use their cameras


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 12, 2017)

Nobody had a stab for a completely different reason, Private. Humans are mostly humble, uncertain and avoid speaking up publicly. your question was precise and structural. Many would hesitate to comment to avoid fingerpointing if were incorrect. simple, less structural questions would receive a better response as people would be more confident that their answer will be adequate. This is my understanding.



privatebydesign said:


> Thanks Neuro, I'm not surprised most didn't know/have an opinion but was surprised nobody had a stab. I wonder how thoroughly many here actually use their cameras


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



bclaff said:


> My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
> This includes the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that I created in 2007 (a year before DxOMark even existed).
> In those past 10 years I have tested over 150 camera models.
> I've been lurking here for a while but thought this might be an opportune time to chime in.





> Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
> Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.



I don't claim to have the expertise to critique your tests, but I would assume the better comparison is with the 80D since the tech is the same generation. I would expect the sensor characteristics of the 6D Mark II to be roughly on par with the 80D.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Orangutan said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
> ...


I chose to compare with the 6D because one might expect the Mark II to be the natural successor to the "Mark I".
You can do any comparison you like using the interactive PDR chart at PhotonsToPhotos.

I don't make assumptions about tech being the same generation.
I measure first and then seek reasonable explanations for what I observe.

FWIW, the PDR curve (below) does not look very 80D-like.
The shapes of these curves has mostly to do with how the Programmable Gain Amplifiers (PGAs) and Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs) are implemented in the signal chain.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



bclaff said:


> FWIW, I don't find the results particularly surprising.
> Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
> Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.



Bill
Thanks for chiming in - your site is very useful and informative. I have learned something from this paragraph: reading out noise from the 1DXII is fundamentally greater than that from the 5DIV because the fps increase is greater than the decrease in the number of pixels (2x0.7 greater transfer rate).

Do you know much noise the dual pixel technology contributes?

Contributions from a real expert are always welcome on this site, and I hope you will contribute further.


----------



## Adelino (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Aglet said:


> davidj said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, assuming the estimates are correct, the 6D II has the same dynamic range as the original 7D from eight years ago at ISO 100!
> ...



This is turning my dream of my first FF into a nightmare. I would be moving up from the 7D. I've been waiting for this camera a very long time! I don't care about the 4K, dual card slots, or "narrow" focus point spread. I do care about IQ though. I may just save a bunch of money and get a refurbished 80D


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*

honestly, I would consider a refurbished or second hand low shutter count 5D Mark III instead (If 45+ AF points is something that you need), otherwise refurbished or second hand 6D body is just fine ( If you mostly focus and recompose). unless you absolutely need that extra stop of DR...



Adelino said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > davidj said:
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



SecureGSM said:


> honestly, I would consider a refurbished or second hand low shutter count 5D Mark III instead (If 45+ AF points is something that you need), otherwise refurbished or second hand 6D body is just fine ( If you mostly focus and recompose). unless you absolutely need that extra stop of DR...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Outer points on the 6D actually aren't that bad if you have anything other than low light and can choose an appropriate target. Don't try and use a horizontal line point with a vertical line !


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*

yeah, managable, unless you need to land an AF point on your model's iris whilst shooting with 135mm F1.8 Art lens wide open precisely or even tracking a fast moving subject with 300 F2.8 lens wide open. I mean you could, but 5D level body makes your life much easier in that regard 



Sporgon said:


> Outer points on the 6D actually aren't that bad if you have anything other than low light and can choose an appropriate target. *Don't try and use a horizontal line point with a vertical line* !


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



SecureGSM said:


> yeah, managable, unless you need to land an AF point on your model's iris whilst shooting with 135mm F1.8 Art lens wide open precisely or even tracking a fast moving subject with 300 F2.8 lens wide open. I mean you could, but 5D level body makes your life much easier in that regard
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well sure, but while you can use it for whatever you want, that (clearly) wasn't the intended sort of use case for the 6D, no more than a Rebel.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*

Well, sure. But that's not what Sporgon was saying. He said that outer AF points of 6D are not that bad. I confirmed but also pointed out some limitations. 




LonelyBoy said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, managable, unless you need to land an AF point on your model's iris whilst shooting with 135mm F1.8 Art lens wide open precisely or even tracking a fast moving subject with 300 F2.8 lens wide open. I mean you could, but 5D level body makes your life much easier in that regard
> ...


----------



## bclaff (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



AlanF said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, I don't find the results particularly surprising.
> ...


Thank you.


AlanF said:


> I have learned something from this paragraph: reading out noise from the 1DXII is fundamentally greater than that from the 5DIV because the fps increase is greater than the decrease in the number of pixels (2x0.7 greater transfer rate).


I suspect the read out rate is the big contributor.


AlanF said:


> Do you know much noise the dual pixel technology contributes?


Not much, just relative to a "normal" pixel. Look at the 5D Mark IV, it has DPAF.


AlanF said:


> Contributions from a real expert are always welcome on this site, and I hope you will contribute further.


I have limited bandwidth but will try to stay in touch.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



SecureGSM said:


> Well, sure. But that's not what Sporgon was saying. He said that outer AF points of 6D are not that bad. I confirmed but also pointed out some limitations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still, "not that bad" is not the same as "can do anything and be used for anything".


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 12, 2017)

I went through 9 pages of this topic and nobody talks about high-ISO. If Fred Miranda is right, 6DII should be the best low light camera in the world. As good as low resolution 1DX-II and D5. Still, everybody talks if dynamic range will be half-a-stop or full-stop better than 6DI. 

It appears Canon did not discard their signature sensor technology. 7DII sensor in a full-frame body with dual-pixel autofocus, tilty-flippy screen and touch... interesting... 

Than 7DIII might get one too. You know what is in common to wildlife and video shooters? Both groups care about noise at high ISO more than DR at low ISO. 7DII + 6DII sensor technology + 4K + touchscreen (no flippy) = a hit camera and great 7DII replacement.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



AlanF said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, I don't find the results particularly surprising...
> ...



I would echo those thanks. For one thing, it is helpful to put findings into context. Unfortunately, what you get on the Internet is people who have an agenda posting and distributing information with no context or with misleading context.

As a person who uses a camera to help earn my living, but who has no background or interest in testing sensors or any other component of cameras, I generally look for some very broad takeaways when reading reviews and going to testing sites: is the aspect being tested relevant to my use and if so, do the results demonstrate differences that I am likely to notice in my shooting?

About 99% of the time, the answer to one or both questions is "no." 

I appreciate people like Bill (along with Lens Rentals, DPR, DXO, The Digital Picture, etc.) who take their roles seriously and really do care about these things. They provide information that I can factor in when making a purchase decision. But, I think it is ultimately the responsibility of the consumer to keep everything in perspective. 

My initial take on this "controversy" was that people were taking an anthill (it doesn't even qualify as a molehill) and transforming it into a mountain. Nothing that has been written changes that opinion. If I were in the market for the 6DII (I'm not and never have been) and desired it strongly enough to consider a pre-order, I find nothing in this discussion that should dissuade anyone from completing that pre-order. Indeed, to be blunt about it, the only rationale I can see for people to be upset would be if one's own personal sense of worth were tied too closely to the idea that one must have the newest and shiniest toy on the block.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



bclaff said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



Thanks for the insight, much appreciated!

However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO? 30 MP x 7 fps requires an even faster readout than the 6D2. Also a large jump from the 22 MP x 6 fps of the 5D3 and we all know the huge DR jump we saw there. I still find it odd that the 6D2 would not see a similar benefit and I can't imagine Canon would intentionally hold back their latest sensor tech.

Can anyone explain that to me?


----------



## bclaff (Jul 12, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> I went through 9 pages of this topic and nobody talks about high-ISO. If Fred Miranda is right, 6DII should be the best low light camera in the world. ...


That's a good point but a bit of hyperbole there.
Below the PDR chart at PhotonsToPhotos there is a sortable table.
My Low Light ISO is analygous to but on a different scale than DxOMark Sports.
It looks like the 6D Mark II low light performance is just a bit better than the 6D.
Remember to look at the stops rather than just the ISO value.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Luds34 said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



It doesn't make sense to me either. 5D IV has a faster readout as you pointed out. Even 80D surpasses 6D in terms of DR. And Canon itself admitted that 6D II is made with the same tech as its latest sensors. So unless there are some shenanigans going on, either market preserving of fault in measuring, this is simply mind boggling. I'm patiently waiting for more reviews with retail cameras and more importantly, using updated and various software.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Luds34 said:


> ...
> Thanks for the insight, much appreciated!
> 
> However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO? 30 MP x 7 fps requires an even faster readout than the 6D2. Also a large jump from the 22 MP x 6 fps of the 5D3 and we all know the huge DR jump we saw there. I still find it odd that the 6D2 would not see a similar benefit and I can't imagine Canon would intentionally hold back their latest sensor tech.
> ...


The readout rate comment is a conjecture based on past experience.
Most sensors are actually readout using a parallel multi-channel technique.
The number of channels would affect how fast each individual channel has to be.
Naturally the circuitry for the channels competes with other features and limits many channels you can design in.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



Luds34 said:


> However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO? 30 MP x 7 fps requires an even faster readout than the 6D2. Also a large jump from the 22 MP x 6 fps of the 5D3 and we all know the huge DR jump we saw there. I still find it odd that the 6D2 would not see a similar benefit and I can't imagine Canon would intentionally hold back their latest sensor tech.
> 
> Can anyone explain that to me?



A fair question. 

A quick before/after glance at the three on-chip upgrades has shown a semi-consistent base ISO DR bump for cameras that received very different throughput increases. (Someone please proof that for errors, I banged that out in a hurry.)

So if the data is representative of a real production model -- and I'm not there yet -- I would not blame throughput for the DR result. I'd ask _if the 6D2 was somehow left out of the on-chip ADC party_, which seems unthinkable (hence my 'not being there yet').

- A


----------



## x-vision (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Luds34 said:


> However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO?
> 
> ...
> 
> Can anyone explain that to me?



By the look of things, the 6DII does *not* have on-sensor ADCs.

This will be easily confirmed when someones does a teardown of the camera (e.g. LensRentals).
The external ADC chips, likely a pair of them on the 6DII, are easily identifiable.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



ahsanford said:


> I'd ask _if the 6D2 was somehow left out of the on-chip ADC party_, which seems unthinkable (hence my 'not being there yet').



See my previous post above .


----------



## x-vision (Jul 12, 2017)

Here are the *four* external ADCs on the 5DS (source: LensRentals):


----------



## BillB (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



x-vision said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO?
> ...



If the data are correct, off sensor ADC might be an explanation. Won't have to wait much longer to find out.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Khalai said:


> It doesn't make sense to me either. 5D IV has a faster readout as you pointed out. Even 80D surpasses 6D in terms of DR. And Canon itself admitted that 6D II is made with the same tech as its latest sensors. So unless there are some shenanigans going on, either market preserving of fault in measuring, this is simply mind boggling. I'm patiently waiting for more reviews with retail cameras and more importantly, using updated and various software.



other than maybe saving on-sensor ADC for the 6d3...
it's still possible that demo 6d2 was made with previous tech just to sort out features and things not specific to the sensor. The one shred of hope.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



ahsanford said:


> So if the data is representative of a real production model -- and I'm not there yet -- I would not blame throughput for the DR result. I'd ask _if the 6D2 was somehow left out of the on-chip ADC party_, which seems unthinkable (hence my 'not being there yet').
> 
> - A



Not only that, but haven't people here been saying Canon confirmed the 6D2 got their modern sensor design? I didn't read those quotes myself, but I don't follow as closely as some. And like you said, it seems unthinkable that the T7i got the love and the 6D2 didn't. It makes me wonder if there are engineering mules out there that were testing other aspects of the body or electronics and happened to have old sensors in them, and those are the source of the leaked raws. Either way, I will be fascinated to see the outcome.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 12, 2017)

bclaff said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > I went through 9 pages of this topic and nobody talks about high-ISO. If Fred Miranda is right, 6DII should be the best low light camera in the world. ...
> ...



As per that chart, the MK II is the worst on the list for DR


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

I keep hearing increased throughput can adversely impact (was it?) read noise. The A9 somewhat underwhelmed recently versus the A7 line, and some folks attributed that to the face-melting 484 MP/s it was moving.

So, here's my knuckleheaded please-educate-me question: does the resulting read noise that results from the max throughput of the rig affect every still the sensor takes, _even if it's not shooting at high fps?_ Or is the sensor globally locked in to a certain level that affects all stills of the same ISO identically?

I'm completely spitballing if the RAW file everyone has been studying might have been from high FPS or quick bracketed trio that might not reflect (most) general use. I'm assuming that's a dead end, but I thought I'd ask.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



BillB said:


> If the data are correct, off sensor ADC might be an explanation. Won't have to wait much longer to find out.



Why would Canon not put on-chip on the 6D2? 

Before I can even type "Why would the 6D2 not get something the _80D/M5/M6_ has received?", there have been some instances of crop / cheaper cameras getting some niceties that the 6D line didn't -- 1/8000s shutters, 1/200 flash sync, higher fps, etc. but we could associate that with the added difficulty/cost to pull that level of performance off on a FF rig vs. a crop one. 

e.g. In those three metrics above, you need a larger, more robust shutter, mirror box, etc., so it's a painful cost/weight/complexity delta that Canon feels is worthy for the 1D/5D lines but not to the 6D. Makes perfect sense to me.

But would the same logic apply to _sensors?_, i.e. due to smaller size and higher production volumes, you can offer on-chip ADC in an 80D but not for a 6D2? 

I look to the far brighter people here than I to answer that.

- A


----------



## bclaff (Jul 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I keep hearing increased throughput can adversely impact (was it?) read noise. The A9 somewhat underwhelmed recently versus the A7 line, and some folks attributed that to the face-melting 484 MP/s it was moving.
> 
> So, here's my knuckleheaded please-educate-me question: does the resulting read noise that results from the max throughput of the rig affect every still the sensor takes, _even if it's not shooting at high fps?_ Or is the sensor globally locked in to a certain level that affects all stills of the same ISO identically?
> 
> ...


It's a reasonable conjecture; but wrong.
The read-out rate isn't even a function of the ISO setting.
On some cameras it's affected by bit depth (Nikon 12-bit versus 14-bit), shutter mode (mechanical versus electronic), etc.
In the case of the 6D Mark II there's no reason to think it varies at all.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



LonelyBoy said:


> Not only that, but haven't people here been saying Canon confirmed the 6D2 got their modern sensor design?



From Canon CPN Europe: 


_Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II *using similar sensor technology* as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. _

So, a _similar_ technology, not the _same_ technology 8).


----------



## bclaff (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



ahsanford said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO? 30 MP x 7 fps requires an even faster readout than the 6D2. Also a large jump from the 22 MP x 6 fps of the 5D3 and we all know the huge DR jump we saw there. I still find it odd that the 6D2 would not see a similar benefit and I can't imagine Canon would intentionally hold back their latest sensor tech.
> ...


Nice table.
Note that in the other three cases there was a clear change in Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) strategy.
Off-chip have a roll-off at low ISO settings and on-chip are more straight.

Still begs the question why the 6D Mark II seems to have off-chip ADC
The attached chart shows only 4 cameras rather than 6 for clarity.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



x-vision said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that, but haven't people here been saying Canon confirmed the 6D2 got their modern sensor design?
> ...



Similar meaning worse than 6D?


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



x-vision said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO?
> ...



This data definitely points to that. It is the most logical explanation given exactly where the DR is falling.

However the decision to stick with off die ADCs on this camera doesn't make much sense to me from a strategy, company perspective. We'll know soon enough by I'm going to remain optimistic.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Luds34 said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



If it's truly the reason for there preliminary tests, then I'm not hesitating to call this major design flaw from Canon. But same as you - I'm still remaining optimistic until there are several reviews from various sites and more importantly, from retail cameras and even more importantly, from real scene photos.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 12, 2017)

I seem to recall a similar pre-release discussion regards the (I think) 50D. People talked about how the 50D was significantly worse than the 40D regards pixel noise, but the sensor technology, the type of noise, and the processing added to make a better imaging machine overall. I wonder if the same thing is happening here?


----------



## BillB (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



bclaff said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



The data looks like it came from a sensor without onboard ADC. It seems very likely that the 6DII sensor has onboard ADC. Soon we will have an answer to this Canondrum.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



BillB said:


> The data looks like it came from a sensor without onboard ADC. It seems very likely that the 6DII sensor has onboard ADC. Soon we will have an answer to this *Canondrum*.



;D

*giggles*


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



x-vision said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that, but haven't people here been saying Canon confirmed the 6D2 got their modern sensor design?
> ...



Yeah, but "similar" has meaning. It's not going to mean "well they're both digital imaging sensors", it means "they're broadly the same technology, but tuned differently and they obviously have different resolution".

At least, it would be an interesting false advertising case if it didn't.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

bclaff said:


> It's a reasonable conjecture; but wrong.
> The read-out rate isn't even a function of the ISO setting.
> On some cameras it's affected by bit depth (Nikon 12-bit versus 14-bit), shutter mode (mechanical versus electronic), etc.
> In the case of the 6D Mark II there's no reason to think it varies at all.



So it's a global/flat consideration for any stills across the 6D2 sensor. Thx. 

Cross another nutty idea off the list. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



BillB said:


> The data looks like it came from a sensor without onboard ADC. It seems very likely that the 6DII sensor has onboard ADC. Soon we will have an answer to this *Canondrum*.



[slow clap]

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



BillB said:


> The data looks like it came from a sensor without onboard ADC. It seems very likely that the 6DII sensor has onboard ADC. Soon we will have an answer to this Canondrum.



Presuming enough sensor folks have dissected things that the measurement methodology is correct, this boils down to whether we think the RAW file was from a production camera vs. Canon possibly having left out a _bedrock ground floor user expectation_ -- an on-chip ADC setup -- from the 6D2.

My money is still on an on-chip ADC setup in the 6D2, so I am still leaning toward this being pre-production output.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

Other zany ideas from a non-sensor person:


Any chance this is some new compressed RAW format we're seeing the output of? (Surely we'd able to glean format/compression from the file itself, wouldn't we?)


Can these RAW files be doctored? Would we know if they were?


This last one is a flying lark of an idea -- any chance the Auto Lighting Optimizer might have mucked up the RAW file? I always thought that affected JPGs only, but I spotted this from Canon Europe:

"If you make use of Canon's Digital Photo Professional workflow software, ALO can be applied to RAW images taken on compatible cameras during the post-processing workflow."

...but that sounds more like an after-the-fact DPP algorithm than something that gets cooked into the RAW file. (Just thought I'd throw it out there.)


Please forgive the mania with this. My afternoon coffee just kicked in and I want to eliminate other nutty ideas off of our virtual fishbone diagram right now. ;D

- A


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



Khalai said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > However the decision to stick with off die ADCs on this camera doesn't make much sense to me from a strategy, company perspective. We'll know soon enough by I'm going to remain optimistic.
> ...



Assuming that these calculations are indeed true, here is my optimistic scenario (that may not be technically feasible). I'm going to say that this sensor is a reject with failures in the ADC part of the silicon. The sensor itself passed, so they tossed it in a demo unit with off die ADC and saved their limited good chips coming off the line for the needed inventory to satisfy all us pre-order folks. ;D


----------



## BillB (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > The data looks like it came from a sensor without onboard ADC. It seems very likely that the 6DII sensor has onboard ADC. Soon we will have an answer to this Canondrum.
> ...



There may be an important difference between having the measurement methodology correct and knowing for sure where the data you are measuring came from and what it represents.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



BillB said:


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



GIGO - garbage in, garbage out

I'm sure the calculations are correct, but the variables put into them may not be. In the end, the sensor in production units will be the sensor in production units. Insisting one way or the other, before we have the actual production units, is just meaningless blather.

So I'm sure we'll get a couple of dozen more pages. What's release day, again?


----------



## BillB (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



LonelyBoy said:


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



Release day can't come too soon, eh?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> This last one is a flying lark of an idea -- any chance the Auto Lighting Optimizer might have mucked up the RAW file? I always thought that affected JPGs only, but I spotted this from Canon Europe:
> 
> "If you make use of Canon's Digital Photo Professional workflow software, ALO can be applied to RAW images taken on compatible cameras during the post-processing workflow."
> 
> ...but that sounds more like an after-the-fact DPP algorithm than something that gets cooked into the RAW file. (Just thought I'd throw it out there.)



Nope. Turning on ALO in-camera just sets a flag in the metadata, and DPP recognizes that flag and applies ALO.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > This last one is a flying lark of an idea -- any chance the Auto Lighting Optimizer might have mucked up the RAW file? I always thought that affected JPGs only, but I spotted this from Canon Europe:
> ...



Figured, thx.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > The data looks like it came from a sensor without onboard ADC. It seems very likely that the 6DII sensor has onboard ADC. Soon we will have an answer to this Canondrum.
> ...


it would be MORE work for Canon to not use the same design modules on the 6D2 as their other recent releases. They are not going to incur more work and expense to make a product worse.....

I say, wait for the release.....


----------



## BillB (Jul 12, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



Don Haines said:


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



We can only hope that release day comes soon.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 13, 2017)

Speaking of release, rep from B&H said the release will be delayed a few days.

Jusr came from the store.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 13, 2017)

It's possible that Canon will put out some additional promo literature prior to release. Could have some more sensor data in it -- like a cut- away showing sensor architecture. That would at least put to bed question like on or off sensor ADC.


----------



## BillB (Jul 13, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> It's possible that Canon will put out some additional promo literature prior to release. Could have some more sensor data in it -- like a cut- away showing sensor architecture. That would at least put to bed question like on or off sensor ADC.



Possible, sure. A cutaway showing sensor architecture doesn't seem like something Canon would do though.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



Don Haines said:


> It would be MORE work for Canon to not use the same design modules on the 6D2 as their other recent releases. They are not going to incur more work and expense to make a product worse.....
> 
> I say, wait for the release.....



Nah. 

Based on my limited understanding of CMOS manufacturing, production yields will always be an issue with FF sensors. 

On-sensor ADCs increase complexity, which in turn results in lower yields. 
So, the likely reason why the 6DII senor doesn't have on-chip ADCs is to maximize yields. 

The 6DII will probably sell for $1600 in two years, so having low manufacturing costs is quite important for this camera.

Production yields are less of an issue for crop sensors.
This explains the weird balance of power, where the smaller/cheaper crop sensors are more advanced than their 6DII cousin. 
This is really cost management, though, not 'crippling' or anything like that.

Also note that the 1DXII and 5DIV sensors are very new designs, so yields are likely still improving.

But by 2021, when the 6DII will be due for an update, the 5DIV sensor yields should be quite high. 
At that time, the 6DIII will finally get (a variation of) the 5DIV sensor with on-chip ADCs. 

Pure speculation and fun, of course - and a brand new 6DIII rumor to spice things up   .


----------



## hbr (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > The data looks like it came from a sensor without onboard ADC. It seems very likely that the 6DII sensor has onboard ADC. Soon we will have an answer to this Canondrum.
> ...



In the Canon page for the 6D2 they state, "the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor captures images of 6240 x 4160 pixels with a pixel size of 5.67 µm square for outstanding detail and a superb signal-to-noise ratio, resulting in great images. "

Something funny is going on. I still have not cancelled my preorder.

Brian


----------



## David_B (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



hbr said:


> ...
> In the Canon page for the 6D2 they state, "the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor captures images of 6240 x 4160 pixels with a pixel size of 5.67 µm square for outstanding detail and a superb signal-to-noise ratio, resulting in great images. "
> 
> Something funny is going on. I still have not cancelled my preorder.



None of the words Canon uses can be considered to be factual, rather just the result of observations being made and thus opinions. The burger place just down the corners makes burgers and they advertise them as being amongst the best in the world, don't ya know. And the taco place next to it uses an authentic Mexican recipe. Neither of those statements provide any solid ground about what the end product is, just as Canon's statement says nothing absolute. From their perspective, it's not wrong but similarly neither does Canon state that "6D Mark II delivers 13 stops of DR." Nor do they even say "class leading."



x-vision said:


> Nah.
> 
> Based on my limited understanding of CMOS manufacturing, production yields will always be an issue with FF sensors.



I think this is the most likely answer to all of the questions and head scratching and in essence, Canon's BSI/ADC on-chip process for 35mm sensors isn't as well refined as (say) Sony's.

Canon have said "DR about the same as the 5D4", which leaves room for interpretation. At ISO >= 3200, that statement is true. Similarly at Bill's plots of ISO 12,800 and higher, the 6D Mark II has slightly better DR than the 6D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



hbr said:


> In the Canon page for the 6D2 they state, "the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor captures images of 6240 x 4160 pixels with a pixel size of 5.67 µm square for outstanding detail and a superb signal-to-noise ratio, *resulting in great images*."



Seems you've missed the demonstrations posted here and especially on DPR, which unequivocally show that 'great images' require at least 12.8 stops of DR and >4 stops of shadow lifting capability. Clearly, Canon is lying.


----------



## hbr (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



neuroanatomist said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > In the Canon page for the 6D2 they state, "the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor captures images of 6240 x 4160 pixels with a pixel size of 5.67 µm square for outstanding detail and a superb signal-to-noise ratio, *resulting in great images*."
> ...



;D


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*

Neuro, I was following that demonstration on DPR with a great interest and was genuinely interested to use the same technique to improve my photography skills but I misplaced my lens cap at the time and that unfortunate event sidetracked me on the path of mastering my lens cap photography for a while. Subsequently, Canon came out with high DR sensor in 5D IV and that saw me losing any interest in the mastering of lens cap shooting techique and focusing on my handholding technique for the images taken with 15 seconds and longer exposures instead. this did not work well for me so far but I am optimistic to master this technique by the time the new 6D III with an integrated tripod is out and available in Australia. ;D



neuroanatomist said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > In the Canon page for the 6D2 they state, "the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor captures images of 6240 x 4160 pixels with a pixel size of 5.67 µm square for outstanding detail and a superb signal-to-noise ratio, *resulting in great images*."
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



neuroanatomist said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > In the Canon page for the 6D2 they state, "the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor captures images of 6240 x 4160 pixels with a pixel size of 5.67 µm square for outstanding detail and a superb signal-to-noise ratio, *resulting in great images*."
> ...



Give the DPR bashing a rest. They've played no role in this other than quoting a Canon executive. This obsession over DPR is childish and embarrassing. Time to move on.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...


If they repeat their nonsense then the critique also warrants repeating. You are correct, though, it doesn't need to go on forever.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 13, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> Speaking of release, rep from B&H said the release will be delayed a few days.
> 
> Jusr came from the store.



We all know why. They realized the cameras are shipped with wrong sensors.
B&H actually got the cameras, but now some dude with a screwdriver is replacing sensors at their warehouse. Most likely he'll have to work on Sabbath as well.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2017)

Oy vey! 



Jopa said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of release, rep from B&H said the release will be delayed a few days.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



Gee, I'm sorry. Should I have indicated that I was also referring to their forums, where no doubt Mikael is still hanging out? Probably wouldn't have mattered. Regardless, thanks for your advice. I'll take it under advisement. 
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, I've thought about it. I couldn't care less about your advice. But if they ever give you your Internet Attitude Police badge, feel free to come back and wave it in my face (at which point, I'll most likely taunt you again and fart in your general direction). Meanwhile, have a nice day!


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 13, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Oy vey!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Worst Sabbath eva!


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

bclaff said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > I went through 9 pages of this topic and nobody talks about high-ISO. If Fred Miranda is right, 6DII should be the best low light camera in the world. ...
> ...



I could believe Canon is using modernized and enlarged 7DII sensor. Sensor on par with mark I (6D or 7D) is not believable to me. That is same or worse than Canon 1300D. 800D would outperform 6DII both in high-ISO and DR


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2017)

not a single chance in the world. none, zilch, zero.... do not embarass yourself. 8)




C-A430 said:


> *800D would outperform 6DII both in high-ISO* and DR


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 13, 2017)

Can someone remind me what was the last camera DPR manufactured? Do they really have the equipment Nikon, Canon or Sony would use? 

In our workshop we have "very expensive" equipment with a controlled light source to measure DR, in our case we use it for high end movie cameras but the equipment is equally used for stills cameras. The tests are time consuming but they don't rely on subjectivity its a scientific test. 
Every beta camera has its firmware adjusted and refined to obtain the maximum DR, with the cleanest image and the correct colour imagery and we have witnessed improvements from cameras that have already been shooting in the field with later versions of firmware. 

Too many people here are jumping the gun and not waiting to test "production" cameras as opposed to beta cameras the verdict is no where near out so please wait before passing judgement.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

*Re: DRpocalypse 2017*



unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



How many years did they spend banging on about DR to the exclusion of everything else? How many times did the say a Canon lens had "unacceptable" vignetting while the Nikon equivalent, with more vignetting, was described as "pleasing"? No, the DPR bashing can continue for quite some time yet. They deserve to have their noses rubbed in it.


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> not a single chance in the world. none, zilch, zero.... do not embarass yourself. 8)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was talking about sensor performance, as in crop vs cropped image of 6DII. Any sensor technology that is too expensive to be in a 1500$ FF camera in 2020 is also too expensive to be in 500$ crop camera in 2020.

Also, if manufacturer says that their 30mm f2 lens is "35mm equivalent" to 48f2 everyone on this forum would correct them that it is actually 48mm-f3.2.

If 30f2 ISO400 (crop) = 30f2 ISO400 (FF), than 
30f2 ISO400 (crop) and 48f3.2 ISO400 do NOT have same EXPOSURE
30f2 ISO400 (crop) = 48f3.2 @ISO1000 (FF) -- IF you want same exposure AND depth-of-field you DO need higher ISO on FF

You missed the point anyway. Point is that Canon may not use on-sensor chip as other cameras, but they would not use so outdated technology for it. It will be 5DIV-like or 7DII-like sensor, not 6DI-like.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2017)

whaaaat.. where do I start  you know what. go take a photo of a white wall with your 800D at ISO 6400 and post your RAW file. I will do the same with my 6D and then we will compare the noise levels  seriously, let me repeat: please, do not embarass yourself. it is way too funny.


C-A430 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > not a single chance in the world. none, zilch, zero.... do not embarass yourself. 8)
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2017)

;D

Every cloud has a silver lining. Just think of the hours of fun we are going to have in viewing images posted here on CR from the 6DII that have had the highlights under exposed by some three stops or so, and then the shadows lifted by four stops. It's just going to be bliss. I must remember to keep a napkin over my keyboard if I'm drinking coffee at the time !


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > not a single chance in the world. none, zilch, zero.... do not embarass yourself. 8)
> ...


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> whaaaat.. where do I start  you know what. go take a photo of a white wall with your 800D at ISO 6400 and post your RAW file. I will do the same with my 6D and then we will compare the noise levels  seriously, let me repeat: please, do not embarass yourself. it is way too funny.
> 
> 
> C-A430 said:
> ...



800D/T7i is 750$ right now - 6DII is 2.5x the price and has 2.5x bigger sensor.
So, there is no reason for 6D to be too cheap to use same technology as 800D. 

There, I simplified it for you.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > whaaaat.. where do I start  you know what. go take a photo of a white wall with your 800D at ISO 6400 and post your RAW file. I will do the same with my 6D and then we will compare the noise levels  seriously, let me repeat: please, do not embarass yourself. it is way too funny.
> ...



Yield isn't even close to linear with size. That's why TVs start getting crazy expensive for each extra 5" after a certain point.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2017)

speaking of fun.. yesterday my 12 y.o. son picked up one of my 6D bodies while I was looking away, pointed at the painting on the wall, took a photo, looked at the screen and found that the picture came out completely out of focus. scratched his had and took another one - same result, OOF again. he turned around and said: Dad, I am not stupid. I know what is going on. Your camera has a fingerprint scanner inbuilt in the shutter button just like in my Ipad home button, ok? it would not focus as my fingeprint was not recognised. that is why!
It is all my fault of course as I never explained to my son what *the Back Button AF* is 



Sporgon said:


> ;D
> 
> Every cloud has a silver lining. Just think of the hours of fun we are going to have in viewing images posted here on CR from the 6DII that have had the highlights under exposed by some three stops or so, and then the shadows lifted by four stops. It's just going to be bliss. I must remember to keep a napkin over my keyboard if I'm drinking coffee at the time !


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).

As for the ISO - Google it. Noise performance is the same between sensor sizes. It is the availability of lenses that is different. There is no 24-70mm f2.8 IS equivalent on crop. I doubt there will ever be 15-50 F1.8 IS.

Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement and fact that people care much more about shallow DOF, that about deep DOF.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > C-A430 said:
> ...



I think the only one confused is you. If you shoot at ISO 6400, the 6D has 1.2 stops more DR. Period.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > C-A430 said:
> ...



There are Sigma lenses for that need. Namely 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8. Both are excellent, either optically or mechanically. This is as close to 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on FF as you're going to get with APS-C...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).
> 
> As for the ISO - Google it. Noise performance is the same between sensor sizes. It is the availability of lenses that is different. There is no 24-70mm f2.8 IS equivalent on crop. I doubt there will ever be 15-50 F1.8 IS.
> 
> Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement and fact that people care much more about shallow DOF, that about deep DOF.



The 7D2 is better in 'every single way'...for you. I own the 6D and the 7D2 and each has its uses.

Have you tried comparing a 5DIV image at 6400 vs 7D2 at 6400? Good luck with image detail. I have used the same 400mm lens on both and I have used zoom lenses to get the same framing from the same position.
But agin - with so many variables you simply cannot make a broad statement such as 'noise performance is the same'. If you state your assumptions I will see if I agree with them.
You ask me to google it - is your opinion based on Google or on experience?



> Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement


Including you because you do not define your parameters


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 13, 2017)

*C-A430*,

Have you ever considered reading a photography book? like this one for example. Have a read and we will talk then. 



C-A430 said:


> People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).
> 
> As for the ISO - Google it. Noise performance is the same between sensor sizes. It is the availability of lenses that is different. There is no 24-70mm f2.8 IS equivalent on crop. I doubt there will ever be 15-50 F1.8 IS.
> 
> Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement and fact that people care much more about shallow DOF, that about deep DOF.


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).
> ...



All that comes from sensor size. That is why I said "People buy 6D for its FF sensor".

According to DXo, 80D outperforms 6D in DR. Do you really think that 6DII will not outperform at least match that?

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___1076_836


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > SecureGSM said:
> ...



I know it is not linear, but it is not like 6D is 1399$ in preorder and will reach 999$. It starts at 1999$ and will never be 999$ on the shelf. Even if the sensor is not as good as 5DIV (and it will be) there is no cost-effectiveness in using SAME technology as in mark I.

Maybe I didnt understand this well. Rumor is that 6DII will not use the 5DIV/1DxII generation technology, nor 7DII techonology, not even 5Ds generation technology, but something that FULL-FRAME version of 750D/T6i would leave in the dust. That is the rumor, right?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> According to DXo, 80D outperforms 6D in DR.


Under what real-world circumstances?



C-A430 said:


> Do you really think that 6DII will not outperform at least match that?
> 
> https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___1076_836



How did you come to the conclusion that that is what I thought?
And what has a comparison 80D vs 6D got to do with the 6D2?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2017)

Enough is enough!

A FF camera gathers 2.6 times the light as a crop camera. In order for the crop camera to outperform the FF camera it is going to need to be either 2.6 times as efficient, or have a noise floor that is only 40 percent of the FF camera. 

Since Canon is redesigning all the sensors to the newest technology, IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! unless the deliberately make the circuitry into garbage instead of using a superior design that is in production


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > According to DXo, 80D outperforms 6D in DR.
> ...



Do you offer other source that says 80D does not have that DR, or are just trolling?




C-A430 said:


> Do you really think that 6DII will not outperform at least match that?
> 
> https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___1076_836



How did you come to the conclusion that that is what I thought?
And what has a comparison 80D vs 6D got to do with the 6D2?
[/quote]

I said that I don't find the rumor believable nor do I find the cost-effectiveness a good explanation for it. 

I came to my conclusion of what you think from what you said. Tell me what I misunderstood and what you really think and I will listen


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2017)

Trying to help C-A430 here to make their point (and hopefully allow us to get back OT) -- he/she has left out a few critical clarifiers that would make his statements seem less nutty. If I heard them and interpreted them correctly:


An 80D and its on-chip ADC setup offers more base ISO DR than a 6D1. For a non-astro landscaper (which I'll just call a landscaper) who doesn't need high ISO or thin DOF work -- throwing all considerations of crop vs. FF lenses out -- you could argue an 80D is better for landscape work as a result of that fact. 



He/she expects -- as I believe many of us do -- that the 6D2 will be afforded the same on-chip ADC Canon seems to be giving everything these days. If Canon withholds an on-chip ADC setup from the 6D2 and the DR does not improve over the 6D1, why on earth would a landscaper who never leaves base ISO buy such a camera? _You might as well just get an 80D in that case_.



Re: C-A430's noise comments -- they are on their own there. : I'm not getting into a FF/crop equivalence discussion wormhole on that.


I'm not agreeing with this position, but it appears that if all you care about is base ISO DR, you should not get a camera that delivers less on that metric. Their point may be as simple as that.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2017)

All that said, for all the bluster of some posters that they are 'one issue voters' and will never buy a rig that does not improve _their one metric_ (e.g. resolution, AF, high ISO noise, base ISO DR, etc.), it has been my experience that few people truly tie themselves to the mast for one aspect of performance.

Otherwise, all those worshiping at the altar of base ISO DR would have been shooting a D810 the last few years. :

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> Maybe I didnt understand this well. Rumor is that 6DII will not use the 5DIV/1DxII generation technology, nor 7DII techonology, not even 5Ds generation technology, but something that FULL-FRAME version of 750D/T6i would leave in the dust. That is the rumor, right?



That's not even "rumor". That's conjecture, based on a leaked image of unknown provenance. It doesn't deserve a tenth of the attention it's gotten (let alone how much is still coming before release), but because it gave the DRones more to drone on about after they thought they'd lost, it's been blown completely out of proportion.

If (_if_) Canon releases the 6D2 with an old-tech sensor, I'll be throwing the words "nerfed" and "crippled" around here mercilessly. It would be utterly inexcusable.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I didnt understand this well. Rumor is that 6DII will not use the 5DIV/1DxII generation technology, nor 7DII techonology, not even 5Ds generation technology, but something that FULL-FRAME version of 750D/T6i would leave in the dust. That is the rumor, right?
> ...



So will I. Until then, I'll remain impartial, unless many who jump to premature conclusions based on dubious entry data...


----------



## bclaff (Jul 13, 2017)

C-A430 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > C-A430 said:
> ...


[/quote]
Perhaps there's some confusion to what is being meant by "dynamic range".
The 80D has higher "Landscape" (PDR) but lower "Sports" (Low Light ISO).
As for another source, see this from PhotonsToPhotos:


----------



## C-A430 (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Trying to help C-A430 here to make their point (and hopefully allow us to get back OT) -- he/she has left out a few critical clarifiers that would make his statements seem less nutty. If I heard them and interpreted them correctly:
> 
> 
> An 80D and its on-chip ADC setup offers more base ISO DR than a 6D1. For a non-astro landscaper (which I'll just call a landscaper) who doesn't need high ISO or thin DOF work -- throwing all considerations of crop vs. FF lenses out -- you could argue an 80D is better for landscape work as a result of that fact.
> ...



Thank you for that.

You missed a few of my points, but I will repeat only the important one - even if Canon did not use on-sensor-chip technology, 6DII will still have more DR than 6DI. 

Bringing DOF equivalence and ISO in the same sentence was a huge mistake (particularly on a forum). It wasn't even the main point, but I had to respond to the idiot calling (or equivalent  ) I got for it right away.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> If (_if_) Canon releases the 6D2 with an old-tech sensor, I'll be throwing the words "nerfed" and "crippled" around here mercilessly.



I won't. I'll staunchly defend Canon's sound business decision to reuse old technology, spare resources, decrease costs, and thus increase ROI for shareholders. After all, that's why they pay me.



No, that's probably insufficient. Let's try...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> So will I. Until then, I'll remain impartial, unless many who jump to premature conclusions based on dubious entry data...



Still not buying this as production output, I'm sorry. I just can't fathom how Canon would withhold the new architecture from the 6D2. It would be a Vizzini 'inconceivable'-level moment, IMHO.

If the DR isn't on 80D-ish levels (i.e. north of 13 EV), the more dedicated landscaping types that might not give a damn about a fancy new AF system, DPAF, etc. will go Category 5 nerfstorm over this. Forget the typical fanboyish DRone types prattling on -- I'm saying _long-term faithful Canon-only landscapers_ will throw a proper fit that the company is forcing them to buy a $3k+ rig to get access to a level of DR we already see in crop.

*I am not one of those people* as I am not buying a 6D2 and I value so many more things than base ISO DR. But I'd understand some folks would be angry if the 6D2 was left behind here. 

_That said_, so much circumstantial evidence...


Higher published ISO limit than the 5D4


Every 'major' release of late has gotten on-chip ADC, including ~$1000 crop rigs (did M5/M6 get that same sensor?)


I've heard zero cost-related explanations about how Canon would save money by using older tech here (i.e. 26 MP = new for Canon, this sensor needs a new fab setup anyway, etc.)

...still has me believing that we're looking at pre-production output here.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> An 80D and its on-chip ADC setup offers more base ISO DR than a 6D1. For a non-astro landscaper (which I'll just call a landscaper) who doesn't need high ISO or thin DOF work -- throwing all considerations of crop vs. FF lenses out -- you could argue an 80D is better for landscape work as a result of that fact.





No you couldn't because it's one small difference within one metric. These are, after all, all 14 bit Bayer Array cameras. 

In landscape you are working with detail that is normally well away from the camera, so magnification or size of the captured image has a greater influence on "IQ". The 80D is simply a smaller capture, and whilst you can overcome this by doing a three portrait orientated stitch, there are many more options for overcoming that tiny difference in DR with the 6D. 

I'll be controversial and say I'd rather use a 5D (mark 1) for Landscape than an 80D. 

I'm just _so_ looking forward to all the posts demonstrating "poor" DR from the 6DII. ;D


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > So will I. Until then, I'll remain impartial, unless many who jump to premature conclusions based on dubious entry data...
> ...



Well, I'm not in the market for 6D II, as my trusty old beaten 6D still outperforms my abilites. And I've been a Canonite for over a decade, even after trying different systems (Sony a Fuji lately) I'm still loyal to Canon DSLRs. But if Canon for some uknown reason manufactured a current DSLR body with less DR than its predecessor (which is already behind competition in terms of DR), then I will vigorously call this a "pissing on us without even courtesy of calling it rain" simply because Canon itself stated that they always use latest and greatest sensor technology in upcoming cameras.

But more and more I think of this, it strikes me as a clever viral campaign to promote awareness about 6D II. After all, if 6D II was (or rather is I hope) a "boring" camera with no controversy, it would be awfully quiet, right? Just look all over the web about proliferating discussion all over 6D II.

I'm still skeptical about there so-called preliminary tests. It just doesn't make sense at all, unless there are some underlying shenanigans going on...


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



That's right, there's no such thing as bad publicity ! ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> That's right, there's no such thing as bad publicity ! ;D



But a forum is only so much buzz. Highly trafficked sites like DPR and Petapixel have not picked this up as a story yet, because it's too easy a story to pick apart -- we don't know the status of the camera that the RAW file came from.

But expect the DXOs of the world to frantically unpack their first production unit and publish their findings.

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> That's right, there's no such thing as bad publicity ! ;D



I'm really terrible at translating idioms, but where I live, there is a saying:

_A bad advertising still counts as advertising_


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > That's right, there's no such thing as bad publicity ! ;D
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> _That said_, so much circumstantial evidence...
> 
> 
> Higher published ISO limit than the 5D4
> ...



Here is one possible explanation:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg674745#msg674745

As already noted, current evidence points to the 6DII not having on-sensor ADCs. 
Thus, production images will not show better DR that the pre-production images already analyzed. 

When external ADCs are used, base-ISO DR is limited by the DR of the ADC, not the sensor.
That's why all Canon cameras with external ADCs show the exact same 12-stops DR at the pixel level.
Any differences come from 'normalizing' the images, in which case down-sampling effectively increases DR.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > That's right, there's no such thing as bad publicity ! ;D
> ...



We have a very similar one: "All publicity is good publicity" or "there's no such thing as bad publicity". There's also a joke/ story about someone who, when asked about an unflattering story, asked one question: "Did they spell my name right?". Meaning, to be clear, that all he cared about was that the story was clearly about him when people read it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

x-vision said:


> As already noted, current evidence points to the 6DII not having on-sensor ADCs.



You and I have very different definitions of "evidence".


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

x-vision said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > _That said_, so much circumstantial evidence...
> ...



Circumstantial evidence and perhaps anectodal one. There hasn't been multiple images from multiple cameras tested using multiple software, which is not up-to-date even.

That being said, if Canon really used off-chip ADC in 6D II, I would consider that as an utterly bad decision, especially for Canon customers...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > As already noted, current evidence points to the 6DII not having on-sensor ADCs.
> ...



Here, let me help you 

Types of evidence


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Circumstantial evidence and perhaps anectodal one. There hasn't been multiple images from multiple cameras tested using multiple software, which is not up-to-date even.



The current preliminary analysis is based on RAW files from two (pre-production) cameras: one from New Zealand and one from China.

Please understand the following: 
There are probably 20+ Canon cameras at DxO right now with the exact same 12-stop pixel-level DR at base ISO.
None of these has on-sensor ADCs, which has been confirmed with camera teardowns and chip inspections.

So, the moment I saw the exact same 12-stop DR for the 6DII as well, it was immediately clear to me that the 6DII has external ADCs.

Yes, circumstantial evidence at best - but one that has been proven over and over for Canon cameras. 



> That being said, if Canon really used off-chip ADC in 6D II, I would consider that as an utterly bad decision, especially for Canon customers...



Totally unacceptable for me at least.

I was extremely excited about the 6DII at announcement.
My implicit assumption was that the 6DII sensor would have the DR improvements of the 5DIV et al.

And I was myself in disbelief when the first RAW analysis surfaced. 

But trust me, Canon's *signature* 12-stop DR of cameras with external ADCs will not jump to 13.5+ stops when the 6DII goes officially on sale.


----------



## BillB (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



I don't think that Canon started this 6DII DR hullabaloo, but I also doubt that Canon is very much bothered by it either. I do wonder, however, whether this mysterious file is an intentional fabrication, rather than a solitary leak of a file from a 6DII camera. It does look a lot like something produced by a 6D sensor.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

x-vision said:


> The current preliminary analysis is based on RAW files from two (pre-production) cameras: one from New Zealand and one from China.
> 
> Please understand the following:
> *There are probably 20+ Canon cameras at DxO right now with the exact same 12-stop pixel-level DR at base ISO.
> ...



Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more. Thanks.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 13, 2017)

I have just one question. 

Do the people who are doing these "tests" actually have a camera in their possession?


----------



## Jopa (Jul 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I have just one question.
> 
> Do the people who are doing these "tests" actually have a camera in their possession?



Nah, cameras are for the old timers who live offline and take pictures  Tests are for the cool crowd, true keyboard warriors!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more. Thanks.



Really crudely, I presume they are referring to the seemingly snail-paced increases in DR before moving to on-chip ADC like the competitors use. 

See attached -- this is DXO-reported DR for all APS-C and FF Canon sensors. It's not exactly 12.0 across the board, but you get the idea from this. In short, the move to on-chip gave three recent refreshes a 1.5-1.7 EV bump, which is pretty dramatic given the prior tiny bumps we've seen over the last 15 years. This is just base ISO, so some folks (studio, landscape) were probably more demanding/pumped about this than others (most general shooters).

Apologies on such a crude crude 'era' bucketing -- last I checked, my 5D3 didn't come off the same fab as a 2003 1Ds Mk I :, but I'm just bucketing for the sake of simplicity here.

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more. Thanks.
> ...



I misunderstood x-vision's answer. I read it as if DxO had already over 20 bodies of 6D II camera, stripped them down and found off-chip ADC. I didn't get that he was in fact speaking in general and not particularly of 6D II itself. Sorry about that.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more.



DxO allows you to compare up to three cameras at a time. 

Here is a link that compares the _pixel-level_ dynamic range (DR) of the 20D, 5DII and 5DIII. 
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-20D___795_483_281

Here is the summary:

20D, a 1.6x crop camera from 2005: 10.95 EV of DR
5DII, a FF camera from 2008: 10.95 EV of DR
5DIII, a FF camera from 2012: 11.16 EV of DR

That is, a 2005 crop camera (the 20D) has essentially the same DR as a 2012 FF camera (at the pixel level). 

Btw, let me correct my initial statement: 
It's the same signature *11-stop* pixel-level DR, not 12-stop. 

As a Canon fanboy, I was subconsciously giving Canon too much credit  8).


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> See attached ...



Very nice graph. Thank you.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more.
> ...



See above. I misunderstood your previous reply and was thinking you were speaking of multiple 6D II cameras already tested by DxO and tore down as well. Sorry about confusion.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> See above.



Aah, OK.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> I misunderstood x-vision's answer. I read it as if DxO had already over 20 bodies of 6D II camera, stripped them down and found off-chip ADC. I didn't get that he was in fact speaking in general and not particularly of 6D II itself. Sorry about that.



No, they have a shot that Some Guy On The Internet pinky-swears is a 6D2 image.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

In case somebody was considering Nikon D750 as an alternative:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5252259585/nikon-expands-d750-shutter-recall-yet-again-more-cameras-affected

I feel honestly sorry for Nikon. They need to get up on their feet again, I don't want them consumed by e.g. Sony Imaging. The more brands, the better competition...


----------



## dak723 (Jul 13, 2017)

Well, I for one wouldn't care one iota if the DR is not improved. Granted, I am not the typical CR member, but the original 6D had more than enough DR for all my shots (And, yes, I shoot mainly Landscape). When I bought the Sony A7 II to replace my 6D because of all the sensor hype, I found no difference in my images with all the "extra" DR. So, the Sony was returned (for that and may other reasons. Personally, I find that in post-processing - after doing some shadow lifting (never a problem with my 6D or my new M5), that I then need to increase contrast in the majority of my images. (In effect, lowering DR).

I remember a few years ago on DPReview they were comparing a new Olympus camera to the older model. It's great, they said, that the new camera has improvements in DR, but it's too bad the images have seem to lost some of the "punch" they used to have. Duh, more DR, less contrast, less punch. 

Yes, I understand that there are times when you want more DR, but, so far, haven't found them yet in my own shooting. (Yes, landscapes...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> In case somebody was considering Nikon D750 as an alternative:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/5252259585/nikon-expands-d750-shutter-recall-yet-again-more-cameras-affected
> 
> I feel honestly sorry for Nikon. They need to get up on their feet again, I don't want them consumed by e.g. Sony Imaging. The more brands, the better competition...



But it has two card slots, so even if your shutter fails, you still have two card slots. That helps, right? 

I wonder if China will ban sale of the D750, like they did for the D600?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> In case somebody was considering Nikon D750 as an alternative:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/5252259585/nikon-expands-d750-shutter-recall-yet-again-more-cameras-affected
> 
> I feel honestly sorry for Nikon. They need to get up on their feet again, I don't want them consumed by e.g. Sony Imaging. The more brands, the better competition...



I know the feeling. It's looking likely that cameras (and maybe imaging in general) will go the way of CPUs: Chipzilla and Mini-Me. And Mini-Me is sickly.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I have just one question.
> 
> Do the people who are doing these "tests" actually have a camera in their possession?


At PhotonsToPhotos I rarely have possession of the cameras I test.
It's unnecessary if I have the appropriate raw files to analyze. 
In the case of Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) for the Canon EOS 6D Mark II I don't have my usual test files (although I'm working through proper channels to get them) but the files I have are sufficient to make a very good estimate.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I didnt understand this well. Rumor is that 6DII will not use the 5DIV/1DxII generation technology, nor 7DII techonology, not even 5Ds generation technology, but something that FULL-FRAME version of 750D/T6i would leave in the dust. That is the rumor, right?
> ...


If it happens, rather than throw around recent words like nerfed, why not use ones that were in use when the sensor was designed.... for verily, it hath been wounded, smitten, forsaken.....


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > In case somebody was considering Nikon D750 as an alternative:
> ...



Monopoly is never good for customers. Intel vs AMD, Nvidia vs AMD etc. (except that AMD did really well with Ryzen for a change, but Vega looks like major flop, too little and too late). There are no real competition and thus prices are ramping up...

Canon is a major player with almost half of the ILC market. But they mustn't abuse their position if we want some innovation and reasonable prices all across the market.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > C-A430 said:
> ...



ye olde english snap

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > C-A430 said:
> ...



Thou shalt not overexposeth by more than three ceases, unless thou wanteth ugly and venemous hurtling present.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

Khalai said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



I agree; I've said before my wife worked for AMD. And there was the Athlon way back before Ryzen. And yes, prices are ramping up and it's not good. And yes, I have to believe that will happen as Canon continues its rampage. Get yours while the getting's good...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 13, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > C-A430 said:
> ...



Nerf was invented in 1969. That not old enough for ya?


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > In case somebody was considering Nikon D750 as an alternative:
> ...



Y did they ban it?


----------



## bclaff (Jul 13, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more.
> ...


FWIW, PhotonsToPhotos allows you to compare up to ten cameras at a time. 


x-vision said:


> Here is a link that compares the _pixel-level_ dynamic range (DR) of the 20D, 5DII and 5DIII.
> https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-20D___795_483_281


The DxOMark Landscape Score is not pixel-level but normalized.


x-vision said:


> Here is the summary:
> 
> 20D, a 1.6x crop camera from 2005: 10.95 EV of DR
> 5DII, a FF camera from 2008: 10.95 EV of DR
> ...


DxOMark Landscape Score or PhotonsToPhotos Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) are not the best indication as to whether the Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs) or on-chip or not.
The shape of the curve is a better indicator.
Note the attached chart, the on-chip ADC camera has a straighter line (which does naturally rise higher at low ISO settings).


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 13, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more.
> ...



I clicked on your link and saw (Landscape, DR) these numbers:


20D, a 1.6x crop camera from 2005: *11* EV of DR
5DII, a FF camera from 2008: *11.9* EV of DR
5DIII, a FF camera from 2012: *11.7* EV of DR

So there looks like there was an improvement from the 20D. Interesting the 5D2 was slightly higher than the 5D3. And those cameras are/were approaching 12 stops. So maybe your initial thoughts of 12 and not 11 were correct.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 13, 2017)

bclaff said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a link that compares the _pixel-level_ dynamic range (DR) of the 20D, 5DII and 5DIII.
> ...



Correct. The Landscape score is normalized to (I think?) 8 MP, but you can actually plot things out at the pixel level using that 'Screen vs. Print' button.

1) Go to x-vision's link above
2) Click on measurements
3) Click on dynamic range -- this defaults to 'Print', the 8 MB downsample we know of as the Landscape score
4) Click on 'Screen' to go to a pixel-level take,

...and you get to x-vision's point: this uber pixel-peepingish metric is not one Canon has made immense strides in over time, at least prior to the on-chip products of late, and therefore it is impossible to take good pictures with non on-chip cameras. QED. Infinity. No backsies.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



I heard it was because of poor low ISO DR.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > x-vision said:
> ...


Sure, looking at pixel-level dynamic range, Engineering Dynamic Range (EDR) is equivalent to looking at Read Noise in Digital Numbers (DNs, also known as Analog to Digital Units (ADUs) ).
DxOMark doesn't show that but PhotonsToPhotos does, 
Note (again) that when looking at the curve the on-chip ADC sensor is a straighter line and less of a "hockey stick".


----------



## Khalai (Jul 13, 2017)

bclaff said:


> Sure, looking at pixel-level dynamic range, Engineering Dynamic Range (EDR) is equivalent to looking at Read Noise in Digital Numbers (DNs, also known as Analog to Digital Units (ADUs) ).
> DxOMark doesn't show that but PhotonsToPhotos does,
> Note (again) that when looking at the curve the on-chip ADC sensor is a straighter line and less of a "hockey stick".



It just doesn't make sense that 6D II would be even worse than 5D III. This doesn't add up...


----------



## x-vision (Jul 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...and you get to x-vision's point: this uber pixel-peepingish metric is not one Canon has made immense strides in over time, at least prior to the on-chip products of late, and therefore it is impossible to take good pictures with non on-chip cameras. QED. Infinity. No backsies.



Actually, my point was that the production 6DII won't have better DR than what we've seen from the pre-production images. 

But I get your point too .

Let me just say that before I saw the RAWs, I was already selling unused gear on eBay to fund a 6DII. 
But DR is very dear to me (hehe) and that's why I'm not buying for now.
Still, I think that the 6DII is a fantastic offering from Canon.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Well, I guess if China pre bans the pre orders we know why.

;D


----------



## stevelee (Jul 14, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Well, I for one wouldn't care one iota if the DR is not improved. Granted, I am not the typical CR member, but the original 6D had more than enough DR for all my shots (And, yes, I shoot mainly Landscape). When I bought the Sony A7 II to replace my 6D because of all the sensor hype, I found no difference in my images with all the "extra" DR. So, the Sony was returned (for that and may other reasons. Personally, I find that in post-processing - after doing some shadow lifting (never a problem with my 6D or my new M5), that I then need to increase contrast in the majority of my images. (In effect, lowering DR).
> 
> I remember a few years ago on DPReview they were comparing a new Olympus camera to the older model. It's great, they said, that the new camera has improvements in DR, but it's too bad the images have seem to lost some of the "punch" they used to have. Duh, more DR, less contrast, less punch.
> 
> Yes, I understand that there are times when you want more DR, but, so far, haven't found them yet in my own shooting. (Yes, landscapes...)



Both in the Garden of the Gods and in Arches National Park I found myself shooting backlit formations near sunset, and I wanted to preserve the clouds and get some detail in the formations. That kind of circumstance is about the only time I feel a need for more DR in landscapes. Even so, I found that the Highlights slider in ACR could recover almost enough sky detail, and the shadows slider could pick up some detail in the rocks. I was shooting RAW shots with my G7X II, so maybe not the kind of DR you'd expect from some hotshot DSLR. For a little punch, I add Clarity and maybe even pull the Contrast down a bit. In some cases, I still pulled in some sky from a bracketed shot. In retrospect, I find the picture below a little too HDRish, and like the ACR-processed single shot a little better. If I started over now, I'd probably do a better job, since I've had more practice with such things.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 14, 2017)

I have a strong suspicion that when the 6DII finally hits the streets, there are going to be a whole lot of folks looking very foolish. Wild speculation based on evaluations done by people who have never even touched the camera, coupled with much hand-wringing over results that overstate the real world impact of minuscule theoretical differences.

I'm old fashioned. I prefer my reviewers to actually use the camera.


----------



## hbr (Jul 14, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I have a strong suspicion that when the 6DII finally hits the streets, there are going to be a whole lot of folks looking very foolish. Wild speculation based on evaluations done by people who have never even touched the camera, coupled with much hand-wringing over results that overstate the real world impact of minuscule theoretical differences.
> 
> I'm old fashioned. I prefer my reviewers to actually use the camera.



Don't know about the DR but here is what Steves Digicams said after reviewing a pre-production 6D II in Yellowstone National Park,

"As far as I'm concerned, this section is the whole reason for whether or not you want to consider a new Full Frame DSLR. Is the EOS 6D Mark II worth it? Does it take bold, vibrant pictures?

In a word, yes. 

Results will obviously be glass and photographer-dependent (duh), but I was very pleased with the quality of the images captured on our pre-production tester models. In fact, while I didn't love the sensor as much as, say, the Sony A9, which costs more than double this camera, I would venture to say any still-focused photographer who is pondering the 5D Mark IV, and who doesn't need 4K video and the faster AF, might consider saving a few bucks and looking at a 6Dii instead. 

It's that good."


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 15, 2017)

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

Cue the same people saying they won't believe it till DXO provides the results.......whatever......wait all you want but if DR is important to you (it isn't to me) then I'd cancel those 6D2 preorders. Otherwise enjoy the camera when it arrives at your doorstep in 2 weeks.


----------



## Otara (Jul 15, 2017)

'Probably'. 

Im not sure why its so unreasonable to want to wait until theres info from a source that involves less uncertainty than having to guess about things like this. I dont think anyone is saying its impossible this has happened, just that it seems odd enough that more information from other sources is warranted.

You seem a bit invested in the outcome. Given its completely out of our control either way, seems a bit silly to me.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 15, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.
> 
> Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).
> 
> ...


Yes, I have a complete set of appropriate files courtesy of dpreview.
As I expected the low ISO numbers rose slightly from the estimates.
Naturally, anyone can play with the interactive chart if the screen shot isn't what there's after.


----------



## cpsico (Jul 15, 2017)

Probably still a great camera, but I am waiting patiently to see real production cameras before I buy. I still love my 6d and of course the 5d IV is in another league and not really a fair comparison. The better battery life seems promising.


----------



## james75 (Jul 15, 2017)

I'm still waiting for production cameras to be released to make a decision as well. I was already on the fence about upgrading, but if the DR has taken a slight step back, as in shown in the graph, then it'll be an easy decision for me. I'll just keep shooting with the original 6d and wait for what's coming down the road from canon or another manufacturer.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 15, 2017)

cpsico said:


> Probably still a great camera, but I am waiting patiently to see real production cameras before I buy. I still love my 6d and of course the 5d IV is in another league and not really a fair comparison. The better battery life seems promising.



No doubt, depending on what/how you shoot. I seldom would drop below ISO 800 and usually found myself with the big whites at 1250 and if I could I'd gladly push up to 2500. So ... I think it'll be fine paired with my 1DX2, serving as a smaller very handy camera. 

Jack


----------



## cpsico (Jul 15, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > Probably still a great camera, but I am waiting patiently to see real production cameras before I buy. I still love my 6d and of course the 5d IV is in another league and not really a fair comparison. The better battery life seems promising.
> ...


If the dynamic range is more or less unchanged at low ISO but better at high ISO then it's still a better camera. I shoot at ISO 1600 to 6400 a lot. Significant improvements in this range would be something I would be interested to have in a camera.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 15, 2017)

bclaff said:


> arbitrage said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.
> ...



Courtesy of DPreview?

Is it from production models?


----------



## bclaff (Jul 15, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > arbitrage said:
> ...


Isn't that what I said?


CanonCams said:


> Is it from production models?


As far as I know yes; but either way this has never been an issue in any past testing of this sort that I have done.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 15, 2017)

bclaff said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



I didn't realize that places had production models already.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 15, 2017)

cpsico said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



If you have a play with the interactive charts at Bill's site you will see that most cameras and all Canon cameras for sure have almost identical DR at higher ISOs. 

The two cameras that do show a noticeable DR advantage at higher ISO are the D5 and A7R2. The amazing low ISO DR D810 is no better or even slightly worse at high-ISO DR compared to the 6D and 6D2 (and all other Canons).


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 15, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



Big sites like DPReview would have them now to do their full on reviews that they will publish as soon as Canon lets them. Even the earlier RAW files that started all the drama came from a camera in full retail packaging that just had a Sample sticker on the box, basically saying you get to send it back to Canon and not keep it.

From the beginning I just couldn't see there being a way Canon would let people have 6D2s to review that didn't have the true sensor in it. Sure some FW updates might occur from these first samples and the ones shipped out in 2 weeks to customers. But FW doesn't change DR of a sensor. Any 6D2 cameras that had different sensors back in prototype stage would never be allowed out for review.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 15, 2017)

arbitrage said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



Wouldn't any place that releases the RAW files be violating their NDA.. ?


----------



## bclaff (Jul 15, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> ...
> Wouldn't any place that releases the RAW files be violating their NDA.. ?


As I understand it the files provided to me cannot be shared publicly until the 20th.
But I was assured it's OK to present any analysis that I made of those files.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 15, 2017)

bclaff said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## sebasan (Jul 15, 2017)

I have to say, I don't understand some decisions....


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 15, 2017)

sebasan said:


> I have to say, I don't understand some decisions....



Even though the tilty swivel screen / more AF points would be nice, the step backwards for the DR is a slap in the face to Canon owners.

I wasn't expecting 5D IV quality, but somewhere in between the 6D and MK IV would have been smart.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say, I don't understand some decisions....
> ...



Whilst I agree it seems like a strange decision especially considering Canon obviously felt pressure to increase DR on other models, I doubt if anybody is ever going to see the differences between the 0.24 stops of DR at the most shown by the test results between the two cameras.

That doesn't think I mean it was a good decision, but Canon have been shown in the past to know what to deliver in a camera better than us.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 15, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > sebasan said:
> ...



Nope, you are correct in terms of noticing a difference between the 6D and 6D MK II in DR.

But still... an upgrade should be an upgrade. You shouldn't sacrifice one for another option.


----------



## David_B (Jul 15, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I have a strong suspicion that when the 6DII finally hits the streets, there are going to be a whole lot of folks looking very foolish.



Personally, I am hoping to see a flurry of posts with links to youtube showing people eating a piece of paper with their words on it (because they thought the retail version would be significantly better.) Is that the same list of "folks looking very foolish" that you were expecting?


----------



## David_B (Jul 15, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



bclaff said:


> My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
> This includes the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that I created in 2007 (a year before DxOMark even existed).
> In those past 10 years I have tested over 150 camera models.
> ...



Based on the data that you have at your disposal already, are you able to provide confidence intervals for the 6D Mark II measurements?

I'm rather curious to know if the difference between "6D Mark II (e)" and "6D Mark II" is small enough to be "copy variation" or at least within one sigma of the value now plotted. Of course only if you have enough data points to do that with...


----------



## bclaff (Jul 15, 2017)

*Re: Bill Claff Chimes In*



David_B said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
> ...


The differences were pretty much as expected.
With the proper test target the final measurement low ISO values were slightly higher.
This is often what I see with "estimated" measurements.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 15, 2017)

Well, at least it's not worse than the MK1! Good news everyone?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 15, 2017)

nuh, just perfect. It feels great. Exactly the same feeling as 5 years ago when I purchased my first 6D body... ;D priceless! Here is the hope that sales of this camera will be strongly affected by this sensor DR drama and I will pick up 2 of these lowly camera bodies at the Christmas / Black Friday / Cyber Monday / whatever sale at $1,000.00 each. (free delivery and extended warranty support included please). Thank you. 




Jopa said:


> Well, at least it's not worse than the MK1! Good news everyone?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 15, 2017)

Well, if true, I no longer need to wonder if a 6D2 might be a good upgrade from my 5D3 for my purposes.


----------



## tevscale (Jul 15, 2017)

Interesting. So it looks like Canon is redefining the "niche" for the 6D. The Mark I was in kind of an odd place, less expensive than the 5D III and vastly inferior in some ways (e.g. AF) but with a slightly better sensor. Now with the Mark II, the 6D clearly slots in as the 5D IV's little brother, being (somewhat, but not vastly) inferior in essentially every important specification (except perhaps in mobility of the LCD screen, if that's a positive for your shooting). 

Logically, this makes some sense, but I wonder how the market will react given that there was a widespread expectation that the 6D II would get the latest Canon sensor tech, or at least have measurably better DR than the 6D I. Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:

- I'll keep using the 6D I for quite a while
- if I do decide to upgrade, it will be to the 5D IV rather than 6D II 

If I follow option 1, Canon loses, but if I follow option 2 Canon wins. It will be interesting to track the rate at which the 6D II price is discounted to see whether or not Canon has made a mistake here.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2017)

tevscale said:


> Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:
> 
> - I'll keep using the 6D I for quite a while
> - if I do decide to upgrade, it will be to the 5D IV rather than 6D II
> ...



I hear you, and I certainly shake my fist at certain features left out of lower price points that really don't drive cost. But I'm not convinced Canon nerfed the 6D2 sensor here:

1) The onboard native ISO limit was raised 40,000 (5D4 is 32k) -- Canon is fairly consistent & ethical on setting these limits, while Nikon unlocks ISO modes above 1M that are laughably unusable (surely just a marketing boast and not a useful feature). So I have reason to believe we've got a solid high ISO performer here.

2) We do not know the camera that produced these RAW files and what state of 'production-readiness' it represents. This is vital.

3) The 6D2 was long rumored to 'move upmarket' and climb up from D6xx-level parity and jump up to D750 parity. Keep the car in neutral on base ISO DR just doesn't make sense for such a product.

I'll await the data, but I'm not drinking the nerf 'protect the 5D4 Kool-aid' at this point. If they did this, as much a small percentage of forum enthusiasts and pros might swap brands over this, much more likely it will just have folks hang onto their money and sit this cycle out. Canon does not win from that.

- A


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tevscale said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:
> ...



According to the gentlemen who did the test, around the 20th of this month the RAW files will be released. Possibly a review as well? 

I think DPreview is working on one right now. Guess we will know within the week.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2017)

Just thinking out loud for the sake of argument, I'm wondering how this sensor news will affect certain camps of shooters if the early tests turn out to reflect what we'll see in the production version.

Just a guess:


*Birders/Wildlifers/Sports*: Zero impact. Better in high ISO + much better AF + all those f/8 points = they are 100% in.


*Videographers*: Zero impact. Having DPAF + Tilty-flippy + touch dwarfs the downside of 'losing' 1.5 stops of base ISO DR.  (Those that have accepted the lack of 4K, that is. That's unrelated to this DR possibility.)


*Landscapers*: Potentially significant impact. If you are a regular-to-dedicated tripod jockey, AF / DPAF / tilty-flippy takes a backseat to the pure ISO 100 quality of the sensor. 


*All-around shooters that dabble in many fields* (i.e. the non-specialized enthusiast, the general professional, etc.): the $64,000 question. Folks want to make investments into gear that is demonstrably better across the board.



*Astro*: Next.


*Product / Studio folks*: It could matter here -- these folks generally live at lower ISO, right?


*Wedding*: Presuming they are fine. They run all over the ISO dial, so I can't see them throwing a fit over base ISO DR.

- A


----------



## dak723 (Jul 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:



> Just thinking out loud for the sake of argument, I'm wondering how this sensor news will affect certain camps of shooters if the early tests turn out to reflect what we'll see in the production version.
> 
> Just a guess:
> 
> ...



As primarily a landscape shooter, I don't agree with your assessment - but, of course, it is just one photographer's opinion. I used to own the 6D and never had any problems taking landscape shots - including many sunset/post-sunset shots. I never had trouble lightening the shadows a satisfactory amount, and in cases where extreme contrast might indicate the need for more DR, far more DR is needed than any camera has. In post processing, I need to adjust to create more contrast in almost all my shots to ensure they don't look too flat or bland.

Who knows what the final verdict will be, but I wonder if Canon's market research for potential 6D customers made it clear that DR was not an issue that needed to be addressed - that photographers were more than happy with the current DR and did want to sacrifice contrast. 

Again, we all shoot different subjects and have different opinions of what makes a good shot. But more DR is not on my list of what makes a good photograph.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 15, 2017)

dak723 said:


> As primarily a landscape shooter, I don't agree with your assessment - but, of course, it is just one photographer's opinion. I used to own the 6D and never had any problems taking landscape shots - including many sunset/post-sunset shots. I never had trouble lightening the shadows a satisfactory amount, and in cases where extreme contrast might indicate the need for more DR, far more DR is needed than any camera has.



Agree, of course. Can a 6D1 take great landscapes? Of course it can!

The question is, will the 6D2 demonstrably take _better landscapes than the 6D1 to the point that you'd pony up $2k for it?_ I recognize the target market of the 6D2 is not remotely just 6D1 owners and this rig will sell well to crop folks stepping up, but if you shoot landscapes and nothing but landscapes -- and if the early DR test turns out to be what we see in production units -- the 'killer app' to buy a 6D2 is...

FF sensor / nice build quality / etc.
+6 MP
Easier to swap files off with NFC
Tilty flippy might be nice on lower tripod camera positions

...and _...Bueller?_



dak723 said:


> I wonder if Canon's market research for potential 6D customers made it clear that DR was not an issue that needed to be addressed - that photographers were more than happy with the current DR and did want to sacrifice contrast.



This is an interesting theory on why Canon might leave on-chip off the camera. We haven't really mined this avenue yet. 

- A


----------



## BillB (Jul 15, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > As primarily a landscape shooter, I don't agree with your assessment - but, of course, it is just one photographer's opinion. I used to own the 6D and never had any problems taking landscape shots - including many sunset/post-sunset shots. I never had trouble lightening the shadows a satisfactory amount, and in cases where extreme contrast might indicate the need for more DR, far more DR is needed than any camera has.
> ...



It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for a 6DII with off sensor ADC: (1) save money or (2) increase performance in some way. Saving money seems much more likely, but is it really that much cheaper to go with an off sensor ADC design for the 6DII when you are using on sensor ADC for everything else, including cheaper crop sensor cameras? Very strange.


----------



## MintChocs (Jul 15, 2017)

You can't have the 6Dmkii have better DR than the 5Dmkiv. Now landscape photogs will have to shell out more bucks.


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> tevscale said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:
> ...



Everything you say makes sense to me! Canon rarely even mention DR so I feel like if they send out a non final version for testing it wouldn't bother them if people to on about DR.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> *Landscapers*: Potentially significant impact. If you are a regular-to-dedicated tripod jockey, AF / DPAF / tilty-flippy takes a backseat to the pure ISO 100 quality of the sensor.





this is overused and extremely tiring to keep on seeing. landscapes do not require normally more than 9EV and dont' require between 9 and 11 that often at all.

for the few that feel that landscapes involve adding a second or third sun into the sky to illuminate the scene, that's a small portion of those that shoot landscape and a small portion of landscape shots.

and tripods / don't make up for the lack of shutter speed which *IS* far more of a criteria for landscape than base ISO.

if you can't shoot landscape on any modern camera, look 6 inches behind the camera for the answer to the problem.


----------



## Jschmitt (Jul 16, 2017)

Long time lurker on this forum.

Just to give some perspective, I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera. I've been shooting with a T3i since it came out and bought my wife a 70D when she was using my T3i a lot more than the other point and shoot we had. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I'm obviously not a pro but I'm certainly an advanced amateur. I spend a lot of time trying to get the most out of the pictures that my camera body produces (using Lightroom and exposure blending in Raya Pro) but I've been looking towards getting a FF for a few years now. I shoot probably 75% landscapes and 25% wildlife.

Given the limitations that I've encountered when using my current camera, I've been saving up for a FF for multiple years and have been waiting specifically for this camera. I've spent way too many hours on this site and forum trying to glean what the specs of this camera would be and when it would finally be released. Unlike many of you, I don't have an investment in EF lenses that would prevent me from switching to another brand, but I have liked my shooting experience with the camera I have. 

When the specifications were released, I was about 95% sure that I was going to buy this camera. The resolution was in a sweet spot for me in terms of printing out large images (i.e. 20 x 30, which I have done in the past), it had a tilty-flippy screen (don't knock it until you've tried it - it is especially nice for those of us who are tall and don't want the potential vibration that comes with extending the center column of our tripod), and it had sufficient FPS for what I'm likely to shoot regarding wildlife. Maybe I was just being naive, but it didn't even occur to me as a possibility that the DR wouldn't have some improvement from the 6D. Truly, I'm not asking for pro body performance at an intro body price; I'm willing to accept some deficiencies that act as a differentiator between this and the 5D MIV. Base ISO DR seems like a strange place to make such a large gap, especially when they have the technology to make it better (but still sufficiently below the 5D MIV).

As this is a big purchase for someone like me, I was obviously going to wait for the reviews but the reviews were likely just a formality. Given all of the "little things" that have come out (lack of improvement of DR, somewhat compressed AF points, etc.) I've gone from 95% to probably 50% in terms of whether or not I'll get this camera. The reviews have gone from a formality to a necessity - and I'll probably spend a lot of time on DP playing with their DR and ISO studio scenes. If I don't get this camera, I'm not going to get the 5D MIV as I don't have that kind of money to invest in a hobby, even if it is one of my primary ones. I'll either look a lot more seriously at other brands (which I've only been doing a bit up until this point) or I'll settle for another crop frame camera that will still be a lot better than what I have. Either way, Canon would lose out on all of the EF lenses that I would be buying in the future.

There are obviously a lot of good things about this camera and I'm still weighing things like low-light performance versus this base ISO DR issue and other potential limitations. I'm sure that DP will not be as generous with this base ISO DR issue with this camera as they were with the D5 (really, you should go read their review on that particular issue), so I'll being looking at reviews from a lot of different sites to come to a conclusion. That being said, Canon has not made this the "easy buy" that it could have or should have been for someone like me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2017)

tevscale said:


> Logically, this makes some sense, but I wonder how the market will react *given that there was a widespread expectation* that the 6D II would get the latest Canon sensor tech, or at least have measurably better DR than the 6D.



The market won't care. With respect, I doubt that particular expectation was widespread. Those who discuss photo gear on Internet forums are a minuscule fraction of the ILC-buying market, even the FF ILC buying market.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 16, 2017)

I hope everyone realizes that more DR at low ISO is only beneficial in real terms when you either push shadows or pull highlights, right? What studio photographer is going to do that? How many landscape photogs are doing that? Probably close to zero. There are special cases like BIF but who shoots that is going to buy a 6D2??

This whole thing is really, really stupid.


----------



## BillB (Jul 16, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> I hope everyone realizes that more DR at low ISO is only beneficial in real terms when you either push shadows or pull highlights, right? What studio photographer is going to do that? How many landscape photogs are doing that? Probably close to zero. There are special cases like BIF but who shoots that is going to buy a 6D2??
> 
> This whole thing is really, really stupid.



Well, some landscape photographers (or other kinds of photographers) seem to end up with deeper shadows than others. Some of us are more exposure challenged than others.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if Canon's market research for potential 6D customers made it clear that DR was not an issue that needed to be addressed - that photographers were more than happy with the current DR and did want to sacrifice contrast.
> ...



Contrast is a moot point for anyone doing any work in post.

You can define the contrast curve however your want to restrict the effective DR to however many stops you wish.
Having more useful shadow data (more DR) does not mean you LOSE contrast. You just have more data to work with and more options to process your image.

That said, plenty of people are happy with OOC jpgs and the default transfer curve used which defines "the characteristic look" of a given camera.

I sometimes shoot my Fuji's for that reason as their OOC jpgs are often good to go cuz I can get it right in camera based on the EVF.
Having the raw file means I can change my mind later and re-process it.
I can also adjust the heck out of the camera's jpg conversion algorithm to get "the look" I like if I don't like their somewhat over-contrasty stock settings.

There, mine-sweeping done for that avenue.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

BillB said:


> It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for a 6DII with off sensor ADC: (1) save money or (2) increase performance in some way. Saving money seems much more likely, but is it really that much cheaper to go with an off sensor ADC design for the 6DII when you are using on sensor ADC for everything else, including cheaper crop sensor cameras? Very strange.



it's *pure number two!* 

it's all about the money, making the most of it they can by doing what they do best... MARKETING

why would Canon give their customers yet another much better performing product when they already have some of those to choose from and they can sprinkle some glitter on the original 6D and still sell a boatload of them while keeping the costs down? 

It's all about the margins and I suspect it's a lot cheaper for them to produce a FF system with off-sensor ADCs.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> if you can't shoot landscape on any modern camera, look 6 inches behind the camera for the answer to the problem.



that's nice and trite and not correct in _all_ cases, therefore not a closed argument.



> and tripods / don't make up for the lack of shutter speed which *IS* far more of a criteria for landscape than base ISO.



what do you mean? are you shooting landscape from a low-flying aircraft and need 1/2000s or faster ?..


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 16, 2017)

BillB said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope everyone realizes that more DR at low ISO is only beneficial in real terms when you either push shadows or pull highlights, right? What studio photographer is going to do that? How many landscape photogs are doing that? Probably close to zero. There are special cases like BIF but who shoots that is going to buy a 6D2??
> ...



Oh ok, so 12 stops just isn't enough. It's gotta be 13.4 or higher or it just doesn't work. If that's the case then the great thing is you can buy another camera that has 13+ stops at ISO 100. There are plenty of choices.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



BillB said:


> Well, some landscape photographers (or other kinds of photographers) seem to end up with deeper shadows than others. Some of us are more exposure challenged than others.



The ability of cameras to capture DR actually within a scene is entirely dependent on the Photograpic Dynamic Range score not the normalized scores that are so often bandied about.

As the screen shot below illustrates there is less than one stop difference (0.8 ) in PDR between the D810, the A7R II, and the 5D MkIV.

I thought we had put this DR garbage to bed since Canon moved to the on chip ADC for most of its new releases, and certainly the ones where knowledgeable and experienced shooters have demanded that metric as an important factor. There is essentially no difference between the various manufacturers now in the ability to capture luminance values within a scene.

That Canon have decided not to put on sensor ADC's in the 6D MkII means they think cost is a more important factor to their target market than the base level dynamic range.


----------



## BillB (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



privatebydesign said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Well, some landscape photographers (or other kinds of photographers) seem to end up with deeper shadows than others. Some of us are more exposure challenged than others.
> ...



Another piece of the puzzle is that cost control is Canon's strength, certainly in comparison to Nikon. I don't know how Sony will try to compete with a $2000 Canon camera with touchscreen focussing either.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



BillB said:


> Another piece of the puzzle is that cost control is Canon's strength, certainly in comparison to Nikon. I don't know how Sony will try to compete with a $2000 Canon camera with touchscreen focussing either.



Pentax seems to be able to put a LOT of tech features into a FF K-1 body while still buying sensors from Sony...

ABC mfrs put as much as they can into most of their products AND they have better sensor performance while outsourcing major components.

So, again, what's Canon got going for it?.... internal cost control and Retail shelf space. (and now less than a handful of decent IQ bodies)
So you're buying the hype more than advanced product, at least until they can deliver products that advance more than just quarterly profits.


----------



## BillB (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



Aglet said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Another piece of the puzzle is that cost control is Canon's strength, certainly in comparison to Nikon. I don't know how Sony will try to compete with a $2000 Canon camera with touchscreen focussing either.
> ...



Canon is very lucky that there are so many people out there that aren't as smart as those of us who frequent internet forums.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



privatebydesign said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Well, some landscape photographers (or other kinds of photographers) seem to end up with deeper shadows than others. Some of us are more exposure challenged than others.
> ...


FWIW, PDR is a normalized measure.
Why did you exclude the camera that is the topic of this thread?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for a 6DII with off sensor ADC: (1) save money or (2) *increase performance in some way*. Saving money seems much more likely, but is it really that much cheaper to go with an off sensor ADC design for the 6DII when you are using on sensor ADC for everything else, including cheaper crop sensor cameras? Very strange.
> ...



So, you're sure that it's got nothing to do with a performance tradeoff, based on your vast technical knowledge? I suppose that means you also understand how Nikon was able to increase the low ISO DR of their flagship D5 relative to its predecessors, without any tradeoffs. Oh, wait...the D5 lost a full stop of low ISO DR compared to the D4s and the D4. 

I'm not saying it's _not_ about the money (although one could certainly argue that keeping an old FF sensor fab line running after implementing a new fab line isn't a good way to reduce costs). But...you have no evidence that a performance tradeoff isn't what's happening here. I believe Bill Cliff even alluded to higher readout noise resulting from the 6DII's faster readout (à la D5), and even your poor grasp of technical concepts must give you some sense that more readout noise can negatively impact DR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



bclaff said:


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



Second point first, because the conversation was veering off into the all too familiar 'Canon cameras are not capable of scene capture close to others' meme. Which simply isn't true now. There was no mention of the threads subject in the criticism (post I included and was commenting on) so no mention in my point, there is very little difference between the manufacturers in their cameras ability to capture scene illumination range.

As for the normalization question, I am no scientist so my terminology or understanding of it might be wrong in this instance, and if it is I apologize. I assumed your results reflected actual luminance value capture capability with a given noise floor, in DXO speak the 'screen' score as opposed to the 'print' score. As far as I can tell the print score does not reflect actual scene illumination range capture capability.

But correct me if I am wrong, the best, the Nikon D810, can capture 11.6 stops of dr contained within a scene, a 5D MkIV can capture 10.83 stops of dynamic range within a scene. A difference of less than 0.8 of a stop.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



BillB said:


> Canon is very lucky that there are so many people out there that aren't as smart as those of us who frequent internet forums.



I assume you are joking.

There are many adjectives to describe forum dwellers, but "smart" is pretty far down on the list.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 16, 2017)

*Re: Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak D*



privatebydesign said:


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


I think perhaps you have "Screen" (pixel level) and "Print" (resolution normalized) backwards with regard to capturing actual scene dynamic range.
Ultimately you'll view your image at some size and viewing distance and that influences how faithfully you capture dynamic range.
DxOMark Landscape Score is a "Print" or normalized value. It comes solely from read noise and resolution.
Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is also a normalized value. It comes from Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) and a resolution dependent threshold.
You can read the details of PDR by following the Further Reading topics under the PDR chart at PhotonsToPhotos.net


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2017)

Changing the resolution post capture (Print) does not increase or decrease the amount of scene DR captured. The Print value reflects scores of over 14 stops from a 14 bit file, how can more than 14 stops of scene dynamic range be captured in a 14 bit file?

Isn't the relevant metric what range each pixel can capture (Screen)? That is what limits the scene illumination range that the sensor can accurately record, surely it is the thing that limits a photographers ability to capture scenes with large dr.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Changing the resolution post capture (Print) does not increase or decrease the amount of scene DR captured. The Print value reflects scores of over 14 stops from a 14 bit file, how can more than 14 stops of scene dynamic range be captured in a 14 bit file?
> 
> Isn't the relevant metric what range each pixel can capture (Screen)? That is what limits the scene illumination range that the sensor can accurately record, surely it is the thing that limits a photographers ability to capture scenes with large dr.



if you mean "scaling" after capture?...

Then, yes, it does affect DR.
because you end up scaling down and averaging pixels you effectively smooth the noise floor which increases SNR and, therefore, apparent DR.

in math, you didn't increase the numerator, you decreased the donominator.

if you captured four 14-bit files with full dynamic range (let's say 12 stops) of the same scene, then averaged them into one 14 bit file, you'd have gained one more stop by averaging the noise floor, making it lower so the high point, divided by the low point (which is now halved because of the noise averaging effect) will now = 13 stops. (done in 16 bit calculation to provide the room)
If read noise were absolutely zero then this effect would not be apparent.

It's just math, and i'm not the pro at it, others are and maybe they can pipe-up and explain it better, but that's the basics AFAIK.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



sure, performance trade-off is likely

a few more MP + slightly faster readout = slightly increased read noise

the compromise is nearly a wash, perhaps a slight improvement in normalized low-iso DR over the 6d was planned but it didn't quite work out... yet. 
Maybe minor production tweaks will get it up to where it equals the original 6d.

Doesn't matter what fab line they run simple sensors on, it's likely to be a little cheaper to produce than on-chip ADC types with more masking steps.

This looks, to me, like TYPICAL CANON M-O of the past.
Compromise whatever minor technical gains were achieved in a standard design component and deliver a product with a marginal overall (IQ) improvement, add some farkle, and viola! Great new product!
_Line up, everyone, you're gonna want to step up to buy this great new product! _​
... and they do. (cough! lemming-like! cough cough  )

And it can be pointed out... they do have 2 FF and 2 crop bodies to cover any line of work with high iso ability and decent low iso DR. .. IF you pay the price. 
But for those FF aspirations on lower budgets, here's something that's OK... "But please, steadfast Canon-buyers, aspire to purchase the 5d4 or 1dx2."

ABC gives you more IQ/$ in pretty much every metric, few exceptions.
... and often various unique features Canon just does not, CAN NOT, provide.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2017)

Assuming you believe DXO numbers:-

If a scene contains 14.76 stops of dynamic range can a D810 accurately capture that? (Print)

No it can't.

If a scene contains 13.67 stops of dynamic range can a D810 accurately capture that? (Screen)

Yes it can.

If a scene contains 13.59 stops of dynamic range can a 5D MkIV accurately capture that? (Print)

No it can't.

If a scene contains 12.60 stops of dynamic range can a 5D MkIV accurately capture that? (Screen)

Yes it can.


If you believe Mr Claff's numbers then the D810 is closer to 11.6 actual recording capacity and the 5D MkIV is 10.83. This is a difference of 0.77 stops.

I understand that to mean, if you agree with Mr Claff's noise floor limit which is a constant, that a D810 can capture a scene accurately that contains 11 stops of DR, a 5D MkIV can't. Downsampling does not affect the capture capability, it might, arguably, impact the real world output capability in some way, but it doesn't increase the sensors ability to accurately record a range of luminance values.

I was responding to a specific comment regarding capture capabilities, _"Some of us are more exposure challenged than others."_.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 16, 2017)

Jschmitt said:


> Long time lurker on this forum.
> 
> Just to give some perspective, I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera. I've been shooting with a T3i since it came out and bought my wife a 70D when she was using my T3i a lot more than the other point and shoot we had. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I'm obviously not a pro but I'm certainly an advanced amateur. I spend a lot of time trying to get the most out of the pictures that my camera body produces (using Lightroom and exposure blending in Raya Pro) but I've been looking towards getting a FF for a few years now. I shoot probably 75% landscapes and 25% wildlife.
> 
> ...



Certain folk like to rain on every party. Typically it's finding a shortcoming and then blah blah blah. I'll never forget all the insults directed toward the 6D on CR and elsewhere because it HAD WiFi. I was fairly new to DSLR's coming from a Nikon D5100 when I bought the 6D 4 years ago. I've absolutely loved it in spite of its shortcomings and if my wife hadn't "forced" me to get the "best" camera (I tried hard to explain there was no "best") I quite possibly would be a 6D2 only guy, having now sold my 6D (I needed F8 focus). The 6D2 will be a great camera and a very nice step up from the 6D. It'll do you just fine I'm sure.

I consider reliability, service, lens quality etc. as part of the purchase mix. Canon is where I will stay. I'm not shy about saying take a look at my National Geographic link below and see if the 6D didn't serve me well. These are just a sampling and not all the best I've taken. If I was a better photographer the camera would have delivered better than these, I'm sure.  

Jack


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Changing the resolution post capture (Print) does not increase or decrease the amount of scene DR captured. The Print value reflects scores of over 14 stops from a 14 bit file, how can more than 14 stops of scene dynamic range be captured in a 14 bit file?
> 
> Isn't the relevant metric what range each pixel can capture (Screen)? That is what limits the scene illumination range that the sensor can accurately record, surely it is the thing that limits a photographers ability to capture scenes with large dr.



You nead to read up about decimation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(signal_processing) & oversampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampling .... in Analog to Digital Converters this is part of delta-sigma conversion, it allows a "1 bit" system to represent any amount of dynamic range.

In Delta-Sigma digital to analog converters a high speed stream of 1s and 0s are averaged by analog componenets to produce an accurate voltage at any level between the levels of the 1s and the 0s.. and similarly in analog to digital converters or fractional-N-PLLs

If on a camera sensor you had a trillion pixels, each one being so small that it becomes a single photon detector, and has a "bit depth" of one bit, then at the pixel level your dynamic range would be next to zero, but as you down sample to fewer pixels decimation means you gain dynamic range in return for lower resolution, once reduced to say 20Mpix your dynamic range could be 8 or more stops.


----------



## SPKoko (Jul 16, 2017)

Jschmitt said:


> *When the specifications were released, I was about 95% sure that I was going to buy this camera.* The resolution was in a sweet spot for me in terms of printing out large images (i.e. 20 x 30, which I have done in the past), it had a tilty-flippy screen (don't knock it until you've tried it - it is especially nice for those of us who are tall and don't want the potential vibration that comes with extending the center column of our tripod), and it had sufficient FPS for what I'm likely to shoot regarding wildlife. Maybe I was just being naive, but it didn't even occur to me as a possibility that the DR wouldn't have some improvement from the 6D. Truly, I'm not asking for pro body performance at an intro body price; I'm willing to accept some deficiencies that act as a differentiator between this and the 5D MIV. Base ISO DR seems like a strange place to make such a large gap, especially when they have the technology to make it better (but still sufficiently below the 5D MIV).
> 
> As this is a big purchase for someone like me, I was obviously going to wait for the reviews but the reviews were likely just a formality. *Given all of the "little things" that have come out (lack of improvement of DR, somewhat compressed AF points, etc.) I've gone from 95% to probably 50% in terms of whether or not I'll get this camera. The reviews have gone from a formality to a necessity* - and I'll probably spend a lot of time on DP playing with their DR and ISO studio scenes. If I don't get this camera, I'm not going to get the 5D MIV as I don't have that kind of money to invest in a hobby, even if it is one of my primary ones. I'll either look a lot more seriously at other brands (which I've only been doing a bit up until this point) or I'll settle for another crop frame camera that will still be a lot better than what I have. Either way, Canon would lose out on all of the EF lenses that I would be buying in the future.
> 
> There are obviously a lot of good things about this camera and I'm still weighing things like low-light performance versus this base ISO DR issue and other potential limitations. I'm sure that DP will not be as generous with this base ISO DR issue with this camera as they were with the D5 (really, you should go read their review on that particular issue), so I'll being looking at reviews from a lot of different sites to come to a conclusion. * That being said, Canon has not made this the "easy buy" that it could have or should have been for someone like me*.



You could not have described my own feelings better!


----------



## Joules (Jul 16, 2017)

Large first post, mostly skippable but for the question at the very end regarding on vs. off sensor ADC.



Jack Douglas said:


> Jschmitt said:
> 
> 
> > Just to give some perspective, I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera. I've been shooting with a T3i since it came out and bought my wife a 70D when she was using my T3i a lot more than the other point and shoot we had. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I'm obviously not a pro but I'm certainly an advanced amateur. [...]
> ...


Thanks for the encouragement to check out your images. It is nice to be remembered that even the original 6D can produce nice, natural looking images and that the 6DII will do that at least just as well. I feel like venting a little, just to get the 'inner Canon is ******* guy' under control 

I find myself in a similar position as Jschmitt. I bought a T3i in school 5 years ago and enjoyed it very much for the biggest part of that time. But I had beeen looking forward to going full frame ever since the original 6D was released. Before the DR topic here arose, i was convinced I'd get the 6DII along with a Canon 16-35mm 4.0 L IS and either the Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC or Canon 100mm 2.8 L IS sometime in the next year.

I feel like I'm quite close to the target market, being passionate but not professional about photography, with enough technical enthusiasm to justify spending that much money on a hobby.

I also don't feel bothered by the other shortcomings like lack of 4K, dual cards or Af spread. I don't use video anymore, I don't do commercial work, I use MF most of the time. I shoot mainly macro before and around sunrise and cityscapes around and after sunset, along with a hint of landscape and astro and the usual family event and protrait stuff. There's a lot handheld but also a decent amount of tripod work in there. The lighting around sunset and sunrise becomes pretty challenging for the old T3i sensor and I feel like the body is way to small in terms of grip and balance. When I shoot macro handeld, with a Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro and Canon 430EX II Flash, holding the thing is quite a strain on the fingers.

So I want a bigger body with better low light abilities. Going mirrorless isn't an option, at least I missed the part where reduces flange distance helps with the size and weigth of flashes and tripods, so any weight and size difference ther eis irrelevant for me. And I don't feel like switching systems, as they all do let me down in some simple fashion and I am somewhat invested in Canon (Canon 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 II & 10-18mm IS, Sigma 50mm 2.8 Macro & 35mm 1.4 Art, Canon 430EF II).

I still feel pretty bummed about the lack of enthusiasm on Canon's side. I have no problem believing the Canon bashers ever since they released the 700D (T5i?) which ist almost exactly the same camera as the 650D (T4i?). And with this kind of money at stake my emotional side just wants to scream '*******!' and buy a Nikon or Pentax... The 6DIi just doesn't feel like an easy buy anymore, just like Jschmitt said.

I think my concerns with the 6DII are mainly my ability to lift shadows, since I do that frequently with my macro work to give the image a hint of an unnatural HDR effect, which I like to underline the alien apperance of most bugs. But I shoot macro mostly at ISO 400, rarely at 200 or 800. I guess with a 6DII I would be mostly at 800 or higher, to get more out of the ambient light. Am I mistaken in thinking that with these high-ish ISOs the ability to pull up shadows isn't affected by on vs off sensor ADC?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Changing the resolution post capture (Print) does not increase or decrease the amount of scene DR captured. The Print value reflects scores of over 14 stops from a 14 bit file, how can more than 14 stops of scene dynamic range be captured in a 14 bit file?
> ...



Is any of that relevant to the cameras we actually have in our hands?

Do you believe any camera company is doing any of that in general public retail cameras?

I am talking about hands on take a picture of a Stouffer wedge and see what values we get at native resolution.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Assuming you believe DXO numbers:-



and why not?... they use a consistent measurement system and math (aside from some occasional errors)




> If a scene contains 14.76 stops of dynamic range can a D810 accurately capture that? (Print)
> 
> No it can't.



Uhmmm... actually... maybe it CAN.  LOL




> If a scene contains 13.67 stops of dynamic range can a D810 accurately capture that? (Screen)
> 
> Yes it can.



Yes, it can.



> If a scene contains 13.59 stops of dynamic range can a 5D MkIV accurately capture that? (Print)
> 
> No it can't.



uhmmm, again, actually, maybe it CAN. 



> If a scene contains 12.60 stops of dynamic range can a 5D MkIV accurately capture that? (Screen)
> 
> Yes it can.



yup, most likely




> ...Downsampling does not affect the capture capability, it might, arguably, impact the real world output capability in some way, but it doesn't increase the sensors ability to accurately record a range of luminance values.



OK. Maybe you missed this technical topic cuz I'm pretty sure I posted it years ago here on a similar discussion.

*You CAN get more than X bits of ADC data from an X-bit ADC by using dithering (noise) and oversampling (scaling down).*

random read noise makes a good dither signal and since single electrons make for pretty repeatable quanta, this is a workable dither signal.
Canon's previous imaging systems, with their fixed pattern noise, were NOT good for this as they didn't generate purely random noise.


I'm too tired to explain it, maybe there's an electronics engineering geek here who can do a better job but have a look at this:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=how+to+use+dithering+to+increase+ADC+resolution

specifically, from the absolute experts at T.I

http://www.ti.com.cn/cn/lit/an/snoa232/snoa232.pdf

Altho this app note is using audio signal digitizing as an example, the concept works with imaging too.
In fact I came up with a post-processing technique of using noise dithering to improve UPscaling a digital image.
Anyone who uses this method now owes me money!! LOL

meanwhile, here's an excerpt:


```
3.0 DITHER
To ameliorate the negative effects of quantization, early
workers added analog white noise to the ADC input signal.
In 1951 Goodall
1
noticed that the addition of dither to sig-
nals masked the contour effects in video systems. In 1960
Widrow
2
determined that the signal loss due to quantization
is minimized if the quantization error is independent of the
signal. Schuchman
3
determined the forms of dither signals
which yield a quantization error which is independent of the
signal. He found that for ideal converters, the optimum dith-
er is
(/3
LSB rms of white noise. Vanderkooy and Lipshitz
4
showed that with dither, the resolution of an ADC can be
improved to below an LSB.
We now show how it is possible to reduce harmonic distor-
tion and improve resolution in the A/D conversion of signals
by adding dither. In
Figure 6
we show a low level sinusoidal
signal centered on a quantization step. The peak-to-peak
amplitude of this signal is 1 LSB. When this signal is input to
an ADC, it will be represented by only two codes. If the sine
wave is centered on the threshold between the two codes,
the digital output will represent a square wave. Any offset
will change the duty cycle, but the digitized signal will always
take the form of a series of pulses at the same frequency as
the input. This is obviously a very poor representation of a
sine wave.
The addition of dither will cause the quantizer to toggle be-
tween the two (and possibly additional) states more fre-
quently
(Figure 7)
. Sub-LSB information is preserved in the
percentage of time spent between levels. With time averag-
ing the resolution can be increased significantly beyond an
LSB. What has been accomplished by adding dither is an
effective linearization of the ADC transfer curve. A power
spectrum of the output would show that the harmonic distor-
tion arising from the quantization process has been signifi-
cantly reduced, as compared to the case with no applied
dither. What one pays for a reduction in total harmonic dis-
tortion (THD) and improved resolution is a slightly degraded
signal-to-noise ratio and, if one uses time averaging, an in-
crease in the effective conversion time
```


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



1-bit conversions are very powerful if you have the time to oversample and filter adequately.
Dithering n-bit ADCs with noise is much more like what we're working with in a camera body.


edit:
fergot da-linky:

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/69748/using-noise-to-increase-effective-resolution-of-adc


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2017)

Joules said:


> I think my concerns with the 6DII are mainly my ability to lift shadows, since I do that frequently with my macro work to give the image a hint of an unnatural HDR effect, which I like to underline the alien apperance of most bugs. But I shoot macro mostly at ISO 400, rarely at 200 or 800. I guess with a 6DII I would be mostly at 800 or higher, to get more out of the ambient light. Am I mistaken in thinking that with these high-ish ISOs the ability to pull up shadows isn't affected by on vs off sensor ADC?



The only fair answer anybody can give you is wait until sample RAW files are out there, then download a few at the iso you are most interested in and play with the processing to see if they will do what you need.

As a comparison between pre and post on sensor ADC's, between the 1DX and 1DX MkII there is less than 1/3 stop difference at 800iso, between the 5D MkIII and 5D MkIV there is around half a stop. But that is in DR, which is not quite the same as shadow lifting.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 16, 2017)

Joules said:


> I think my concerns with the 6DII are mainly my ability to lift shadows, since I do that frequently with my macro work to give the image a hint of an unnatural HDR effect, which I like to underline the alien apperance of most bugs. But I shoot macro mostly at ISO 400, rarely at 200 or 800. I guess with a 6DII I would be mostly at 800 or higher, to get more out of the ambient light. Am I mistaken in thinking that with these high-ish ISOs the ability to pull up shadows isn't affected by on vs off sensor ADC?



At ISO 400-800, playing field is effectively leveled across all FF cameras from various brands (there are few minor exceptions as usual, irrelevant in real scenarios), so it should not matter that much.

Also, shadow push means just how far you want to go. I've been succesfully lifting shadows from my 6D images without any trouble, if one is reasonable. +2-3 EVstops push with selective +50-75 Shadows slider (Lightroom) is doable with a little noise. Nobody cares about 5-6 EV stops pushes except for DRones and measurebators anyway


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Blah blah blah blah.......





Aglet said:


> Blah blah blah blah.......



Show me a Stouffer wedge with more than 14 stops of DR in it from an available retail camera that uses 14 bit RAW files.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Blah blah blah blah.......
> ...



I just pointed out how the process CAN be done.
it's been done for decades in various areas where analog data is digitized.

you can lead a horse to water...
but you sure as heck can't make it learn advanced math!


----------



## Joules (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> The only fair answer anybody can give you is wait until sample RAW files are out there, then download a few at the iso you are most interested in and play with the processing to see if they will do what you need.
> 
> As a comparison between pre and post on sensor ADC's, between the 1DX and 1DX MkII there is less than 1/3 stop difference at 800iso, between the 5D MkIII and 5D MkIV there is around half a stop. But that is in DR, which is not quite the same as shadow lifting.



[quote author=privatebydesign]
At ISO 400-800, playing field is effectively leveled across all FF cameras from various brands (there are few minor exceptions as usual, irrelevant in real scenarios), so it should not matter that much.

Also, shadow push means just how far you want to go. I've been succesfully lifting shadows from my 6D images without any trouble, if one is reasonable. +2-3 EVstops push with selective +50-75 Shadows slider (Lightroom) is doable with a little noise. Nobody cares about 5-6 EV stops pushes except for DRones and measurebators anyway 
[/quote]
Thanks for the answers, it's sometimes hard to grasp the true, real world impact of all the numbers being thrown at Canon. Waiting and seeing for yourself is probably the best and most rational advice, and in the meantime it is calming to hear that even the current 6D should outperform my old T3i easily for my appilcations.

Thanks!


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yes it is absolutley relevent

ADCs / DACs are "one dimentional".. they produce a single dimension of data, values-over-time., this makes them easier to understand.

Cameras produce "two dimentional" data, X&Y at one moment in time.. it's exactly the same processes on two axis.. harder so "see" so it's better to understand the single axis examples first then realise you can do the whole thing again on an orthogonal axis.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 16, 2017)

I'd love to know which Raw conversion software the "Canon has crap DR" obsessives use - because I convert files in Photo Ninja, and I can do _whatever the hell I want_ with low ISO shadows in there...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 16, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> I'd love to know which Raw conversion software the "Canon has crap DR" obsessives use - because I convert files in Photo Ninja, and I can do _whatever the hell I want_ with low ISO shadows in there...



ACR obviously. Advanced Canon Repulser/Revolter


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Blah blah blah blah.......
> ...



If I were Aglet, maybe I COULD...if I removed the sensor from the D810, put it in a custom enclosure with special firmware, then dithered and measurebated the images for a while, it is possible that the DR would just explode out of the RAW files and spurt all over the prints. 

I'm just pointing out how the process could work. If you don't grasp the finer points of the math, that's not my fault.


----------



## BillB (Jul 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > rfdesigner said:
> ...



So what is your point? The data coming out of the camera is digital, not analog, because it has already been through an ADC. It is what it is. If you downsample the file after it comes out of the camera, and some of the noise in the file goes away, you can say that dynamic range increases, or at least some people think they can say that. But you haven't dithered anything, and nothing has changed in the data produced by the camera. Have you reduced noise? Yes, of course. Have you inclrease the dynamic range of the camera capture? Word games.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 16, 2017)

rfdesigner said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Changing the resolution post capture (Print) does not increase or decrease the amount of scene DR captured. The Print value reflects scores of over 14 stops from a 14 bit file, how can more than 14 stops of scene dynamic range be captured in a 14 bit file?
> ...


True. I considered mentioning this earlier but it's a bit technical and doesn't apply to today's cameras.

But, today's Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs) can do better than most naive people think.
A n-bit ADC can actually capture about n+0.5 stops of dynamic range; so 14-bit can do 14.5 stops


rfdesigner said:


> If on a camera sensor you had a trillion pixels, each one being so small that it becomes a single photon detector, and has a "bit depth" of one bit, then at the pixel level your dynamic range would be next to zero, but as you down sample to fewer pixels decimation means you gain dynamic range in return for lower resolution, once reduced to say 20Mpix your dynamic range could be 8 or more stops.


Yes, exactly.
Another way to look at is is that out human vision system does after-the-fact pixel binning because of our limited visual acuity (why PDR relates to CoC).
So dynamic range of an individual pixel is not relevant, measured like PDR are resolution independent.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 16, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ...
> I am talking about hands on take a picture of a Stouffer wedge and see what values we get at native resolution.


Many years ago I used to do Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) with a Stouffer wedge.
My current test image, a screen image with 77 patches, produces comparable results.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 16, 2017)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming you believe DXO numbers:-
> ...


The short answer is DxOMark Landscape Score if OK but that Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is a better measure.
The quick reason has to do with the Photon Transfer Curve (PTC) and the fact that DxOMark uses only read noise while PDR finds an appropriate place on the PTC using a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) criteria.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 16, 2017)

As is always the case, people should get the camera that they want and that best serves their purposes. I won't defend Canon if they aren't using the on-sensor ADC on the 6D II a I have seen the improvement in overall ability to lift shadows on my M5 compared to previous crop cameras. However. as has been mentioned many times, all of today's cameras should be more than good enough for any photographer who is interested in photos rather than interested in bragging about the specs.

As long as I can take shots that I could never have gotten in the old film days, then I am happy and you won't find me whining and complaining. This was shot with a 6D with minimal post-processing:


----------



## rfdesigner (Jul 16, 2017)

bclaff said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Bother

No.. I'm not talking about the ADCs in Cameras.. merely as a concept to think about. once you understand how you can take 10 samples from an ADC and decimate it down to say 2 samples and in so doing gain dynamic range beyond the the bit depth of the native ADC then you should be able to see how you can down sample an image and gain dynamic range stops beyond the native performance of the original camera.

Taking a physics mentality, the way to approach things is to take the extremes and see how they work.. the extreme for low dynamic range is the one bit DAC/ADC.. if you can see the mental leap to go from 1 bit to N bits of DR there, you should be able to see what jump to make to go from a 14bit ADC to an image with more than 14 bits dynamic range.

anyway.. yes we're in agreement and the human vision point is also relevant.. as is the "need to pixel peep" or "you can't tell in web sized images" because images have been downsampled and benefitted from the DR boost.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 16, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > I think my concerns with the 6DII are mainly my ability to lift shadows, since I do that frequently with my macro work to give the image a hint of an unnatural HDR effect, which I like to underline the alien apperance of most bugs. But I shoot macro mostly at ISO 400, rarely at 200 or 800. I guess with a 6DII I would be mostly at 800 or higher, to get more out of the ambient light. Am I mistaken in thinking that with these high-ish ISOs the ability to pull up shadows isn't affected by on vs off sensor ADC?
> ...



I might add that I have been rather careless about nailing exposure and whatever results I've gotten have almost always involved pretty significant adjustments either way. So far I only do that in DPP.

I've been totally thrilled with the 6D and when my friend bought his 1DX and we were regularly comparing the shots he got to mine in the same shooting circumstances, I was never lusting even though I could perceive better unadjusted results from the 1DX. After I made tweaks, I considered my results virtually the equal of his. However, I've shot few photos down in the ISO 200 range since I'm mostly into wildlife and longer lenses, higher shutter speeds and lower light.

Now when it came to fps, AF with 300 X2 etc. I was seriously disadvantaged, but I also wasn't packing that weight. Even the D5100 I previously had did 6.5 fps, which was nice. Now I'm thrilled with the 1DX2 but not sure how many years I'll be able to handle the weight. 99% sure I'll have the 6D2 before next spring as my lighter alternative and 100% sure I'll enjoy it.

Buy, enjoy, perfect your technique and forget the specs. That's the advice I give myself when the threads get rather negative. 

Jack


----------



## Khalai (Jul 16, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Buy, enjoy, perfect your technique and forget the specs. That's the advice I give myself when the threads get rather negative.
> 
> Jack



That's why I skip 6D II and bought two used Zeiss lenses for some haptic & MF enjoyment. Magic Lantern with Focus Assist helps a lot as well


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 16, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Buy, enjoy, perfect your technique and forget the specs. That's the advice I give myself when the threads get rather negative.
> ...



Smart move. We all perceive different needs and evaluate the best path to follow. Right now I don't have a second camera and my wife needs something to learn with so that's my rationale for the 6D-> 6D2 move with it's flip screen, 26 Mp etc. It's a nice step up. Happy shooting! 

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Jul 16, 2017)

Jschmitt said:


> Long time lurker on this forum.
> 
> Just to give some perspective, I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera. I've been shooting with a T3i since it came out and bought my wife a 70D when she was using my T3i a lot more than the other point and shoot we had. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I'm obviously not a pro but I'm certainly an advanced amateur. I spend a lot of time trying to get the most out of the pictures that my camera body produces (using Lightroom and exposure blending in Raya Pro) but I've been looking towards getting a FF for a few years now. I shoot probably 75% landscapes and 25% wildlife.
> 
> ...



I'm in a similar position, and also shoot a T3i. It's still a good camera. I thought about going to an 80D last year, but decided that if I'm upgrading, I might as well go FF and decided to wait for the 6D II. Unlike you, I have some EF lenses: a mediocre (to put it charitably) 75-300mm that I got cheap with a previous Rebel, and the excellent 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2.8 non-L macro. Even without the lenses, I'd be loathe at my age to relearn which direction to turn things and what settings are called, etc., to switch brands, barring orders of magnitude advantages for the others.

I will still read reviews, of course, before I buy, but I'm waiting because I prefer to buy locally if I can, rather than pre-ordering. I have seen nothing in these discussions to discourage me from buying the 6D II. I have a rather strong ego, so I can endure the finger pointing and derision I will experience from those whose cameras have an extra stop of DR. I will be taking great pictures while those all around continue to mock me to scorn.

Now if I already had a 6D, or probably even an 80D, that would be a different story. If I were reading these threads at all, it would be mostly a matter of mild curiosity. So I am not intending to belittle the concern of those considering slight upgrades to look at minutiae of performance to help them decide.

I shoot RAW files and work with them in Adobe Camera RAW. I am pleased with how well the Highlights slider will recover detail in all but the most extreme situations. I use the Shadows slider to function sort of like fill-in flash, so subtly and not trying to pull up all the detail in the murky corners (which I think would often detract from the subject anyway). Much earlier in this thread I posted examples of extreme situations where I needed more DR than any cameras have anyway, using pictures I made with my pocketable G7X II that I use for travel.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 16, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Jschmitt said:
> 
> 
> > Long time lurker on this forum.
> ...



T3i > 6D II is a huge step up anyway. Be sure to buy it with e.g. 24-70/4L IS lens to give you nice, rather small sized general zoom for the start. Or perhaps buy some used 24-105/4L IS, they come at reasonable price and apart from some barrel distortion at 24mm and some CA, that lens is a solid starter for FF.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 16, 2017)

Jschmitt said:


> Long time lurker on this forum.
> 
> Just to give some perspective, I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera. I've been shooting with a T3i since it came out and bought my wife a 70D when she was using my T3i a lot more than the other point and shoot we had.



no offense, but even a 6D is a step up.

I find posts like this a bit odd. any camera, including a M5/6, 80D, 5D Mark III, IV, 6D, 77D, T7i, 5D Mark II shall i go on? is a huge step up from a T3i for landscapes.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 16, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > I think my concerns with the 6DII are mainly my ability to lift shadows, since I do that frequently with my macro work to give the image a hint of an unnatural HDR effect, which I like to underline the alien apperance of most bugs. But I shoot macro mostly at ISO 400, rarely at 200 or 800. I guess with a 6DII I would be mostly at 800 or higher, to get more out of the ambient light. Am I mistaken in thinking that with these high-ish ISOs the ability to pull up shadows isn't affected by on vs off sensor ADC?
> ...



the funny thing is that the D810, the holy grail for the DR measurabators has extreme banding at it's higher pushes - however hardly anyone ever comments on that. not even the masters of DR reporting, dpreview for some reason - just like they never reported on the other holy grail .. the D7100 has having extreme color casting on heavy pushes.


----------



## Joules (Jul 16, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> no offense, but even a 6D is a step up.
> 
> I find posts like this a bit odd. any camera, including a M5/6, 80D, 5D Mark III, IV, 6D, 77D, T7i, 5D Mark II shall i go on? is a huge step up from a T3i for landscapes.


I don't think that was the point.

I for one am very aware of the limitations of my T3i, beyond ergonomics and image quality. For example, my Canon EF 85 1.8 has a hint of backfocus that makes it hard to use wide open with AF. But there's nothing I can do about that with this camera.

About 4 years ago, I went to a weekend-long workshop for students who were interested in journalism and photography. One of the instructors had a 6D, 7D and some 1-Series Body, along with a few lenses. He would let me and the other students use all of those but the 1D. I did some macro stuff with the 7D and a Sigma 105mm 2.8 lens, aswell as wildlife (Rabbits and birds) with one of the Canon 70-200 lenses, and handled the 6D for some portraits for about an hour. That was when I thought to myself "One day, I want one of those".

But now, that I could afford to save up the money and feel like my skill at least pushes the boundaries of the T3i ... Don't know. With moves like the exclusion of On-chip ADC, when going the next step in terms of gear, it just feels harder than I'd like to justify sticking with Canon, since there defintively are other great options to consider. The question isn't "Is the 6DII better than the T3i?" but "Is it 2000€ better? And is it better than the other options in that price range?". And for me personally, the answer to that would have been 100% yes if it truly was a full frame 80D. As it is now, I'll probably still get it sometime next year, but not as long as it is twice as expensive as the 80D. Glad to hear though that there are things that keep other cameras from being the ultimate Canon killers that they are according to so many folks. That way it's at least less of a Canon vs ABC inner debate and more a 80D (Or 90D if that truly comes out before Q3 2018) vs 6DII.


----------



## Jschmitt (Jul 16, 2017)

Joules said:


> I don't think that was the point.
> 
> I for one am very aware of the limitations of my T3i, beyond ergonomics and image quality. For example, my Canon EF 85 1.8 has a hint of backfocus that makes it hard to use wide open with AF. But there's nothing I can do about that with this camera.
> 
> ...



Agree completely. I know that *any* FF is going to be a huge step up. Even the 80D or the Nikon D500 (having given it a test drive from a friend) would be a large step up from my T3i. For someone without an investment in EF lenses, though, the question remains if this is the camera I should invest in compared to what else is out there in the same price range. I'm unlikely to upgrade each cycle, so I'm going to have whatever camera I get for a long time.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 16, 2017)

Joules said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > no offense, but even a 6D is a step up.
> ...



The 6Dii was never going to be a massive improvement over the 6D. If you were happy with the images form the 6D who gives a flying crap about what technology is in the 6D2 along as image quality is at least as good as the 6D or the 80D. The 6D2 has superior handling and capabilities over the 6D, and it has a FF sensor with those advantages over the 80D. 
It looks like you have never used a camrea iwth on-chap DAC so hoe wold you know if the 6D2 is a downward, sideways or upward change? You are making your decision to date on two reviews whose relevance you have no idea about regards your type of photography.

Cameras have now reached the position they were in the days of film. In those days you used the film you needed to do the job, and with the camera you bought into the functionality and the style of control. Digital, for a vast majority of users, has reached the same stage. If you have specialist reasons for using the supposed advantages of the D810 or the Sony A7R then go for it. 

On thing that a lot of people (including myself) like about Canon is that they seem to not care about specs-sheet mania. When the 5D3, the 6D, the 7Dii and a host of others were introduced they were all panned by the armchair measurebators who looked at the spreadsheet and looked at DPR claims about sensor etc. Yet every one of them became very successful cameras because they delivered what the customer needed - they improved the usability and the real world performance. The small things that make you want to take the camera with you instead of leaving it at home. 

So don;t even talk about the relevance of on-chip DAC to your style of photography - you liked the 6D for what it was as a camera that you had to use not for the DAC inside it. Remember that and make your decision based on what you want it to do.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 16, 2017)

Jschmitt said:


> Agree completely. I know that *any* FF is going to be a huge step up. Even the 80D or the Nikon D500 (having given it a test drive from a friend) would be a large step up from my T3i. For someone without an investment in EF lenses, though, the question remains if this is the camera I should invest in compared to what else is out there in the same price range. I'm unlikely to upgrade each cycle, so I'm going to have whatever camera I get for a long time.



There are pros out there still using the original 5D or 5Dii. I defy you to look at a 20" print in isolation and tell me what camera was used. Hell, I defy any DRone to tell me. 
Pick the camera for its functionality first, then on price and use the rest to buy the best glass you can.


----------



## Joules (Jul 16, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> There are pros out there still using the original 5D or 5Dii. I defy you to look at a 20" print in isolation and tell me what camera was used. Hell, I defy any DRone to tell me.


I don't disagree with you from a rational perspective. But if your point is that nobody can be disappointed in the lack of ADC, I don't feel the same. It feels like compromising the reason to upgrade to FF: Image Quality. For me the 6DII competes most strongly with the 80D, since I am invested in Canon Equipment. If "You pay more you get more" would apply here, there wouldn't be any bad aftertaste there. But it seems like it doesn't.

For me, it is less about the outcome than the way to get there. Photography is still just a hobby for me and to be honest, the quality of my images will probably always be limited by me and my own skills. What I'm really looking for is having fun with my hobby. And that involves being flexibel to try out all the stuff that I might want to try now and in the future. For flexibility, having more than you might typically need is quite nice, I think. At least I'd much rather have too much than too little, be it money, time or dynamic range. Maybe that mindset excludes me from the group of people that Canon determined to be their target market.

Still. It's about fun, and it is always fun to try out new things without having to worry that it's the gear stopping you from doing it. I also enjoy pixel peeping with a lot of my images, and just thinking "Dang, that's sharp!" when shooting with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. I have no doubt that I can get more fun and better pictures out of the 6DII than out of the T3i and that it wouldn't be different with any other body. Sadly, there is simply more to the emotional side of justifying such a price tag than that reasonable approach. Does being unreasonable really make it unimportant?

Just to clarify: I don't think Canon is ******* and I don't think that the 6DII will be a bad camera or truly worse than the competition. It just doesn't feel 2000€ good at the moment to me, so I will wait for the price to come down a good bit before actually making any purchases. I'm still looking forward to that, I'd just do that with even more excitement if Canon hadn't added such a compromise between the 1000€ 80D and 2000€ 6DII.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 16, 2017)

Khalai said:


> T3i > 6D II is a huge step up anyway. Be sure to buy it with e.g. 24-70/4L IS lens to give you nice, rather small sized general zoom for the start. Or perhaps buy some used 24-105/4L IS, they come at reasonable price and apart from some barrel distortion at 24mm and some CA, that lens is a solid starter for FF.



Thanks for the advice. I have looked at the kit options a bit to consider how they might fit in with my other gear and thus how and when I might use them. Offhand the non-L version of the 24-105 seems like a good choice for me as a walkabout lens. Size and weight seem more important criteria than others for that purpose. If it's raining, I'm not going to be out taking pictures, so weather sealing is not a priority. Barrel distortion and CA are tamed by the profile for my G7X II, so I'm not so worried by them.

The kit list prices seem not to offer any price advantage over just buying the body and lens separately. I know bargains are not likely in the open months of availably, but perhaps I'll find some kind of break with the kit, and that could help me decide.

For more serious purposes, I'll be using primes, the ones I already have, and the ones I will likely accumulate over the next few years. At first I can see the 100mm macro used more and more as a general purpose lens. It's a great length for portraits, and at f/2.8 should have the same narrow depth of field as the 50mm f/1.4 I use now on the T3i as an 80mm equivalent. I don't need super-wideangle much any more, so I can still use the 10-22mm on the T3i for those rare occasions.

Any further advice will be welcome, though I realize risking objections from those not liking the stretch from the Fred Miranda topic.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 16, 2017)

Also, the G7X II has the equivalent zoom of 24-100mm, so a walkabout lens at 24-105mm would feel right at home.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 16, 2017)

Jschmitt said:


> ...I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera...
> 
> ...I've been saving up for a FF for multiple years and have been waiting specifically for this camera. I've spent way too many hours on this site and forum trying to glean what the specs of this camera would be and when it would finally be released...
> 
> ...



I understand your concerns, but frankly, this is one of the things I hate about this forum. 

The 6DII has not even been released, but self-appointed experts are already "testing" the camera that they don't even have in their physical possession.

These people mean well, but unfortunately, it's difficult for people like you to keep these pronouncements in perspective because others are all too eager to jump on these preliminary "findings" and exploit them to confirm and reinforce their personal biases.

The dynamic range debate has been around for years. Everyone needs to draw their own conclusion. I fall somewhere in the middle. I can see advantages to greater dynamic range in some of the work I do (For example, sports in harsh daylight with the players in white uniforms whose faces are often buried deep inside the shadows of a cap). But, we all got along okay for years/decades with film and sensors that had far less range than those generally available today.

Massive assumptions are being made about the technology of the 6DII sensor (on-chip analog to digital conversions). At this point it is all rumor and speculation. 

By all means, when the camera comes out, read every review you can find. I'm not a DPR hater. I find their reviews are thorough and, I think, fair. No camera is perfect and while I realize that the price of the 6DII represents a substantial investment, it's not realistic to expect it to be perfect, or even up to the standards of the 5DIV or the 1DX II. By reading reviews from DPR, The Digital Picture and others, you will get a much better and more realistic perspective on the pros and cons of the camera.

If you are still undecided, rent one from Lens Rentals for a week and judge for yourself.

I am willing to bet, though, that once you have the camera in hand, you will find your worries dissolve. 

The differences being debated on these pages are tiny and have very little impact on real world use. Bear in mind that it is in the best interests of those who are conducting these "tests" to amplify the significance of insignificant differences.

Good luck and don't let these silly internet debates keep you from enjoying your hobby.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 16, 2017)

Fairly reasonable comments there from unfocused. I look forward to the extensive reviews (that are not rehashes of the press blurb or focussed on one aspect. I'd reckon this camera will be ideally suited to upgrading ASP-C users. The existing 6D was a fine camera and never stopped anyone taking a fine photo. I think the floppy screen and frame rates are welcome additions.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 16, 2017)

"The differences being debated on these pages are tiny and have very little impact on real world use. Bear in mind that it is in the best interests of those who are conducting these "tests" to amplify the significance of insignificant differences."

Exactly. While forums are useful they also increase anxiety levels.

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Jul 16, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> Fairly reasonable comments there from unfocused. I look forward to the extensive reviews (that are not rehashes of the press blurb or focussed on one aspect. I'd reckon this camera will be ideally suited to upgrading ASP-C users. The existing 6D was a fine camera and never stopped anyone taking a fine photo. I think the floppy screen and frame rates are welcome additions.



Exactly, and I speak as someone upgrading from a T3i.

As for the flippy screen, I haven't used it a lot with that camera, but it does come in handy when shooting at the moon, etc. The G7X II has just an angling screen. Back in the spring I was traveling with it in Britain, and I found I took a lot more shots up into domes and towers than I might have otherwise, and did that more successfully and steadily than I could have while looking up. Here's an example from Canterbury:


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 16, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> Fairly reasonable comments there from unfocused. I look forward to the extensive reviews (that are not rehashes of the press blurb or focussed on one aspect. I'd reckon this camera will be ideally suited to upgrading ASP-C users. The existing 6D was a fine camera and never stopped anyone taking a fine photo. I think the floppy screen and frame rates are welcome additions.



How long after the NDA is lifted are the reviews published?


----------



## Jschmitt (Jul 16, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Jschmitt said:
> 
> 
> > ...I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera...
> ...



Thanks. You're likely correct; it is easy to get too caught up in the details and lose the forest for the trees.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 16, 2017)

Joules said:


> Just to clarify: I don't think Canon is ******* and I don't think that the 6DII will be a bad camera or truly worse than the competition. It just doesn't feel 2000€ good at the moment to me, so I will wait for the price to come down a good bit before actually making any purchases. I'm still looking forward to that, I'd just do that with even more excitement if Canon hadn't added such a compromise between the 1000€ 80D and 2000€ 6DII.



Don't get me wrong. I believe 'pride of ownership' is as valid a reason for buying a camera as any and if that 'pride' comes from knowing it has on-chip DAC, then so be it. I will not argue with that. 
It is just that using words such as 'compromise' between the 80D and 6D2 suggests to me you are using a justification for that 'pride of ownership' that is not really relevant. The 80D has a APS-C sensor, the 6D2 has FF sensor. Stating 'compromise' only comes into it if you know the different cost and design decisions that went into the 6D2 and the 80D and too many criticisms are based on 'it does not cost much so they should have put it in at no extra cost'.
Given a choice between 80D with on-chip DAC and 6D2 with off-chip DAC I would choose the 6D2 every time. The 6D beats the 80D in image quality so I see no reason the 6D2 would not.


----------



## Otara (Jul 17, 2017)

I dont think anxiety is warranted, the question is more whether the 6D or 5d3 becomes a much better option than the 6D2, given the difference in cost and essentially the same sensor. Let alone as an upgrade if you already have one of those.

For a 5 year wait, its a bit underwhelming at this stage, for me anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

Otara said:


> I dont think anxiety is warranted, the question is more whether the 6D or 5d3 becomes a much better option than the 6D2, given the difference in cost and essentially the same sensor. Let alone as an upgrade if you already have one of those.



Yeah, if you're one of those for whom a dSLR comprises a sensor encased in an essentially useless bit of plastic and metal that functions only to hold a lens to project image onto that sensor, hold a battery to power that sensor, and hold a memory card to record images captured by that sensor, then you probably shouldn't buy a 6DII. 

I suspect Canon knows that the vast majority of dSLR buyers care about how well a camera takes pictures, and those buyers understand that a camera is more than just a sensor case. 

Incidentally, why would you even consider recommending a 5DIII? After all, the 5DIII merely improved on the 5DII in almost every aspect of camera performance _except_ the sensor, which apparently to you is no improvement at all.


----------



## Joules (Jul 17, 2017)

Thanks also from me to unfocused and Mikehit!

Good input, your reasonable words certainly help enduring the wait for real reviews and concentrating on more important matters. I'm glad I joined the forum and got some perspectives on the topic.

Despite just having registered today, I'm actually a long time reader of this site and forum. I checked it frequently during the last two years, mostly for news on the 6DII. So I got quite a heavy dose of 'Canon is *******' and all the fighting that can go on in some threads here and it is certainly not helpfull


----------



## Otara (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Otara said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think anxiety is warranted, the question is more whether the 6D or 5d3 becomes a much better option than the 6D2, given the difference in cost and essentially the same sensor. Let alone as an upgrade if you already have one of those.
> ...



Maybe Im trying to justify my own decision. I got a very cheap 5d3 as a replacement with the idea Id resell it for the 6D2.

Except now I dont feel particularly convinced it would be worth the price difference. Yes there are some nice additions to the 6DII, but you're paying a lot for them in my view - and theres even things you give up (af, cards, joystick etc). Other people will decide differently obviously.

Previously it was the 6D vs the 5D2 as an alternative, and in my view the difference there was more compelling.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 17, 2017)

Dpreview admins are trashing any thread about the latest raw files being analyzed.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 17, 2017)

Otara,

What Neuro said regarding 5DII vs 6D is not quite correct, I trust that it was a bit of a sarcasm on his side as he is aware of the differences. you expained that very well: AF system, metering system, card slots, joystick, low light AF point sensitivity improved as well, etc. I am in the same boat and tends to agree with you. low shutter, mint 5D IV body makes better sense_ to me_ at the moment. I am looking for a mint 5D III body locally and it seems that I will be able to source one at around A$1,700.00 (US$1,350.00).


Otara said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ... *Incidentally, why would you even consider recommending a 5DIII? After all, the 5DIII merely improved on the 5DII in almost every aspect of camera performance except the sensor*, which apparently to you is no improvement at all.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Otara,
> 
> What Neuro said regarding 5DII vs 6D is not quite correct, I trust that it was a bit of a sarcasm on his side as he is aware of the differences. you expained that very well: AF system, metering system, card slots, joystick, low light AF point sensitivity improved as well, etc.



I think you missed my point. I was actually comparing the 5DII to the 5DIII, an upgrade which is shaping up to be similar to the 6D vs 6DII. When the 5DIII came out, the camera = sensor folks (I almost wrote 'crowd', but really it was just a handful of people on forums) complained that it wasn't really an upgrade at all — basically, Otara stated the same about 6DII. Yet compared to its predecessor, the 6DII gets a big AF improvement, better frame rate, better metering, all examples of improvements seen on the 5DIII. However, the 5DIII didn't offer major IQ improvements, which is rumored to be the case for the 6DII as well. Except the 6DII got cheaper instead of more expensive.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Otara,
> ...



Because I wasn't into photography when the 5d3 came out, what was the competition like in comparison? I have the original 6d now, and am wondering how the owners of the 5d2 saw the mk3: for my uses, the new 6d isn't enough of an improvement to consider the upgrade, at least not for the price, so I'll be watching what the brands come out with. Was the competition from Nikon, Sony etc the as close back in 2012?


----------



## Otara (Jul 17, 2017)

I guess for me they seem like very different times. I didnt have to decide between an older camera with better AF and the same sensor and a more expensive camera with worse AF and the same sensor. Yes other things are involved, but given one of the major complaints about the 6D was its AF, its an interesting choice to end up with. For me, Ill take better AF and AF options over what else is on offer. Others will obviously decide differently.

When the 6D came out, its natural competitor as far as Im concerned was the 5D2, which it did well against. Now as far as Im concerned its the 5D3, and in my view its a pretty tough call. Pretty great to have these choices in my view, but obviously an even more compelling option with the 6d2 would have been nice to see.

Otara


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Because I wasn't into photography when the 5d3 came out, what was the competition like in comparison? I have the original 6d now, and am wondering how the owners of the 5d2 saw the mk3: for my uses, the new 6d isn't enough of an improvement to consider the upgrade, at least not for the price, so I'll be watching what the brands come out with. Was the competition from Nikon, Sony etc the as close back in 2012?



The Nikon D800 and the Sony a7R were contemporaries of the 5DIII. Some of the camera = sensor folks claimed they were going to switch. Most didn't. The limited evidence we have suggests that the 5DIII outsold the D800, and both easily outsold the a7R.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

Otara said:


> When the 6D came out, its natural competitor as far as Im concerned was the 5D2, which it did well against.



The 5DII was launched in September, 2008. The 6D was launched in November, 2012. Are you actually suggesting that the 'natural competitor' for the 6D was a camera released more than four years previously?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 17, 2017)

thank you for the clarification. yes, IQ wise 5DIII vs 5DII was not a major step forward. perhaps lesser banding in the shadows with the 5DIII?? a bit cleaner high ISO?
But as you noted, camera is more than IQ system and for me 5DIII represents a better camera than 6DII for my applications. And incindentally is a better value. mint 5DIII (A$1,700) vs brand new 6DII (A$2,500). I am very enthusiastic about the upgrade after I spent a day shooting 5DIII and found it to be much more comfortable to shoot with than with 6D original



neuroanatomist said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Otara,
> ...


----------



## Otara (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Otara said:
> 
> 
> > When the 6D came out, its natural competitor as far as Im concerned was the 5D2, which it did well against.
> ...



Yes. Im surprised thats considered particularly controversial.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 17, 2017)

Otara said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Otara said:
> ...



I'm not sure competitor is the most accurate term. I do recall that many people on this forum considered the 6D to be comparable to the 5D II in specs. But I also believe that once people started buying and using the 6D they found it performed quite a bit better than the 5D II, although you did lose the ergonomics of the 5 series, which is no small consideration for many people.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2017)

Joules said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > There are pros out there still using the original 5D or 5Dii. I defy you to look at a 20" print in isolation and tell me what camera was used. Hell, I defy any DRone to tell me.
> ...



You nailed it!


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2017)

all the *accolades* given by various reviews and fan boys in agreement *are less useful* to some of us *than the negative issues* expressed by far fewer people whose use is actually impacted by some technical issue.

That's because everything HAS reached a point where it's all very good. But the minor issues that don't bother the majority of users can be critical to others.
So those negative voices ARE worth listenting to if you are one of those who is trying to decide and have specific requirements.

The, "Don't worry. Be happy," type advice is soothing to amatuers but disguises possible problems some may encounter if they want to get a little more creative.



unfocused said:


> Jschmitt said:
> 
> 
> > ...I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera...
> ...





Jack Douglas said:


> "The differences being debated on these pages are tiny and have very little impact on real world use. Bear in mind that it is in the best interests of those who are conducting these "tests" to amplify the significance of insignificant differences."
> 
> Exactly. While forums are useful they also increase anxiety levels.
> 
> Jack


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Given a choice between 80D with on-chip DAC and 6D2 with off-chip DAC I would choose the 6D2 every time. The 6D beats the 80D in image quality so I see no reason the 6D2 would not.



from available data, that's true at 800 iso and higher so... tradeoff, not superior


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Joules said:
> ...



AFAIK the d7100 did not use a Sony sensor... Was a Toshiba or some other contracted mfr and the performance of that model was not as good as expected. 
The d7200, whatever sensor is in it, performs very well, it seems.

d810 banding?.. link please. 
I can push the heck out of my d800s... no visible FPN at the ISOs I used it.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I was actually comparing the 5DII to the 5DIII, an upgrade which is shaping up to be similar to the 6D vs 6DII. ..Except the 6DII got cheaper instead of more expensive.



good comparison

but is the 6d2 actually showing up cheaper than the original 6d?
did you adjust for inflation and currency exchange rates?
Or do you just expect us to believe what you say without showing us the proof?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 17, 2017)

you have missed the point (as I initially have as well). Neuro's point is: 5DIII was more expensive at release (in dollar equivalent) than it's predecessor (5D II), but 6DII is cheaper than it's predecessor (6D original) at the time of release.




Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I was actually comparing the 5DII to the 5DIII, an upgrade which is shaping up to be similar to the 6D vs 6DII.  ..Except the 6DII got cheaper instead of more expensive.
> ...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> all the *accolades* given by various reviews and fan boys in agreement *are less useful* to some of us *than the negative issues* expressed by far fewer people whose use is actually impacted by some technical issue.
> 
> That's because everything HAS reached a point where it's all very good. But the minor issues that don't bother the majority of users can be critical to others.
> So those negative voices ARE worth listenting to if you are one of those who is trying to decide and have specific requirements.
> ...



That is true only to a certain point. One must read all reviews, both negative and positive and apply critical thinking in the process. Otherwise, you'll end up confused and misinformed, because many reviews, either positive or negative, tend to augment their point by exagerrrating either pros or cons of certain camera. So people need to read both types of reviews and apply their own reason to them. Every review needs to be taken with a smaller or larger grain of salt because reviews are written by humans and thus more or less subjective.



Aglet said:


> from available data, that's true at 800 iso and higher so... tradeoff, not superior



All this low ISO DR argument is becoming really absurd. There is no holy grail, there is no magic bullet and there are very little scenarios, when 12 EV is not enough but 14 EV is. Nobody will suddenly become better photographer just because they have 1-2 EV DR advantage. You can either use easily almost any modern camera on a scene of you have to bracket and exposure blend in the post anyway. Apart from landscapers, who else is using exclusively ISO 100-200? Studio shooters? They control the light like no tomorrow and DR is not a problem. Good luck shooting sports, weddings, reportage or any fast paced stuff with fixed ISO 100.

E.g.. my usual ISO is around 400-1600 (3200) at which any DR advantage of any brand is insignificant. Don't get me wrong. If it's proven that Canon deliberately put inferior sensor in 6D II (without any tradeoff such as exceptional high ISO performance or other bonuses), thnt I'll not hesitate to say, that that's quite outrageous. But instead of immediately bashing a camera which has not been released yet, I'm patiently waiting for multiple reviews and tests before I'll make any conclusion. These anectodal tests, using all over the same RAWs, are not proving or disproving anything just yet.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Given a choice between 80D with on-chip DAC and 6D2 with off-chip DAC I would choose the 6D2 every time. The 6D beats the 80D in image quality so I see no reason the 6D2 would not.
> ...



Dynamic range - yes. But dynamic range is a small part of the image quality. The 6D images are more malleable and can take greater processing. 

How many people shoot ISO800 and below all the time? Limiting your argument to ISO 800 and below is a rather pathetic attempt to ignore facts that don't suit your argument.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


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



more dynamic range is what makes the file more malleable
color precision is another but it's also related to SNR and, therefore, DR

so if DR is a small part of image quality (_really_? /incredulous ) and 6D images are more malleable (really? under what circumstances?) , how do you substantiate YOUR argument?...



> How many people shoot ISO800 and below all the time? Limiting your argument to ISO 800 and below is a rather pathetic attempt to ignore facts that don't suit your argument.



Plenty. Especially those of us who shoot ABC cameras that actually have increasing IQ as you go down the ISO scale. As a Canon shooter you would not know that advantage unless you're shooting 5d4, 80d or 7d2.

And the point is that the 80d's files, technically, should outperform the 6d/2's files below 800 iso.
What facts am I ignoring?... the ones you haven't presented and are _hoping_ will change?

If you're gonna accuse someone of a weak argument, don't make a weaker one and expect to be taken seriously. 

Still - this is all awaiting real examination of production 6d2 files. The information could change and, for the sake of stubborn Canon shooters, I actually _hope_ the shipping 6d2 is a better performer than what we have seen so far. Partly because I have friends who've been looking fwd to it as an IQ upgrade path from the 6d and 5d3.
... i'm not holding _my_ breathe in anticipation of a pleasant surprise.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > all the *accolades* given by various reviews and fan boys in agreement *are less useful* to some of us *than the negative issues* expressed by far fewer people whose use is actually impacted by some technical issue.
> ...



I think we're mostly in agreement here. 
And yes, I'm also waiting on more reviews of shipping hardware before I can make any recommendations on this product. 
As it is, I'm prepared to be customarily Canon-airily disappointed.


----------



## Talys (Jul 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I was actually comparing the 5DII to the 5DIII, an upgrade which is shaping up to be similar to the 6D vs 6DII. ..Except the 6DII got cheaper instead of more expensive.
> ...



Ermmm... so confusing. The 6D definitely launched at a higher price than 6DII. It's an easy one, because the 6D launched about $2100, 5 years ago and inflation just widens that gap. But if you must have the numbers..

The 6D launched at $2,099 in 2012 dollars.
The 6DII is going to launch at $1,999 in 2017 dollars.

It's not like the launch price of the 6D is any secret; if you don't remember it, bing or google it.

Using a USD inflation calculator, $2100 in 2012 => $2237 in 2017.
http://www.in2013dollars.com/2012-dollars-in-2017?amount=2100

So, to just make it easy numbers, the 6DII is launching about 10% cheaper than 6DI, in inflation-adjusted dollars in the US market. 

I think that the price is a psychological price point; Canon thinks it will sell a lot more sub-$2k cameras than $2k+ cameras. But hey, $200+ in my pocket is better than in Canons 


Regarding DR -- Yes, it would be sucky if 6D2 underperformed 80D at ISO 100 or 160 for DR. In actuality, however, I won't go from a theoretical numbers. Being someone who takes a huge number of photos (nearly all of the ones that matter to me) at ISO 200 and lower, I will know on day 1 if the photos I take look better, worse, or about the same than a 80D.

My suspicion is about the same, and that will be just fine for me -- I'm perfectly happy with the pictures that come out of 80D, and what I want out of 6D2 is basically an 80D that has a larger sensor so that my EF lenses can cover 1.6x more area (ie get wider shots out of tighter spaces). If these photos come out inferior -- and I don't mean super-analyzing multiple shots in software, but in a way where I _feel_ they are inferior, then Houston, we have a problem. In that case, I'll almost certainly sell it -- because I won't often use it.

On the bright side, I'm sure 6D2 will retain its value very well for quite some time, should that be the case.

Sure, I will appreciate low light, high ISO performance, and no doubt many other things, but all I've really wanted since T3i was for Canon to make a FF camera with tilty-flippy that wasn't many thousands of dollars; and all I ever really wanted after I bought an 80D, was to have the same thing, in FF.

Maybe one day the things I shoot and my level of photography will make me yearn for something else, or I'll be so amazed by some future tech that will instantly give me so much better photos that I can't help to buy it -- kind of like the Samsung HDR QLED TV demos, where the difference is so startling that my only comment is, "can I afford this?" -- but I just don't see that now.

Like a lot of people here, I'll reserve judgement either way for when the production models come out. However, I'm happy and willing to buy a 6D2, and to figure out a way to get rid of it if the IQ is unbearably inferior, which I really hope isn't the case.


----------



## Joules (Jul 17, 2017)

Khalai said:


> All this low ISO DR argument is becoming really absurd. There is no holy grail, there is no magic bullet and there are very little scenarios, when 12 EV is not enough but 14 EV is. Nobody will suddenly become better photographer just because they have 1-2 EV DR advantage. You can either use easily almost any modern camera on a scene of you have to bracket and exposure blend in the post anyway. Apart from landscapers, who else is using exclusively ISO 100-200?


As a T3i user who mainly wants to upgrade to Full Frame for low light performance, I think your on point. I have tried to get a grip on the rough dimensions these measurements really change when looking at pictures and stumbled over this YouTube Video, which shows that very nicely for my needs (Slight shadow lifting when shooting ISO 400 and up):

- https://youtu.be/UN8Tuurx3b4?t=2m50s

The 5DIII should be fairly representative of the 6DII (Hopefully minus the banding FPN) according to:

- http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
- http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm

Seeing that the 6DII should be almost equal or slightly better than the 5DIII in terms of Dynamic Range and Read Noise according to these Photons To Photos graphs, I can put my concerns and hesitations to rest. My comment about being probably more exited if it had on-chip ADC still is true, but I'm no longer frustrated that it likely doesn't have it. The banding and magenta cast the T3i displays when lifting shadows are more concerning in most of my shots than general detail and one would hope that Canon has that under control now, since even the 6D outperformed the 5DIII in that regard as far as I know.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> > How many people shoot ISO800 and below all the time? Limiting your argument to ISO 800 and below is a rather pathetic attempt to ignore facts that don't suit your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Plenty. Especially those of us who shoot ABC cameras that actually have increasing IQ as you go down the ISO scale. As a Canon shooter you would not know that advantage unless you're shooting 5d4, 80d or 7d2.



I shoot the 7D2 and the 6D and have borrowed my wife's 80D so am speaking from experience. 
On DxO, above ISO 400 the 7D2 matches the 80D in every measure and the 6D beats them both. 



Aglet said:


> And the point is that the 80d's files, technically, should outperform the 6d/2's files below 800 iso.
> What facts am I ignoring?... the ones you haven't presented and are _hoping_ will change?



'...technically should...' 
So no facts then.
The facts i was saying you were ignoring was that you were limiting your claims of superiority of the 80D based on below ISO 800 and claimed that 'plenty' of photographers who limit their photography to those ISOs should drive the design of a mass market product.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

Aglet said:


> but is the 6d2 actually showing up cheaper than the original 6d?
> did you adjust for inflation and currency exchange rates?
> Or do you just expect us to believe what you say without showing us the proof?



I expect _most_ people can read camera announcements, compare two numbers, and figure out which is bigger. I expect _most_ people can grasp the fact that inflation makes things cost more, so an item that's cheaper 5 years later is the opposite of inflation. I expect currency exchange rates matter only to those buying gray market...which is few people, or people who care how much revenue Canon HQ gets for a given unit, which is even fewer people (and doesn't include me), and many of those people fail to consider things like tariffs and local costs for distribution, marketing and warranty service. 

Based on your question, it's clear you're not '_most_ people'.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 17, 2017)

Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.

(Pardon my silly mood this morning.)


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 17, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.
> 
> (Pardon my silly mood this morning.)



The horror!!


----------



## sebasan (Jul 17, 2017)

It's strange that some people who seem to shot other brands, don't know anything about IQ and probably don't have any picture of good quality to show, spend so much time in canon forums...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 17, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.
> 
> (Pardon my silly mood this morning.)



Oh dear. Lack of ADC, or Awesome Dynamic range Contraption, must've been the reason why you have to delete the file immediately and then flush your eyes with concetrated sulphuric acid, right?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 17, 2017)

Khalai said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Just the other day a friend and I were looking at a beautiful picture. Composition was great, exposure was perfect, it was sharp where it was sharp and blurred in the distance. It really captured a mood. But something was wrong. We both looked at it more closely and realized the problem at the same time. The sensor didn't have on-chip ADC! What a shame.
> ...



I have said this before. I have seen big prints in galleries that have clearly been taken with Canon cameras and have been pushed so far in post I wouldn't show at a local camera club. However on enquiring it turned out it was the photographers best selling shot.

So who is the fool?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 17, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > 100% agree. Now you can even simulate shallow DoF in PP, so no need to use fast lenses anymore  The only problem - it takes a lot of time to process the image correctly otherwise it'll look like cheap fake
> ...



I guess people like Joe Cornish are idiots then taking all those landscape shots with ND grads and making thousands of dollars doing so. One person perfume is another person poison and arrogance about one method over another is one of the stupidities of forums. Lets judge the image not the method.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 17, 2017)

Perhaps we are close to the point where certain folk will be totally ignored. :'(

http://blog.planet5d.com/2017/07/canon-switcher-hate-canon-6d-mark-ii-goodbye-canon/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)&mc_cid=a78b438cf4&mc_eid=dd6a67c046

Jack


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 17, 2017)

Dynamic range maybe less of an issue in stills but in video more is better. We did a film once in Africa was supposed to be one take from inside a mud hut into the midday sun before we ha good remote iris controls. Ended up having to be two shots as the camera could not record the two extremes. 
Other examples in rain forests etc. 

No such thing as too much DR.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 17, 2017)

Sure. No such thing as too much IQ. Yes, enough is never enough, so what's the point? To live continually dissatisfied or to be happy with what you've got. I'd rather be contented.

Jack


----------



## VooDooZG (Jul 17, 2017)

So what to do now, i could get 6D2 this friday (21.07) as a special costumer in my shop here, I was waiting for 6D2 so long and now 1 week ago there comes that DR nightmare story or rumor or fact or whatever 

I don't need 4k or second SD slot and I am ok with that, I did want arti-screen and DP and touch but i was also hoping for sensor with better DR and ISO at least 1 stop better DR - APSC body even rabel's came with new A/D chip on sensor for like 500$ ( in fact every new body, every body in 2017 came with A/D chip on sensor, and all with digic 7 ) so doesn't it make it strange that 2000$, most selling Canon body would be crippled that hard ??

Would you buy it if you have chance like me to have it this friday or would you wait for like 1-2 month or more because this will be hot seller no matter what and if that DR come to be false or some error than it would sell like very hot and I would have to wait for it even longer - what to do, i will go crazy 

if some of you have some info or did try it and know that DR is problem or it is not I would be very thankful if you send me a pm because i know about your "disclosure embargo" or whatever it is called..


----------



## dak723 (Jul 17, 2017)

VooDooZG said:


> So what to do now, i could get 6D2 this friday (21.07) as a special costumer in my shop here, I was waiting for 6D2 so long and now 1 week ago there comes that DR nightmare story or rumor or fact or whatever
> 
> I don't need 4k or second SD slot and I am ok with that, I did want arti-screen and DP and touch but i was also hoping for sensor with better DR and ISO at least 1 stop better DR - APSC body even rabel's came with new A/D chip on sensor for like 500$ ( in fact every new body, every body in 2017 came with A/D chip on sensor, and all with digic 7 ) so doesn't it make it strange that 2000$, most selling Canon body would be crippled that hard ??
> 
> ...



Does your local shop have a return policy that let's you return items if dissatisfied? If so, then why not buy it and try it. Only by trying it yourself will you know if the camera meets your needs.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 17, 2017)

VooDooZG said:


> So what to do now, i could get 6D2 this friday (21.07) as a special costumer in my shop here, I was waiting for 6D2 so long and now 1 week ago there comes that DR nightmare story or rumor or fact or whatever
> 
> I don't need 4k or second SD slot and I am ok with that, I did want arti-screen and DP and touch but i was also hoping for sensor with better DR and ISO at least 1 stop better DR - APSC body even rabel's came with new A/D chip on sensor for like 500$ ( in fact every new body, every body in 2017 came with A/D chip on sensor, and all with digic 7 ) so doesn't it make it strange that 2000$, most selling Canon body would be crippled that hard ??
> 
> ...



Stay calm and keep taking images. If you are in a hurry and your retailer has a good return policy, then by all means keep the preorder and try the camera. If you are not in a hurry, have a decent camera today, then I'll suggest patience and wait for reviews...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

VooDooZG said:


> ...because this will be hot seller no matter what and if that DR come to be false or some error than it would sell like very hot and I would have to wait for it even longer



Honestly, a bit more or less DR, ADC on-sensor or off-sensor, neither of them are going to significantly impact sales either way. 

CRguy posted that his sources indicated that supply (in North America, at least) would be generally sufficeint to meet preorders. So, keep your place in the queue or drop out, likely you'll be able to pick one up soon if you want it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Honestly, a bit more or less DR, ADC on-sensor or off-sensor, neither of them are going to significantly impact sales either way.



100% agree it will sell well regardless, but as much as you've correctly identified this RAW file is from dubious origins, do you believe a non-on-chip ADC might be in the 6D2?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, a bit more or less DR, ADC on-sensor or off-sensor, neither of them are going to significantly impact sales either way.
> ...



I certainly think it's possible. I think Canon simply doesn't believe the 'issue' matters to the target market, and they're most likely right.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 17, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



The masses are asses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I certainly think it's possible. I think Canon simply doesn't believe the 'issue' matters to the target market, and they're most likely right.



Certainly plausible, but what's been missing for me is _what Canon gets_ for leaving on-chip out of the 6D2. As others have shown here, there are instances where an 80D or 7D2 gets something the 6D1/6D2 did not (max shutter / sync speed come to mind), and we can associate that with FF being a costly inflection point for the componenetry. And with the 6D1, AF would also fall under that bucket.

What I lack here is the same understanding. I thought once Canon starting using on-chip ADC, there were economies of scale to encourage them to use this new tech on everything unless they were using a hand-me-down sensor from an older product line. So as much as a standalone 26 MP FF sensor (which Canon has never done) would mean new sensor fab regardless of on-chip vs. not on-chip ADC, I'm surprised Canon would save a great deal of money by leaving on-chip ADC out of the picture.

But please educate me if there is some nutty/painful/expensive aspect to this. This is far from my knowledge wheelhouse. I continue to dwell on the (potential) absence of on-chip ADC in the 6D2 as I don't think a soul on the planet thought it would not be there -- it was a ground-floor 'sure thing' expectation.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 17, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly think it's possible. I think Canon simply doesn't believe the 'issue' matters to the target market, and they're most likely right.
> ...



there's some assumptions here that ADC by itself makes a huge difference. the huge difference is when and where canon does CDS on the sensor.

there's definitely more than one variant of the ADC/DPAF sensor in APS-C sizes, so it could be the same with the full frame sensors.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> there's some assumptions here that ADC by itself makes a huge difference. the huge difference is when and where canon does CDS on the sensor.
> 
> there's definitely more than one variant of the ADC/DPAF sensor in APS-C sizes, so it could be the same with the full frame sensors.



CDS = ?

That's a new one for me.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 17, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > there's some assumptions here that ADC by itself makes a huge difference. the huge difference is when and where canon does CDS on the sensor.
> ...



correlated double sampling. exmor does it at the row level at the sensor edge, and also post ADC (removing black level offset variations). canon USED to do it at the pixel area (less precise) and at least as far as I know, they haven't added post ADC CDS into the sensor, so raw conversions are supposed to use the masked pixels to do the CDS in software after the fact (since the 40D this has been the case).


----------



## Sarpedon (Jul 17, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly think it's possible. I think Canon simply doesn't believe the 'issue' matters to the target market, and they're most likely right.
> ...



Beats me. Could even be that the sensor was far along or done a while ago but Canon delayed the camera for some reason, making it a sunk cost they wanted to recoup. 

I'm sure they'll be making a ton of money off the thing, but as a long-time 6D user looking to upgrade to something more capable (and more capable for professional work), I'm going to pass on the Mark II. 
I don't absolutely _need_ the DR, but it's very helpful for some of the work I do (available light portraiture, daytime urban street photography, landscape, etc), and I don't like the idea of plunking my money down for a sensor that very obviously could have been better but isn't, whatever their reason is. There are a few other things that annoy - no focus-point-linked spot metering, no dual card slots, no 8K shutter speed - but I do a lot of manual focusing with Zeiss lenses and L primes, so the lack of an interchangeable screen really killed my interest. DPAF just isn't enough compensation. I'm sure there'll be a third-party option eventually - focusingscreens.com finally came out with one for the 5D Mark IV a few days ago - but for my _very specific needs_ (note that phrase, forum warriors) the 6D Mark II just seems so..... underwhelming.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 17, 2017)

Khalai said:


> VooDooZG said:
> 
> 
> > So what to do now, i could get 6D2 this friday (21.07) as a special costumer in my shop here, I was waiting for 6D2 so long and now 1 week ago there comes that DR nightmare story or rumor or fact or whatever
> ...



Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons - it's not a Wii/ Furby/ whatever where there's a supply constraint. You'll be able to buy it from your choice of retailer from release day for half a decade, probably. Even assuming it's as awesome as you expect, does it hurt that much to let it simmer a week and see what the early reviews - both professional and forum-based - say? Unless you had a special event to shoot this weekend, there won't be much of a difference between this weekend and next weekend. Even if you have something this weekend, you probably wouldn't want to do it on the second day you have a new body.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons - it's not a Wii/ Furby/ whatever where there's a supply constraint.



Depends on the product and how much of it's value (to you) is tied to it being the best thing currently available. If you are a firster or want to maximize how long a product is the best one for your purposes, you buy on day one to maximize the time before it is 'virtually obsoleted' by a replacement/better offering in the same product class. 

This is a better move for products with shorter and more highly predictable lifecycles, like iPhones on a one year model refresh and two-year body design refresh timetable -- but some folks do it for bigger ticket items like camera bodies, computers, cars even.

Shockingly, my 5D3's shutter button continued to work after the 5D4 was announced and I've decided to stick with it until my camera (itself) recognizes the futility of marching onward whilst _knowing something better exists_. Surely it will become self-aware and brick itself any day now to free me of its shackles and let me buy a nicer product. :

- A


----------



## x-vision (Jul 17, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I'm surprised Canon would save a great deal of money by leaving on-chip ADC out of the picture.



Only Canon has the definitive answer for that.

As I said in a previous post, production yields could be a factor.

It's also possible that Canon is saving money by reusing the old 5DS manufacturing lines/equipment (the 5Ds doesn't have on-chip ADCs).

Again, only Canon knows the answer; we can only speculate.

I completely agree with Neuro, though: 
Except for a relative small group of buyers that obsess over DR (I'm at the forefront of this group 8) ), most 6DII buyers are unlikely to care.
Think of all users that never do post-processing, for example. 

FWIW, I've had my 40D for seven years and I've been lifting shadows just fine. 
Now that I have the 80D, I wouldn't go back to a sensor with less DR - but I was quite happy with my 40D while I had it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 17, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons - it's not a Wii/ Furby/ whatever where there's a supply constraint.
> ...



I know they do; I just think it's silly. Stupid, really. On the lifespan of a body (what, 4-5 years?), what's a week? We're talking about, literally, a week. Is it not worth the money to have it for even one week less of being the "newest" body, or the "current" 6D? Bah. Yes, I say stupid. Having it for an extra week isn't much a payoff for maybe getting something you're disappointed in.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 17, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



You are correct Lonelyboy. I'd never pre-order anything that expensive. "Last week my camera was fine, but next week I just have to have the newest."

I'll never understand that. More money than sense, I guess.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 17, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You are correct Lonelyboy. I'd never pre-order anything that expensive. "Last week my camera was fine, but next week I just have to have the newest."
> 
> I'll never understand that. More money than sense, I guess.



I think it's more like, "I've increasingly been wanting to upgrade for 4 years; now I'd really enjoy having it in time to get used to it before going on my bi-annual trip in August." Which would be more my case. Incidentally, no I have not preordered it. Yet.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 17, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct Lonelyboy. I'd never pre-order anything that expensive. "Last week my camera was fine, but next week I just have to have the newest."
> ...



Right. So you have time to, literally, spend a couple hours over a couple of days reading the reviews to evaluate the purchase before (maybe) going to BB or wherever and buying it? That's what I'd do in that position. Then we'll have some actual information, and all of this chatter will be meaningless. As if it's not already.

It's not like it's going to be sold out.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 18, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You are correct Lonelyboy. I'd never pre-order anything that expensive. "Last week my camera was fine, but next week I just have to have the newest."
> 
> I'll never understand that. More money than sense, I guess.



I _would_ pre-order if you (say) completely skipped a buying cycle or you knew a year in advance that this was the rig you wanted and you just needed to confirm [feature X] was onboard. Tilty-flippy + better AF = an instant sale for a lot of people, I'd wager.

In my case, I own a 5D3 and skipped the 5D4 because I don't think it would improve my decidedly amateur output thus far. In effect, my camera is not holding me back at all right now, unless I want to convince myself that scorchingly bright daylight landscapes with foreground in shadow should not require any multi-shot compositing or on-lens contrast management (which is an wildly unreasonable expectation). But should I put in the 'hours in the cockpit' and improve my skills, I could see myself going in on day one for a 5D5 as my next camera. 

But this pre-ordering / hedging on FM forum posts / cancelling pre-orders over a (rumored) lack of DR improvement is a bit out there. It implies all the other improvements in the camera don't matter, i.e. that DR is everything. If that's the case, go pick up an A7/A9 rig and adapt your Canon glass and be done with it. I say that out of no disrespect to those with that position so much as a reality check. If you are a 'one-issue voter' with your body-buying decision tree, go to the company that delivers on that issue at the price point you want to pay.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 18, 2017)

We're all children at heart with a Christmas mentality! 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons -



Clearly, you're missing the main reason people preorder the 6DII, or any new Canon product...so they can be the one to start the CR Forum topic, "Post your shots with the _________ product."

;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



Duh, Joe Cornish is sponsored by Lee Filters! I'd say nice things about anyone that paid me to say them if it didn't go against my morals. Besides he shot film long before he shot digital and there is a certain functionality difference between filter use when working on film or digital.

There are countless top grade landscape shooters nowadays who have never owned a filter, and that was my point. For a modern digital workflow filters with a lint through them are limiting from a compositional and subject standpoint that blending multiple exposures and blending does not have.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 18, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Fair enough. Frankly I don't break my head over these things. If it says Canon on the front of it, it'll just work. Seriously. If something is blatantly wrong with it for me, the only way for me to know for certain is to try it out myself. No internet review is seriously going to make the decision final for me. If it doesn't cut it, I'll return it. Point à la ligne. I've not returned anything yet. How complicated do we have to make the decision? There are only two choices for me: 5D III or 6D II. There are ups and downs for both, but I seriously doubt it's possible to go wrong either way. I guess I'm just not picky enough.

Well now, you're probably right; these last few years have been less bad. Major Canon releases used to sometimes get B/O for months. Heck, even the 1DX II took a while to find its way on to shelves. That was just a year ago.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons -
> ...




;D ;D ;D


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons -
> ...



Yeah... whereas I got my 5D3 maybe 18 months ago and might get to a 5D4 one of these months. Maybe. The shadow recovery would actually be handy for shots of people under shade tents in Texas sunlight. On the other hand, as of yet everyone loves those pics, even when the shadow slider is maxed out, so maybe not.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I have said this before. I have seen big prints in galleries that have clearly been taken with Canon cameras and have been pushed so far in post I wouldn't show at a local camera club. However on enquiring it turned out it was the photographers best selling shot.
> 
> So who is the fool?



similarly, but at a low end art sale a few years ago, someone had various aurora photos that had obviously been pushed enough to reveal characteristic pattern noise in the images they were selling.

So I said to the young couple trying to sell them, "So you shoot with a Canon, eh?"

"Yes, how did you know?"

"By all this banding pattern noise in your images. If this is a favorite subject you may want to consider a Nikon or Pentax instead."

They were dumbstruck for a moment and looked at each other before one responding, "You mean those other cameras don't do that?!?"

"That's right.
Nice images, otherwise." 

Even if I have to educate them one - at - a - time. 

it was a lot quicker than telling them all the workarounds to get better IQ with the same Canon gear for those shots.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> VooDooZG said:
> 
> 
> > ...because this will be hot seller no matter what and if that DR come to be false or some error than it would sell like very hot and I would have to wait for it even longer
> ...



used, open-box, discounted returns, deals to be had!...


----------



## Aglet (Jul 18, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Sure. No such thing as too much IQ. Yes, enough is never enough, so what's the point? To live continually dissatisfied or to be happy with what you've got. I'd rather be contented.
> 
> Jack



Well, it's good to be Happy, Jack, that's a good motto to go by in life, in general.
But this here forum has a lot of us gear-heads who like to push the boundaries of technology and look forward to the next iteration of _improved_ product from mfrs.

https://youtu.be/52cQeFBU2Kw


----------



## Otara (Jul 18, 2017)

From the point of whether the decisions made were 'wrong' or 'right', we'll never know, in that it may have made 5 million sales with one and 4.5 or 4.9 .or 5 million with the other. They're highly unlikely to be so wrong that it is an actual failure in the market place. I think the internet does have some impact on sales, but not in a 'they're listening to this forum' kind of way.

So all we can ever do is decide what we would recommend to others on the basis of the priorities we value. In my view the market is at a point where older models have more and more to offer vs new models. Obviously others think differently.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 18, 2017)

Boundaries of technology but not the boundaries of composition and creativity? Obviously, I'm not young whipper-snapper. It reminds me of these nature/bird photos that are photo-shopped to look like some Hollywood model. The technology is there to do it but the result has a subtle unnaturalness to it. I'm not against technology but it's often overblown.

I don't mind people doing whatever they prefer and if that's their pleasure in life great. It's the push to influence/force others with incessant illogical/biased arguments that gets to me. While I believe in free speech sometimes wisdom would dictate not speaking. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 18, 2017)

Otara said:


> From the point of whether the decisions made were 'wrong' or 'right', we'll never know, in that it may have made 5 million sales with one and 4.5 or 4.9 .or 5 million with the other. They're highly unlikely to be so wrong that it is an actual failure in the market place. I think the internet does have some impact on sales, but not in a 'they're listening to this forum' kind of way.
> 
> So all we can ever do is decide what we would recommend to others on the basis of the priorities we value. In my view the market is at a point where older models have more and more to offer vs new models. Obviously others think differently.



As others have said all the modern upscale cameras are so good we should be jumping for joy not whining. To be able to pick up an excellent used camera for a great price is wonderful and those who wont upgrade from a 6D if their needs are being met are wise. I happen to value the features that have been added to the 6D2 and will probably get it by next spring. I love my latest glass, the 400DO MarkII and I don't see that available from Sony. 

Jack


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Preordering something like this just seems strange to me for all these reasons -
> ...



I recall some cameras were not available in retail stores for months, the only way to get one was to pre-order. The 5D MK II, MK III, Nikon D800 / D800E come to mind. Of course, after the initial rush, supply was good, and in 6 or 7 months, the price had dropped. I bought my 5D III from Adorama for $2750 around 7 months after the first ones shipped. There was no MAP policy then. After the surplus was sold off, prices went back up.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 18, 2017)

I keep seeing this ; "In terms of image quality, the sensor in the EOS 6D Mark II is from the same generation as the EOS 5D Mark IV, rather than EOS 5D Mark III, so the image quality will be similar to the EOS 5D Mark IV" and it boggles the mind.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2017)

Why?


----------



## Aglet (Jul 18, 2017)

where?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2017)

what?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Ignoring Joe Cornish my main point was different strokes for different folks just because you prefer blending doesn't mean other means like filters are wrong that's your opinion period. 
I use both methods and like to have that choice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



You keep ignoring my point. I don't prefer to blend, I am results driven and blending gives better results unless you are limiting yourself to very simple compositions. Yes there are rare occasions when blending isn't practical, but there are vastly more occasions when dividing the image with a straight line is, as I first pointed out, dumb.

So on average if somebody is looking to improve their landscape images they are better off spending $30-40 on a blending plugin than a lot more than that on a range of Grad ND's.

I realize there is a lot of personal antagonism on here but my original points, grads are compositionally limiting and in general better results can be achieved for less with a blending plugin, have not been disputed. I never said don't buy grad ND's, I said it is a step on the way and if you want to skip it here is the next step.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> You keep ignoring my point. I don't prefer to blend, I am results driven and blending gives better results unless you are limiting yourself to very simple compositions. Yes there are rare occasions when blending isn't practical, but there are vastly more occasions when dividing the image with a straight line is, as I first pointed out, dumb.
> 
> So on average if somebody is looking to improve their landscape images they are better off spending $30-40 on a blending plugin than a lot more than that on a range of Grad ND's.
> 
> I realize there is a lot of personal antagonism on here but my original points, grads are compositionally limiting and in general better results can be achieved for less with a blending plugin, have not been disputed. I never said don't buy grad ND's, I said it is a step on the way and if you want to skip it here is the next step.



I see your point and I quite agree. But GNDs are fun for some (me for example) and I like to use them, even having Easy Panel from Jimmy McIntyre as well. I usually use GND in combination with coloured grad and CPol filter. It's more fun doing it in the field than sitting behind a computer, at least for me.

You are correct about GNDs being compositionally limited, but soft GNDs look rather natural, even with crooked horizons or mountain ranges and I have a number of photos, where I've used GND with such composition and you can't really tell on the first glance.

So while I agree with your point, that exposure blending is superior technique for better images, using resin or glass filters in the field is on the other hand more enjoyable and that's the point. Having fun taking images. To each his own I guess


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2017)

Also don't forget a professional works on cost-benefit. If quickly applying an ND grad gives an image 'good enough' for its purposes why spend time on the computer? A newbie will probably spend ages experimenting with the correct density to use but a pro will probably get it pretty close very quickly. 
And I am sure they are fully aware when grads are limited (for example a lighthouse projecting above the horizon) and the trade-offs of using a ND grad and adjusting in post, and when to rely on post processing. 

To imply it is 'either/or' is too simplistic.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2017)

Khalai said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You keep ignoring my point. I don't prefer to blend, I am results driven and blending gives better results unless you are limiting yourself to very simple compositions. Yes there are rare occasions when blending isn't practical, but there are vastly more occasions when dividing the image with a straight line is, as I first pointed out, dumb.
> ...



Yes, and I never said anything different, remember I said shoot what you want how you want for whatever reason you want! I well understand for many it is the process, but once you have taken the time and trouble to get to that vantage point, taken the images and got home with those precious raw files most people want the best results you can get, so I was pointing that out.

I was in Hawaii recently and went to the point where the lava flows into the sea, I wasn't taking pictures as I was on vacation. So the composition was a simple one that lent itself to a hard or soft grad, trouble was the one guy I saw using filters also had a PL on and kept both on well after dark when the DR was down around the 5 stops mark, if that. I can't imagine how much post processing he would have had to do to get some contrast back in his images!


----------



## Khalai (Jul 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I was in Hawaii recently and went to the point where the lava flows into the sea, I wasn't taking pictures as I was on vacation. So the composition was a simple one that lent itself to a hard or soft grad, *trouble was the one guy I saw using filters also had a PL on and kept both on well after dark when the DR was down around the 5 stops mark, if that. I can't imagine how much post processing he would have had to do to get some contrast back in his images!*



But that is "layer 8 error" and you can't prevent that with any technique


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 18, 2017)

https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/

Hands on 'Review' starts at 31ish minutes.

I don't know if this is a production or a pre production or a 'sample' model. 

I also apologize in advance if this has been posted before.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/
> 
> Hands on 'Review' starts at 31ish minutes.
> 
> ...



Hasn't. At least not on this thread -- 6D2 starts at 38:00 or so. Listening now.

Chris and Jordan in general do a decent job and provide a broad stills guy / video guy perspective. They love to lift shadows, though, so I'm bracing for impact. 

- A


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/
> ...



They both did a great job. Unfortunately, barring any major advancement in the production model (if that wasn't what they were using), I will be passing on the MK II.

Sucks, cause I was looking forward to this release!


----------



## greenjacket (Jul 19, 2017)

http://www.irentals.cn/article.php?id=138&page=3

http://www.irentals.cn/article.php?id=138&page=2

This is a DR test of production model written in Chinese, but you probably can understand the chart. High ISO has improved, but DR stays the same as 6D. 

I think Canon made the similar choice as Nikon D5, go for high ISO performance. 

As a landscape photographer, I am very disappointed about this choice.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

greenjacket said:


> I think Canon made the similar choice as Nikon D5, go for high ISO performance.
> 
> As a landscape photographer, I am very disappointed about this choice.



Except... I don't think they accomplished _either_.

the 6d2, so far, is looking disappointing all around in sensor performance.
Does everything else really well except... record malleable images.

Sounds like Canon released and new _OLD_ camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> greenjacket said:
> 
> 
> > I think Canon made the similar choice as Nikon D5, go for high ISO performance.
> ...



You might have had a point about 'malleable images', considering your history of being unable to take even the simplest exposures, if the 6D itself wasn't more than capable of being pulled excessively in post already. The 6D was no 5D MkII, but then again most people could use that well enough.

For those not in the know this is an example held up by Aglet as having unusable IQ and the 5D MkII being total garbage, because even though the scene DR is very modest he messed up the simplest of exposures.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 19, 2017)

If the camera performs like those guys doing the review, then it's got problems. Pathetic.

Jack


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

Private, are you saying this image was underexposed by at least -2EV?


privatebydesign said:


> For those not in the know this is an example held up by Aglet as having unusable IQ and the 5D MkII being total garbage, because even though the scene DR is very modest he messed up the simplest of exposures.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

greenjacket said:


> http://www.irentals.cn/article.php?id=138&page=3
> 
> http://www.irentals.cn/article.php?id=138&page=2
> 
> ...



https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=https://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php%3Ff%3D244%26t%3D5211408&prev=search

A rough translation of what is being said.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Private, are you saying this image was underexposed by at least -2EV?
> 
> 
> privatebydesign said:
> ...



What is your opinion?

Mine always was that if you don't expose right then it is your fault, Aglet point was if he had used a different make of camera he would have been ok with his mistake. 

But my point here was the 6D is a darn sight more 'malleable' than the 5D MkII anyway so his comment was just a cheap shot.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

So Canon is about to release a steaming hot pile on the market and it's getting the acclaim it deserves so you think it's an appropriate time to dredge up this aspect of an old topic?

I think you have misplaced your aggression.
Don't kick your dog.
Go kick a Canon Exec. 
Not much point trying to pick on me either; water, duck. 

speaking of cheap shots
you keep trolling at a personal attack level  
should I have your post flagged as offensive?

you can have as many of my posts deleted as you'd like.
any CR admin who thinks they were offensive is just allowing the _usual trolls_ free reign here and is complicit in the problem. 
We've seen it before.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

In my opinion, according to the histogram to the right of the image, my estimation is that mid greys are under exposed by -2EV. (note: I cannot see the histogram readings clearly due to the small size of the image). If so, I do not consider this being a minor mistake let alone being a norm or something that I would even consider "fixing" in post. if happened (flash misfired, bulb gone, full eclipse or black magic  ), such an image would be culled immediately - no exceptions.




privatebydesign said:


> What is your opinion?
> 
> Mine always was that if you don't expose right then it is your fault, Aglet point was if he had used a different make of camera he would have been ok with his mistake.
> 
> But my point here was the 6D is a darn sight more 'malleable' than the 5D MkII anyway so his comment was just a cheap shot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> So Canon is about to release a steaming hot pile on the market and it's getting the acclaim it deserves so you think it's an appropriate time to dredge up this aspect of an old topic?
> 
> I think you have misplaced your aggression.
> Don't kick your dog.
> ...



Dude I don't care what you say, I think you'll find your posts are being deleted because you are not allowed to use people's names if they don't use them themselves, it is written in the TOU.

Count yourself lucky just getting deleted, I got a ban when I unwittingly did it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> In my opinion, according to the histogram to the right of the image, my estimation is that mid greys are under exposed by -2EV. (note: I cannot see the histogram readings clearly due to the small size of the image). If so, I do not consider this being a minor mistake let alone being a norm or something that I would even consider "fixing" in post. if happened (flash misfired, bulb gone, full eclipse or black magic  ), such an image would be culled immediately - no exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The scene has 7 stops of DR, easily captured by a 5D MkII yet Aglet trashed the camera and insulted anybody that pointed out his expectations of correcting his mistakes was atypical. 

The only reason I reposted it here was because he is saying the same thing about a camera two generations later. The 6D was a noticeable step up in IQ and shadow lifting performance from the 5D MkIII let alone 5D MkII, and there is no reason to think the 6D MkII will be worse than the 6D anywhere. Indeed early tests seem, to indicate a decent improvement in the high ISO range.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> The scene has 7 stops of DR, easily captured by a 5D MkII yet Aglet trashed the camera and insulted anybody that pointed out his expectations of correcting his mistakes was atypical.



I'm pretty much focused on insulting the PoS that was my 5d2.
Anyone who harps on about it being a great camera is delusional! 




> The only reason I reposted it here was because he is saying the same thing about a camera two generations later. The 6D was a noticeable step up in IQ and shadow lifting performance from the 5D MkIII let alone 5D MkII, and there is no reason to think the 6D MkII will be worse than the 6D anywhere. Indeed early tests seem, to indicate a decent improvement in the high ISO range.



Thanks?... How is that repost relevant here? If anything it shows Canon has improved very little on this style of imaging pipeline in many years.

I'm not the only one who's pointing out the 6d2 is not delivering to expectations.
Hopefully it isn't afflicted with FPN like the Digic 4 systems so it'll improve to some extent of those older bodies.

This is gonna be a useful camera to many people but it's going to be a major letdown for anyone who was expecting a _better_ camera.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4182741

Someone got a delivery already.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

Nuh, not really. 8) see the chart attached. 6D vs 6D II. 0 advantage at ISO 3200 and a tiny bit at ISO 6400.
I am shopping for a couple of mint 5D III's instead. Best value in town (A$1,700-1,800 for a low shutter count, mint body). 



privatebydesign said:


> Indeed early tests seem, to indicate a decent improvement in the high ISO range.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Dude I don't care what you say, I think you'll find your posts are being deleted because you are not allowed to use people's names if they don't use them themselves, it is written in the TOU.
> 
> Count yourself lucky just getting deleted, I got a ban when I unwittingly did it.



Crikey! Is that all it takes?!?
I've seen people can post stuff on here's that's grounds for a fist-fight (nor referring to you here in this case, merely a minor annoyance  ) .. and it stays but addressing someone by _name_ is a major no-no?... 
Things must have been amended since I first signed up.
But they still haven't improved protocol where it would be most helpful. ???


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Nuh, not really. 8) see the chart attached. 6D vs 6D II. 0 advantage at ISO 3200 and a tiny bit at ISO 6400.
> I am shopping for a couple of mint 5D III's instead. Best value in town (A$1,700-1,800 for a low shutter count, mint body).
> 
> 
> ...



They really screwed the pooch on this one!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> *This is gonna be a useful camera to many people* but it's going to be a major letdown for anyone who was expecting a _better_ camera.



Exactly, and you pissing on it without ever seeing one is not constructive and doesn't help them.

As for anybody expecting a better camera, one, they probably shouldn't be looking at an entry level FF Canon camera, and two, they have lots of 'better' choices both new and used, as well as refurbished, from several manufacturers.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> In my opinion, according to the histogram to the right of the image, my estimation is that mid greys are under exposed by -2EV. (note: I cannot see the histogram readings clearly due to the small size of the image). If so, I do not consider this being a minor mistake let alone being a norm or something that I would even consider "fixing" in post. if happened (flash misfired, bulb gone, full eclipse or black magic  ), such an image would be culled immediately - no exceptions.



yes, it was a flash error and it is underexposed by about 2 stops but you can't cull the shot when the client wants THAT shot.
I could have told them, "Gee. I'm sorry you like that shot but you can't have it because an exposure error has rendered it kind of useless because, blah blah blah."
Good luck with that. 

and OMG! 2 WHOLE STOPS UNDEREXPOSED!! Stop the planet!
Any decent camera, read _anything other than that major steaming hot pile known as the 5d2_, could easily recover from that.
my 40D could easily recover from that!
The 5D2's recovery had visible banding in the dark areas after the lift. That's why it's a steaming hot... well, now it's a cold pile cuz there's a new steaming hot pile being presented by the beancounters from Canon.

*This is a 6d2 thread
And the point is even that one of Canon's own CROP bodies will outperform the new 6d2!*

Any ABC camera will eat the 6d2 for breakfast when it comes to IQ.
A 20MP MFT cameras will spank it at low ISO and keep up to it at the higher end and all with higher overall performance on top of it. (well, maybe not low light AF..)

it won't be a _useless_ camera by any means. great WB and metering will save the day for most shots but this is not a camera that's going to satisfy anyone looking for a more malleable raw file now that the expectations have been set by a few other bodies in Canon's lineup, never mind ABC...
This is just barely a FF Rebel... from a few years ago.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Dude I don't care what you say, I think you'll find your posts are being deleted because you are not allowed to use people's names if they don't use them themselves, it is written in the TOU.
> ...



Yep.



> You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, *harassing*, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, *invasive of a person's privacy,*



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=register

Posting somebodies name is considered harassing and an invasion of a person's privacy. Like I said, count yourself lucky, when I did it I got a ban and was told if I did it again it would be permenant.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Exactly, and you pissing on it without ever seeing one is not constructive and doesn't help them.



*I completely disagree with that line.*

*People spending this kind of money on a camera should know exactly what it'll be capable of.*

Back when I bought into Canon I was reasonably satisfied with the results from the crop bodies I'd purchased and I wanted a full frame but one with more performance than the original 5d.

When the 5d2 came out everything I read was so positive I was convinced it was going to deliver what I wanted for landscape and more.
NOPE!
After shooting with it for a couple months I was completely disappointed with it.
Too late to return it.
Stuck it in a drawer and hoped for a firmware fix... none ever fixed that FPN issue.

THEN i started to find a few negative reviews citing the same issues I was experiencing.
If I had that negative info before I bought it I would NOT have bought it

*
NEGATIVE OPINION INFORMATION IS USEFUL INFORMATION.*

it's often more useful than all the glowing positive reviews delivered by those who don't push any technical boundaries!

So, in your parlance, I WILL pee all over this thing.  If it saves some people the kind of grief I had.
Altho this is a fraction of a stop better in PDR, and maybe even a full stop + better in shadow recovery, it's still quite limited in its ability to manipulate the files coming out of it in comparison to Canon's better sensor tech and ABC products.
Yes, people DO have other options and they should consider them KNOWING the 6D2 will have more limitations than they may otherwise expect.

Just my public service announcement.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Posting somebodies name is considered harassing and an invasion of a person's privacy. Like I said, count yourself lucky, when I did it I got a ban and was told if I did it again it would be permenant.



Well, then. I thank you for bringing that information to my attention, PBD.
You have your annoying moments in discussions at times but you also have quite a helpful side too,.. Dude.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, and you pissing on it without ever seeing one is not constructive and doesn't help them.
> ...



Yes and the reason I reposted the subject of one of your old diatribes was to put your opinion in perspective. 

You are incapable of exposing optimally so your opinion on matters relating to exposure and shadow lifting are irrelevant to pretty much anybody.

Very few people are "limited" by the IQ from the 6D, so why would anybody worry about the IQ from the MkII? Sure some people would have liked 'more', however Canon thinks people are more interested in flippy screens and AF, and history has shown them to be right more often than not.

I am sure the camera will get roasted by testers and reviewers desperate for a site hit and sales link and forum experts with over sized opinions on cameras they have never touched, I am equally sure the people who buy one will love it and get great results from it.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> *
> NEGATIVE OPINION INFORMATION IS USEFUL INFORMATION.*



I agree. But negative opinion based on information of unknown provenance is mere tittle-tattle.

I repeat what I said before, only 2 months ago, people were saying 'the 6D is a great camera except for....'. Canon have fixed those 'except for' and now it is a massive disappointment because rumour says they did not give it another 2 stops dynamic range. That line of logic is quite frankly pathetic.

One reason I much prefer the 7D2 over the 7D is not so much the improvement of DR but the way the noise is rendered and for me this improves its usable ISO by 1.5-2 stops. 
So instead of going into meltdown because of a few numbers try doing the mature thing and waiting until someone does real-world tests.


----------



## Otara (Jul 19, 2017)

"You are incapable of exposing optimally so your opinion on matters relating to exposure and shadow lifting are irrelevant to pretty much anybody."

Thats a bit like saying anyones opinion on the benefits of AF are useless if they cant manually focus properly. What used to need more skill can now often be done far more easily, and generally thats a good thing.

And knowing that another sensor is far more exposure tolerant is pretty useful info for a lot of people. The problem is general is the hyperbole that goes both ways 'you cant expose properly' 'this sensor is poop' etc etc.


----------



## martinslade (Jul 19, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4182741
> 
> Someone got a delivery already.



Looks impressive at ISO 12800 - could this be its forte..?

Sorry.. just realised DPP applies NR - this has it off


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes and the reason I reposted the subject of one of your old diatribes was to put your opinion in perspective.



except it's completey out of context, rendering it rather useless to your purpose
I used about 80 DSLR and ML camera bodies + many fixed-lens types in the last 15+ years, about half of them Canon.
I shot with all of them, and the only ones I've ever complained about were the 5d2 and 7d for their excessive pattern noise.



> You are incapable of exposing optimally so your opinion on matters relating to exposure and shadow lifting are irrelevant to pretty much anybody.



HAHA! OK, We're back to the _annoying_ part.
How can you possibly be taken seriously here with this kind of exaggeration? 
I presented that particular example of an underexposed image to demonstrate the 5d2's file quality was too low to even be able to recover from a mere 2 stop push.
And you try to extrapolate that to me being {i}incapable[/i] of exposing correctly?!?
And you further try to extend that to my opinion then not being valid.
Jeez that's a stretch!
Seriously! Dude! If there's anything you're exposing here it's not my competence with a camera.... : 




> Very few people are "limited" by the IQ from the 6D, so why would anybody worry about the IQ from the MkII?



That's good.. Because Canon finally addressed the horrendous problem they had with Fixed Pattern Noise in the 5d2 and original 7d and others.
Dynamic range was not the issue then so much as the gross FPN problem which could even show up in midtones, which is where I first found it on the 5d2.

The 6D has a smidgen more DR but it has a useful reduction in FPN. Not eliminated, but improved considerably. That gives its files greater DR and more malleability w-o falling apart with serious visible noise as quickly.
If the 6d2 continues with low FPN that's OK but because it appears to have lower PDR compared to the 6D it takes a bit of a setback again when people go to play with a raw file. You start to run into the good old Canon shadow noise problem which then requires some extra work in post to correct.
Not everyone wants to be fixing technical problems in post.
It's better to start with a better file unless you're happy with OOC jpg or its near equivalent rendering.




> Sure some people would have liked 'more', however Canon thinks people are more interested in flippy screens and AF, and history has shown them to be right more often than not.



They probably are gonna sell a shipload of them and make a pile of profit doing it.
Doesn't mean they should not be taken to task by a little bit of a boycott for hobbling a product at that price level.
Don't buy it til they drop to price to about $1500... maybe they'll learn a lesson as that's about all it's really worth. (in Cnd $ yet! LOL)




> I am sure the camera will get roasted by testers and reviewers..equally sure the people who buy one will love it and get great results from it.



both of those are likely true.
But anyone buying it and hoping to push it beyond the built in jpeg engine should be prepared for a little disappointment considering pretty much every other shipping camera with MFT or larger sensor is likely going to outperform it for IQ _and_ editability.

I'm not even saying it's a BAD camera.
I'm merely saying it's looking like it's not nearly as good as it could have been and that prospective buyers who intend to do more with the output than accept it as-is should seriously consider the alternatives. In fact Canon _has_ the alternatives for those want to shoot better raw files and stay in the company camp... You either pay more for the 5d4 or pay LESS and use the 80D and skip this FF farkle trap until they step up the sensor tech across the whole lineup.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 19, 2017)

martinslade said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4182741
> ...



He even uploaded some RAW files, so if this is legit retail kit, anybody can easily download files and check the quality for themselves. From the thread, it looks like that 6D II appears to be high ISO killer. Too bad, if that DR deficiency proves to be correct however...


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> One reason I much prefer the 7D2 over the 7D is not so much the improvement of DR but the way the noise is rendered and for me this improves its usable ISO by 1.5-2 stops.
> So instead of going into meltdown because of a few numbers try doing the mature thing and waiting until someone does real-world tests.



Well then you've experienced the same noise issues I found intolerable for such expensive gear.
And yes, it's been improved substantially in a few products by going to on-chip ADC and the other products to a lesser extent by more careful design.

There's no meltdown... Just expressions of disappointment and cautionary words to prospective purchasers.
It will be shipping shortly and we'll be inundated with dozens of glowing positive reports which will also be deserved but people need to not lose track that this is likely one of the last of Canon's low-tech imaging systems they're buying into for a fairly moderate cost which is a bit of a bummer considering that the 80D is cheaper and can deliver a little better in some key areas.

IMO, Canon chose one too many tradeoffs on the 6d2 for the sake of profit.
A better compromise, IMO, would have been on-chip ADC at 12 bits... Clean files, more speed, differentiation from higher priced and higher performance models and still good raw file malleability.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

martinslade said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4182741
> ...



I'd like to see it compared to an Olympus EM1 mk 2
... you know, just to put it in perspective with a 2-stop smaller sensor's performance. ;D


----------



## martinslade (Jul 19, 2017)

Khalai said:


> martinslade said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



Looks legit... I had to update DPP before it would read CR2 and EXIF/meta looks ok


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

Khalai said:


> martinslade said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



quite doubt it's a hi ISO _killer_
likely works about as well as any other typical contemporary FF sensor above 1600 iso which is pretty good.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > martinslade said:
> ...



You need to cheer up man, you're being excruciatingly negativistic in latest posts


----------



## squarepants (Jul 19, 2017)

Having just watched the Camera Store video in the link above – and taking into account early image analysis from other sources – it now seems unfortunately clear that the 6D mark II will not likely continue Canon’s recent trend of improved base ISO processing latitude. In fact the “shadow lifted” images shown during the video bear a familiar resemblance to the files from my old 6D that I’ve just recently traded for a 5D Mark IV. 

And while I’m not a shadow lifting fanatic – in fact quite the opposite - the “freedom” afforded by having the kind of RAW file malleability afforded by the 5D4 and other recent Canon bodies at your disposal with fewer IQ penalties than previous gen bodies is quite phenomenal. 

And while the 6D update has been quite comprehensive it seems pretty unbelievable to me that improved DR wouldn’t have been a priority for this highly anticipated model. I’d go so far as to say that the market would have tolerated a justifiable bump in cost for a commensurate bump in this one metric that Canon has been so universally criticized for until recently. Sure there would have been much “Canon hate” if it launched at a higher price, but launch prices come down and price trolling would have been much easier to fend off than the perception that this camera – _at launch_ - doesn’t perform to the same standard as it’s – _considerably older_ - market competitors. Like it or not... DR performance has become a key aspect of camera reviews and discussion and whether or not people truly need it (or even fully understand _why, when & where_ they might find it useful in the first place) they will know that _other_ cameras do it better. 

And since Canon themselves have tacitly recognized and addressed this within their own range I worry that unless production models miraculously display some hitherto unseen capability the 6D 2 may well end up being considered the model that was left out when just about every other Canon body got to go to the party. A pity, because it will no doubt be a great camera, capable of producing many great images in the hands of capable photographers. It could just have been an opportunity to put this “issue” to bed once and for all and make the average “already bought in” Canon APS-C punters first full frame purchase truly aspirational as opposed to making it feel like a weird “downgrade” from recent top tier APS-C models like the 80D


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

My clients do not get to see or choose from images I am not completly/reasonably happy with . It is about photographer's reputation as well. on the second count: 2 stops of underexposure is hardly a norm for my style of shooting. If happened, it always makes me stop and analyse the situation. Thank you for wishing me good luck though. How very nice of you. 



Aglet said:


> yes, it was a flash error and it is underexposed by about 2 stops but you can't cull the shot when the client wants THAT shot.
> I could have told them, "Gee. I'm sorry you like that shot but you can't have it because an exposure error has rendered it kind of useless because, blah blah blah."
> Good luck with that.
> 
> and OMG! 2 WHOLE STOPS UNDEREXPOSED!! Stop the planet!


----------



## tomscott (Jul 19, 2017)

I just downloaded this image, backlit scene and edited it in Lightroom.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fd1i3ddjtaawqdm/IMG_3835%2035mm%20f6.3%20ISO%20200%20-%20Blown%20hilights%2C%20deep%20shadows%20%28LR%29.jpg?dl=0

Looks pretty good to me I would have no issue with this at all. Noise is nice, latitude is also pretty good.

No banding or colour noise issues, colour looks great and nice and sharp!

Makes my 5DMKIII IQ look pretty crap in comparison. Hate the colour noise at every ISO when doing any kind of recovery. 

I think it will be a great little camera and people need to chill out, its not going to be the difference between getting an image and not. Even with 12 stops of DR you cant control everything in the scene so a 3 shot bracket will remove any issue and at 6.5 FPS you could hand hold a burst.

Looking forward to the reviews, apart from the lack of 4K I think the reviews will be overall positive. Its not a 5D MK IV killer and was never meant to be its nearly half the price, there has to be a trade off and these are the facts. For most serious photographers who earn money from their work 2K is a small price to pay. £13.80 per week over the 3 year life span of the investment.

In my mind the only reason to get a 5DMKIII over this is if it is super cheap which they aren't, but may come down in the next couple of months. 6D MKII Retail of £2k and second hand high mileage cameras sell for £1400 at places like MPB/LCE etc or you like the AF selection joystick and better weather sealing.

The problem with buying a pre owned 5 or 1 series is they are used hard and even tho the body may be in good condition you cant see if its been in incremental weather with circuitry damage that worsens over time etc etc So unless its from budding amateur that has wrapped the camera in bubblewrap its whole life I would rather have a new body with the warranty. All the newer additions really make the experience of shooting with these cameras. The viewfinder II for example. When I got a 7DMKII it made the 5DMKIII feel archaic because it had a few niceties that aren't in the 5 series and the speed and lack of colour noise was also so refreshing.

For me and the varied subjects I shoot I like the weather sealed bodies and the joystick is a god send and the 70D style multiway selection wheel is not sufficient for anything other than landscape or very slow subjects. Saying that if you set your C modes with specific AF zones and set your AF-ON button to AI Servo it could make the joystick less necessary if those settings suit subjects you shoot on a daily basis.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 19, 2017)

Well I don't have anything to add thats not already been said  But I will say that the internet has definitely slowed down this last few days given the heated debate the 6D2 has caused ;D I never knew that the 6D was such a HOT camera, guess Canon knew :-*

Sooo, as many a photo site goes into melt down I look forward to trying out a 6D2 sometime soon, that is *IF* I can catch an owner out and about, I doubt they will be easy to find as they hide in the _undergrowth_ for fear of public debate over the controversial MK TWO badge he or she shall have to cover up in public...

Death to Ming, long live Flash  Peace and Love to all... ride free dudes  ;D


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> In my opinion, according to the histogram to the right of the image, my estimation is that mid greys are under exposed by -2EV. (note: I cannot see the histogram readings clearly due to the small size of the image). If so, I do not consider this being a minor mistake let alone being a norm or something that I would even consider "fixing" in post. if happened (flash misfired, bulb gone, full eclipse or black magic  ), such an image would be culled immediately - no exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure at one point we've all been there. I use off camera, manual flashes once in a while. And I've underexposed them on a number of occasions (typically not off by 2 stops).

I can't speak for a 5D2, but the original 6D would not have any problem lifting a shot 2 stops. The picture example above would be no issue. The shadows/dark parts of a shot are the "hardest" to lift (think an underexposed night sky) and even then the 6D can do 2 stops with relative ease. That shot had plenty of initial exposure to be able to push it quite a bit if one were so inclined.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> yes, it was a flash error and it is underexposed by about 2 stops but you can't cull the shot when the client wants THAT shot.
> I could have told them, "Gee. I'm sorry you like that shot but you can't have it because an exposure error has rendered it kind of useless because, blah blah blah."
> Good luck with that.
> 
> ...



An exposure mistake. Showing a client an unacceptable image, either due to unfamiliarity with the limitations of your equipment or an unprofessional decision. 

Regardless... *your* fault. But you blame Canon for your screw up. Understood.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation



tomscott said:


> I just downloaded this image, backlit scene and edited it in Lightroom.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fd1i3ddjtaawqdm/IMG_3835%2035mm%20f6.3%20ISO%20200%20-%20Blown%20hilights%2C%20deep%20shadows%20%28LR%29.jpg?dl=0
> 
> ...


----------



## amorse (Jul 19, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/
> 
> Hands on 'Review' starts at 31ish minutes.
> 
> ...



Well, that's disappointing news for me, but it is in line with what we've heard and seen from other discussions on DR. Not unexpected I guess (except for the part of the review where they note the T7i out performs the 6D for shadow recovery - that I did not expect). I'm sure it will still be a great camera for those that don't care about that extra dynamic range, and no doubt it will be used to create some incredible images.

Regardless, I think the camera is still going to sell like crazy. And hey, if it doesn't sell maybe Canon will offer to upgrade the sensor after purchase for a fee /s


----------



## Talys (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
> 1. Pro body ergonomics
> 2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
> 3. second card slot
> 4. much higher level of customisation




Maybe the way to look at it is like this: 6D2 is a way for users to have a Canon FF camera that's more like an 80D than a 5D. There are people who just like the 80D ergonomics better than 5D ergonomics, for a variety of personal preference and use case reasons.

tomscott's point is valid also, that 5D3 isn't cheap, nor will it become cheap overnight, and copies that are used by professionals are going to have wear. For some people, a used 5D3 just isn't going to win against a new 6D2. On the other hand, if you're a happy 5D3 user, Canon would much rather you upgrade to a 5D4, than a 6D2 anyways


----------



## Khalai (Jul 19, 2017)

Talys said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
> ...



Sad thing is, if 6D II is truly below 80D in DR deparment. For me for example, I have no reason to upgrade from original 6D...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 19, 2017)

Khalai said:


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



I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.


----------



## amorse (Jul 19, 2017)

Khalai said:


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



This is why I'm patiently waiting to see if the 5D IV comes down in price (and how much). Although I feel like the recent offer to upgrade to C-Log may push back any price cuts...



privatebydesign said:


> I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.



I think you're right, and I think it will work. I do want Canon glass/weatherproofing/ergonomics more than I want additional DR, and I definitely want additional DR. I have a 6D and I would have been in the 6D II market with a DR bump, but now I'm really leaning toward the 5D IV.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 19, 2017)

I said I would say it, so I will: this is a crippling. Even if it's cleaner and has stonking high-ISO, using the old technology is just sad and unacceptable.

On the plus-side, it makes it an easy choice for me that if I get a new FF body it'll be the 5D4. That may be "what they want", but it's not exactly unreasonable that a new, cheaper body is a lateral from an older, nicer one.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

Precisely my point! Yes, yes and yes!
After 5 years of shooting with 6D level bodies I have reached an infliction point at which I need to make a transition to 5D level system. I am arguing that the statement " there is no point of choosing 5D III over 6D II" is invalid. I have explained what features of 5D III wins over 6D II for me personally. 
I would like to reiterate that I do not see any substantial high ISO advantages of 6D over 5D III up until ISO 3200 at least in properly processed RAW files. 



privatebydesign said:


> I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 19, 2017)

Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.

Is it just complaining for complaining sake?

So what if it is older tech they have obviously done something to remove the above factors and that is the main IQ issue with the 6D and 5DMKIII they both perform so similarly. The 6D was not better than the 5D in any real world situation when it came to IQ.

The quality of the extreme lifts weren't brilliant but the new one isn't showing any of these issues so it makes the camera a much better performer and a decent upgrade. You have to consider the resolution increase by over 25% and it's creating better images. 

Spec sheets don't tell all I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the camera.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


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



As a current 80D owner, the 6D MK II doesn't make much sense to upgrade. 

Even the guys in the video stated as much.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0227421206/should-i-buy-a-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



What I was not clear was if that was use dependent. 
As far as I could tell they took the same picture from the same position with the same lens so had different framing. If you took it from the same position with the same framing (landscape from a set position, 18mm lens on the APS-C and 28mm lens on the 6D2) would the files be the same blown to 30" print?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

I am confused. Where do you get the notion that 6D II is much better at @shadow lifting" or high ISO performance than 6D original or 5D III???
Have you overlooked this chart :

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg675894#msg675894

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files. 
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else. 




tomscott said:


> Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.
> 
> Is it just complaining for complaining sake?
> 
> ...


----------



## amorse (Jul 19, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.
> 
> Is it just complaining for complaining sake?
> 
> ...



I think that's a fair point. My current 6D's "muddy purple" lifts have been a challenge for wide angle astrophotography for me, adding a fair bit of work in processing. The 6D II's under-exposed lifts didn't seem to showcase that problem in the review posted. So there is some IQ improvement over the 6D in all fairness.

The challenge presented by that _the camera store_ video review for me (linked below) is that the T7i was better for lifting shadows than the 6D - two cameras separated by a *significant* amount of money, with similar resolution (24mp/26mp). Of course the 6D II offers a *LOT* more than the T7i, but for anyone that was hoping for improvements in DR, this comparison really makes the cost of the 6D II difficult to justify the upgrade.
https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/

I agree though, we need to see more reviews and more images.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
> Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.



Sorry - can you explain how you come to that conclusion.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

amorse, the ISO advantage of the higher DR T7i body is gone by the time you crossed into ISO 400 territory. Now, let's compare an image shot with T7 at ISO 3200 to the one shot with 6D original at the same ISO. That is why I shoot with FF body.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/
> ...



Finally got around to watching this. It's not a final review, but their take is fairly scathing sensor-wise:


This was not their final review -- just an early look. I am presuming but did not hear the words that this was indeed a production copy (someone please correct me if I missed that). They work at a large camera store, so it's plausible this was the right out of the box.


Frequently they went back to the 80D as the camera Canon got right DR-wise; they would not upgrade from an 80D to a 6D2.


They did the eye-rolling 'one shot HDR test' of a blown-out backlit shot in which they did the highlight slider min pull / shadow slider max push -- the 5D4 was clearly better and even a T7i  looked a little cleaner than the 6D2 shot. They were surprised to see that. (I'm presuming this was at base ISO, tripod, etc, but that was not stated.)


Landscapers were warned that the sensor lacked latitude, and that HDR techniques, multi-shot, etc. would be more necessary with the 6D2.


Many _good_ things were also said: AF dramatically improved, build/sealing quality is improved, high ISO performance was on the level of the 5D4, etc.


They were clearly disappointed overall -- base ISO DR is a big deal to them, so the 80D remains a far better value in their minds -- they argued that some of crop's limitations to FF could be managed with some of the f/1.8 Sigma zooms. (They are bullish on crop from many other videos, Chris as the stills guy does not live very high on the ISO dial, shoots a fair amount of macro/landscapes in his reviews.)

- A


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

Yes, I can. Extreme shadow lifting/pushing business aside (not going to discuss this circus), properly exposed RAW images that came out of 6D and 6D II @iso 3200. will have similar if not identical noise levels and characteristics. Please refer to the chart in the post I linked above. That magenta high ISO cast of 6D I keep hearing about is only noticeable when shadows lifted by more than a stop at ISO 3200 and beyond. With my style of shooting ,I do not run into this issue much. Neither do anyone that cares to expose their images correctly. 



Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
> ...


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CanonCams said:
> ...



They alluded to quite a bit about their feelings on the camera. Especially towards the end.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 19, 2017)

No reason to move from an 80D? How about 11-24 wide angle? There are other reasons too. In many posts I detect a pretty narrow focus in this realm of bashing. The 6D2 is going to be a lot more fun for me than the 6D and I chose the 6D over the 5D3 because of size and weight and never regretted it. My 1DX2 is more than enough weight if I feel a need for muscle building. So for my needs I like what I see. 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Yes, I can. Extreme shadow lifting/pushing business aside (not going to discuss this circus), properly exposed RAW images that came out of 6D and 6D II @iso 3200. will have similar if not identical noise levels and characteristics. Please refer to the chart in the post I linked above. That magenta high ISO cast of 6D I keep hearing about is only noticeable when shadows lifted by more than a stop at ISO 3200 and beyond. With my style of shooting ,I do not run into this issue much. Neither do anyone that cares to expose their images correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All that from a chart that not everyone agrees relates to the final product. I am not saying you are wrong but you state it with such certainty despite doubts voiced by quite a few.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 19, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> They alluded to quite a bit about their feelings on the camera. Especially towards the end.



People wanted an 80D with a FF sensor. That is what they have got (image wise) but because that is all it was, it is not worth upgrading. Odd, really.


----------



## amorse (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> amorse, the ISO advantage of the higher DR T7i body is gone by the time you crossed into ISO 400 territory. Now, let's compare an image shot with T7 at ISO 3200 to the one shot with 6D original at the same ISO. That is why I shoot with FF body.


Absolutely no doubt of that! That's why I chose the 6D over a new crop body in the first place! I'm very happy with the original 6D's high-ISO performance, and my biggest desire for upgrading from the original 6D was an increase in base DR. Without an improvement there I'd rather keep my original 6D and eventually move to a 5D IV.

No doubt the 6D II is a far superior camera to the T7i when looking at all metrics, but as someone who was hoping for an improvement at base ISO for the 6D II, seeing the T7i perform better in my key upgrade wish for less than half the money is disappointing for me. 

I didn't mean to insinuate that the T7i was superior to the 6D II, it isn't. The 6D II is going to be a great camera for a lot of people, it just isn't the tool I was hoping for and that's ok.


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > They alluded to quite a bit about their feelings on the camera. Especially towards the end.
> ...



The DR is worse on the MK II than the 80D.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I am confused. Where do you get the notion that 6D II is much better at @shadow lifting" or high ISO performance than 6D original or 5D III???
> Have you overlooked this chart :
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg675894#msg675894
> ...



No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see. 

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fd1i3ddjtaawqdm/IMG_3835%2035mm%20f6.3%20ISO%20200%20-%20Blown%20hilights%2C%20deep%20shadows%20%28LR%29.jpg?dl=0

Thats the whole point of the DR argument, the muddy purple casts with poor colour noise is the issue. As you say from one stop lift which is nothing in a high contrast scene.

Im sorry but you cant 'expose properly' in every scene. For example I shoot a lot of wildlife in rainforrests, you get high contrast shards of light and deep shadows under the canopy. I dont care who you are you cant expose the whole scene you have to try and protect the highlights or the shadows and on the older bodies it was hard work.

The fact you can push these new 6DMKII files more than 3 stops with no banding, muddy purple casts with no colour noise makes it obvious to me there has been huge improvement. Night and day compared to the 5DMKIII just for laughs 100 shadow and +3 on the exposure completely reveals detail with barely any penalty, not that I would do that but the fact if you now can.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

Mike, that is a recent chart from completely different source. Production units were used to produce that chart. Honestly, I am a bit tiered of these DR battles.  I am happy with my 6D bodies high ISO performance, but need to move up to 5D system due to other reasons I explained quite a few times before. 



Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I can. Extreme shadow lifting/pushing business aside (not going to discuss this circus), properly exposed RAW images that came out of 6D and 6D II @iso 3200. will have similar if not identical noise levels and characteristics. Please refer to the chart in the post I linked above. That magenta high ISO cast of 6D I keep hearing about is only noticeable when shadows lifted by more than a stop at ISO 3200 and beyond. With my style of shooting ,I do not run into this issue much. Neither do anyone that cares to expose their images correctly.
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

Neither do I but I have already and looked at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 RAW file and had a go at it. It comes out pretty clean But so do my 6D files at ISO 3200)



tomscott said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I am confused. Where do you get the notion that 6D II is much better at @shadow lifting" or high ISO performance than 6D original or 5D III???
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> In many posts I detect a pretty narrow focus in this realm of bashing.



I see the 6DII as a great opportunity.....for a specific handful of folks who've been getting bored with Canon lately. The DR improvements with on-sensor ADC in some recent Canon cameras had apparently left a void in their lives. Take Aglet for example...he's made 75 posts in just the 3 weeks since the 6DII was announced. The 75 posts he made before that spanned a period of 16 months. So, for that particular DRone, the 6DII has resulted in over a 1200% increase in posting frequency. 8)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 19, 2017)

The facts are the facts, good, bad, indifferent. Now, how those facts impact you is personal and you (meaning anyone) simply do what you need to do, no need to apologize or to attempt to force others into your way of thinking. If someone is asking or unsure then the various opinions will be helpful and that's where the focus of this thread should be. 

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

Confirmed from TCSTV's Facebook folks (couldn't confirm this was actually Chris or Jordan, it was over FB Messenger to the store's FB page):

*First response: "It was a production unit out of the box."

Second response, slightly correcting themselves: "It was sent from Canon. But, they confirmed that it was a production model."*

This is hardly a validation of the original FM post (that still could have been a pre-production camera's RAW file), but this TCSTV take _is_ loosely in line with it. I know TCSTV's 'test' was a cringeworthy display of what _not_ to do with your photography, it is one way to look at file latitude.

- A


----------



## tomscott (Jul 19, 2017)

I can seeing similar files to that of the 5DMKIV.

No banding, no casts, no colour noise when pushing files. I think its really impressive for a body of this caliber.

I loved my 5DMKIII but those were the issues I faced every once and a while. Making the image a keeper would mean a lot of PP, in this instance files that would be binned with the previous gen would be keepers now. The fact they arent appearing is impressive and feel in line with the rest of the current canon models.

As I said this camera isnt for me but a fine camera for the majority of people in the Canon system.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Neither do I but I have already and looked at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 RAW file and had a go at it. It comes out pretty clean But so do my 6D files at ISO 3200)



That's an AWESOME picture. The girl looks so excited!!!


----------



## dak723 (Jul 19, 2017)

tomscott said:


> No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.
> 
> Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.



Thanks Tom for taking the time to actually see for yourself. This is useful information, as opposed to the theorizing, chart evaluating, BS that everyone else seems to love!

Goodness, actually looking with your own eyes, what a concept!!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 19, 2017)

dak723 said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.
> ...



;D ;D Yes what a concept. Similar to displaying creativity in one's photography even when the camera is so restricted in its dynamic range. Have to remember this is a gear-head forum.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 19, 2017)

I actually did  read above. Much the same, unless you push your ISO 6400 image by 2 stops. Charts are there to provide a base line. Above I posted a real ISO 3200 image taken with 6D original. Do you detect a lot of noise, banding or color cast. Goodness, look with your own eyes ;D


dak723 said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

Bill Claff, care to comment? I can't help but notice the _(e) for estimated has disappeared from your site_, but it says it hasn't been updated in 8 days. 

Is this your actual test data from a production camera? If final/official -- this would be a nail in the coffin on no on-chip ADC in the 6D2, would it not?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Bill Claff, care to comment? I can't help but notice _the (e) for estimated has disappeared from your site_, but it says it hasn't been updated in 8 days.
> 
> Is this your actual test data from a production camera? If final/official -- this would be a nail in the coffin on no on-chip ADC in the 6D2, would it not?



Bill bases his analyses on RAW files captured by others, but taken according to his specifications. His estimated (e) curve for the 6DII was based on the random file(s) posted on the internet. He stated that DPR then provided him with RAW files to his specifications, which he analyzed, so the (e) is gone. DPR indicated they were provided with a preproduction camera, so it seems likely that Claff's 'final' analysis is based on RAW files from that preproduction unit. Perhaps Bill will comment.


----------



## SPKoko (Jul 19, 2017)

So, we have a serious confirmation from dpreview now:

Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II?

_*The areas where the D750 outperforms the 6D Mark II are far greater Raw dynamic range (by around 3 EV more)*, and a better viewfinder autofocus system. If you're intending to shoot sports or action, the D750 offers both state-of-the-art '3D-Tracking' AF and low light AF capability. The D750 also offers a more sophisticated metering system. It includes modes such as highlight-weighted and spot-metering that's linked to the AF point, and also feeds scene information to the AF system to support with face detection and subject tracking._


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

SPKoko said:


> So, we have a serious confirmation from dpreview now:
> 
> Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II?
> 
> _*The areas where the D750 outperforms the 6D Mark II are far greater Raw dynamic range (by around 3 EV more)*, and a better viewfinder autofocus system. If you're intending to shoot sports or action, the D750 offers both state-of-the-art '3D-Tracking' AF and low light AF capability. The D750 also offers a more sophisticated metering system. It includes modes such as highlight-weighted and spot-metering that's linked to the AF point, and also feeds scene information to the AF system to support with face detection and subject tracking._



(See red bit above)

Stop trolling me, DPR.

I also love the Nikon PR Team DPR stating the DR difference above _without any qualification_, as if photographers could enjoy that latitude advantage all over the ISO range. :

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2017)

I see Adobe has added Camera Raw support for the 6DII. It will be interesting to see what kind of results people will be getting with Adobe.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

SPKoko said:


> So, we have a serious confirmation from dpreview now:



But, you _did_ just put 'serious' and 'DPR' in the same sentence. ;D

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 19, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I see Adobe has added Camera Raw support for the 6DII. It will be interesting to see what kind of results people will be getting with Adobe.



Lightroom is also upgraded to ver. 6.12 with 6D II support.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Thats the whole point of the DR argument, the muddy purple casts with poor colour noise is the issue. As you say from one stop lift which is nothing in a high contrast scene.
> 
> Im sorry but you cant 'expose properly' in every scene. For example I shoot a lot of wildlife in rainforrests, you get high contrast shards of light and deep shadows under the canopy. I dont care who you are you cant expose the whole scene you have to try and protect the highlights or the shadows and on the older bodies it was hard work.
> 
> The fact you can push these new 6DMKII files more than 3 stops with no banding, muddy purple casts with no colour noise makes it obvious to me there has been huge improvement. Night and day compared to the 5DMKIII just for laughs 100 shadow and +3 on the exposure completely reveals detail with barely any penalty, not that I would do that but the fact if you now can.



good to hear that real files have more real-world latitude than the charts and historical performance of Canon files would imply.

Bad noise character can be much more of a problem than lacking overall DR.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see the 6DII as a great opportunity.....for a specific handful of folks who've been getting bored with Canon lately. The DR improvements with on-sensor ADC in some recent Canon cameras had apparently left a void in their lives. Take Aglet for example...he's made 75 posts in just the 3 weeks since the 6DII was announced. The 75 posts he made before that spanned a period of 16 months. So, for that particular DRone, the 6DII has resulted in over a 1200% increase in posting frequency. 8)



maybe I've been thinking about buying one... LOL

can you come up with something clever and amusing containing FPN ?
cuz that's really more my bash topic than DR.


----------



## raydee (Jul 19, 2017)

Canon has had it's moments of idiosyncratic behaviour before, but the release of the 6d2 really sets the bar quite a bit higher in the bullshit department. How in all earth did they think not getting roasted for using an old school off chip ADC sensor in their latest and supposedly highest selling full frame offering? It was so obvious to fail hard reputation wise that they either are oblivious of the desires their userbase has or they just don't care for the sake of market segmentation. Maybe the rumours there would be no successor weren't that far fetched after all, and they just came up with a half assed reply to them...


----------



## bclaff (Jul 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Claff, care to comment? I can't help but notice _the (e) for estimated has disappeared from your site_, but it says it hasn't been updated in 8 days.
> ...


Yes, "final" (technically numbers are never final at PhotonsToPhotos. For any camera if I get new data the numbers may change.) numbers from a production unit.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Bill Claff, care to comment? I can't help but notice the _(e) for estimated has disappeared from your site_, but it says it hasn't been updated in 8 days.
> 
> Is this your actual test data from a production camera? If final/official -- this would be a nail in the coffin on no on-chip ADC in the 6D2, would it not?
> 
> - A


Yes, up-to-date from a production unit. (Failed to update the date when new data was posted.  )


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 19, 2017)

The roasting comes when the public isn't buying. CR is nothing much as are reviews that many people don't bother with, so time will tell if it's as bad as the 6D was. The 6D really got roasted on CR!  BTW how can the 6D still be around it was such a pathetic camera according to CR postings. I almost didn't buy it after joining and reading.  

Jack


----------



## hbr (Jul 19, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> The roasting comes when the public isn't buying. CR is nothing much as are reviews that many people don't bother with, so time will tell if it's as bad as the 6D was. The 6D really got roasted on CR!  BTW how can the 6D still be around it was such a pathetic camera according to CR postings. I almost didn't buy it after joining and reading.
> 
> Jack



Same here, Jack. I am so glad that I read all the purchaser's reviews on Amazon and B&H. This time around, though, is a little bit different - First time I ever pre-ordered, (6D2). Hope I am not making a mistake. If so I have 30 days to return it.

Brian


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 19, 2017)

tomscott said:


> The fact you can push these new 6DMKII files more than 3 stops with no banding, muddy purple casts with no colour noise makes it obvious to me there has been huge improvement. Night and day compared to the 5DMKIII just for laughs 100 shadow and +3 on the exposure completely reveals detail with barely any penalty, not that I would do that but the fact if you now can.



Tom, I appreciate your contributions to this discussion, aka taking the time to really evaluate the RAW images and see what can be done with them. 

I think a few people get too caught up in spec sheets and benchmark numbers and lose sight of the big picture, aka all the little things that can't be measured objectively with a numeric score. The dynamic range a sensor/camera is capable of at a certain ISO setting is just one small measurement in the grand scheme of things. I frankly am much more interested in how the noise, color looks, how the image retains quality as one pushes shadows, etc. 

Thanks again for your efforts!


----------



## bclaff (Jul 19, 2017)

tomscott said:


> ...
> 
> The fact you can push these new 6DMKII files more than 3 stops with no banding, muddy purple casts with no colour noise makes it obvious to me there has been huge improvement. Night and day compared to the 5DMKIII just for laughs 100 shadow and +3 on the exposure completely reveals detail with barely any penalty, not that I would do that but the fact if you now can.


Yes. I'm attaching a Sensor Heatmap visualization of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN)at PhotonsToPhotos.
Note that the false coloration is simply to help emphasize patterns.
The 6D has a strong vertical FPN pattern whereas the 6D Mark II does not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2017)

Aglet said:


> can you come up with something clever and amusing containing FPN ?
> cuz that's really more my bash topic than DR.



Fixated on Pushing Nocturnal images?

I can't take credit for this one, but a friend of mine has his Outlook contact group for our small circle named "FPN" which stands for fellow photo nuts.


----------



## Dan Borg (Jul 19, 2017)

Okay this is my first post here but I have followed this forum for some time... over 5 or so years.

I have been a canon shooter since 2008 using a 450D, 550D, 7D and I'm currently using a 6D so I've been following all of the forums and checking the reviews to see what peoples thoughts are WRT the 6D MKii.

First off I'm not that bothered about shooting video but I do understand everyone’s frustration with the lack of 4K video, however for me it's of no concern... however dual card slots would have been nice!

Anyway I've been really keen to see the RAW files so that we can see what the ISO, noise and dynamic range performance is like, so it's been rather disappointing to see the results of the initial tests, but I really don’t think that a proper analysis can be made until adobe provide RAW support.

Here's my reasoning for this... I’ve noticed that the DPP software doesn’t convert to TIFF properly, basically when you use it for converting to TIFF and then import it into lightroom the blacks are crushed and muddied; here is an example from a photo that I shot on my 6D (cropped section of trees)




.

I exported a 16 bit TIFF (without corrections) from DPPv3, DPPv4 and lightroom; I then imported the TIFFS into lightroom and then set the shadows to +100%; as you can see the blacks in the DPP TIFFs are just mush but the blacks in the TIFF from lightroom have detail.

I've tried to attached a side by side example of my findings

So there’s hope yet for the 6DMKii

I contacted Canon Europe with my findings a year or so ago but nothing was said or done...


----------



## Joules (Jul 19, 2017)

Dan Borg said:


> [...] so it's been rather disappointing to see the results of the initial tests, but I really don’t think that a proper analysis can be made until adobe provide RAW support.


Well, I haven't made any updates yet and haven't downloaded any 6DII raws ... But there should be proper support for the new RAW files in Lightroom and ACR according to:

http://www.canonrumors.com/adobe-lightroom-cc-2015-12-adds-support-for-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-more/

So, best stop hoping. I think any results that we see now are pretty much the real deal.

BTW, is TIFF not incable to hold all the information from a RAW file anyway? At least I observed similar limitations when working in Photoshop with TIFFs exported from Lightoom.


----------



## Dan Borg (Jul 19, 2017)

All I'm saying is that a few of the tests (including the facebook video posted earlier) used dpp to convert to TIFF and then process in lightroom, so I just wanted to point out that I don't think that this is a valid test.


----------



## Joules (Jul 19, 2017)

Well, that is certainly a good point. I just don't want to get my hopes up again after having accepted that Canon did it's usual thing here and pushed things just as far as they need to be for average use. Which is fine, but takes away from the exitement of the camera in my opinion. I don't see Canon allowing so many RAWs and 6DII floating around if the production units were any different.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

Joules said:


> Well, that is certainly a good point. I just don't want to get my hopes up again after having accepted that Canon did it's usual thing here and pushed things just as far as they need to be for average use. Which is fine, but takes away from the exitement of the camera in my opinion. I don't see Canon allowing so many RAWs and 6DII floating around if the production units were any different.



I think you may have missed this one page back:



bclaff said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Claff, care to comment? I can't help but notice the _(e) for estimated has disappeared from your site_, but it says it hasn't been updated in 8 days.
> ...



So, my needle is rapidly moving from 'we don't know where this FM forum RAW file came from' to 'yeah, this is probably what it looks like' -- the 6D2 appears to have been left out of the on-chip ADC party.

Or, flipping it around, _the 80D got magically hooked up_ with the new tech and Canon decided to put a stop to that in mid-level body offerings for cost or positioning reasons.

- A


----------



## Joules (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I think you may have missed this one page back: [...]


No, I've seen that. In fact, I've read every post on this thread ... The 6DII was the camera I was looking forward to forever as my first DSLR upgrade, so all this is fairly interesting to me. But I've burried my hopes of seeing any improvements there back when he first said that his images came from DPR, which is a few pages ago. That's why I said I don't want to get my hopes up for any improvements. Seems to me the case is pretty much settled. It doesn't really affect my shooting style, so it isn't terrible. But it's certainly not great either.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 19, 2017)

Folks, is it true the 6dm2 is the first Canon's _DSLR_ that offers _AI Servo in LV for stills_? If yes - need to file a mass petition to add this feature via a firmware update to all existing Canon models, at least to those with DPAF.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

Joules said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I think you may have missed this one page back: [...]
> ...



The 6D2 offers a ton and I'm sure everyone will be pleased with it. But for whatever reason, improving the DR was not a high priority for Canon. _In this one metric_, Canon's gonna party like it's 2012 . I don't think a soul here saw that coming -- it's a real needle scratch moment, IMHO.

For me, this is much less about being let down than it is about being _surprised_. I just presumed this was an advancement Canon would roll out across the line and the 6D2's turn was next. I guess not.

(Side note: does this read into other future product lines not getting the on-chip goodness? Why did the 80D get it? Will the 5DS2 or 7D3 also not get it? Surely they both will... _right?_)

- A


----------



## BillB (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I was very sure that the 6DII would have ADC on the sensor. In fact, I assumed that every new sensor that Canon made would come with ADC on board. They sure fooled me. 

So why did they do it? One possibility is that it was cost driven, and there is no question that the 6DII was designed to hit the $2000 price point, but who knows how the cost numbers on the sensor work out. Then there is the old "they nerfed it to protect the 5DIV" line of thought, for what that is worth.

I keep wondering whether Canon convinced itself that there were some performance advantages to leaving the ADC off the sensor, but I have no idea what the advantages might be.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> (Side note: does this read into other future product lines not getting the on-chip goodness? Why did the 80D get it? Will the 5DS2 or 7D3 also not get it? Surely they both will... _right?_)



As per DxO, the 80D not only has good DR but also has identical color response as the 5DIV. 
That is to say, the 80D sensor is uncharacteristically good for a consumer-level camera from Canon. 

This leads to me to speculate that the 80D sensor is probably a testbed for a 60mp (?) 5DS-II sensor. 
If not that, I have no explanation why Canon put such a good sensor in the 80D.

As an 80D owner, though, I'm certainly not complaining .


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 19, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Yes, I can. Extreme shadow lifting/pushing business aside (not going to discuss this circus), properly exposed RAW images that came out of 6D and 6D II @iso 3200. will have similar if not identical noise levels and characteristics. Please refer to the chart in the post I linked above. That magenta high ISO cast of 6D I keep hearing about is only noticeable when shadows lifted by more than a stop at ISO 3200 and beyond. With my style of shooting ,I do not run into this issue much. Neither do anyone that cares to expose their images correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have to disagree about the magenta cast Ive had it at 400ISO with flat grey skies. Ive truly enjoyed the performance of the 6D which Ive used consistently since early 2013 but equally it has limitations in certain situations including some low level banding so if Canon only improve this in the 6D MKII then its still a step forwards. 
I am disappointed if they have not increased DR but will still likely buy as a second body if it is no worse than the 6D and fixes banding & the magenta cast issue.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 19, 2017)

BillB said:


> So why did they do it? *One possibility is that it was cost driven*, and there is no question that the 6DII was designed to hit the $2000 price point, but who knows how the cost numbers on the sensor work out.



That's exactly what I'm thinking too. 

No just that. I feel that Canon chose this design as they are prepared to discount the 6DII just as they've been discounting the original 6D. 
So, I wouldn't surprised one bit if the 6DII sells for $1600 by Christmas 2018.



> Then there is the old "they nerfed it to protect the 5DIV" line of thought, for what that is worth.



Nah. If it costs them more money to use external ADCs, they surely wouldn't do it. 
It's all money/business for them.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 19, 2017)

When your pictures are viewed how many people will say "thats a compromised Canon 6D MKII" 
Thats right none. The 6D was plagued with people damming the AF system but it made very little difference to sales and I suspect the same will happen to the 6D MKII. 
Less technical more creative folks!


----------



## x-vision (Jul 19, 2017)

bclaff said:


> Yes. I'm attaching a Sensor Heatmap visualization of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN)at PhotonsToPhotos.
> Note that the false coloration is simply to help emphasize patterns.
> The 6D has a strong vertical FPN pattern whereas the 6D Mark II does not.



Thanks, Bill, for all your efforts. 

Given the character of the 6DII noise, shadow-lifting should be less of an issue when compared to the original 6D (and 5DII/5DIII), as noise will clean up more easily and without much image degradation.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 19, 2017)

x-vision said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I'm attaching a Sensor Heatmap visualization of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN)at PhotonsToPhotos.
> ...


You are welcome.

And in case it's not obvious FPN is generally only an issue (when present) at the lowest ISO settings because once noise rises a bit it "drowns out" the FPN.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2017)

BillB said:


> I was very sure that the 6DII would have ADC on the sensor. In fact, I assumed that every new sensor that Canon made would come with ADC on board. They sure fooled me.



In fairness, at this stage we can only _presume_ the 6D2 is not on-chip because of the DR plots. We won't know until a tear-down happens and the absence of 'off' chip dedicated ADC components is confirmed, correct?

- A


----------



## Isaacheus (Jul 19, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> When your pictures are viewed how many people will say "thats a compromised Canon 6D MKII"
> Thats right none. The 6D was plagued with people damming the AF system but it made very little difference to sales and I suspect the same will happen to the 6D MKII.
> Less technical more creative folks!



Not trying to start an argument, but I have to disagree with this sentiment. While you are correct, there should be more emphasis on taking a good photo than the camera specs, I've often found I can't get around the limitations of my 6d, at least not practically. I go shooting with some friends who have d750 Nikon's, and they'll be able to catch the focus of moving wildlife much easier than I can, and a number of times I'll have images that aren't recoverable, ie landscapes, where they've been able to save them quite well. It's not much fun trying to but not being able to get the shot you want, due to limited tech. 

We do a fair bit of timelapse, so bracketing and blended images are not an option. Not saying the 6d is a terrible camera, but there are many shots I haven't been able to take, where the person next to me has been able to get usable shots


----------



## sebasan (Jul 19, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > When your pictures are viewed how many people will say "thats a compromised Canon 6D MKII"
> ...



Show us the images from your 6d and from the d750. By the way, the d750 was more expensive on release than the 6d


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 20, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Not saying the 6d is a terrible camera, but there are many shots I haven't been able to take, where the person next to me has been able to get usable shots



For AF I have no trouble believing the D750 does better than the 6D. For recovery, the number of landscape shots where DR / FPN makes a differences should be very small. As Neuro has repeatedly pointed out, typical landscapes have much more than 14 stops of DR, so even SoNikon at base ISO will not get the full range. Metering/exposure would be more likely to cause perceptible differences.

That said, I think we can agree that more DR is better, all else being equal. Inherent sensor IQ is important, but how much so depends on many variables.


----------



## BillB (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > I was very sure that the 6DII would have ADC on the sensor. In fact, I assumed that every new sensor that Canon made would come with ADC on board. They sure fooled me.
> ...



True enough. On the other hand, do we know for sure that all of the 24mp crop cameras have on board ADC? If there really is a cost advantage to not putting the ADC on the sensor, you would think that Canon would go the cheaper route with the less expensive crop cameras if they did it anywhere. Or maybe there is something about FF sensor production that makes a difference in the cost equation.

I believe that the 6DII is the only FF camera with the DIGIC 7 chip. Wonder if that has anything to do with what is going on?


----------



## Alejandro (Jul 20, 2017)

BillB said:


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




Meaning that the moment they see their sales hurting they could just release a firmware upgrade with 4K Video. Among other things.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 20, 2017)

Alejandro said:


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



I doubt they'll be able to do that with a UHS-1 card slot.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jul 20, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Not saying the 6d is a terrible camera, but there are many shots I haven't been able to take, where the person next to me has been able to get usable shots
> ...



Totally agree on that: dynamic range isn't everything, and a lot of situations are going to be more than even the best will allow currently, more is better though. 

Does dynamic range pair with iso invariant, or are these different? 
I'll see if I can get some of the d750 files to compare at some point. I know the d750 was more expensive, but I don't know anyone well enough with a d610 to make that comparison


----------



## sebasan (Jul 20, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Isaacheus said:
> ...



Yes, the d610 is in the category of the 6d. The d750 in the category of 5d and the d810 in the category of the 5ds. Of course, the prices are not in the same category, but canon is the leader of the market, and for the moment they can put the price they want.
Be aware the people who use nikon, maybe in the future they have to change the name of nikonrumors to fujirumors...


----------



## Isaacheus (Jul 20, 2017)

sebasan said:


> [
> 
> Yes, the d610 is in the category of the 6d. The d750 in the category of 5d and the d810 in the category of the 5ds. Of course, the prices are not in the same category, but canon is the leader of the market, and for the moment they can put the price they want.
> Be aware the people who use nikon, maybe in the future they have to change the name of nikonrumors to fujirumors...



I don't know much about the d610, where I am, the d750 is the same price as the 6d, and much cheaper than the 5d mk3. The new 6d is more expensive than the d750 also. What price did the d750 start at though?


----------



## squarepants (Jul 20, 2017)

"People wanted an 80D with a FF sensor. That is what they have got (image wise) but because that is all it was, it is not worth upgrading. Odd, really."

But - _if improved base ISO DR was your priority_ - then they haven't delivered a FF 80D have they? 

It's not "wrong" or the hallmark of an inferior photographer to have hoped for more in this regard, just a reasonable expectation of the progress of technology, incl. Canon's own recent body releases. 

I agree with many here that the DR "issue" is grossly overstated and that it can be a recipe for some pretty cringe-worthy/bad HDR looking results if misused, but 1) it doesn't hurt to have more than less - it does have it's uses, and 2) given the expectation level around this particular model (and the aspirations it represents) this was one for Canon to get right, instead of leaving themselves wide open for a massive broadside.

And of course it's still going to be a good camera and of course there are workarounds in genuinely high DR situations and of course it'll sell by the truckload... it could just have been _better_ in this one metric than it is, even at slightly higher cost.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the d610 is in the category of the 6d. The d750 in the category of 5d and the d810 in the category of the 5ds. Of course, the prices are not in the same category, but canon is the leader of the market, and for the moment they can put the price they want.
> ...



Those comparisons above are a little muddied because Nikon stratified/positioned their rigs differently than Canon, they didn't release everything at the same times as Canon, Nikon had financial problems and started slashing D610/D750 prices, etc. There is no A+ apples to apples matchup, but here's how I saw it:

Nikon was simple: they offered good (D610) / better (D750) / best (D810) at three price points. (Sure the D750 looks like it lines up with a 5D3, but really only on FPS X MP, not on a host of other professional features. The D750 was the 'porridge is just right' blend of D610 and D810 features, whereas the 5D3 was an all-around 'yes I can' sort of pro rig.)

Canon was a little more specialized: good (6D1-->6D2) / all-purpose(5D3-->5D4) / high-res (5DS) at effectively a low price for the 6D1 and a high price for the top two. The aging 5D3 fell into a 'middle' bucket after the 5D4 release.

But for *sensors* at base ISO DR, Nikon famously went with Sony EXMOR sensors and the above simplified to:

Nikon: Best / Best / Best 
Canon: Okay / Good / Okay 

_In this one metric in particular_, EXMOR just stomped everything on the planet. Despite all of Canon's firsts and slick tech, this. one. metric. was the first arrow in the quiver for Sony & Nikon folks to bash Canon for a number of years now.

- A


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 20, 2017)

x-vision said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > So why did they do it? *One possibility is that it was cost driven*, and there is no question that the 6DII was designed to hit the $2000 price point, but who knows how the cost numbers on the sensor work out.
> ...



The whole "external ADC" to save money doesn't generally hold up from a pure manufacturing standpoint. These are additional chips that add to the full BOM (build of materials) cost. Anything in the silicon (assuming same chip size) is essentially free (again from a manufacturing perspective). Now, it doesn't mean the overall reason isn't to save money. Maybe they have an old line that hasn't been tooled to the new process and using it for the 6D2 saves them money in that regard. But saying not using the existing silicon and adding external chips "saves money" is almost always not true. That's the whole drive towards "system on a chip" as it greatly reduces costs by lowering chip count and all the complexities to interconnect them, more buses, larger boards, etc. etc.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 20, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> ...Does dynamic range pair with iso invariant, or are these different?
> ...


Strictly speaking they are different ... but ISO Invariance shows up as a dynamic range curve that is more straight than curved.
So, often an ISO Invariant camera will also have a higher Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) range at low ISO settings.
Note that in the corresponding Shadow Improvement chart more horizontal is more ISO Invariant.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

Tom,
appreciate the response. I think I understand now. you are refering to shadow lifting / highlight recovery improvement in relatively low ISO 6D II file (ISO 200), according to the link you have provided. 6D II performs better in that regard due to less to no fixed patern noise, noticeable at low ISO settings. I was looking at HIGH ISO RAW files only. I would imaging that your "wildlife in rain forrest" shots will be in the high ISO range rather than low? this is my understanding of situation.
Ok. If so, then the "clean shadow lifting" of the 6D II would be of a lesser consequenses to the outcomes. and here is a very sharp explanation:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg676107#msg676107

"... And in case it's not obvious FPN is generally only an issue (when present) at the lowest ISO settings because once noise rises a bit it "drowns out" the FPN...."

As many noticed, with the 6D original lifting shadows by up to +2EV was never an issue ( low ISO). Yes, with 6D II one can, seems to, lift shadows by +3EV without apparent colour cast or excessive Fixed Pattern Noise showing up in the output image. If that is what you are saying, then I do agree with you. Does this make 6D II a HIGH ISO killer? obviously not. And I was arguing the point that I do not detect any meanigful IQ improvement in HIGH ISO 6D II files. And I am particularly interested in ISO 3200 - ISO 6400 RAW file improvement.
Not too worry though. Thank you for your time and have a great day! 

p.s. https://www.dpreview.com/samples/5865039367/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-sample-photos

images: 2/118 and 5/118 if that is your use case, then noise levels in shadow lifted areas are not too bad.
my use case: images 22/118 and 23/118

p.s.2. : https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

I took the liberty of comparing noise levels at ISO levels 800-6400 between 5D III, 6D, 5D IV and 6D II. images are attached.






tomscott said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I am confused. Where do you get the notion that 6D II is much better at @shadow lifting" or high ISO performance than 6D original or 5D III???
> ...


----------



## martinslade (Jul 20, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=canon_eos6d&attr144_2=nikon_d750&attr144_3=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&normalization=full&widget=231&x=0.48443890216920504&y=0.5941514388119011


----------



## xps (Jul 20, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range
Not from Mr. Rishi, but nevertheless not the news we´d like to read. Disappointing. 


So, Canon offers us now an "entry-level-FF-SLR". Nothing more. Some gadgets, a lot of improvements. But an clear demarcation to their higher priced products. Maybe, Canon´s market analysts see the implementation of an movable screen and "more pointed" AF system more imporatant than an better image quality. They have an limited budget for this camera, so image quality is not as important for them anymore - or they are not able/willed to produce better sensors at lower costs. We will see, if the 6DII will be an as well sold product as the 6D.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 20, 2017)

xps said:


> https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range
> Not from Mr. Rishi, but nevertheless not the news we´d like to read. Disappointing.
> 
> 
> So, Canon offers us now an "entry-level-FF-SLR". Nothing more. Some gadgets, a lot of improvements. But an clear demarcation to their higher priced products. Maybe, Canon´s market analysts see the implementation of an movable screen and "more pointed" AF system more imporatant than an better image quality. They have an limited budget for this camera, so image quality is not as important for them anymore - or they are not able/willed to produce better sensors at lower costs. We will see, if the 6DII will be an as well sold product as the 6D.


*
OK, have a look at that DPR link, above in the quote, and, in the gallery, image 67; +1.65 push + shadow lift, etc.... zoom to 100% and that is NOT a nice result from a 200 iso raw file!*
Lots of chroma noise and still looks like vertical banding FPN on the green railing.
Their processed jpg is here:
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS3865x5153~sample_galleries/8212334571/0376770862.jpg

gallery image #28... chroma noise and vertical banding visible on the person's neck in shadow of iso100 shot.

#26, same again in the low midtones near the edges of the image, really shows up in the blurred tonal transistions

#24, more of the same in dark lifted areas and all over the sky

#22, iso 4000 shot, lifted... lots of FPN in the blue areas altho this could be NR'd out... shouldn't have to deal with FPN these days!

ooc jpgs are still typical Canon.. crushed black to hide the noise.

I'm sad for all of you who were hoping for a better camera.
I'm disappointed myself, was hoping to see Canon raise the bar on this model but... they obviously did not.

_I shall continue to heap scorn on this particular product. It's looking deserved._


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet said:


> _I shall continue to heap scorn on this particular product. It's looking deserved._



Trying to achieve what exactly? Deserved it may be, your rants will only alienate people without any significance for the future of 6D II. While I agree with your point that 6D II is rather underwhelming in sensor department, I strongly resent your way of you communicating such fact. You seem to quite enjoy the ranting, flaming or general hate towards Canon. And there is a difference between impartial opinion and emotionally biased one, such as yours.

<sarcasm>
Best of luck though, I'm sure you'll _enlighten_ some poor aspiring photographer of the horrors and disappointment with a camera such as 6D II and thus deeply cut its sales, resulting in utter market failure.
</sarcasm>


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2017)

The thing is, Aglet, you are complaining about what you want to see. Canon's objective is to give the market what the market needs. Not you. 

If the 6DII is a commercial success (as even you seem to say it will) then surely that vindicates Canon's position and shows your view is is one of narrow self interest?


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jul 20, 2017)

When I decided to buy my first DSLR, I looked for advice in the forums.
I saw that Canon users or potential users were always disappointed: Nikon's D90 and D700 had less high-ISO noise than 50D and 5D2, for instance (less megapixel, BTW, but that was not relevant).
Then the 60D came: no AF Microadjustment, "plastic" body: the Nikon D7000 was better.
On paper the 6D was much worse than the Nikon D600.
Finally, the Dynamic Range (and 4k) drama exploded in the forums.

Nevertheless, Canon apparently had a good success, in spite of the disappointment read in the forums.

The 6D, for instance, after its defeat "on paper", sold much better than the Nikon D600 (also due to the reliability problems of the latter) and than the Nikon D610. 


And now?
Maybe Canon's Marketing experts think that the next Nikon models ((D6x0, D7x0) will be considered not reliable, that Pentax will not increase its market share in spite of a good product at a reasonable price.
But maybe Canon's Marketing did not consider that the potential 6DII buyers have two more options (even if the forecasts about Nikon and Pentax were correct), two options dangerous for Canon: 
1) switch to Sony 
2) don't adopt the 6DII, and choose an used 5D3 or a 6D classic instead, thus saving money. 




... Or it will be just as usual: the Canon 6D II will prove to be, in the field, much better than it looks now, and even the people who are blaming it today will buy and appreciate it (esp. when its price will drop by 20-30% in the next months/quarters).


Time will tell.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Tom,
> appreciate the response. I think I understand now. you are refering to shadow lifting / highlight recovery improvement in relatively low ISO 6D II file (ISO 200), according to the link you have provided. 6D II performs better in that regard due to less to no fixed patern noise, noticeable at low ISO settings. I was looking at HIGH ISO RAW files only. I would imaging that your "wildlife in rain forrest" shots will be in the high ISO range rather than low? this is my understanding of situation.
> Ok. If so, then the "clean shadow lifting" of the 6D II would be of a lesser consequenses to the outcomes. and here is a very sharp explanation:
> 
> ...



I appreciate your efforts again.

These were shot on the 14th of July which is a week ago. Are these still the pre production unit or are they the real thing? 

Are these places again, like the 5DSr posting images that arent showing the true results just to get some data out.

I dont know why im arguing because I wont buy this camera, just fed up of the CR negativism of every single product.

There seems to be a bandwagon all these companies jump on wanting these canon cameras to be rubbish. Dont be a sheep get the real images.

I will wait for more real samples before I make a final judgment. IMO most of these early reviews are not worth the pixels they are written on.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 20, 2017)

JohanCruyff said:


> When I decided to buy my first DSLR, I looked for advice in the forums.
> I saw that Canon users or potential users were always disappointed: Nikon's D90 and D700 had less high-ISO noise than 50D and 5D2, for instance (less megapixel, BTW, but that was not relevant).
> Then the 60D came: no AF Microadjustment, "plastic" body: the Nikon D7000 was better.
> On paper the 6D was much worse than the Nikon D600.
> ...



This forum is not the target audience, this is the home of the complainers, trolls and its generally a pretty bad place for anyone looking to buy a canon product. 

People who have the money for a new camera will buy a new camera regardless, their lenses work and its a new product with a 2 year warranty.

Most 'normal' people are not system switchers. Its like cars, if you like BMWs you buy BMWs. The new M3 and M4 got absolutely slated yet here in Manchester they are two a penny despite costing £65k.


----------



## SPKoko (Jul 20, 2017)

It's very surprising that the 6D mark II seems to perform even worse than the original 6D!

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

I beg your pardon... 



tomscott said:


> ... Dont be a sheep get the real images...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

1. +5EV is not a practical use case. I mean you can but you usually don't.... well, you should not 
+3EV is a more reasonable use case to look at. I have posted the comparison image above but here it is again.

2. It seems strange that no one have noticed that 6D II image sharpness is better than the one of 6D, 5D III or 5D IV. look at the word " green" with little arrow undeneath (actually, right above), lines. it could be just due to image to image variation, but also could be due to reduced AA filter strength. Interesting...






SPKoko said:


> It's very surprising that the 6D mark II seems to perform even worse than the original 6D!
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range


----------



## Aglet (Jul 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The thing is, Aglet, you are complaining about what you want to see. Canon's objective is to give the market what the market needs. Not you.
> 
> If the 6DII is a commercial success (as even you seem to say it will) then surely that vindicates Canon's position and shows your view is is one of narrow self interest?



What i wanted to see was an improvement in IQ from this product.

Canon is providing the market with something that will sell and make profit. Not exactly what was _wanted_, and nothing it _needed._
Kind of an expectation-bait-and-switch. They're good at it. Lots of practice.

Yup, 6d2 likely will be a commercial success, despite it limitations.
Anything I say after that would be a lot more inflammatory...

I'm not buying one. Not even at an 80D price.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > _I shall continue to heap scorn on this particular product. It's looking deserved._
> ...


it's what I said I'd do in an earlier post if the shipping product and real images showed Canon's age-old IQ FPN and noise issues.
Guess what?.. 8)

I like most things about Canon's cameras, remember, I used a lot of them and even still have a few.
But I will not say, "Oh well, it's OK if this camera doesn't perform to expectations, I'm sure someone/many will be happy with it." 
Nope, that's not me. I am rockin' that boatload and Canon should hear it from their disappointed potential customers loud and clear and not just by voting with their wallet. Call their toll free number and provide some feedback. 

Soothing words I do not have for this camera or those who figured it was a good decision to put out hobbled compared to their own lineup, let alone the competition.

<reality>The facts are impartial enough. 
It might take some emotive force to change things. </reality>

as for the "rant" I'm pretty much done... The 6D2 images now speak for themselves. 
I hope sales fall well below projections, prices drop and those who still want this zebra-brick can pick it up for cheap what it's really worth.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Nope, that's not me. I am rockin' that boatload and Canon should hear it from their disappointed potential customers loud and clear and not just by voting with their wallet. Call their toll free number and provide some feedback.



They won't listen to your angry posts, they won't listen to my aggravated phonecall. They will only listen to money, or not enough sales in this example. Voting with wallet is the only sane thing one can do. Ranting about it on forums will achieve exactly nothing. Your rocking may be felt here, but Canon's CEO office remains steady as rock, thinking otherwise is pure naivety.

6D II is not worth the upgrade/purchase for me. I won't buy it. End of story. No need to spout fire and ash about it. Reviews and sales will speak for themselves.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet said:


> What i wanted to see was an improvement in IQ from this product.



You mean IQ = DR ? Or to be more precise, overall IQ = extreme shadow lifting in RAW at low ISO ?

Your comment about those of us who consider the 5DII to have good IQ are delusional is, well, delusional 

Your comment about seeing FPN in mid tones from a 5DII was...., well I think you can guess it.

Also if you have a Pentax K1 and a Nikon D800 why on earth would you consider a 6DII anyway ?


----------



## DaLiu (Jul 20, 2017)

Hello, 

This is my first post here, I am following the forum for about 1 year, waiting to upgrade my Canon 700D to some FF camera, I was so inpatient with the release of Canon 6D2 hoping that this will be my first FF camera but after some preliminary testing looks like is not big of an upgrade to 6D. In the meantime I invested my money in some glass, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8, the question is, let's say I can afford 5D Mark IV, should I go for it instead of 6D2, usually I shoot cityscape, landscape, travel.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

DaLiu said:


> Hello,
> 
> This is my first post here, I am following the forum for about 1 year, waiting to upgrade my Canon 700D to some FF camera, I was so inpatient with the release of Canon 6D2 hoping that this will be my first FF camera but after some preliminary testing looks like is not big of an upgrade to 6D. In the meantime I invested my money in some glass, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8, the question is, let's say I can afford 5D Mark IV, should I go for it instead of 6D2, usually I shoot cityscape, landscape, travel.



It depends. After ISO 400 and above, it doesn't matter which sensor you'll use. If you shoot mainly at lowest ISO, want the best editing latitude and can afford 5D IV, then go for it. If you need a lighter camera with articulated screen and want to save money for another lens, 6D II will still perform well enough. Just not the best IQ in the Canon offering, that's all.


----------



## DaLiu (Jul 20, 2017)

99% of the time I shoot at lowest ISO for the best results.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

DaLiu said:


> 99% of the time I shoot at lowest ISO for the best results.



So if you can afford it, go for 5D4. Or perhaps 5Dsr, if you value resolution above all.


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2017)

DaLiu said:


> 99% of the time I shoot at lowest ISO for the best results.


If you push your brightness in post, going for a higher ISO and pushing less will give you better results unless you need the bit of extra Dynamic Range. So if you're like me and your shooting style either involves static subjects (Cityscapes) or requires dealing with little light (Macro) the low ISO IQ difference between the 5DIV and 6DII might not be worth sacrificing the screen and size of the 6DII. I would at least not get anything from a 5DIV for my shooting style, I think.

On a side note, the 6DII at least really seems sharper, both in terms of image detail and noise texture to me. Still haven't touched any RAWs myself, but if that turns out to be true, I find that fairly great.


----------



## DaLiu (Jul 20, 2017)

In 1 week we should see the real results.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

I have noticed that as well. not sure if that is due to image to image variation or the real 6D II sharpness advantage. looking at the images below, the sharpest is the 6D II, following by 5D III, then 5D IV (downsampled though), and then 6D original.




Joules said:


> On a side note, the 6DII at least really seems sharper, both in terms of image detail and noise texture to me. Still haven't touched any RAWs myself, but if that turns out to be true, I find that fairly great.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet said:


> What i wanted to see was an improvement in IQ from this product.


And it looks like there is if you look at Secure's emails



Aglet said:


> Canon is providing the market with something that will sell and make profit. Not exactly what was _wanted_, and nothing it _needed._


If it is not wanted, how will it sell and make a profit? 
What was needed (according to pre-announcement hype) was a 6D with better AF and a tilty screen. That is what they have delivered. 

You are contradicting yourself only because it did not meet your expectations. So either Canon got this model wrong or you had unrealistic expectations. 
Which one was it?



Aglet said:


> Kind of an expectation-bait-and-switch. They're good at it. Lots of practice.


Do you even know what 'bait and switch' means?
What did they promise and what did they switch?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2017)

I still say wait until results from retail units are analyzed, but it does not look promising..... 

If it is not a significant improvement over the 6D, I will not be getting one. That said, even if we at CR condem the new camera, it will still do well in mass market sales. Most of the specs are good and only a very few people care about DR and noise floors.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I still say wait until results from retail units are analyzed, but it does not look promising.....
> 
> If it is not a significant improvement over the 6D, I will not be getting one. That said, even if we at CR condem the new camera, it will still do well in mass market sales. Most of the specs are good and only a very few people care about DR and noise floors.



What seems interesting is that perceived sharpness at those sample lab shots. Very weak OLPF? Dammit, if they paired that with 5D IV DR performance, that would be much much MUCH better...


----------



## Cory (Jul 20, 2017)

The recent 6D "hate" articles are clearly a conspiracy to get lower 6D prices lower so that the authors can get more 6D's for themselves. Couldn't be more clear.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I still say wait until results from retail units are analyzed, but it does not look promising.....
> 
> If it is not a significant improvement over the 6D, I will not be getting one.



I think this comes up with every model in recent years. 
Do they release a new model to entice people to upgrade within that model (6D to 6D2, 5DIII to 5DIV etc)? Or is it aimed at people wanting a functional updgrade (APS-C to FF) or a second body. 

Remember all the calls of 'the 5DIV is insufficient an upgrade' only to find that many pros did upgrade because of overall usability? My guess is that a lot of 6D owners will upgrade for no other reason than tilty screen and better off-centre AF and all they want is that the image quality is no worse.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 20, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr144_2=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr144_3=canon_eos6d&attr146_0=100_4&attr146_1=100_4&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=compare&widget=542&x=0.12478637699999998&y=0.5037718175621028

Knock yourselves out!


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 20, 2017)

So I been playing around with the image comparison tool on DPR and I also noticed the sharper details in the 6D2 files. Now I have a 1440p 27" monitor so this may look different on some peoples displays, but to me the 6D2 has the sharpest detail out out all 4. I would defitnely say the other 3 have slightly less noise, but the noise on the 6D2 isn't bad and is easily fixable. 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d5&attr144_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr144_3=sony_a9&attr146_0=100_2&attr146_1=100_2&attr146_2=100_2&attr146_3=100_2&attr177_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=542&x=0.2697635705532646&y=1.062609813765784

I was already happy with the 6D2 and even more say. Maybe Canon really reduced the AA filter which made it hard for them to increase the DR?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

1. The 6D II produced the second best image with lesser level of aliasing following the 5D IV. please refer to the image below. it appears that the AA filter strength of the 6D II is adequate.
notice how concentric circular lines in the left corner, for an instance , produce the least aliased patern in the image taken with 5D IV, folowed by 6D II, then by 5D III and finaly by the 6D original.
2. Yellows and reds are a bit different in 6D II image. notice how reds and yellows of the 6d II are similar to the reds and yellows of the 5D IV. 6d original colours are closer to the 5d III colours. 
3. Colours in 5D III and 6D original images appear to be a bit more saturated then colours of 5d IV and 6D II. the 5D IV's colours appear to be the least saturated out of four. 



Khalai said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I still say wait until results from retail units are analyzed, but it does not look promising.....
> ...


----------



## Cory (Jul 20, 2017)

Is it possible that all of this anti-6D testing was performed by inferior photographers?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I still say wait until results from retail units are analyzed, but it does not look promising.....
> ...


In general (and not just with cameras) I tend to skip models as the model to model upgrades are insufficient to tempt me, but when you skip two models it is a different story. It's like the 7D3 rumors.... I have very little interest in it, but by the time the 7D4 comes out, I will be ready to jump.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Same here. Skipped the 1D X II, but I'll likely get the 1D X III. Had the EOS M, only got the M2 because the M died and a new M2 was around the same cost as Canon's prix fixe repair for the M. Skipped the M3, I'll be getting the M6 before my next trip.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 20, 2017)

JohanCruyff said:


> ... Or it will be just as usual: the Canon 6D II will prove to be, in the field, much better than it looks now, and even the people who are blaming it today will buy and appreciate it (esp. when its price will drop by 20-30% in the next months/quarters).



That's impossible! Haven't you been reading this thread? The 6D2 is junk, DOA, garbage! ;D

So it appears that the sensor in the 6D2 equals the on in the 6D. That is not a bad thing. I mean up until roughly a year ago and we started to see the next gen equipment from Canon, the 6D had basically "as good as it gets" in the sensor department (from Canon). Sure, many probably hoped to see the continuous improvement that other models are/were seeing in base ISO dynamic range, but to me that's just icing on the cake. I shot the 6D for over 2 years and loved the ability of what that sensor could produce.

In fact, I know I have posts on here a year ago saying you could give me a 6D2 with the same sensor and I'd be happy. The limitations of the 6D were it's tracking (ai servo), focus system. Add in DPAF and other features we're seeing in this new camera and the 6D2 is hitting the checklist of all (read "most" for you picky types) the short coming of it's predecessor.

I just don't recall a year ago, two years ago, the sensor of the 6D being where all the grumbling was at. :


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 20, 2017)

Cory said:


> Is it possible that all of this anti-6D testing was performed by inferior photographers?



You can look at their images and judge for yourself, I won't say anything


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I have noticed that as well. not sure if that is due to image to image variation or the real 6D II sharpness advantage. looking at the images below, the sharpest is the 6D II, following by 5D III, then 5D IV (downsampled though), and then 6D original.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait, sharpness matters? I thought it was only base ISO DR?? Now I'm confused on what constitutes IQ. ???

Seriously, that is almost too much of a difference. The 6D is so soft that I almost have to ask if focus was slightly off. If that test is legit than I'd argue that is a very significant improvement in sensor IQ for the mark II.


----------



## zim (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Totally agree with skipping models but I'm waiting with great interest in the 7D3 to upgrade from 7D. It's a tough wait as it is I couldn't cope waiting for a 7D4!


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, Aglet, you are complaining about what you want to see. Canon's objective is to give the market what the market needs. Not you.
> ...


This is the key part of your post: not everyone else prioritizes the same improvements that you do. A Canon 1-series will not have the IQ of a Phase1 MF, but the P1 will not have the speed/AF of the 1-series. Each model is a balance of features, cost, profit, etc.

You are entitled to your preferences, but don't disparage others who disagree.



> I'm not buying one. Not even at an 80D price.


At that price I certainly would. I may even buy one in a few months when the price drops or it hits the refurb store.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

I never mentioned the base ISO DR being an issue. are you really that much confused? 
I said the following: There is no NOISE LEVEL and COLOUR CAST advantage at HIGH ISO ( ISO 1600 and higher) in properly processed RAW images taken with 6d II over the ones taken with 6D original. I am sure that you appreciate the difference between base iSO DR and noise levels at higher ISO.




Luds34 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > I have noticed that as well. not sure if that is due to image to image variation or the real 6D II sharpness advantage. looking at the images below, the sharpest is the 6D II, following by 5D III, then 5D IV (downsampled though), and then 6D original.
> ...


----------



## BillB (Jul 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > What i wanted to see was an improvement in IQ from this product.
> ...



If I can follow Aglet's reasoning, he is talking about DR hopes dashed, rather that Canon promises broken. This seems to be a recurring pattern when Canon brings out a new camera (and a recurring pattern for Aglet in particular). Depending on how you feel about DPR, magic numbers purporting to measure DR appear as soon as the camera hits the street, and the fun begins, as the usual people discover horrible banding and other fatal flaws in their new Canon Camera. 

Between DPR, DRones and Canon bashers, the significance of the DR number is greatly exagerrated. In the case of the 6DII, Canon did play a part in the current go around of the ongoing DR game. They may not have promised ADC on board the 6DII sensor, but given Canon's camera releases over the part couple of years, on board ADC (or more precisely an equivalent DR level) was an understanable expectation. I know I expected it.

Some people have been in Chicken Little mode on 6DII DR, but overall, I think the discussion of the 6DII here at Canon Rumors has been very informative and useful. At this point, upgrading any Full Frame digital camera is going to have marginal impact on IQ, and that impact is pretty much limited to shadow lifting when shooting at low ISO's and printing very large images. By extension, this also applies to choosing among the FF digital cameras now on the market. How many people really use their cameras to make prints larger than 12x18, for example?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2017)

BillB said:


> If I can follow Aglet's reasoning, he is talking about DR hopes dashed, rather that Canon promises broken.



You may interpret it like that, but Aglet was quite clear. He accused Canon of 'bait and switch' and they have 'lots of practice'.
Canon talked about the quality of the 6D2 matching the newer cameras but did not talk about technology - and given that omitting reference to on-chip DAC raised a lot of discussion Canon were hardly being deceptive.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> I never mentioned the base ISO DR being an issue. are you really that much confused?
> I said the following: There is no NOISE LEVEL and COLOUR CAST advantage at HIGH ISO ( ISO 1600 and higher) in properly processed RAW images taken with 6d II over the ones taken with 6D original. I am sure that you appreciate the difference between base iSO DR and noise levels at higher ISO.
> 
> 
> ...



I sure do, but I think your sarcasm detection routine was off when you read my statement. Especially when my next paragraph begins with *seriously* as this was there to imply what I stated before was in jest.  Besides, my DR jest/joke was not directed at you and was more making light (pun intended) of all the folks whom are overly obsessed with the lack of DR improvement from the orig 6d. In short, I was agreeing with you and questioning that *MUCH* of an improvement in sharpness as well.

Continuing the discussion... The base ISO DR is more than adequate for 99% of real world shooting. If this sharpness improvement is accurate, that has far greater implications in real world shooting.


----------



## sebasan (Jul 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > If I can follow Aglet's reasoning, he is talking about DR hopes dashed, rather that Canon promises broken.
> ...



When a person believe that DR(at base ISO) = IQ, what he/she says is irrelevant


----------



## BPLOL (Jul 20, 2017)

Someone needs to update that video with the japanese guy laughing, but now he'll say how the 6D was an accident, never supposed to have better IQ than the 5DIII.


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2017)

sebasan said:


> When a person believe that DR(at base ISO) = IQ, what he/she says is irrelevant


That's the reasoning which turns every negative comments into a troll and any positive comment into a fanboy. I don't think that helps much.

There shouldn't be all this belittling of others peoples desires (NOT needs, although people might confuse those themselfes). The majority of Canon's ILC lineup seems dedicated at consumers and not business photographers who earn money with their photography. So there's no reason why irrational, emotional concepts like "I want more" should be silenced. Does it really hurt anybody if someone says camera x isn't right for his or her needs? It only becomes objectionable if that person thinks their needs are the same as everybody elses and therefore the camera is objectively bad or perfect.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 20, 2017)

absolutely! I was about to feed RAW test files from each camera into Focal for the sharpness analysis, but my Commercial License has just expired. I will get this sorted out in next few days. 



Luds34 said:


> ..Continuing the discussion... The base ISO DR is more than adequate for 99% of real world shooting. If this sharpness improvement is accurate, that has far greater implications in real world shooting.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> absolutely! I was about to feed RAW test files from each camera into Focal for the sharpness analysis, but my Commercial License has just expired. I will get this sorted out in next few days.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent, I look forward to seeing your analysis! 

I also look forward to further test shots as they come in from other sources as the camera becomes more available. Because I think we both were feeling, eluding to the fact that the sharpness improvement in those test shots look a little bit "too good to be true". 

But if they indeed are representative of what we'll see with this camera than I am ecstatic and cannot wait for my copy to arrive. I keep hoping my pre-order gets out a bit earlier than the 27th estimated timeframe.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet if you handled your comments better you could appear quite bright instead of looking like a fool.  Just a thought. Of course you may wish to look like a fool and that's your prerogative. Reminds me of the Dilbert days/daze.

My 6D is gone and most likely there will be a 6D2 before spring for this sucker and folks will look upon me with scorn, and I, in aglet like fashion will relish it.

Jack


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 20, 2017)

Joules said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > When a person believe that DR(at base ISO) = IQ, what he/she says is irrelevant
> ...



You mean exactly what Aglet has been doing all this time?


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> You mean exactly what Aglet has been doing all this time?


Yeah, pretty much. Although he reads like an up and down. At times he has me at the "Switch to ABC" side, and then he's going over the top and giving Neuro the fodder to bring me back to the "Canon can't go wrong" side. This forum is pretty heated at times, as far as I can tell from reading it way too much. That's why I wanted to point out one aspect that fuels it mor than necessary in my opinion. That topic is pretty off though.

Too bad renting stuff is so expensive, I'd love to get a grip on the differences between Canon and ABC IQ myself.


----------



## snoke (Jul 20, 2017)

Joules said:


> The majority of Canon's ILC lineup seems dedicated at consumers and not business photographers who earn money with their photography.



When you see the number of professional photographers using Canon and that this is more than all of the other brands combined, you get a feeling for what the value of that statement is worth. But do those professionals make more for Canon than all of the consumers? Better question. Think also about how much effort (and cost!) Canon puts into supporting Olympics, etc.


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2017)

snoke said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of Canon's ILC lineup seems dedicated at consumers and not business photographers who earn money with their photography.
> ...


Yeah, I'm well aware that consumer business is way less relevant for most companies than professional business. 

The point I was trying to make was losely along the lines of "Many people who use Canon don't do it in a professional context and therefore might be irrationally influenced in their buying decisions. I don't see that as a reason to call their opinions irrelevant". Might still be a weak point, it certainly doesn't matter anyway. It's way too nice and easy to but people into boxes on the internet  Off topic anyway, so here you go, you win.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

Joules said:


> The majority of Canon's ILC lineup seems dedicated at consumers and not business photographers who earn money with their photography.



Yeah, so few pros using Canon at the Super Bowl and other major sporting events. 

[quote author=Canon USA]
The sidelines of the big game were lined with photographers using Canon EOS Digital SLR cameras and iconic white lenses. Canon is honored that more than 75 percent of professional photographers covering the game utilized Canon DSLR cameras and EF lenses to capture and share the memorable moments of the gridiron matchup. Canon broadcast lenses were also used extensively to deliver the game to more than 111 million television viewers.
[/quote]


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 20, 2017)

Joules said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > When a person believe that DR(at base ISO) = IQ, what he/she says is irrelevant
> ...



But stating that DR=IQ without any context or qualifications is silly. That means that you should be able to see poorer image quality in a low ISO shot from a lower DR camera where everything is sitting where it should be on the response 'curve' of the sensor. And you can't, format for format, mp for mp, output for output.


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of Canon's ILC lineup seems dedicated at consumers and not business photographers who earn money with their photography.
> ...


Yeah, I made a poor statement there. From my perspective, the 7D, 5D and 1D series are the only one aiming at mostly professional customers, whereas the rest of the lineup (Which consits of more than 3 cameras and is therefore the majority) is mostly aimed at people who do photography as a hobby, like myself. My point was that those people might be less rational and more emotional, as consumers are often. But that alone doesn't make their opinion irrelevant for me, like the post I quoted suggested. Is that something you disagree on?

i might still word it poorly, or I simply might be wrong. I'm not saying that professional Canon users are rare or that they are less or equaly relevant to Canon than the consumers. I'm just trying to say that I personally don't see it as helpfull to throw labels like irrelevant or troll or fanboy at anybody who has some irrational desires.

@ sporgon: I fully agree, it seems silly. That's why I said earlier that Aglets post don't feel too convincing to me when he's going over the top with the weight he put's on some issues. But his opinion isn't irrelevant to me, at least it's part of the reason for me to finally get an account here and get some proper input on why the 6DII isn't as disapointing as some perspectives might make it out to be. So, his negativity has driven me to better evaluate the situation and therefore made me still consider the 6DII as the upgrade for my old T3i.

If I'm not getting anything proper accros here, it's fine, I'll better give up before getting stumped by neuro


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 20, 2017)

Opposing opinions lead to debate and debate flushes out the truth. That's assuming the statements are rational and relevant and not a broken record. In that case they accomplish the opposite and are at most good for a laugh. OK, an honest mistake or misunderstood concept stated emphatically is not the problem, it's, well, you know ... Every new camera and it's the same old nonsense.

Jack


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

snoke said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of Canon's ILC lineup seems dedicated at consumers and not business photographers who earn money with their photography.
> ...



At local promo of 6D II, the Canon rep showed us a pie-chart, where he demonstrated that 60% of their customers who buys FF cameras (mind you, FF only, not ILC altogether) are non-professional and another 31% are only part-time professionals. Only 9% of all FF cameras sold are used full-time professionally. Don't ask me, where they got their numbers, because I honestly don't know. But if there is any merit to those numbers, it makes you think...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

Joules said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Joules said:
> ...



Now I get your point, and it makes perfect sense. Certainly by unit sales, consumers (as opposed to pros) comprise far and away the largest chunk. 

I don't think anyone here is bashing posters for wanting more, or for stating their desires. But some go beyond that. 

_"I wish the 6DII had more low ISO DR."
"I'm not buying the 6DII because it doesn't offer enough low ISO DR for me."

"The 6DII has poor low ISO DR."

"The 6DII has poor low ISO DR, Canon really screwed this one up."
"Because of the 6DII's poor low ISO DR, everyone should/will buy a D750."
"Because of the 6DII's poor low ISO DR, Canon is *******."_

The first two statements are perfectly reasonable. The third statement is a value judgement (the 6DII's low ISO DR is better than cameras from a few years ago, for example), and will likely draw some criticism. The last three statements are similar to what some will say, and that will draw ire. Many such statements were made about the 5DIII, for example...yet it was a very popular camera that outsold the competitor models by a significant margin. It's worth noting (again) that compared to the 5DII, the 5DIII dod not offer significant sensor IQ improvements, but improved many other main features (frame rate, AF, metering, etc.). The 6D vs. 6DII seems quite analogous.

Time will tell whether or not the 6DII will sell well. But it's clear that Canon has a very good track record of making cameras that sell very well.


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> The first two statements are perfectly reasonable. The third statement is a value judgement (the 6DII's low ISO DR is better than cameras from a few years ago, for example), and will likely draw some criticism. The last three statements are similar to what some will say, and that will draw ire. Many such statements were made about the 5DIII, for example...yet it was a very popular camera that outsold the competitor models by a significant margin. It's worth noting (again) that compared to the 5DII, the 5DIII dod not offer significant sensor IQ improvements, but improved many other main features (frame rate, AF, metering, etc.). The 6D vs. 6DII seems quite analogous.


I agree 100% with you on that (And most everything else that I've read from you in the years I've been following this forum), it is essetially what I was trying to say with my own line:

[quote author=Joules]
It only becomes objectionable if that person thinks their needs are the same as everybody elses and therefore the camera is objectively bad or perfect.
[/quote]
I'm not a native speaker (Obviously) and not as well informed of market shares and fine technical details as I would like to be, so sorry if I didn't make that clear or used some wrong assumptions to back up my point.

Anyway, back to the 6DII: If it is truly equipped with a less intense AA filter, at what point could one hope to get confirmation of that? Someone mentioned that the DPR quality charts are scaled to to the same resolution, so it shouldn't be possible to draw any proper conclusions from that right? And a teardown coming sometimes in the future might only indicate the presens or absense of such a filter, right?

I'm simply interested in it since I tried to estimate the difference the loss of the T3i corp factor might have on my macro work. Larger pixels means less diffraction, but larger sensor means more cropping to get the same Insect-to-image-size-ratio, right? Sharpness vs. Moiré might be interesting with bugs aswell, as I see moiré popping up in a lot of my T3i images already...


----------



## zim (Jul 20, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> My 6D is gone and most likely there will be a 6D2 before spring for this sucker and folks will look upon me with scorn, and I, in aglet like fashion will relish it.
> 
> Jack



Jack, you do realise that I (i.e. half the interweb) look upon you with gear envy to be able to make decisions like that. ;D


----------



## Aglet (Jul 20, 2017)

sebasan said:


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



Bill understood me correctly
Mike did not
and ur completely off-target and heading for trolldom


----------



## Aglet (Jul 20, 2017)

Joules said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > You mean exactly what Aglet has been doing all this time?
> ...



renting IS spendy and not worth it, IMO, unless you're writing it off as a biz.
if you can afford the outlay, buy a used ABC, use it for a month or 4 and really see what it does in comparison.
If you like it, keep it.
If not you can resell with less cost than renting for a week in most cases.
It may give you the information you seek, maybe to try a different ABC for different feature set but still the same low noise raw files vs Canon's weaker offerings.
D600/610 is cheap used or refurb.
Even an Olympus MFT body like the lowly EM10 from a few years would give you some files to think about.
Good luck on your journey of learning.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2017)

zim said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > My 6D is gone and most likely there will be a 6D2 before spring for this sucker and folks will look upon me with scorn, and I, in aglet like fashion will relish it.
> ...


I too shall look upon you with the scorn and derision that you deserve, and when you post pictures taken with that lowly camera I shall use words like "cool", "nice", and "beautiful" as I criticize you....

Unless I get one too..... then I shall be the recipient of such criticism.....


----------



## Joules (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet said:


> if you can afford the outlay, buy a used ABC, use it for a month or 4 and really see what it does in comparison.
> If you like it, keep it.


Silly of me, but it's actually an option that I've never considered. I know nobody who uses Nikon or Sony gear, just Canon and Panasonic shooters. So I've checked rental prices in my area and found them pretty high and I don't feel like enough of a douchebag to buy two bodies from Amazon just to send one back if i don't enjoy it (In Germany, online stores have to take back any items until 14 days after they were bought and a lot of people abuse that). Thanks for bringing a third option to my attention. I usually don't buy anything used that i can get through other means, so it didn't come to me on my own.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 20, 2017)

Joules said:


> @ sporgon: I fully agree, it seems silly. That's why I said earlier that Aglets post don't feel too convincing to me when he's going over the top with the weight he put's on some issues. But his opinion isn't irrelevant to me, at least it's part of the reason for me to finally get an account here and get some proper input on why the 6DII isn't as disapointing as some perspectives might make it out to be. So, his negativity has driven me to better evaluate the situation and therefore made me still consider the 6DII as the upgrade for my old T3i.
> 
> If I'm not getting anything proper accros here, it's fine, I'll better give up before getting stumped by neuro



If you are someone who has the unfortunate inability to expose correctly for even a flat lit scene, a perpensity to under expose unnecessarily by two stops or more, and total lack of taste reflected in a desire to produce cartoon-like images, Aglet's posts make a lot of sense 

The question is would you see an improvement in your image quality when moving from a T3i to a 6DII. (Ignoring all the other advantages of the 6DII). If you're viewing your images as small prints then undoubtably not. But if you like viewing them zoomed in on a good screen, or printed large - that's bigger than A3, or shooting in more challenging light situations when you need to brave it as much as you dare on the highlights and lift the shadows - then I'd say definitely yes. 

But would you see the difference between the original 6D and the mark 2 in pure 'IQ' ? Despite the fact that the II appears to have the same or even slightly less low ISO DR than the 6D I suspect that if you're in the challenging light situation I described above you could find the 6DII has more malleable data, and once you have reduced the output size down to the same 20 mp as the 6D the II may be better. This is why I say DR doesn't equal IQ.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.

I'm not pissed about Canon's lack of low ISO DR in 6D II for technical reasons. I'm just disappointed that they have the means of producing FF sensor, that perfoms almost as good as competition (we've seen that in 80D, 5D IV or 1DX II), but choose not to in 6D II.

I'm sure that 6D II will be popular camera, it will take amazing pictures (just like 6D is capable of) and it will sell in good numbers. But I feel that something has been intentionally left out and it's a pity. So in the end, it's not about that they cannot do something. It's about that they can, but they won't. And that just bothers me. Okay. End of rant, but I just needed to say it out loud.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.
> 
> I'm not pissed about Canon's lack of low ISO DR in 6D II for technical reasons. I'm just disappointed that they have the means of producing FF sensor, that perfoms almost as good as competition (we've seen that in 80D, 5D IV or 1DX II), but choose not to in 6D II.



It's a fair rant, I must admit. 

PetaPixel just brought the piranha to the table on this DR finding by giving it wide internet exposure, and here's one interesting comment from that link:

_“[Canon] shouldn’t have developed a new sensor for this camera,” he continues. “They should have just used the 5D Mark IV sensor. Simple as that. They already do the same thing with their APS-C cameras, using the same 24MP with on-sensor ADC [analog- to-digital converter] in everything from the $550 200D to the $1,100 80D. That’s a 2x price difference, less than the ~1.7x price difference between the 5D Mark IV and the 6D Mark II.”_

So blowing right past the notion that Canon was never going to put a 5D4 sensor in a $2k camera for a minute, can we give any merit to the blue passage re: the widespread use of ADC in general?

I didn't know we had tear-down level info on the SL2 yet to confirm that the 24MP sensor it is getting is in fact the 80D sensor. Is that true? If so, that _might_ imply this was less about saving dollars and more about withholding performance. (Granted, even if true, the 6D2 sensor @ 26 MP _has_ to be new where a hand-me-down 24 MP sensor gets some economies of scale to justify its inclusion in a lower price point rig.)

While I'm at it, did the M5/M6 get the 80D sensor as well? The 77D? Just curious.

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.
> ...



Well, that would be rather hilarious, wouldn't it? One of the Canon's cheapert bodies would get that DR boost, while four times more expensive body would not? Considering they are launched together, if that's indeed the case, that would leave even worse aftertaste, right? :

Oh dear, the interwebs are going to explode


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.
> 
> I'm not pissed about Canon's lack of low ISO DR in 6D II for technical reasons. I'm just disappointed that they have the means of producing FF sensor, that perfoms almost as good as competition (we've seen that in 80D, 5D IV or 1DX II), but choose not to in 6D II.
> 
> I'm sure that 6D II will be popular camera, it will take amazing pictures (just like 6D is capable of) and it will sell in good numbers. But I feel that something has been intentionally left out and it's a pity. So in the end, it's not about that they cannot do something. It's about that they can, but they won't. And that just bothers me. Okay. End of rant, but I just needed to say it out loud.



Canon do this. I don't like it one little bit, but I don't blame them for product differentiation and optimising their market segments. 

Take the rear command wheel on the 60D and 6D. Basically identical, except the 60D is smooth, "well oiled" and clicky. The 6D feels like it should be on a child's cheap toy. Horrible in comparison, and has been done purposely to make it feel inferior to the 5DIII. Worked on me; I hated it. Others won't be bothered.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Well, that would be rather hilarious, wouldn't it? One of the Canon's cheapert bodies would get that DR boost, while four times more expensive body would not? Considering they are launched together, if that's indeed the case, that would leave even worse aftertaste, right? :
> 
> Oh dear, the interwebs are going to explode



It's even worse than that......

You are fabricating the chips on a line that allows you to put the ADC on chip..... that is cheaper to do than to put it off chip. If this is true, then the combination of 6D2 sensor and A/D will be MORE expensive than on the 5D4. Canon would have to had spent extra money to make it worse!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> You are fabricating the chips on a line that allows you to put the ADC on chip..... that is cheaper to do than to put it off chip. If this is true, then the combination of 6D2 sensor and A/D will be MORE expensive than on the 5D4. Canon would have to had spent extra money to make it worse!



But what if you have an older fab line that doesn't allow on-chip ADC, a line for which capital was not designeted to upgrade, a line that would otherwise sit unused? And what if your lines that allow you to put the ADC on chip are already running at capacity, so you have to choose which product you're going to short for a given period of time if you produce everything on those lines? Would off-chip ADC be more expensive, then?

Point is, there are a lot of what if's at this point...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You are fabricating the chips on a line that allows you to put the ADC on chip..... that is cheaper to do than to put it off chip. If this is true, then the combination of 6D2 sensor and A/D will be MORE expensive than on the 5D4. Canon would have to had spent extra money to make it worse!
> ...


Yes, there is a lot that we do not know.... but one thing is certain, the 6D2, in competent hands, will take great pictures.

To my mind, a lot of these numbers and comparisons ring thrown around do not make sense. I am waiting for dedicated testing from retail units before I make any decision on if to buy or not....


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> To my mind, a lot of these numbers and comparisons ring thrown around do not make sense. I am waiting for dedicated testing from retail units before I make any decision on if to buy or not....



I think that ship is quickly sailing, Don, but who knows. Perhaps Bill at PtP was unknowingly sent a pre-production file. Perhaps the guys at The Camera Store TV were given a pre-production unit. But both claimed they received production output or a final/production body.

The only issues remaining on the sensor for me are:


Noise and the pattern / quality of it, how well it can be tamed in post, etc.


The overall picture of how high you can push the ISO on this rig between the DR and the noise. Tests and charts are fine and all, but we all have our own levels of acceptability here.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 20, 2017)

Neuro it is not unreasonable to have thought that the 6D MKII would improve upon the DR provided by the 6D given the five year gap. In the context of just about everything else technically we buy were used to improvements and advancement in key features and the sensor is a key feature of any camera. 
Will it stop me buying the 6D MKII? No because Ive practically worn out my 6D and it's a direct replacement & second camera but I cannot say I'm not slightly disappointed by the lack of advancement in DR I am. However it's one of many features and in most other areas the camera has seen improvement and I'm used to working within the DR provided. Mix in the system and going to Sony et al. is not an option


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You are fabricating the chips on a line that allows you to put the ADC on chip..... that is cheaper to do than to put it off chip. If this is true, then the combination of 6D2 sensor and A/D will be MORE expensive than on the 5D4. Canon would have to had spent extra money to make it worse!
> ...



There are a lot of "what ifs," and one of them is whether on-chip or off-chip is even a factor. The people who are "analyzing" these files are making the assumption that because they don't look like on-chip files they can't be. But, that's not a given. It is only speculation. Only after someone disassembles the camera, will it be known for sure and even then, it's not really relevant. Arm chair sensor engineers are equating a specific technology with performance expectations, but we really don't know if the two are connected or not.

All we really know is that Canon said the sensor on the 6D may not have as much dynamic range and resolution as the 5D IV. That appears to be the case. Why that is, is pure speculation at this point.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I think that ship is quickly sailing, Don, but who knows. Perhaps Bill at PtP was unknowingly sent a pre-production file.


I wouldn't matter anyway.
At this level of testing I have never found a measurable difference between pre-production and production cameras.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 20, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ...There are a lot of "what ifs," and one of them is whether on-chip or off-chip is even a factor. The people who are "analyzing" these files are making the assumption that because they don't look like on-chip files they can't be. But, that's not a given. It is only speculation. Only after someone disassembles the camera, will it be known for sure and even then, it's not really relevant...


I'm quite sure about it myself, but as you point out, it's simply a rationalization for what we are seeing.
The DR results themselves are what really "matters".


----------



## unfocused (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > To my mind, a lot of these numbers and comparisons ring thrown around do not make sense. I am waiting for dedicated testing from retail units before I make any decision on if to buy or not....
> ...



I shouldn't speak for Don, but I don't think that is his point. To my way of thinking, it is that all of this angst is over lab tests that may or may not have much relevance for real world shooting. I don't think the results from retail units are going to be magically different, I just think it is probably a good idea to wait until the camera has been out in the field for six months or so and see what the reaction is at that point.

I recall when the original 6D came out, there was much complaining about the autofocus system. Yet, in real world use, people found the camera performed well above its specs. Always good advice to sit tight and see how things shake out after six months or so.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

unfocused said:


> All we really know is that Canon said the sensor on the 6D may not have as much dynamic range and resolution as the 5D IV. That appears to be the case. Why that is, is pure speculation at this point.



Right. We can argue that (a hypothetical) teardown of a $549 SL2 finding an on-chip ADC architecture + a great base ISO DR test -- which we're presuming is hand in hand, but not sure -- would still put us in a tough call position:


Does that mean cost isn't the reason Canon didn't give the 6D2 the good stuff? Is it all market differentiation / nerfing / etc.?


Or is the SL2 simply a recipient of a gift from the sensor gods that still hits their cost targets because Canon is now pumping them out by the hundreds of thousands for every 24 MP Canon crop body?

We'll be staring at those tea leaves all day, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > All we really know is that Canon said the sensor on the 6D may not have as much dynamic range and resolution as the 5D IV. That appears to be the case. Why that is, is pure speculation at this point.
> ...



All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Neuro it is not unreasonable to have thought that the 6D MKII would improve upon the DR provided by the 6D given the five year gap. In the context of just about everything else technically we buy were used to improvements and advancement in key features and the sensor is a key feature of any camera.



No, it's not unreasonable...but it's not a given. Consider the four year gap between the 5DII and the 5DIII. Have a look at Bill Claff's DR comparison and tell me how much improvement you see. 

As I've stated, people (Aglet notwithstanding) were quite pleased with the 5DII's sensor IQ, but felt improvements were needed in several other areas. Canon delivered them with the 5DIII...and the market rewarded them.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> ...
> All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP


All I need is for someone with a 200D / SL2 to collaborate with me on gathering the appropriate raw files.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP



Honestly, if we're going to stare at tea leaves, how about this:

1) Canon decides (a couple years ago) that the 5D4 will have more resolution than the 6D2, but that the 6D2 should have more than 6D1 for a host of reasons (to entice 6D1 owners to upgrade, to keep up with a 24 MP 'entry FF' marketplace, etc.)

2) Those statements above lead to the conclusion that a new sensor must be made, and they land on 30 MP for the 5D4 and 26 MP for the 6D2. 

3) For a single product line that won't share sensors with another line, Canon's manufacturing folks inform management that going with on-chip ADC will cost more (capital, unit cost, etc.) than with going the older off-chip ADC design. The 5D4's presumed-to-be-bulletproof premium price will underwrite the on-chip costs (and there are some 5D-level industry prestige considerations that it must be there for that product), but the business is less sure that's a _must_ for the entry FF market, that the 6D2 will command a high price for a long enough time to recoup their investment, etc.

4) Canon marketing folks pull out the market research they did at the beginning of the project and state that of their earlier customer segmentation effort, of the 5 customer segments they've identified, only the 'gearhead + internet forum heavy' userbase -- (let's say) a mere 9% of the total 6D2 prospective market -- identifies base ISO DR as a top 3 issue for the purchasing decision. 

5) Marketing updates its financial model assumptions and factors in a small negative sales units delta for the older sensor setup but also factors in the cost savings of going with the cheaper sensor fab. Marketing renders a verdict: "We've run the numbers both ways, and we'll make more profit over time with the off-chip setup. The sensor news will sting a smaller percentage of our prospective customers, but DPAF + tilty-flippy + touch + 6 more MP + the new AF system are the prime movers here. *No on-chip ADC with the 6D2*."

6) Canon then does what it does. It's executes and sticks to plan.

Sound plausible?

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP
> ...



I've just found an older article about hidden DR in Canon sensors. Interesting read.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro it is not unreasonable to have thought that the 6D MKII would improve upon the DR provided by the 6D given the five year gap. In the context of just about everything else technically we buy were used to improvements and advancement in key features and the sensor is a key feature of any camera.
> ...



I'd use a 5d4 if someone gave me one.
Be hard-pressed to pay for one tho... 8-\


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP
> ...



Canon CEO: 
_How can we screw over our entry-level full frame dSLR customers?_

Canon Marketing Department:
_Give the 6DII the same low ISO DR as the 6D._

Canon CEO:






Sound plausible?


----------



## Aglet (Jul 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Sound plausible?
> 
> - A



totally.. That's what they do, make money; not everyone happy.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


To my mind, what really matters is what happens when the owner of a retail camera uses either the included software, or Adobe, to process the RAW files and what they get as a result..... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. I doubt that any of us are going to die a horrible death while we wait for the official release and it would be nice to see what happens in the real world.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. ...


If you're alluding to a technical analysis, such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR), this is a non-issue.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 20, 2017)

Even if its the same as the 6D at least it's still superior to the 5D-III...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d500&attr144_2=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr144_3=nikon_d5&attr146_0=100_4&attr146_1=100_4&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=print&widget=542&x=0.012536560811854582&y=-1.0386402343798111


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 20, 2017)

bclaff said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. ...
> ...


Is the RAW file being properly decoded? Until you are using the final release software, you don't really know.... as the release date gets closer and more of the variables get answered, the odds of the results being correct get better and better, but until you have images taken independently from multiple sources, using retail cameras, and decoded by final release software, you do not know for sure.

As a scientist, one can observe that the ship is filling up with water.... you can state that the probability of the ship sinking is increasing, but you have to wait until it has gone under to declare that it has sunk.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 20, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Bill understood me correctly
> Mike did not
> and ur completely off-target and heading for trolldom



Well if what Bill said is what you meant, then you should have said it. 
No excuses, no complaining about people not being able to mind read. You should have said it and you can't whine when people read what you actually wrote. 

So why not act like an adult rather than complain when people call you out.


----------



## bclaff (Jul 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Yes, properly decoded with 100% certainty. CR2 files are well understood and the cross-checks are obvious.


----------



## squarepants (Jul 20, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.
> 
> I'm not pissed about Canon's lack of low ISO DR in 6D II for technical reasons. I'm just disappointed that they have the means of producing FF sensor, that perfoms almost as good as competition (we've seen that in 80D, 5D IV or 1DX II), but choose not to in 6D II.
> 
> I'm sure that 6D II will be popular camera, it will take amazing pictures (just like 6D is capable of) and it will sell in good numbers. But I feel that something has been intentionally left out and it's a pity. So in the end, it's not about that they cannot do something. It's about that they can, but they won't. And that just bothers me. Okay. End of rant, but I just needed to say it out loud.



You know Khalai – this just about perfectly sums up why I’m so disappointed too. 

It’s not that they _couldn’t_ they just _wouldn’t_. And it’s just not good enough for one of your high end models to drop the ball on this and to be outclassed in (what has become) an important performance parameter by your entry level products. 

Whether this camera sells by the truckload or not is – to me anyway – a moot issue. It should have been better than it is in this regard. Canon should have made sure of this. 

I don’t attribute any of that emotive “evil, vindictive corporate” nonsense to it… Canon’s a company in business to produce products for profit just like any other and I know they have the market lead...etc, etc… But I personally do hope that sales of this model suffer and they get the message that “just good enough” isn’t good enough.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP
> ...



Yes, of course. And as others have said, the main goal may have been to keep the price under $2000, which may not have been possible with whatever would be needed to improve the low ISO DR.

What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....

http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2

and thinks the 6D II is inadequate or can't take a good or even great photo, knows nothing about photography and is clueless about what a good camera is. Take a look at the photos people - it is all about the photos isn't it? Having briefly been a Sony A7 II owner, I, too was convinced by the DRMorons on this and other sites that my Canon 6D was so outdated and inferior to the Sony or Nikon Exmor alternatives, that I needed to switch. Then I took photos with both cameras and much to my confusion, the Sony photos were not better in any way. And in many ways, the Canon 6D was better, which is why I kept the Canon and returned the Sony.


----------



## snoke (Jul 21, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> But stating that DR=IQ without any context or qualifications is silly.



But DR is related to IQ. If you only have 1 stop of DR, the IQ is going to be pretty awful. Kind of like ISO 1024000 on some other cameras. Only once the DR has passed a certain threshold do other factors come into play.

What limits the usefulness of high ISO images? Noise. And especially FPN.

What is noise related to? It is directly related to DR.

Two aspects of IQ that isn't related to IQ is color accuracy and image sharpness. Almost nobody cares about these. Sorry, that's a lie. DPR does look at both of these in their reviews. They just never get discussed here.



> That means that you should be able to see poorer image quality in a low ISO shot from a lower DR camera where everything is sitting where it should be on the response 'curve' of the sensor. And you can't, format for format, mp for mp, output for output.



Why do you need to be able to see poorer IQ? Or is your argument that if the difference in IQ between cameras is not observable to human eyes then it is not important?


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



REALLY glad I got off that ship LONG time ago. LOL


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Bill understood me correctly
> ...



seems some people have a propensity to read something incompletely when they're _excited_ and perceive a message incorrectly.
Happens to everyone
BTW - where is that discrete audio tone coming from, anyway?... :


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

squarepants said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.
> ...



+1


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

Aglet said:


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



So what part of "expectation-bait-and-switch. They're good at it. Lots of practice." did I misunderstand?
You quite clearly accused Canon of misleading people, promising one thing then delivering another.


----------



## snoke (Jul 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Is the RAW file being properly decoded?



All of Canon's CR2 raw files are encoded the same way. From one CR2 file you can create 4 black and white TIF files. 1 for each of the RGBG. There's no magic required. Adobe updates its software to deal with new metadata fields in the CR2 file (that are unrelated to raw data) and to supply camera-specific color profiles plus lens + camera profiles. Decoding of CR2 raw data is the same for the 10D as it is for the 1DX Mark II.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


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



"Inaccurate"! Wow, a LOT of posts should be deleted in that case.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


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



YOU are clear on _your own_ interpretation which I said x posts back was wrong, and you're erring again.
The other poster not only understood what I said but reiterated it very nicely.
I suggest you go back and read what he wrote as he understood it, hopefully it will help you understand what I meant.

edit: and somewhere between pgs 5 & 8 here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33072.0
you'll find some quotes of misleading marketing info which i had not even alluded to previously.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2017)

dak723 said:


> What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....
> 
> http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2
> 
> and thinks the 6D II is inadequate or can't take a good or even great photo, knows nothing about photography and is clueless about what a good camera is. Take a look at the photos people - it is all about the photos isn't it? Having briefly been a Sony A7 II owner, I, too was convinced by the DRMorons on this and other sites that my Canon 6D was so outdated and inferior to the Sony or Nikon Exmor alternatives, that I needed to switch. Then I took photos with both cameras and much to my confusion, the Sony photos were not better in any way. And in many ways, the Canon 6D was better, which is why I kept the Canon and returned the Sony.



This is the most intelligent post I've read in this whole discussion.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....
> ...



It's missing a "don't like / cons" list therefore.... probably fanboy. 

To repeat the big point, again, The 6d2 may be a good camera but it could have been a _great_ camera with the better sensor tech that's available.
And while those blog photos are nice, they are like this big.... they could have been shot with an iPhone and you'd have a hard time telling at that size.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 21, 2017)

snoke said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Is the RAW file being properly decoded?
> ...



Not exactly true. Canon started to used masked pixels for black level offsets around the 40D timeframe.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

Aglet said:


> YOU are clear on _your own_ interpretation which I said x posts back was wrong, and you're erring again.
> The other poster not only understood what I said but reiterated it very nicely.
> I suggest you go back and read what he wrote as he understood it, hopefully it will help you understand what I meant.



I did. Bill also said


> They may not have promised ADC on board the 6DII sensor, but given Canon's camera releases over the part couple of years, on board ADC (or more precisely an equivalent DR level) was an understanable expectation. I know I expected it.



ie they did not promise anything about technology and spoke about quality of the output. Given that the quality of the output is still under discussion your accusations of 'bait and switch' still ring hollow.

Bill's interpretation does make sense, but as I say it is not what you wrote. Which was my point. 

As for 'between pages 5 and 8' I see little that Canon has been proven to have lied about. It seems you have a problem not only expressing yourself accurately but also inferring things never claimed.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....
> ...



I checked out the photos - they look *very* impressive. But who cares? DR is everything nowadays LOL. Just disregard what you see and start blaming Canon and insist that people *must* switch to Nikon, Sony, iPhone, etc...


----------



## Dan Borg (Jul 21, 2017)

bclaff said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



Actually Don is correct, as the tests were being carried carried out before adobe released an update to their raw engine so they converted to TIFF in DPP (the camera store facebook video said that the used DPP for conversion to TIFF) which isn't the same as looking at the RAW files; take a look at the samples that I posted on page 39 of TIFF conversion from my 6D files. Basically the TIFFs out of DPP are lacking the same latitude as a TIFF from PS or LR and they also have crushed blacks... so how can you judge a sensors dynamic range if the TIFF itself is lacking latitude??

However now LR and PS can now process the RAW files it'll be interesting to see the proper results, although I'm not getting my hopes up


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

Luds34,

I have ran quick sharpness (QoF) Focal test analysis over individual RAW files I have downloaded on dpreview website. Test was conducted at the pixel level (1:1). here are the results (updated with 5D IV, 5DsR and 80D data on request):

Canon 80D: *1906.8* the best result but different lens was used so csnnot be compared directly. 
Canon 6D II: 1808.4
Canon 5D III: 1806.6
Canon 6D:  *1829.7* <<<<< better by 1% 
Canon 5D IV: *1850.3* <<<<< approx. 3% better than 6DII, 5D III, or 2% better than 6D Original.

Canon 5DsR: *1699.8* <<< comes as a unexpected surprise to the downside 
abdsolutely worst out of the bunch with 8% worse pixel level sharpness than 5D IV.

as F5.6 is not diffraction limited aperture for FF 50Mpix sensor of 5DsR, I have 3 reason that I can think of:

1. impossible to maintain top quality pixel level sharpness at such a high pixel density ( 50 Mp sensor, high density, small pixel size).
2. sensor out resolved the lens being 85mm F1.8 USM on the pixel level. I believe they should really use a sharper lens. Zeiss Otus / Milvus / Sigma 85 Art lenses come to mind.
3. perfect focus was not achieved in the test image.



there is *NO* sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness). 

Lens EF85mm f/1.8 USM (1800 QoF is what Sigma 85 Art scores wide open and at its absolute worst (at MFD).
Focal Length 85.0mm
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100
Distance to Target 7.4m

*Canon 6D II:*

*QoF=1808.4*

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 39C
Quality Measure 1808.4
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 36/31/33
Red Quality 1720.5
Green Quality 1881.7
Blue Quality 1834.5
HVR -2.5%

*Canon 5D III:*

*QoF=1806.6*

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 6203K
Camera Temperature 33C
Quality Measure 1806.6
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 34/33/34
Red Quality 1755.4
Green Quality 1852.4
Blue Quality 1813.2
HVR -1.4%

*Canon 6D:*

*QoF=1829.7*

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 6490K
Camera Temperature 29C
Quality Measure 1829.7
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1783.6
Green Quality 1872.4
Blue Quality 1833.4
HVR -2.4%

*Canon 5D IV*

*QoF=1850.3* << approx. 3% better than 6DII, 5D III, or 2% better than 6D Original.

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 36C
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 36/30/34
Red Quality 1807.8
Green Quality 1889.4
Blue Quality 1859.9
HVR -2.9%


*Canon 5DsR:*

*QoF=1699.8*
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 5200K
Camera Temperature 43C
Quality Measure 1699.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 34/33/34
Red Quality 1586.8
Green Quality 1794.0
Blue Quality 1721.9
HVR -2.3%

*Canon 80D:*

note: EF 50 F1.4 USM lens was used so results cannot be compared directly.
If this is a sign of what 5DsR II pixel level sharpness can be like, then I am very happy  

Lens EF50mm f/1.4 USM
Focal Length 50.0mm
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100


*QoF=1906.8* <<Wow, just wow.. who would expect this result. canon 80D is sharper than 5D IV at pixel level.


Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 38C
Quality Measure 1906.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 38/31/31
Red Quality 1818.6
Green Quality 1988.9
Blue Quality 1953.5
HVR 5.6%




Luds34 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > absolutely! I was about to feed RAW test files from each camera into Focal for the sharpness analysis, but my Commercial License has just expired. I will get this sorted out in next few days.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> there is *NO* sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness).



I am far from technically gifted in these things but that sounds like a contradiction. Surely in real life you aim to reproduce your image at a certain size and no matter what image size you choose to use, the 6D2 puts more pixels there. And 'perceived' sharpness is what it is all about so the 6D2 does have a sharpness advantage.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

Mike, 

there is no sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, when viewing image at 1:1 on screen.

5DSR images down sampled are even sharper, that does not mean that at pixel level they are as sharp.




Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > there is *NO* sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness).
> ...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 21, 2017)

Its NOT perceived sharpness, you cannot perceive resolution that was not there. At pixel level your comparing apples with oranges the 30% larger files matter. 
Oversampling normally provides cleaner files but the sharpness has to be there.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Mike,
> 
> there is no sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, when viewing image at 1:1 on screen.
> 
> ...



Point taken.
My question could be rephrased as what is the real-world relevance of pixel sharpness if the image we produce is actually sharper?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

when I observed test swatches on DPR website, I initially thought that 6D II sample image swatch looked sharper.
oversampling or not, focal detects that 6D original files are sightly sharper




jeffa4444 said:


> Its NOT perceived sharpness, you cannot perceive resolution that was not there. At pixel level your comparing apples with oranges the 30% larger files matter.
> Oversampling normally provides cleaner files but the sharpness has to be there.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

6D II taken images will appear slightly sharper than 5D III or 6D if printed at the same size or viewed on screen at the same resolution.



Mikehit said:


> Point taken.
> My question could be rephrased as what is the real-world relevance of pixel sharpness if the image we produce is actually sharper?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> 6D II taken images will appear slightly sharper than 5D III or 6D if printed at the same size or viewed on screen at the same resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which comes back to my question: what is the relevance of pixel sharpness? What does it tell us about the image that comes out of the 6D2? How would analysis of pixel sharpness affect my purchasing decision?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > 6D II taken images will appear slightly sharper than 5D III or 6D if printed at the same size or viewed on screen at the same resolution.
> ...


It doesn't what should effect your purchasing decision is to what size you want to enlarge your shots to, what resolution is my monitor or what are my normal viewing levels.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 21, 2017)

Interesting...although it is kind of hard to tell on my phone, looks like the trade off for the lower DR on the 6D2 is a slightly crisper (default) RAW file which is more in line with the previous 5D3 and 6D...the 5D4 and the other recent Canon cameras have a softer output. That being said, you _may_ still be able to squeeze out a tiny bit more detail on the 5D4 files with some USM tweaking. And of course, for those raising shadows you may get more detail with the 5D4 as well in the final image.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

it feels like at my first Job Interview back in 1989 

if you were to observe images taken with the same lens, in same lighting conditions, same framing, same distance to subject, same F-stop, same shutter speed, same ISO on the same size screen and at the same resolution ... theeew * 6D II* taken images will look sharper than images taken with 6D or 5D III. Same is valid for your large prints.
in similar fashion 5DSR images, due to resolution benifit, do look sharper on screen than images taken with 6D, 6D II, 5D III. 

here comes purchasing decision advise: if you ar after sharper on-screen images, then 6D II camera seems like a stronger candidate than 6D original.
in another words: 6D II cropping power is stronger than the one of 6D original. you can crop with 6d II by 14% more than with 6D original 




Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > 6D II taken images will appear slightly sharper than 5D III or 6D if printed at the same size or viewed on screen at the same resolution.
> ...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

that was my intial impression and the motivation behind running these tests. it is an illusion though. at pixel level all these cameras produced virtually identical sharpness results.



Act444 said:


> Interesting...although it is kind of hard to tell *on my phone*, looks like the trade off for the lower DR on the *6D2 is a slightly crisper* (default) RAW file which is more in line with the previous 5D3 and 6D...the 5D4 and the other recent Canon cameras have a softer output. That being said, you _may_ still be able to squeeze out a tiny bit more detail on the 5D4 files with some USM tweaking. And of course, for those raising shadows you may get more detail with the 5D4 as well in the final image.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> it feels like at my first Job Interview back in 1989
> 
> if you were to observe images taken with the same lens, in same lighting conditions, same framing, same distacne to subject, same F-stop, same shutter speed, same ISO on the same size screen and and the same resolution ... theeew * 6D II* taken images will look sharper than images taken with 6D or 5D III. Same is valid for your large prints.
> in similar fashion 5DSR images, due to resolution benifit, do look sharper on screen than images taken with 6D, 6D II, 5D III.
> ...



I get all that. I really do. Honest.
What you have not explained is what is the relevance of 'pixel sharpness'. You have gone to the trouble of assessing it and even gone to the trouble of stating "there is NO sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, ". Yet I don't understand why...what does it tell us.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

Impression I was getting from looking at 6D II produced images yesterday, was that they are sharper than the one produced by the 6D original. I promissed Lud34 to run a quick sharpness evaluation test to see if Canon decided to trade lower DR in the sensor in exchange for a better resolving power of 6D II sensor. It turns out that I was mistaken and unfortunatelly there is no sharpness advantage in files produced by 6D II at pixel level.
I cannot provide any better explanation but this one: 
Canon improved overal image resolution for 6d II by providing more pixels, performing identically well with pixels of 6D original. you get sharper looking image. if that is not enough, then I do not know how to explain better. ignore me 




Mikehit said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > it feels like at my first Job Interview back in 1989
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Impression I was getting from looking at 6D II produced images yesterday, was that they are sharper than the one produced by the 6D original. I promissed Lud34 to run a quick sharpness evaluation test to see if Canon decided to trade lower DR in the sensor in exchange for a better resolving power of 6D II sensor. It turns out that I was mistaken and unfortunatelly there is no sharpness advantage in files produced by 6D II at pixel level.
> I cannot provide any better explanation but this one:
> Canon improved overal image resolution for 6d II by providing more pixels, performing identically well with pixels of 6D original. you get sharper looking image. if that is not enough, then I do not know how to explain better. ignore me
> 
> ...



Thank you. I do find this interesting - there are so many design decisions that these discussions do help but I am one of those that feels the need for context rather than just collection new information.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> that was my intial impression and the motivation behind running these tests. it is an illusion though. at pixel level all these cameras produced virtually identical sharpness results.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting, although I was comparing it more to the 5D4, which I see you did not include in your test. I'd be interested to see how the 6D2 and 5D4 compare...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

5D IV test results, as you requested:

*Canon 5D IV*

QoF=*1850.3* << approx. 3% better than 6DII, 5D III, or 2% better than 6D Original.

Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.1
Serial Number XXXXXXXXX
Lens EF85mm f/1.8 USM
Focal Length 85.0mm
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100
Distance to Target 7.4m
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 36C
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 36/30/34
Red Quality 1807.8
Green Quality 1889.4
Blue Quality 1859.9
HVR -2.9%




Act444 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > that was my intial impression and the motivation behind running these tests. it is an illusion though. at pixel level all these cameras produced virtually identical sharpness results.
> ...


----------



## Act444 (Jul 21, 2017)

Hmm, now THAT is interesting. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

could be just due to the image to image variation as well.. all it proves that there is no substantial pixel level sharpness variation with these 4 cameras. Ideally I should have ran the test over multiple images for each camera model, however it was never meant to be a comprehensive test anyway.

p.s. just to put this into context: I remember following a heated forum discussion re 5D IV image sharpness not as good as the one of 5D III due to stronger AA filter in 5D IV. Looking at the test results, It turns out to be false positive.



Act444 said:


> Hmm, now THAT is interesting. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 21, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> could be just due to the image to image variation as well.. all it proves that there is no substantial pixel level sharpness variation with these 4 cameras. Ideally I should have ran the test over multiple images for each camera model, however it was never meant to be a comprehensive test anyway.
> 
> p.s. just to put this into context: I remember following a heated forum discussion re 5D IV image sharpness not as good as the one of 5D III due to stronger AA filter in 5D IV. Looking at the test results, It turns out to be false positive.
> 
> ...



I truly appreciate all the work and time you have put into these discussions.

Now please compare the A9 at pixel level to...NO - I'm kidding!

Thanks again!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

No worries. I am thinking about runing the same test with 5DsR image. Will let you know tomorrow 



chrysoberyl said:


> I truly appreciate all the work and time you have put into these discussions.
> 
> Now please compare the A9 at pixel level to...NO - I'm kidding!
> 
> Thanks again!


----------



## sean0306 (Jul 21, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> It doesn't what should effect your purchasing decision is to what size you want to enlarge your shots to, what resolution is my monitor or what are my normal viewing levels.



Exactly, as there are other factors to consider. While the 6D II may offer better resolution at most F-stops, the greater pixel density also means diffraction should start to creep in about a stop or so sooner than the original 6D. If you do a lot of macro or landscape work at high f-stops, you may start to lose the benefits of having a higher resolution sensor.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

sean0306 said:


> Exactly, as there are other factors to consider. While the 6D II may offer better resolution at most F-stops, the greater pixel density also means diffraction should start to creep in about a stop or so sooner than the original 6D. If you do a lot of macro or landscape work at high f-stops, *you may start to lose the benefits of having a higher resolution sensor.*


Rubbish. A higher MP sensor will always give greater resolution at a given aperture.


----------



## sean0306 (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> sean0306 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, as there are other factors to consider. While the 6D II may offer better resolution at most F-stops, the greater pixel density also means diffraction should start to creep in about a stop or so sooner than the original 6D. If you do a lot of macro or landscape work at high f-stops, *you may start to lose the benefits of having a higher resolution sensor.*
> ...



Resolution, yes. But sharpness will affected sooner at higher pixel density. Again, it depends on what you are trying to do, and what your intended output is. The vast majority of folks won't be affected by it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 21, 2017)

sean0306 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > sean0306 said:
> ...



I've never understood the point of pixel-level sharpness over total resolution.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

sean0306 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > sean0306 said:
> ...



At any given output size, sharpness will not be affected sooner because diffraction is a function of the aperture not of the sensor. 
The logic of what you are saying is that landscapers will prefer to use a 12MP FF sensor over a 36 MP sensor because diffraction effects will make the 36MP less sharp. 

Please show me an example of two shots with the only difference being sensor resolution where the higher resolution is less sharp.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Luds34,
> 
> I have ran quick sharpness (QoF) Focal test analysis over individual RAW files I have downloaded on dpreview website. Test was conducted at the pixel level (1:1). here are the results (updated with 5D IV data on request):
> 
> ...



A little late to the party, but thanks for posting your update.

So in short there is no pixel level difference. However the greater resolution of the sensor as whole leads to better sharpness.

Of course the pixel level sharpness being equal at ISO 100 I suppose isn't all that surprising. It's why crop sensors, even phones look good in great light.

Thanks again.


----------



## RobDickinson (Jul 22, 2017)

Aglet said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...




Thanks for the compliments. But yes they are web sized and frankly no one else other than me knows the 'story' of them. Its very hard to make objective analysis of a cameras capabilities from web sized processed images where you dont know how it was shot or what was done in post.

For those I was shooting with grad filters ( nisi .9 reverse and a soft lee). The shadows pushed remarkably like a 6D would. So much so I contacted my canon person to ask questions because I personally was expecting 5d4 like DR and files.

So.... Can the 6d2 take great photos? Sure. 

But with high DR scenes you may end up with poorer files than the competition ( D750, A7mk2 etc). You are likely to have to work harder, using bracketing or filters more often - both of which have their own downsides. This introduces its own issues and also slows down shooting when peak light might be limited.

Its not impossible to take great photos with the 6d2, the improvements in terms of usability are great, I'm just surprised that we are offered a sensor from the 'old school'. AFIK this is a first from canon not offering their best IQ (at the time) on every camera that comes out.

thx from 
'some random guy on the internet'


----------



## squarepants (Jul 22, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> ie they did not promise anything about technology



Except maybe when the Senior Managing Director and Chief Executive of Canon Inc's Image Communication Products Operations, Mr. Masaya Maeda - when quizzed directly on the matter during an interview back in September 2015 - stated that _“Right now, we use both on-chip and off-chip, but recently I made the decision going forward to concentrate on the on-chip”._

Maybe it’s just me but I can kinda see an implied technology based “promise” there... what do you reckon?

Even if this camera turns out to have on chip ADC it has apparently failed to deliver the most often touted benefit of such a design... but who cares anyway right? After all improved DR is only for DRones... and people who can’t use cameras properly... or don’t understand exposure... and trolls... yes... definitely the trolls... 
Nasty trolls... they’re the worst.


----------



## RobDickinson (Jul 22, 2017)

A lot of the marketing talk mentions dynamic range, improved image quality and 5d mk4 like sensor technology.

We had certain levels of expectation Canon had fed directly.


----------



## squarepants (Jul 22, 2017)

RobDickinson said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Kia Ora Rob a.k.a some random guy on the internet

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your (apparently already controversial) contribution to this discussion!! 

You've been (rightly) praised for the artistic merits of your photography... but mind you don't speak too positively of increased dynamic range around these parts... folks don't seem to like them newfangled ideas around here ;D


----------



## RobDickinson (Jul 22, 2017)

Thanks!

Controversial perhaps.... But realistically just early. Had production cameras been built to a different spec then it could well have been misleading. But they are not.

Unfortunately for my contacts at canon I should have been wrapped in an NDA and told it was a preprod model etc and they are in trouble now. Had I known I wouldnt have released any raws.

But all that would have accomplished is a weeks delay on the findings ( if that). 

The real 'culprit' here is whoever at Canon Japan decided this sensor was right for the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2017)

RobDickinson said:


> The real 'culprit' here is whoever at Canon Japan decided this sensor was right for the market.



It's only wrong for the market if the market doesn't buy the 6DII, i.e. if sales are poor / fail to meet expectations. With respect, don't you think it's a bit premature to make such a conclusion? 

Conversely, if the 6DII does sell well (and I'd lay good odds that it will), and if there was a sound business reason to use the sensor they did (again, rather likely), then the 'culprit' will be a 'hero' to Canon.


----------



## squarepants (Jul 22, 2017)

That’s too bad for the local Canon guys. 

As you say though – early, but only delaying the inevitable. 

And I couldn’t agree more... I honestly can’t believe Canon would think that in 2017 it was ok to release a camera – the previous iteration of which was widely used by landscape photographers as a lighter weight full frame alternative and ironically probably also _because it offered the best base ISO DR of that gen of Canon bodies_ - with 2008 style base ISO dynamic range.


----------



## RobDickinson (Jul 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> RobDickinson said:
> 
> 
> > The real 'culprit' here is whoever at Canon Japan decided this sensor was right for the market.
> ...



It certainly might work out financially for them in the short term at least. 

I have to question the long term prospects with shrinking market and new models coming out, if they have to engineer a 6dmk3 earlier than expected those slim extra profits will be eaten.

IMO this is not likely to be a financial decision? I cant see an on sensor ACD version costing more than what they have used. More likely a business decision or limit on production capacity of the new type sensors.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

Hi Luds34,
Correct. but not without a surprise there! I was expecting the 5D IV pixel level sharpness results to be the weakest out of the bunch due to folks complaining about very strong AA filter in the camera affecting overal sharpness of the images coming out of the camera. you have heard that as well, right? well, it turned out that this not being true with 5D IV images being the sharpest out of the bunch instead.
I will follow up with the 5DSR (canceled AA filter, apparently) shortly. that would be interesting!

here are 5DsR pixel sharpness test results. All I can say is : hmmmm 

Canon 5DsR: *1699.8* <<< comes as a unexpected surprise to the downside 
absolutely worst out of the bunch with 8% worse pixle level sharpness than 5D IV.

as F5.6 is not diffraction limited aperture for FF 50Mpix sensor of 5DsR, i have 3 reason that I can think of:

1. impossible to maintain top quality pixel level sharpness at such a high pixel density ( 50 Mp sensor, high density, small pixel size).
2. sensor out resolved the lens being 85mm F1.8 USM on the pixel level. I believe they should really use a sharper lens. Zeiss Otus / Milvus / Sigma 85 Art lenses come to mind.
3. lens was not focused perfectly.

*Canon 5DsR:*

*QoF=1699.8*
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 5200K
Camera Temperature 43C
Quality Measure 1699.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 34/33/34
Red Quality 1586.8
Green Quality 1794.0
Blue Quality 1721.9
HVR -2.3%

*Canon 80D:*

note: EF 50 F1.4 USM lens was used so results cannot be compared directly.

Lens EF50mm f/1.4 USM
Focal Length 50.0mm
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100


*QoF=1906.8* <<Wow, just wow.. who would expect this result. canon 80D is sharper than 5D IV at pixel level.


Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 38C
Quality Measure 1906.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 38/31/31
Red Quality 1818.6
Green Quality 1988.9
Blue Quality 1953.5
HVR 5.6%




Luds34 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34,
> ...


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 22, 2017)

So if the 6DII appears to have a sharper image due to the higher MP, why does it still appear sharper than the 5D4?

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=nikon_d5&attr144_3=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr146_0=100_2&attr146_1=100_2&attr146_2=100_2&attr146_3=100_2&normalization=compare&widget=542&x=-0.11530572648151236&y=1.0427498555748123


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2017)

squarepants said:


> That’s too bad for the local Canon guys.
> 
> As you say though – early, but only delaying the inevitable.
> 
> And I couldn’t agree more... I honestly can’t believe Canon would think that in 2017 it was ok to release a camera – the previous iteration of which was *widely used by landscape photographers* as a lighter weight full frame alternative and ironically probably also _because it offered the best base ISO DR of that gen of Canon bodies_ - with 2008 style base ISO dynamic range.



Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data. Yet they didn't increase the DR of the 6DII at all, relative to its predecessor. Interesting....could be an example of the difference between informed business decisions and wild guesses based on personal anecdotal impressions.


----------



## snoke (Jul 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data.



How Canon get this data on how many have 6D for landscape?


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Hi Luds34,
> Correct. but not without a surprise there! I was expecting the 5D IV pixel level sharpness results to be the weakest out of the bunch due to folks complaining about very strong AA filter in the camera affecting overal sharpness of the images coming out of the camera. you have heard that as well, right? well, it turned out that this not being true with 5D IV images being the sharpest out of the bunch instead.
> I will follow up with the 5DSR (canceled AA filter, apparently) shortly. that would be interesting!
> 
> ...



It's funny, the AA filter crossed my mind as well. When all your pixel level measurements came back the same, I did think "did Canon just proportionally apply the AA filter per resolution to all these cameras?"

Because my comment about ISO 100 and enough light makes sense, more then enough light to fill the pixels (even if some of them are half the size of others) that the signal is maxed out. However, just as you were thinking, I would have thought that the AA filter would then have been the limiting factor of these sensors.

I'm glad you updated with the 5DSr. I was wondering if that small of pixel would finally show a limit. Totally shooting from the hip here, but I wonder if the loss is less to do with the increased density (in my mind I still think there is a lot of light per pixel at ISO 100) and possibly the overhead in electronics/sensor at the pixel level.

Either way, I just anxiously wait for this 6D2 to ship. I've been without a DSLR for a couple months now. I didn't realize how much I'd miss the camera.


----------



## Jschmitt (Jul 22, 2017)

RobDickinson said:


> I have to question the long term prospects with shrinking market and new models coming out, if they have to engineer a 6dmk3 earlier than expected those slim extra profits will be eaten.
> 
> IMO this is not likely to be a financial decision? I cant see an on sensor ACD version costing more than what they have used. More likely a business decision or limit on production capacity of the new type sensors.



In trying to figure out the decision to (evidently) not include on-chip ADC, I've begun to wonder if there will be a quicker update cycle to the 6D3 than the almost five years between the 6D and 6D2. This gives them a much easier update path in two and a half years if they chose to do so - just put the sensor with on-chip ADC in there. Would people be upset and say that this is what the 6D2 should have been? Probably, but that would probably be offset by the fact that the camera would perform better. I have yet to see any evidence that Canon is too concerned with people being upset with the 6D2 (even in my own communications with their sales team), so I'm not sure that people being upset is an issue for them.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

updated now with 80D data. now, totally confusing! as 80D pixel density is very close to the one of 5DsR  

there is also a chance that in 5DsR test, the sensor outresolved the lens or focus in the test image file was not at the perfect level. EXIF data points to Phase Detection focusing method used. so there is a chance that image is not the sharpest due to the focus error.
in regards, to 80D results, they used 50 mm lens so results cannot be compared directly, but if 80D performance is a sign of what pixel level sharpness we can expect from 5DsR II, then I am very happy.
sounds idiotic, but 80D with EF 50 1.4 USM attached produced much sharper at pixel level image than 5DsR / 85 F1.8 USM combo. framing will be similar, oversampling of the much larger 5DsR file to 80D file resolution level may equalise things out. but as it stands, it almost makes sense shooting portraiture with 80D instead of 5DsR at ISO 100 for better resolution and details level. 

there is also a hope that if this sensor was used in 7D III, wildlife photogs will be very happy with the pixel level sharpness delivered by their cam.




Luds34 said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Luds34,
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Jul 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> updated now with 80D data. now, totally confusing! as 80D pixel density is very close to the one of 5DsR
> 
> there is also a chance that in 5DsR test, the sensor outresolved the lens or focus in the test image file was not at the perfect level. EXIF data points to Phase Detection focusing method used. so there is a chance that image is not the sharpest due to the focus error.
> in regards, to 80D results, they used 50 mm lens so results cannot be compared directly, but if 80D performance is a sign of what pixel level sharpness we can expect from 5DsR II, then I am very happy.
> ...



Alex, are you sure those numbers correct?  It could be the lens. Please take a look:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=pentax_645z&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.005392698864732366&y=0.2853721348094403


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

you are looking at downsampled images to equalise sensor size variations note how framing is very similar.


I am redownloading RAW files of 5DsR, 5D IV, 80D and 6D as we speak and re run test with these files again. 



Jopa said:


> Alex, are you sure those numbers correct?  It could be the lens. Please take a look:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=pentax_645z&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.005392698864732366&y=0.2853721348094403


----------



## Jopa (Jul 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> you are looking at downsampled images to equalise sensor size variations note how framing is very similar.
> 
> 
> I am redownloading RAW files of 5DsR, 5D IV, 80D and 6D as we speak and re run test with these files again.
> ...



To me they look normal (not downsampled), but I can't tell for sure. You can probably download straight from DPR?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

yup, that is what I do: download RAW files and feed into Focal for analysis.

thanks for the link, btw as the RAW files on this page are different to the ones on other page I have downloaded my first set or test RAW files from:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

unfortunately, there is no second 6D II test file available at this stage, but the result achieved was in line with expectations.

well, 5DsR continued to disappoint and 80D second file is an outlier - tell tale sign is massive astigmatism detected. I would say that second 80D test file can be safely discarded. I certainly would. here are the results:

*Canon 5DsR (first file) : QoF=1699.8
Canon 5DsR ( second file): QoF=1690.1
*

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s 
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature 6854K
Camera Temperature 33C
Quality Measure 1690.1
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1538.2
Green Quality 1830.4
Blue Quality 1703.4
HVR -1.7%


*Canon 80D (second file): QoF=1714.3* << focus error, Astigmatism level detected was way too high as well??
*Canon 80D (first file) : QoF=1906.8*

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 38C
Quality Measure 1714.3
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 37/31/32
Red Quality 1617.0
Green Quality 1801.2
Blue Quality 1745.3
HVR 8.5% << way too high!

*Canon 6D (second file): QoF=1839.5*
*Canon 6D (first file): QoF=1829.7*



Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature 6381K
Camera Temperature 32C
Quality Measure 1839.5
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1786.2
Green Quality 1888.3
Blue Quality 1844.5
HVR -1.3%

*Canon 5D IV (second file): QoF=1864.2*
*Canon 5D IV (first file): QoF=1850.3*


Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 34C
Quality Measure 1864.2
Optimised No
Ignored No
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 36/31/34
Red Quality 1827.5
Green Quality 1897.8
Blue Quality 1872.7
HVR -2.8%

*Canon 6D II (first file): QoF=1808.4*

*Canon 5D III (first file): QoF=1806.6
Canon 5D III (second file): QoF=1810.1*

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature 6490K
Camera Temperature 28C
Quality Measure 1810.1
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1756.4
Green Quality 1848.0
Blue Quality 1825.3
HVR -1.5%



Jopa said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > you are looking at downsampled images to equalise sensor size variations note how framing is very similar.
> ...


----------



## squarepants (Jul 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data. Yet they didn't increase the DR of the 6DII at all, relative to its predecessor. Interesting....could be an example of the difference between informed business decisions and wild guesses based on personal anecdotal impressions.



Do you believe they don’t?

Or have you actually had eyes on the content of Canon’s market research specifically regarding the usefulness of improved base ISO DR to its 6D Mark II target user group? And are you able to provide any data on how large a user sample was polled and exactly how representative it was of the wider user group? It’s ok if you can’t... but you’re right it _is_ interesting... it could be another example of a wild guess based on personal anecdotal impressions.


----------



## Pippan (Jul 22, 2017)

squarepants said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data. Yet they didn't increase the DR of the 6DII at all, relative to its predecessor. Interesting....could be an example of the difference between informed business decisions and wild guesses based on personal anecdotal impressions.
> ...


Or it could be evidenced by the apparent fact that Canon has produced a good camera but not one ideally suited to landscape photographers.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

As requested by *Chrysoberyl*, I ran pixel sharpness analysis over SONY A9, A7R II, NIKON D750 and D810 RAW files. Total of 2 files per each camera models were analysed. 

*SONY A9*, 2 files analysed:* QoF=1874.6 and QoF=1867.0 *<< best performance across Sony and Nikon RAW files tested but falls short of Canon 80D pixel level sharpness performance

Lens FE 85mm F1.8
Focal Length 85.0mm
Termination Reason Success
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature Unknown
Quality Measure 1874.6
Optimised No
Ignored No
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 35/32/33
Red Quality 1835.8
Green Quality 1901.7
Blue Quality 1889.9
HVR -1.1%

*Sony A7R II*, 2 files analysed: *QoF=1776.2 and QoF=1750.7*

Lens FE 55mm F1.8 ZA
Focal Length 55.0mm
Termination Reason Success
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature Unknown
Quality Measure 1776.2
Optimised No
Ignored No
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 35/32/33
Red Quality 1726.8
Green Quality 1912.9
Blue Quality 1691.6
HVR -1.4%


*nikon D810*, 2 files analysed: *QoF=1818.7 and QoF=1751.8*

Lens AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G
Focal Length 85.0mm
Termination Reason Success
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100
Distance to Target 3.4m
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature Unknown
Quality Measure 1818.7
Optimised No
Ignored No
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/32/34
Red Quality 1691.2
Green Quality 1883.8

*nikon D750*, 2 files analysed: *QoF=1821.1 and QoF=1811.2* 

Lens AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G
Focal Length 85.0mm
Termination Reason Success
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100
Distance to Target 4.0m
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature Unknown
Quality Measure 1821.1
Optimised No
Ignored No
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/32/35
Red Quality 1785.2
Green Quality 1855.4
Blue Quality 1823.5
HVR 0.0%
HVR -1.1%

so far Canon 80D RAW files demonstrated the best pixel level sharpness: *1906.8*, followed by SONY A9: *1874.6* and Canon 5D IV: *1864.2*
Canon 5DsR RAW files demonstrated the worst out of all files tested pixel level sharpness : *QoF=1699.8*


----------



## Khalai (Jul 22, 2017)

Seems odd that OLPF-less cameras have lower pixel sharpness. I would expect A7r2 or 5Dsr to be one of the best out there...


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

It could be that sensors have outresolved the lenses used, hence the unexpected result. don't know.. I was shocked myself.



Khalai said:


> Seems odd that OLPF-less cameras have lower pixel sharpness. I would expect A7r2 or 5Dsr to be one of the best out there...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> It could be that sensors have outresolved the lenses used, hence the unexpected result. don't know.. I was shocked myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We need to otusify those tests then? Looking for sponsorship, anyone?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

Sigma 85 Art will do the trick nicely. Trust me ;D



Khalai said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > It could be that sensors have outresolved the lenses used, hence the unexpected result. don't know.. I was shocked myself.
> ...


----------



## Dan Borg (Jul 22, 2017)

So here's a review of the Canon 6D MKII from a UK camera store, she says (in the comments) that she reviewed the camera without reading any internet bias... even though the MKII appears to have less DR than the original and more recent Canon offerings, she seems to think that it has more than her 6D??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gkmqh3T1jc


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2017)

snoke said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data.
> ...



They ask their customers, i.e., market research.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 22, 2017)

my 12 y.o. son believes that there is a fingerprint scanner inbuilt in the shutter button of my 6D. He has all the evidence that supports his theory as the camera refused to focus on the subject at the press of the shutter button for him no matter how hard he tried. It does for me though. hint: Back Button AF. 



Dan Borg said:


> So here's a review of the Canon 6D MKII from a UK camera store, she says (in the comments) that she reviewed the camera without reading any internet bias... even though the MKII appears to have less DR than the original and more recent Canon offerings, *she seems to think that it has more than her 6D*??
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gkmqh3T1jc


----------



## Khalai (Jul 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm quite positive that nobody asked me. And I've been in the CPS program for years, subscribed to CPS newsletter as well. So I'm honestly asking, where did they ask? I've never stumbled upon any Canon questionnaire or survey...


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Jul 22, 2017)

Khalai said:


> I'm quite positive that nobody asked me. And I've been in the CPS program for years, subscribed to CPS newsletter as well. So I'm honestly asking, *where did they ask?* I've never stumbled upon any Canon questionnaire or survey...


On the european CPS website there is a section where one can click how the gear is used.






kind regards
Frank


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 22, 2017)

Khalai said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...



With sufficiently-random polling, you don't need to poll the entire population. Depending on the accuracy needed, you don't need to poll even close to the entire population. A sample of 2,000 people can get good accuracy to the entire population of the US. Canon would likely only need 200-500 users to get the accuracy needed for product planning, out of the entire population of Canon users, or even of camera users.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 22, 2017)

Photorex said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite positive that nobody asked me. And I've been in the CPS program for years, subscribed to CPS newsletter as well. So I'm honestly asking, *where did they ask?* I've never stumbled upon any Canon questionnaire or survey...
> ...



Thanks. I filled that form like five or six years ago and since then, I completely forgot about it and never updated it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2017)

squarepants said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data. Yet they didn't increase the DR of the 6DII at all, relative to its predecessor. Interesting....could be an example of the difference between informed business decisions and wild guesses based on personal anecdotal impressions.
> ...



It is logical that DR is important to landscape photography (e.g., DxO's 'landscape score' is the DR at base ISO). It is logical that when something is important to you, you want more of it. Based on the available data, it appears the 6DII is no better than the 6D in terms of low ISO DR. Canon is very successful at designing and selling dSLRs, having sold more ILCs per year than any other manufacturer for >14 years. Is it logical for a successful company to make a business decision that would leave a significant fraction of their target market for a product dissatisfied? 

It's ok if you aren't good at logical thinking. Not everyone understands the difference between a wild guess and a logical inference supported by facts.


----------



## BillB (Jul 22, 2017)

squarepants said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ie they did not promise anything about technology
> ...



There was certainly a strong expectation among those who cared (including me) that the 6DII would have on sensor ADC. I think the expectation was quite reasonable, but I think it is twisting words to say that there was an implied Canon promise. 

Another piece of the puzzle is that magic "DR" numbers aren't as important as some people make out, at least in my opinion. Better shadow lifting at low ISO's is certainly useful, but how useful is it in relation to other characteristics? DR sounds so much more important than "shadow lifting at low ISO's" and there are real numbers to compare before anybody can buy a camera. And yes, there is some deliberate trolling going on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2017)

Khalai said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...



Market research doesn't usually involve asking the entire customer base. Personally, I've received two online survey invitations from Canon in the past few years. One question I recall from the last one presented a list of ~20 features, e.g., more MP, faster frame rate, more DR, more AF points, longer battery life, etc., and respondents were asked to pick their top three features from that list. 

As for nobody asking you, at least here in the US, Canon collects a ton data from a survey taken every single time a product is registered. Demographics like age, location, income, bodies or lenses you own from both Canon and other makers, lenses you plan to buy (and assuming you register them, whether or not you actually did buy), how you learn about products, factors that influence your purchasing decisions, etc. Relevant to this discussion is a question, "Please describe the primary applications of your camera," where you can select up to three options among choices like family events, nightlife, trips, nature/wildlife, outdoors/landscapes, macro, etc. 

So, Canon absolutely has data on the main uses/genres for a very large fraction of 6D owners (and every other product too, of course).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 22, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> sean0306 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Mikehit is correct. If you have a scene and decide to split into 3 sections, like a lot of landscape photographers might do for instance, and take each shot with a 12 MP camera and then stitch them together, then yes perhaps (and is often the case) that stitched photograph will be sharper than one larger 36 MP shot (not sectioned). 

However, if the photographer decides to take one photo of the entire scene with each (12 MP and 36 MP) camera, then the 36 MP photo will always resolve more detail, everything else equal.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 22, 2017)

Khalai said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...



To neuro's point, you actually provide Canon a TON of information everytime you register a product as a CPS member, whether you realize it nor not.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 22, 2017)

squarepants said:


> Mr. Masaya Maeda - when quizzed directly on the matter during an interview back in September 2015 - stated that _“Right now, we use both on-chip and off-chip, but recently I made the decision going forward to concentrate on the on-chip”._



"Concentrate on" doesn't mean "use exclusively".


----------



## snoke (Jul 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



This assume people register and give right informations. If I register and want Canon to think I important, I say I have many big white lenses. How Canon know if true or not? No registration card for lens on craigslist or ebay!

If Canon do this and Canon products are recognized as not as good at landscape then fewer owners do landscape so Canon do less for them.

Market research direct Canon and buyers directed by Canon too. Less people buy Canon for landscape, not so many respond with landscape needs, Canon does less for them.

Et voila, 6D Mark II and it has old sensor design.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 22, 2017)

snoke said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



Erm, well I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but you have to enter your lens and camera serial numbers to prove to them you own the items you say (in order to register for CPS in the UK, at least).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 22, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> my 12 y.o. son believes that there is a fingerprint scanner inbuilt in the shutter button of my 6D. He has all the evidence that supports his theory as the camera refused to focus on the subject at the press of the shutter button for him no matter how hard he tried. It does for me though. hint: Back Button AF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is the point in pixel level sharpness reviews? 
We shoot a CIPA high resolution chart using an even field illuminated sphere and project images using a 4K projector on a screen with a 53ft diagonal. Of DSLRs the 5DS / 5DSr give the sharpest images using a CN-E 85mm T1.3. 
We will test the 6D MKII and see how it stacks up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2017)

snoke said:


> This assume people register and give right informations. If I register and want Canon to think I important, I say I have many big white lenses. How Canon know if true or not? No registration card for lens on craigslist or ebay!



Lol. If you're a liar, sure you can lie to Canon. In aggregate, most will be truthful and your self-aggrandizing lies will be irrelevant. Especially because, if you tick the box indicating you own a supertelephoto lens but have not registered any, Canon will have discovered your little lie ( and if you bought one secondhand, that's irrelevant to Canon anyway). 




snoke said:


> If Canon do this and Canon products are recognized as not as good at landscape then fewer owners do landscape so Canon do less for them.
> 
> Market research direct Canon and buyers directed by Canon too. Less people buy Canon for landscape, not so many respond with landscape needs, Canon does less for them.



First off, a stop of DR more or less is not the difference between good for landscape photography and not good for it. But, if a business decision results in a few less of one particular type of photographer buying Canon gear, but an overall increase in profit, Canon wins. Thanks for proving my point! 




snoke said:


> Et voila, 6D Mark II and it has old sensor design.



Exactly. Canon evidently feels the trade off will not adversely impact their bottom line.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2017)

Dan Borg said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gkmqh3T1jc



Thanks for that link. It certainly highlights reasons that I am considering buying this camera, and it adds some that I hadn't thought about, so it might expand the sorts of pictures that I regularly take.

The macro shots were especially interesting to me, since she was apparently using a lens that I own. FF at 1:1 obviously covers more territory that on my Rebel.

DR is surely better than on my current cameras, and I don't have problems now except in extreme circumstances that no current camera can come close to, such as stained glass windows in a dark church, as I posted some pages back. Not achieving my life-long ambition of having on-chip ADC may be the headline of my obituary, but I'll run that risk for now.

I hadn't thought about the advantages of having both a real viewfinder and a flippy touch screen on the same camera. My G7X II has a tilty touch screen, but no viewfinder; and my T3i has a flippy non-touch screen as well as a real viewfinder. So I do have some experience with all these things, just not on the same camera.


----------



## EdB (Jul 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. Canon evidently feels the trade off will not adversely impact their bottom line.



How much Canon stock do you own?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 23, 2017)

EdB said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Canon evidently feels the trade off will not adversely impact their bottom line.
> ...



Seriously, are you people dumb? He has never said he agreed with the off-die ADC's on the sensor. He's just telling you WHY they did. Can you not grasp that? What difference in the universe would it make if he owned stock in Canon or not? It won't change any facts. Do you seriously think that if Canon believed the trade-off WOULD impact bottom line, they would have made that trade-off? 

What the heck is wrong with people?


----------



## dak723 (Jul 23, 2017)

As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the connection between DR and landscape rather odd, since I have always found my 6D to have enough DR for any landscape shot I have ever taken (yes, I realize others may differ). On the other hand, I would expect wedding photographers - who are dealing with white dresses, black suits and tuxes, and more extreme indoor lighting - to be the target market for more DR.


----------



## EdB (Jul 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



He defends Canon no matter what they do and it's annoying. Whenever someone criticizes Canon he always there with his market arguments that Canon must be doing something right since they have market share. Justin Beiber has market share, doesn't mean it's good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2017)

dak723 said:


> As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the connection between DR and landscape rather odd, since I have always found my 6D to have enough DR for any landscape shot I have ever taken (yes, I realize others may differ). On the other hand, I would expect wedding photographers - who are dealing with white dresses, black suits and tuxes, and more extreme indoor lighting - to be the target market for more DR.



But...are wedding photographers the target market for the 6D?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 23, 2017)

EdB said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > EdB said:
> ...



Justin Beiber isn't good to YOU. He's damn to good to million and millions of people world-wide. Now are you starting to see why what you say is completely wrong?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2017)

EdB said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > EdB said:
> ...



No, I don't. If you're annoyed, that's your problem, not mine. Feel free to ignore my posts. 

If someone criticizes Canon, that's fine. If someone concludes that their criticism has any consequence for Canon, they are being ridiculous and thus inviting ridicule. 

A few of Bieber's >30 million twitter followers might disagree with you. But I'm sure you're a better judge of 'good' than they are, right? A smart guy like you, I guess you get to pick the best camera for everyone, the best music for everyone, probably the best car, food, and their favorite color, too. Gee, you're a pretty special guy, aren't ya? :


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Yeah you do. No one can say anything remotely critical of a canon product without you fuming in your basement and rushing to your keyboard.
You'll go to the extreme length of defending justin bieber's musical quality (!!!!!!!) without realizing how ridiculous that notion is. So 30 million teenage girls think he's cute? That must mean his music is good? Have you ever heard about logic?
You seriously need to leave your basement more often.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 23, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > EdB said:
> ...



Do you have any evidence to support that they also do not think his music is good? How do you know they don't like his music or don't think it's good?

You don't. You don't even know what you're arguing really.

And you continue to miss the whole point. At which point, it's fairly certain you're never going to understand how any of this works. Just keep takin' perty pitchers ok.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 23, 2017)

dak723 said:


> As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the connection between DR and landscape rather odd, since I have always found my 6D to have enough DR for any landscape shot I have ever taken (yes, I realize others may differ). On the other hand, I would expect wedding photographers - who are dealing with white dresses, black suits and tuxes, and more extreme indoor lighting - to be the target market for more DR.


Good point. My DR bane is male wood ducks in full light.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Do you have any evidence I ever claimed said teenagers think the music is bad? Would that mean the music is actually bad? Please take a second to learn how to read, the internet is full of basic lessons in logic thought.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 23, 2017)

EdB said:


> Whenever someone criticizes Canon he always there with his market arguments that Canon must be doing something right since they have market share.



This is false. He (and others) object to bad criticisms of Canon gear. You might wonder what's the difference between good and bad criticisms, so here's a simple rule of thumb: if you talk about your particular needs, wants, budget, hopes, etc. then it's generally legitimate. If you try to assert that you are representative of the full market for DSLR gear then that's not legitimate criticism. So if you limit your criticisms to your own situation I'll bet the Canon poltergeist Neuro will leave you alone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> Seriously, are you people dumb?



Clearly, the answer to that is a resounding yes.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 23, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> You'll go to the extreme length of defending justin bieber's musical quality (!!!!!!!) without realizing how ridiculous that notion is. So 30 million teenage girls think he's cute? That must mean his music is good?



So what do you think of Arnold Schoenberg's atonal works?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 23, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



Well considering you said just that, then yeah I do have evidence. Either way you lose because lots and lots of people think his music is good whether you do or not.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Do yourself a favor and take a free course in logic and reading comprehension


----------



## snoke (Jul 23, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Erm, well I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but you have to enter your lens and camera serial numbers to prove to them you own the items you say (in order to register for CPS in the UK, at least).



CPS not market research.



dak723 said:


> As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the connection between DR and landscape rather odd, since I have always found my 6D to have enough DR for any landscape shot I have ever taken (yes, I realize others may differ).



You get Canon survey?



neuroanatomist said:


> A few of Bieber's >30 million twitter followers might disagree with you. But I'm sure you're a better judge of 'good' than they are, right?



Bieber isn't "good", he product of market research. His song and video product of market research. In America everyone want Hershey chocolate, so it popular like Bieber. This make it good chocolate? Strawmen are fun because burn easily.

Use your logic then Rebel DSLR is Canon best DSLR because it most popular. Yes? This your logic?



neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. If you're a liar, sure you can lie to Canon. In aggregate, most will be truthful and your self-aggrandizing lies will be irrelevant. Especially because, if you tick the box indicating you own a supertelephoto lens but have not registered any, Canon will have discovered your little lie



It form that go into database for bulk email and other things. Nobody care about lies, just numbers. If you want invite to free breakfast from company, when you fill out survey, say "secretary" or "manager"? If they think what you say true then lie become truth 



> First off, a stop of DR more or less is not the difference between good for landscape photography and not good for it.



So you mean landscape photography like noise?
And you say that landscape photography don't want less noise?



> But, if a business decision results in a few less of one particular type of photographer buying Canon gear, but an overall increase in profit, Canon wins. Thanks for proving my point!



Cannot know yet if 6D Mark II is good or bad for Canon profit. Always initial sales good. In one year? In two year? 6D Mark II be long behind.



> Exactly. Canon evidently feels the trade off will not adversely impact their bottom line.



If DR not a problem for Canon, why change in 80D and 5D Mark IV?
Why not Canon keep same DR if old sensor good enough?


----------



## Pookie (Jul 23, 2017)

Wow 54 pages... what is called when a bunch of guys hang out in a circle and play like this?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2017)

Hi Jeffa,
when you project images using that 4K projector, do you upscale them to the same 53ft screen size? if so, then 50 Mpix 5Ds/R images get upscaled to a lesser degree than, say 30 Mpix images of 5D IV. what it does mean is that when you view 5DsR images at the same screen size as 5D IV images you do get approx. 30% advantage (√50/30).
therefore even if at pixel level 5D IV images are 10% sharper, the projected / on screen viewed 5DsR images woul look sharper and not by a small ammount.

however, if you were to crop (not downscale) 50 Mpix 5DsR image to 30 Mpix size ( approx. 30% each side), and than project the resulting image and compare with uncropped 5D IV image, then you will notice a substantial sharpness advantage ov the 5D IV image over the 5DsR image.

to put this pixel sharpness difference into perspective:

An1850 Focal units sharp AFMA adjusted lens, would typicaly perform at 1700 unit sharpness level when is out of tune by +/- (5-7) AFMA points. 

lets look at the bright side:

1. New generation Canon on-chip ADC sensors in 80D and 5D IV exibit improved sharpness at the pixel level. There is a very good chance that 7D III and 5DsR II sensor will be much, much shaper at pixel the level than their predecessors. that will result in even sharper on screen or large printed images. *you should be able to print even larger or crop more whilst maintaining the same level of sharpness.* what is not to like? 

2. Canon 80D / 5D IV on-chip ADC sensors are equally sharp or slightly sharper at the pixel level than Sony flagship A9 or Nikon D750 (compared at ISO 100). 



jeffa4444 said:


> What is the point in pixel level sharpness reviews?
> *We shoot a CIPA high resolution chart using an even field illuminated sphere and project images using a 4K projector on a screen with a 53ft diagonal.* Of DSLRs the 5DS / 5DSr give the sharpest images using a CN-E 85mm T1.3.
> We will test the 6D MKII and see how it stacks up.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 23, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Hi Jefa,
> when you project images using that 4K projector, do you upscale them to the same 53ft screen size? if so, then 50 Mpix 5Ds/R images get upscaled to a lesser degree than, say 30 Mpix images of 5D IV. what it does mean is that when you view 5DsR images at the same screen size as 5D IV images you do get approx. 30% advantage (√50/30).
> therefore even if at pixel level 5D IV images are 10% sharper, the projected / on screen viewed 5DsR images woul look sharper and not by a small ammount.
> 
> ...


All fair points and yes we do upscale to fit the screen primarily because thats exactly how the majority will treat their output even if were taking about say A2 prints (our customers are shooting billboards for example). 
Its strange that Canon chose to continue with off sensor ADC for the 6D MKII because they could have played around with the AA filter if they wanted to "hobble" the sharpness / resolution at pixel level to favour the 5D MKIV and with the almost certainty that the 7D MKIII and the 5DSr MKII will get on sensor ADC the production volumes and therefor scale will shrink on the old fab line. 
Canon clearly had an economic reason most of which we can only guess at, at a personal level the sharpness if within the bounds of the 6D is fine what I don't understand given the original was billed as a travel / landscape still camera is why the DR was not improved for me at times this has been an issue at dawn & dusk in certain conditions but as Ive stated elsewhere the plusses still outweigh the minuses if compared to the 6D.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the connection between DR and landscape rather odd, since I have always found my 6D to have enough DR for any landscape shot I have ever taken (yes, I realize others may differ). On the other hand, I would expect wedding photographers - who are dealing with white dresses, black suits and tuxes, and more extreme indoor lighting - to be the target market for more DR.
> ...



I really doubt anything north of "hobbyist" is. It's a FF Rebel for people who wanted a step up from their Rebel but didn't need the bells and whistles of a 7D or 5D.

That, I assume, was your point anyway.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 23, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Well, I've done 20 weddings with my 6D, but I'm hardly professional. Any serious wedding photographer would be using either 5D III or IV anyway.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 23, 2017)

Pookie said:


> Wow 54 pages... what is called when a bunch of guys hang out in a circle and play like this?



Haha, sex! You're so clever.


----------



## BillB (Jul 23, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



A big part of the 6D market was defined by price, at least in comparison to other FF cameras, but the 6D market was also defined by people who didn't feel the need for various 5DIII features--ruggedness, sophisticated AF, joysticks etc. So, from a market point of view it was a super Rebel and a 5DIII lite. On CR, most of the focus has been on the 5DIII lite side of things as far as the 6DII is concerned, while Canon's emphasis in designing the 6DII seems to have been on the super Rebel side. Is there room between the 6DII and the 5DIV for another camera, maybe mirrorless?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2017)

Khalai said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


It also works great for product photography in poor light..... you don't need a kick-ass AF system when you are dealing with inanimate objects in a lab..... but that's not really professional photography, it's only part of my job and I get paid to do it....


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 23, 2017)

Khalai said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



This is why I didn't say "the 6D2 cannot be used for weddings". Canon, though, I do not believe _intended_ it for use for weddings, nor any other "serious professional" use. Which rather agrees with your second sentence, but is a point that bears repeating for all the people who said "why would Canon put just a single card slot on a professional camera?".


----------



## Khalai (Jul 23, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> This is why I didn't say "the 6D2 cannot be used for weddings". Canon, though, I do not believe _intended_ it for use for weddings, nor any other "serious professional" use. Which rather agrees with your second sentence, but is a point that bears repeating for all the people who said "*why would Canon put just a single card slot on a professional camera?*".



But they did put two slots in their professional cameras. 6D II is not one of professionals camera


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 23, 2017)

Khalai said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I didn't say "the 6D2 cannot be used for weddings". Canon, though, I do not believe _intended_ it for use for weddings, nor any other "serious professional" use. Which rather agrees with your second sentence, but is a point that bears repeating for all the people who said "*why would Canon put just a single card slot on a professional camera?*".
> ...



That was the point I was making, yes.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 23, 2017)

Khalai said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I didn't say "the 6D2 cannot be used for weddings". Canon, though, I do not believe _intended_ it for use for weddings, nor any other "serious professional" use. Which rather agrees with your second sentence, but is a point that bears repeating for all the people who said "*why would Canon put just a single card slot on a professional camera?*".
> ...


Plenty of professionals have used the 6D and plenty will use the 6D MKII


----------



## Khalai (Jul 23, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



Sure, but they will still be professionals using a camera, which is not intended for professional use. It's up to them obviously and marketing segmentation is rather arteficial, but the point is still valid.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Jul 23, 2017)

> I feel rather happy that my 80D can still beat Canon's latest full frame DSLR in low ISO!



As you probably know, at low ISO, it is only in this single metric 'dynamic range' that the 80D beats the original 6D (6D II is still unknown).
In other areas such as SNR, tonal range and color sensitivity (the areas that dxomark tests), the 6D easily beats the 80D, even at low ISO.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 23, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever someone criticizes Canon he always there with his market arguments that Canon must be doing something right since they have market share.
> ...



Oh, thanks for informing me of what is "legitimate criticism" SMH...


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 23, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > EdB said:
> ...



Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2017)

Khalai said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...


A pro uses the appropriate tool for the task(s) at hand.... it does not always mean that the most expensive camera is the right tool. Sometimes you use a tool like a GoPro because of its superior sealing or tiny size, sometimes you use a camera that is disposable ( Ford does not mount a series of 1DX2s in a car for crash testing) Sometimes budget constraints restrict your choices....

Pro designation is marketing.....


----------



## stevelee (Jul 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the connection between DR and landscape rather odd, since I have always found my 6D to have enough DR for any landscape shot I have ever taken (yes, I realize others may differ). On the other hand, I would expect wedding photographers - who are dealing with white dresses, black suits and tuxes, and more extreme indoor lighting - to be the target market for more DR.
> ...



I doubt it. If people were consistently paying money to photograph their weddings, I'd already be using something better than a 6D2, probably two or more.

As a DR challenge, though, I wonder how much shadow detail anybody would really want in the black tuxes. I know you'd want some, so that they look natural and have some sense of form and maybe even texture, but not fifty shades of gray.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > As primarily a landscape photographer, I find the connection between DR and landscape rather odd, since I have always found my 6D to have enough DR for any landscape shot I have ever taken (yes, I realize others may differ). On the other hand, I would expect wedding photographers - who are dealing with white dresses, black suits and tuxes, and more extreme indoor lighting - to be the target market for more DR.
> ...



No they are not, which was obviously my point. Not sure what your point is.


----------



## hbr (Jul 24, 2017)

I remember reading a few years ago that many wedding photographers with 5D3s were buying the 6D as a cheaper second body.
Not sure, but I think a lot of them did.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



It can also be design intention. If Canon is whitesheeting the 5D5 and says "this is a pro camera, we're going to put pro feature X on it", but they're whitesheeting the 6D3 and say "this is a FF Rebel, we're going to leave X off to save money", it's not an inaccuracy to describe the 6D3 as "not pro", at least for Canon's classification.

Pros can use Rebels too, but that doesn't mean that's what it's intended for.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



You're going to be doing that one way or the other if you want to talk about the camera market, I just have no interest in doing it from a fanboy perspective.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



I love it when people throw around the phrase "fanboy," like it is some huge insult. 

If you are going to invest thousands of dollars in anything, you darn well should be a fan. In fact, what I can't figure out are the people who spend thousands on equipment they don't like. That just seems stupid to me. I've been a fan of Canon since the late 1970s, when I got a job as a newspaper photographer and bought an F1, an AT1 and a basic four lens kit, which at the time was way cheaper than Nikon (I was able to buy an extra lens with the savings).

I've stayed with Canon because it consistently meets my needs and does so today. I own an embarrassingly large amount of equipment but I certainly don't feel trapped. I love the equipment and I love what it helps me do. Although, I'm mature enough to know that no camera is going to make me a good photographer and I don't blame the camera for my own shortcomings. So yeah, I'm a fanboy (although I'm way past boyhood).

What makes me scratch my head are the people on this forum who are so filled with insecurity or self-loathing that feel compelled to come on this site and whine when Canon doesn't make exactly the toy they want. Wah...Wah...Wah.

And yes, pointing out that Canon dominates the market is relevant because it is a bottom line measurement of customer satisfaction and popularity. Well...at least for most people...I guess the ones who object are also those who go out and buy gear they don't like, rather than take responsibility for their own decisions.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think it's legitimate for you to speak on behalf of other people whom you've never met? If so, then I SMH...
> ...



Not necessarily: rather than attempt to guess what "the market" wants based on the needs of people we know, we can look at what people actually buy. You can look at CIPA numbers, Amazon rankings, profitability. None of these is perfect, but I'd rather have imperfect understanding based on external/objective information than to have a more imperfect understanding based highly subjective information.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...

Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



I like how your brought that around like that.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
> Also Justin Bieber is a musical genius and we have come full circle...
> 
> Judging market wishes by consumption is also faulty in numerous ways, the market doesn't want a buggy version of windows that bsods randomly, but it consumes it in droves. It wants an iphone with a headphone jack and an macbook with usb ports, but buys them without them in record numbers.



If your Windows BSODs randomly, figure out what your issue is. Windows has been quite stable since Windows 2000, unless you have bad hardware or malware.

We, by the way, have not come full circle; you've just repeated your Bieber argument. You really think that just wins it for you, don't you?


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



Again, I think you're missing the point: as with biological evolution, there is no simple characteristic of "better," there is only "more suitable for a particular purpose." In your example, an iPhone need not have the best camera in the world, it need only be a device whose *overall utility *the user considers worth choosing over the others. Same with burger chains: they don't need to have the "best" food, but simply be cheap, fast and ubiquitous.

Going back to what I believe is your point, if you want a top-quality sensor, and other aspects of the camera are of little importance, then go medium format. Of course, they're more expensive, less portable, slower, have smaller selection of lenses and accessories, but you'll get the best picture. 

"Best" simply doesn't exist; what exists is "meets my needs and budget."


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



Hmmm. Wonder why then, despite all of the choices of cameras out there today, Canon still sells way more than the other companies? Nobody is saying for instance that the 6D is the best FF camera. But it sure as heck was the top selling FF camera. Wonder why that is? Maybe for the price it met the needs of those who purchased it? I'm guessing people entering FF for the first time don't give a rats behind about low ISO DR. Maybe they just want a camera that works, has a great lens selection behind it, and has great service behind those products. That seems to be the greater point that for some unknown reason, you cannot or will not understand. Nobody is saying the 6D2 is the best camera ever. The point you can't get is that its target audience doesn't care at all about the issues like low ISO DR or 4k video or a single card slot. It's not targeted at professional wedding or sports photographers. They'll sell like hotcakes.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



It's clear from the preceding, amusing discussion about music that Cthulhu believes in objective good and bad - and it seems he believes that his tastes are objectively good, so he can speak with authority (and all the millions who vote with their feet or wallets otherwise are idiots, misled, or masochistic) : : :

Cthulhu for avoidance of doubt, once again: there is NO SUCH THING as objectively 'good' or 'bad' in almost any area of life. There are only *subjective* judgments made by each person. And guess what - people differ on what they think is good and bad! I can hardly imagine how closeted a life you must lead for this to be news to you, but there you go.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 24, 2017)

So what I have got out of this discussion so far was that if Arnold Schoenberg had looked cuter in his underwear, the masses would be listening to rather different music now.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 24, 2017)

stevelee said:


> So what I have got out of this discussion so far was that if Arnold Schoenberg had looked cuter in his underwear, the masses would be listening to rather different music now.



Exactly. 

And that if you compare Bieber and McDonalds to canon you can trigger a good number of CR contributors into defending utter garbage.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 24, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...


We supply equipment for some pretty big movies in fact the biggest and Ive seen everything from GoPros to Panasonic GH4 etc. used along with Arri Alexa SXT cameras. Right tool for the right job professionals would say its about the images not how or with what you got them with if we took the logic your suggesting literally a Canon C300 MKII would NEVER be used over say a Red 6K Dragon or an Alexa XT because it would not be "professional enough".


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 24, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Well if consumption is your gauge than the iphone is the best camera in the world and you can't eat a better burger than mcdonalds.
> ...



The 95s and 98s I worked with were plenty stable. I've heard otherwise regarding XP, and especially Vista.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2017)

scyrene said:


> It's clear from the preceding, amusing discussion about music that Cthulhu believes in objective good and bad - and it seems he believes that his tastes are objectively good, so he can speak with authority (and all the millions who vote with their feet or wallets otherwise are idiots, misled, or masochistic) : : :
> 
> Cthulhu for avoidance of doubt, once again: there is NO SUCH THING as objectively 'good' or 'bad' in almost any area of life. There are only *subjective* judgments made by each person. And guess what - people differ on what they think is good and bad! I can hardly imagine how closeted a life you must lead for this to be news to you, but there you go.



*Scyrene*, your post is good.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 24, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Hi Jeffa,
> when you project images using that 4K projector, do you upscale them to the same 53ft screen size? if so, then 50 Mpix 5Ds/R images get upscaled to a lesser degree than, say 30 Mpix images of 5D IV. what it does mean is that when you view 5DsR images at the same screen size as 5D IV images you do get approx. 30% advantage (√50/30).
> therefore even if at pixel level 5D IV images are 10% sharper, the projected / on screen viewed 5DsR images woul look sharper and not by a small ammount.
> 
> ...



But that is a false comparison. What you are describing here is a cropped 5DSR image vs an uncropped 5DIV image. If I was wanting a picture of the Matterhorn from a certain perspective, I would take the picture from the same position with the same lens on both bodies. I would not take an image with a 5DSR using a wider lens so when I cropped it to the same FOV as the 5DIV I would compare the images. I am interested in both cameras under the same circumstances.

Therefore, in real world use, if you gave me the pixel level sharpness reading and the MP count of both cameras I would only be able to predict which gave the sharper image if one of those variables was the same on both models (but that is not allowing for noise differences and that has a huge influence). In other words the pixel level sharpness tells me zip. The sharpness of the output tells me everything I need to know. 

You have measured pixel level sharpness in the 1890 region. Can you tell me what measurement another camera would have to have to be subjectively sharper? 1900? 1920? 1950? 2200?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 24, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



XP? Seriously? XP was worshipped so hard I still know people who swear by it (and, scarily, run it). Vista had issues, but not BSOD issues. 95 and 98, the old 16-bit (partly) codebase, had issues and gained more over the life of an installation. I have never, ever, had 2000, XP, 7, 8, or 10 (the full 32-bit NT kernel) BSOD without an identifiable hardware or software issue to be resolved. The same things that affect Linux and Macs.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > So what I have got out of this discussion so far was that if Arnold Schoenberg had looked cuter in his underwear, the masses would be listening to rather different music now.
> ...



Are we defending the product, or defending Canon's business decision? If they make money, they've succeeded, just like Bieber and McDonald's.

Eff it, I love my GX460. The ES350 is a piece of crap sold to clueless masses who would be better served by a Camry (or better yet, Accord), but that doesn't mean I call all of Lexus crap. They just sell some products for my needs and some for other people's needs.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 24, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Eff it, I love my GX460. The ES350 is a piece of crap sold to clueless masses who would be better served by a Camry (or better yet, Accord), but that doesn't mean I call all of Lexus crap. They just sell some products for my needs and some for other people's needs.



None of them come with a decent roof rack that caries two canoes, or good tie-down points, or a class 3 trailer hitch, and since those are my needs, it indicates that Lexus is *******!!!!!!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Eff it, I love my GX460. The ES350 is a piece of crap sold to clueless masses who would be better served by a Camry (or better yet, Accord), but that doesn't mean I call all of Lexus crap. They just sell some products for my needs and some for other people's needs.
> ...



Ah, have you seen the GX460? It's a V8, AWD 4Runner. You'll need to supply the crossbars and carriers, but it has roof rails that should work for canoes. You are right that it lacks a class III hitch receiver though - it's a class IV. And, the bit that I need, it'll take my wife's triathlon bike inside, vertically. I'm about to drive us a thousand miles to an Ironman and back in immense comfort and convenience. They're not all realtor-spec RXs.

Then the LX570 is all that and more...


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Eff it, I love my GX460. The ES350 is a piece of crap sold to clueless masses who would be better served by a Camry (or better yet, Accord), but that doesn't mean I call all of Lexus crap. They just sell some products for my needs and some for other people's needs.
> ...



Well you've never heard me say Canon is crap, or ******* - with one or many exclamation points. 

I love my 1dxmk2 but find it's perfectly reasonable to point out the disparity in card slots puts it at a disadvantage, bogging down the buffer and limiting fps if you're shooting to backup. Or that high ISO and AF were not improved as expected. Or that the limited touchscreen is disappointing, as is the lack of improvement on the 6d2 DR - the whole point of this tread.

It is also disappointing to see grown men defending a product or a brand as if they were a religion, not a tool.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 24, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



I'm not sure how it's more disappointing to see grown men defending a product as not total crap (no one here actually treats it like religion, we just calmly point out that your position is not universal) than to see a grown man insisting that everyone else does, or should, share his priorities.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 24, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nice toy! I am jealous!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 24, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Please don't get upset at me, I was just trying to inject a bit of humour. Many of us are treating this issue like it is a matter of life and death, as if the fate of Canon rests on this camera....

I believe that most of us hold a balanced view, with a few outliers on either side of the spectrum providing many of the posts. Personally, I have a mixed opinion on this camera. I think that they got the AF system just about perfect for a camera in this price range. I am very happy that it has WiFi and a tilt/swivel touchscreen. I wish it had 4K video, but I am very happy that it has stabilized 2K video (I really wanted 2.7K so I could post-stabilize it to 2K and this way Canon has saved me a lot of processing time). I am happy with the high ISO performance. I am not happy with the low ISO performance. Will I get one? It really depends on the reviews of the camera once it gets out into the wild, plus I intend to "give one a rip" at my local camera store....


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



Wait, what? That wasn't even directed at you; that was at Cthulhu. He was claiming that "grown men" were defending Canon like a religion, projecting his "only my opinion matters" on us. I was trying to turn that around by pointing out he was doing the inverse of what he was trying to point out, not meaning that any of us were actually defending Canon religiously. I don't think you've taken any stance any less reasonable than my own through this.

You're awesome; I'm sorry if I somehow made you think I was insulting you somehow.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 25, 2017)

I am absolutely angry and disappointed. It appears that this and the other two three duplicative threads (Edit: I forgot about the pointless poll thread) are finally starting to collapse of their own weight. What will we do now?

Thank goodness the SL2 will be coming out soon. Maybe that will provide a little more opportunity for whining.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 25, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I am absolutely angry and disappointed. It appears that this and the other two three duplicative threads (Edit: I forgot about the pointless poll thread) are finally starting to collapse of their own weight. What will we do now?
> 
> Thank goodness the SL2 will be coming out soon. Maybe that will provide a little more opportunity for whining.



Speculate about whether the 7D3 will have:

1) on-chip DAC
2) CFAST
3) 4k
4) USB3
5) hybrid EVF

I'm not even really joking...

Then comes the 1DX3 and more questions. And speculation about FF mirrorless. And on and on.

Hey, CRGuy has to keep the lights on somehow.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 25, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Thank goodness the SL2 will be coming out soon. Maybe that will provide a little more opportunity for whining.



Canon's gonna nerf that one, too. One card slot, so the pros will be pissed. No 4K, no one really needs that. Selective features missing to protect the higher numbered xxxD bodies. Typical Canon. Will sell like hotcakes. Canon is *******.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 25, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> I love my 1dxmk2 but find it's perfectly reasonable to point out the disparity in card slots puts it at a disadvantage, bogging down the buffer and limiting fps if you're shooting to backup. Or that high ISO and AF were not improved as expected. Or that the limited touchscreen is disappointing, as is the lack of improvement on the 6d2 DR - the whole point of this tread.



This is fine -- you're speaking about your own needs and values. It's when people extrapolate that to the market as a whole that they go off the rails.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 25, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> Hmmm. Wonder why then, despite all of the choices of cameras out there today, Canon still sells way more than the other companies?



MARKETING

they're very good at it and probably spend considerably more on it.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 25, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> ..if you want a top-quality sensor, and other aspects of the camera are of little importance, then go medium format. Of course, they're more expensive, less portable, slower, have smaller selection of lenses and accessories, but you'll get the best picture.
> 
> "Best" simply doesn't exist; what exists is "meets my needs and budget."



BUT, But... MFD sensors are all over the map for quality too. Tho some of the latest are very very good.

At least if you don't mind some of the, IMO, horrendous interface choices some of them have made.
I found the Phase One backs a real PiTA to use.

Totally agree with last sentence. (which is why I went ABC)


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 25, 2017)

Aglet said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. Wonder why then, despite all of the choices of cameras out there today, Canon still sells way more than the other companies?
> ...


I can't imagine an executive at Sony saying "I won't spend money on a marketing campaign because I'm afraid it might increase our market share and profits." Yeah, right.

Sorry, I'm not buying your argument for Sony. Nikon has not had so much cash lately, but they did when Canon first pulled ahead. 

You can't possibly attribute all of it to marketing.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 25, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ..if you want a top-quality sensor, and other aspects of the camera are of little importance, then go medium format. Of course, they're more expensive, less portable, slower, have smaller selection of lenses and accessories, but you'll get the best picture.
> ...





> At least if you don't mind some of the, IMO, horrendous interface choices some of them have made.
> I found the Phase One backs a real PiTA to use.


See, IQ isn't everything!



> Totally agree with last sentence. (which is why I went ABC)


That's your choice, and I'll (metaphorically) defend your right to make it. Others are free to make their choices, even if they're different from yours.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2017)

Aglet said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. Wonder why then, despite all of the choices of cameras out there today, Canon still sells way more than the other companies?
> ...



This is absolutely true, Canon is very good at determining what the market wants, and what they are willing to pay. What we want may not be the same as what the worldwide market wants.

However, there is always plenty of room for error. For example, the original M camera was a total bust in the US. Canon ended up dumping their leftover inventory to a reseller, and they sold for under a fraction of retail on eBay. 

In the case of the 6D MK II, I guess that 99% of the potential buyers don't care about technical specifications, they want FF at a affordable price, and they trust Canon's reputation. They can't see DR, only specialized tests can measure it, but if 99% can't see a difference, its a moot point.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 25, 2017)

Aglet said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm. Wonder why then, despite all of the choices of cameras out there today, Canon still sells way more than the other companies?
> ...



Ah, the poor customer. Conned into buying a camera they do not need when there are better models out there from different manufacturers that would suit them so much better. Just imagine, they should be leaving the shop with a 4k high DR body that misses the mark on almost every other aspect of usability. Show stupid of them.

PS - I see far more Sony and Nikon adverts than I do Canon adverts.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 25, 2017)

Got notification from dealer my camera will ship tomorrow for delivery Thursday July 27th in the morning. 

Looks like I will get to test it on Friday with the High Resolution CIPA chart and then project the stills in our theatre (the screen has a 53ft diagonal). We can also live feed the video from one of our test rooms.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 25, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Got notification from dealer my camera will ship tomorrow for delivery Thursday July 27th in the morning.
> 
> Looks like I will get to test it on Friday with the High Resolution CIPA chart and then project the stills in our theatre (the screen has a 53ft diagonal). We can also live feed the video from one of our test rooms.



I'm jeolous, I was hoping for a similar notification as I'm going on a trip on the 28th and would have loved to have taken the new camera. But I think I've accepted I'll be taking one of my Fuji cameras into the wilderness.


----------



## lightwriter (Jul 25, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Got notification from dealer my camera will ship tomorrow for delivery Thursday July 27th in the morning.
> ...


----------



## Adelino (Jul 25, 2017)

I am looking forward to new posts from users. Photos and options.


----------



## lightwriter (Jul 25, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> I'm jeolous, I was hoping for a similar notification as I'm going on a trip on the 28th and would have loved to have taken the new camera. But I think I've accepted I'll be taking one of my Fuji cameras into the wilderness.



I'm also leaving on a trip on the 28th and was hoping to have it by then. This morning, they told me it would ship on 7/29 (and I ordered within 5 minutes of the official announcement).


----------



## hbr (Jul 25, 2017)

lightwriter said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm jeolous, I was hoping for a similar notification as I'm going on a trip on the 28th and would have loved to have taken the new camera. But I think I've accepted I'll be taking one of my Fuji cameras into the wilderness.
> ...



Did you mean 7/29?
Where did you pre-order it from? I pre-ordered from B&H Photo and have heard nothing. Their website says they expect the camera on 7/27.


----------



## lightwriter (Jul 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> I'm also leaving on a trip on the 28th and was hoping to have it by then. This morning, they told me it would ship on 6/29 (and I ordered within 5 minutes of the official announcement).



Did you mean 7/29?
Where did you pre-order it from? I pre-ordered from B&H Photo and have heard nothing. Their website says they expect the camera on 7/27.
[/quote]

Yeah, 7/29. I'll correct that. Ordered from Adorama.


----------



## lightwriter (Jul 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> Did you mean 7/29?
> Where did you pre-order it from? I pre-ordered from B&H Photo and have heard nothing. Their website says they expect the camera on 7/27.



I just heard from Helen Oster at Adorama. She said the units are in the warehouse, and she's waiting to find out when they start shipping. If Adorama has them, you can be sure B&H do. The only question is when do they ship.


----------



## Adelino (Jul 25, 2017)

Adelino said:


> I am looking forward to new posts from users. Photos and options.


oops meant photos and OPINIONS!


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 26, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...


Yup. XP. My parents' and brother's XPs confirmed my decision to go mac. bsod every day. Or more than that. Plus all kinds of other programs freezing. No Vista, never bsod'ed it would freeze before it got there on what was a high performance machine at the time. The thing would just randomly turn off and the screen went black. Again, more than once a day. Also painfully slow. Had to give it to XP, next to Vista it was blazingly fast. I was fortunate enough to hardly ever have to run them. 
I never ever had MacOS freeze. ever. A third party app will occasionally stop responding. But my baseline mbp is 8 years old now, so I can accept some general slowness.
95 and 98 however were quite fine if one remembered to do a reinstall ever year.
How do you find the newer versions for speed? I've heard things have improved sense Vista days, but I've honestly never seen a machine running anything newer than Vista.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Thank goodness the SL2 will be coming out soon. Maybe that will provide a little more opportunity for whining.
> ...


Perhaps they'll exceed your expectations and launch it with no memory card slots (only onboard memory) and only way to get images off is with the connect station.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 26, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Huh. Now there's a concept. That way they may actually sell some connect stations.


----------



## hbr (Jul 26, 2017)

lightwriter said:


> I just heard from Helen Oster at Adorama. She said the units are in the warehouse, and she's waiting to find out when they start shipping. If Adorama has them, you can be sure B&H do. The only question is when do they ship.



I checked many of the retailers and they all say that Camera is available on 7/27. Adorama did not list a date. I wonder if Canon told them to release the cameras all on the same day. As far as when they will ship is anybody's guess, but I would expect them to start shipping on the 28th or the 31st.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2017)

hbr said:


> lightwriter said:
> 
> 
> > I just heard from Helen Oster at Adorama. She said the units are in the warehouse, and she's waiting to find out when they start shipping. If Adorama has them, you can be sure B&H do. The only question is when do they ship.
> ...



They even have a couple at my local camera store. They are not allowed to sell them until the 27th....


----------



## cpsico (Jul 26, 2017)

And yet in the same league as the Nikon D5 in the "shadow lift" category. That camera must be bad too..... it's a tool. For some people it will be the perfect creative tool, for others it won't be. It seems to hold up well at ISO 1600-6400 a range I often use on the original 6d. For someone looking for a general purpose affordable full frame camera with great battery life this will be a very good camera. Just not one that is a worthy upgrade to current 6d owners since it's not a substantial upgrade like 5d IV was over the 5d III.


----------



## cpsico (Jul 26, 2017)

cpsico said:


> And yet in the same league as the Nikon D5 in the "shadow lift" category. That camera must be bad too..... it's a tool. For some people it will be the perfect creative tool, for others it won't be. It seems to hold up well at ISO 1600-6400 a range I often use on the original 6d. For someone looking for a general purpose affordable full frame camera with great battery life this will be a very good camera. Just not one that is a worthy upgrade to current 6d owners since it's not a substantial upgrade like 5d IV was over the 5d III.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2017)

cpsico said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > And yet in the same league as the Nikon D5 in the "shadow lift" category. That camera must be bad too..... it's a tool. For some people it will be the perfect creative tool, for others it won't be. It seems to hold up well at ISO 1600-6400 a range I often use on the original 6d. For someone looking for a general purpose affordable full frame camera with great battery life this will be a very good camera. Just not one that is a worthy upgrade to current 6d owners since it's not a substantial upgrade like 5d IV was over the 5d III.


Throw in some stripey FPN effect on the pushed 6D file and... even yuckier.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I think a large number of people have grown accustomed to pleasant colors and contrasty tone curves. Even consumer print shops tend to run their printers with extra contrast applied.
So for that consumer-oriented crowd, and even many of those who've moved beyond that, there seems to still be a preference for the kind of tone curve that ends up crushing dark tonal detail.
But not all of us are in that group.
Summary - most people haven't got a clue what PDR is and many don't even seem to find visible noise objectionable in the final output. Even FPN seems to be overlooked by many.

So that's why I'm agreeing with your last paragraph.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



I've been Mac since '85, starting to drift away as their UI gets more dummed-down.
I used to laugh at how much more often all the windows flavors used to crash and foul up.
NT came along and looked pretty good. Later I built myself an XP box (quite a while back now), carefully selected all the hardware and firmware for compatibility, and one more highly important thing most people who stick their hands into their boxes don't think about, PREVENT ESD (electro-static discharge) DAMAGE.
I still run that old XP machine and it's NEVER crashed. I don't use it for everyday browsing or stuff, it's dedicated to about 10 pieces of software I use on it, still on service pack 2 and it's solid.
XP machines also ran very expensive analytical machines where I work and they were very reliable.

if somebody has regular BSOD issues with XP they likely have underlying hardware-firmware problems or are running some dodgy code.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



If I wanted really top-level IQ then I'd plunk down the high prices AND have to put up with their firmware UI... I don't need it _that_ bad. ;D ABC covers what I need at a far more affordable cost.

I guess then, for the sake of argument, that the pleasant UI and handling of Canon gear matters more to those who use it than the somewhat lagging file quality?.. I know I found Canon stuff intuitive and enjoyable to use, at least up until I got exasperated with the noise issues in post. But I suspect most users never run into that level of file mangling or if they do are also adept at coping with it.
Meanwhile, ease-of-use award goes to Canon, and _that is_ a big selling factor with anything.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 26, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...





Orangutan said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I didn't mention Sony. Or Nikon, or any other brand.

With any mfg operations this big, it's _all_ about the marketing.
Whether direct advertising, indirect implication, shelf-space, or these days even fan-boy sites on the web.

I'm no marketing genius, but I suspect some of you may know even less about this area of business. 
It's actually quite a fascinating topic and there's a really good CBC radio show you can listen to where you can get a taste of it.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence

the massive taxes i pay help fund this programming, don't waste it! 
check it out
be entertained and learn a bit about marketing too.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 26, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I've been Mac since '85, starting to drift away as their UI gets more dummed-down.
> I used to laugh at how much more often all the windows flavors used to crash and foul up.
> NT came along and looked pretty good. Later I built myself an XP box (quite a while back now), carefully selected all the hardware and firmware for compatibility, and one more highly important thing most people who stick their hands into their boxes don't think about, *PREVENT ESD (electro-static discharge) DAMAGE.*
> I still run that old XP machine and it's NEVER crashed. I don't use it for everyday browsing or stuff, it's dedicated to about 10 pieces of software I use on it, still on service pack 2 and it's solid.
> ...



With older and perhaps current cheapest HW, that may be true. But current quality components are well shielded and you can basically build entire computer on a thick carpet whilst wearing a woolen sweater. Not that you should, but ESD is very rare today. I've built many custom (mainly high-end gaming rigs with custom watercooling loops etc.) over the years and I've never seen a single component damaged by ESD. And I don't use ESP mats or gloves or bracelets...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 26, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I didn't mention Sony. Or Nikon, or any other brand.
> 
> With any mfg operations this big, it's _all_ about the marketing.
> Whether direct advertising, indirect implication, shelf-space, or these days even fan-boy sites on the web.
> ...



I know something about marketing - I've done it: sales rep, marketing literature, conferences. You can do all the marketing you want but if at the end of the day the product is useless you _will _fail. Which is why, if you believe the criticism from some about Canon's technology, Canon's continual (and increasing) market dominance is all the more surprising. However, this comment from your earlier post is probably the most sensible one you have made



> I guess then, for the sake of argument, that the pleasant UI and handling of Canon gear matters more to those who use it than the somewhat lagging file quality?.. I know I found Canon stuff intuitive and enjoyable to use, at least up until I got exasperated with the noise issues in post. But I suspect most users never run into that level of file mangling or if they do are also adept at coping with it.
> *Meanwhile, ease-of-use award goes to Canon, and that is a big selling factor with anything.*


[my emphasis]


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 26, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



Each new version has gotten faster. Honestly, it sounds like your parents' and brothers' machines had something wrong with them - nothing will wreck a Windows machine like having a million toolbars, weather buddies, and so forth installed. Or crappy hardware with iffy drivers (and that does mean stuff like cheap store-bough PCs). All I can say is, I have had a damn herd of PCs in my households running the various versions of NT kernel, and every BSOD I've had (which is not many) can be traced to a specific issue that caused it. And not "Windows is crappy". Things like a stick of RAM going bad, or a beta graphics driver.


----------



## PBguy (Jul 26, 2017)

I got a call yesterday (Tuesday) that they had the cameras in stock but Canon had put an embargo on sales until the 27th. I'm first on the list but I've changed my mind after seeing the disappointing DR and also because I just cracked my 6D which will seriously impact the amount I could sell it for. At least I didn't get the new 6D Mark II and break it.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 26, 2017)

hbr said:


> lightwriter said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



Yep, BH Photo. I pre-ordered the day it was announced. I haven't heard anything, however my CC was charged yesterday so I'd expect it to ship either today or tomorrow, either way too late for my trip. I'll have to inform the wife and kid to expect a delivery and hopefully one of them can sign for it while I am gone.


----------



## hbr (Jul 26, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > lightwriter said:
> ...



Damn! I am more jealous! I pre-ordered about 2 minutes after B&H announced the camera and my CC has not been charged yet and no notifications yet.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 26, 2017)

hbr said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, BH Photo. I pre-ordered the day it was announced. I haven't heard anything, however my CC was charged yesterday so I'd expect it to ship either today or tomorrow, either way too late for my trip. I'll have to inform the wife and kid to expect a delivery and hopefully one of them can sign for it while I am gone.
> ...



Haha, I'm not sure how jealous you should be, I've essentially paid for it yet don't have it.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 26, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > I've been Mac since '85, starting to drift away as their UI gets more dummed-down.
> ...



The computer talk is a little off topic but I agree. I usually just ground myself (and I use that term loosely) by touching a door knob or something just in case I have some static build up. And even then I only ever really worry about it if it's the middle of winter, the house is super dry and I'm wearing wool socks, dragging them around on carpet all afternoon. 

As for the windows BSOD comments. The windows NT kernel (NT 4.0, 2000, XP and onward) is quite stable. There are essentially two things that will crash the kernel, faulty hardware, or a poorly written kernel driver.


----------



## IglooEater (Jul 26, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Each new version has gotten faster. Honestly, it sounds like your parents' and brothers' machines had something wrong with them - nothing will wreck a Windows machine like having a million toolbars, weather buddies, and so forth installed. Or crappy hardware with iffy drivers (and that does mean stuff like cheap store-bough PCs). All I can say is, I have had a damn herd of PCs in my households running the various versions of NT kernel, and every BSOD I've had (which is not many) can be traced to a specific issue that caused it. And not "Windows is crappy". Things like a stick of RAM going bad, or a beta graphics driver.



That's good to hear. I'm sure they did have something wrong; it would have been nice to have someone like you around, as Microsoft service got them nowhere. I didn't mean to say Windows is crappy. Just that my personal experiences have left a sour taste.


----------



## hmatthes (Jul 26, 2017)

*This Thread is Way Off Topic*

and I don't care about Windows software problems and crappy cheap PCs.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



hmatthes said:


> and I don't care about Windows software problems and crappy cheap PCs.



This thread was rendered useless around 55 pages ago anyway


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



Khalai said:


> hmatthes said:
> 
> 
> > and I don't care about Windows software problems and crappy cheap PCs.
> ...



Yeah, I'm so sorry for being part of derailing a 60-page trollbait thread. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



LonelyBoy said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > hmatthes said:
> ...



That's not the problem. The problem is that everyone knows the way to derail trollbait threads is with car analogies, or if that fails, with audiophile references. The whole Windows thing is a distant third.

Now, if you'd gone the Mac vs. PC thing, it might have turned out differently. Because Macs are cool, and PCs are drool. Although it's clear that everyone has their breaking point, even the staid, gatesian PC guy...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



I still miss my old Windows Phone. My iPhone7 is inferior in every way I care about... except for letting me iMessage the wife while she's out of the country.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



LonelyBoy said:


> I still miss my old Windows Phone. My iPhone7 is inferior in every way I care about... except for letting me iMessage the wife while she's out of the country.



Is your Zune still working?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I still miss my old Windows Phone. My iPhone7 is inferior in every way I care about... except for letting me iMessage the wife while she's out of the country.
> ...



This. All day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqTYI55K1eo

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I still miss my old Windows Phone. My iPhone7 is inferior in every way I care about... except for letting me iMessage the wife while she's out of the country.
> ...



Never had one (though funnily enough, my old boss's son did). I'm honestly not an MS fanboy, but their phone platform has a lot of advantages. Seriously.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



neuroanatomist said:


> The problem is that everyone knows the way to derail trollbait threads is with car analogies, or if that fails, with audiophile references. The whole Windows thing is a distant third.



Well it worked. You're welcome 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



Cthulhu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that everyone knows the way to derail trollbait threads is with car analogies, or if that fails, with audiophile references. The whole Windows thing is a distant third.
> ...



The important thing to walk away with, is the knowledge that the 6D2 does not have sufficient DR to take pictures of a dash stereo through the car windows, and as a result, Canon is *******! If only someone would have posted this 60 pages ago, we would have saved a lot of time!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 26, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



neuroanatomist said:


> That's not the problem. The problem is that everyone knows the way to derail trollbait threads is with car analogies, or if that fails, with audiophile references. The whole Windows thing is a distant third.
> 
> Now, if you'd gone the Mac vs. PC thing, it might have turned out differently. Because Macs are cool, and PCs are drool. Although it's clear that everyone has their breaking point, even the staid, gatesian PC guy...



Windows..... (comic is Calvin and Hobbes, by Bill Waterson)


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 27, 2017)

I got my 6D2 and I love it! 

So in my brief time so far playing with the camera, here's what I found:

Build - being that it's almost identical to the 6D it has a real good solid feel. After 3 weeks of only using my M5, it honestly feel good to once again experience that big solid feel of a DSLR The articulatung screen is really nice. At first I was a bit disappointed when I read it was only 1.04 million dots unlike my M5 but they have definitely improved the quality of it and I can see the difference compared to my old 6D. 


Autofocus - The difference is truly day and night with the outter points. I always found them to be too unreliable on my 6D but that definitely isn't the case with the Mark II. I actually find myself overwhelmed with so many AF points to choose from. I'm personally used to just choosing a single point I feel like that's a waste with all those beautiful AF points to choose from. I find the AF to be very fast and accurate too, even with the horrible lighting inside my house. 


Shutter - This is obviously something most people wouldn't mention but the second I took the first shot I could hear the difference. It may be a bit louder than the 6D but I like the sound to it, you can really tell it's made for the higher FPS. 


IQ - Now I haven't had any time to shoot anything proper (you can thank my 10 hour shift today) but I was quite impressed with what I seen. I didn't bother trying to underexpose then pull up in post since I was working with limited light in my apartment and if that was a real world scenario, I would make sure to nail the exposure (in daylight would be a much better situation to try this). I was mostly using the body at ISO 1000 and up and I was impressed with how it handed the noise. I didn't try anything crazy like 40,000 though. One shot I quickly took of my girlfriend was at ISO 1000 (we get up real early for work when the sun still isn't up) and there was some noise in the OOF areas but on her face the detail was really impressive, almost like I was shooting ISO 640 max. In all honesty I'm not the type to spot a huge difference since IMO the lens you use would have a greater effect than the body so when reviewing and playing with the files in LR I felt like I was using my 6D or M5. 


Some quick things to note.


- Although it doesn't affect the RAW images, the picture style was set to auto and it did not look good in the previews. It's good to set up the picture styles before doing anything and all the other small settings like high exposure NR which can give you a bad impression if you're going off what you see on the back of the camera. 


- Just like the 5D4, if you leave all the lens correct settings on enabled, then you will get the black circle with third part lenses. I had to turn off everything but CA correction for my Sigma 85mm to stop having the crop circles 


- Most of my lenses needed AFMA on my 6D so I was holding off on judging certain aspects until I could dial in the right value for each lens.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 27, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



Don Haines said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Or that people are still using Windows XP


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 27, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



Cthulhu said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



I work on a financial website. This financial website is primarily used by very large organizations and institutions. We still have people - frequently - complaining that we aren't fixing issues on _IE6_.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 27, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



LonelyBoy said:


> I work on a financial website. This financial website is primarily used by very large organizations and institutions. We still have people - frequently - complaining that we aren't fixing issues on _IE6_.



Now that's downright scary. Who the hell would still use IE6? That application has more security holes than sieve. Talk about safe browsing, especially financial website...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 27, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



Khalai said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I work on a financial website. This financial website is primarily used by very large organizations and institutions. We still have people - frequently - complaining that we aren't fixing issues on _IE6_.
> ...



I don't get told which clients brings these complaints, fortunately or unfortunately. The part that I don't understand is ok, your IT department can't get the money for a Windows upgrade. Even accepting that (which beggars belief), why not run FireFox or Chrome? They're free, and clearly your IT department can't be THAT strict.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 27, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



LonelyBoy said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Those people are probably in violation of laws or contractual obligations regarding safe handling of data.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 27, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



LonelyBoy said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



Can you propose having the software detect the user agent, and present a security warning screen to the user? You could include a reference to the appropriate best practices guide. Push it back in the face of the lazy IT department that can't be bothered to protect its users from ancient exploits.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 27, 2017)

*Re: This Thread is Way Off Topic*



Orangutan said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



We do detect. However, the decision to do that sort of thing is far above my head, and is functionally a non-starter. It was a long, hard fight to give up support for even IE7, which had me counting down to the EOL for XP a few years ago. Prior to that we had to, essentially, beg TPTB for permission to stop supporting any given version of IE; the list of supported browsers was treated as set in stone and requiring formal changes to modify, even when new versions of IE appeared and old ones rolled off.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 27, 2017)

I'm glad that books on HTML, CSS, etc., no long spend half of their contents giving work-arounds to try to make IE function.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 27, 2017)

I thought this thread was about the Canon 6D MKII and its raw file output not computers and computer software? 
Head over to Mac rumors or Windows World


----------



## Jopa (Jul 28, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I thought this thread was about the Canon 6D MKII and its raw file output not computers and computer software?
> Head over to Mac rumors or Windows World



Let's just keep going - the goal is to reach 100 pages.


----------



## Syntho (Jul 28, 2017)

I don't know much about the technical numbers people are throwing around having to do with the dynamic range, but can someone tell me in plain English if the 6d is worth buying for a video guy? The 6d mk.ii was advertised as doing very well in low light, so is it that the 6d mk.ii sacrificed dynamic range in order to get better low light (high iso) shots?

If what you guys are saying is essentially that the 6d mk.ii doesn't look any better and doesn't perform any more well in low light than the original 6d, then I may reconsider my purchase. I don't see how the mk.ii _couldn't_ be any better though.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 28, 2017)

Syntho said:


> I don't know much about the technical numbers people are throwing around having to do with the dynamic range, but can someone tell me in plain English if the 6d is worth buying for a video guy? The 6d mk.ii was advertised as doing very well in low light, so is it that the 6d mk.ii sacrificed dynamic range in order to get better low light (high iso) shots?
> 
> If what you guys are saying is essentially that the 6d mk.ii doesn't look any better and doesn't perform any more well in low light than the original 6d, then I may reconsider my purchase. I don't see how the mk.ii _couldn't_ be any better though.



Image Stabilization!

That is probably *THE!* killer function to have on a video camera. That would make the 6D2 the best DSLR that Canon makes for video, despite the lack of 4K. Personally, I would rather have stable 2K instead of jerky 4K.....


----------



## x-vision (Jul 28, 2017)

Syntho said:


> ... can someone tell me in plain English if the 6d is worth buying for a video guy?



In addition to image stabilization, the 6DII also has touch-screen auto-focus, which is very fast and accurate.
This is a great usability feature for video.

OTOH, the 6DII doesn't have 4K video.


----------



## Syntho (Jul 28, 2017)

But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?


----------



## Isaacheus (Jul 28, 2017)

x-vision said:


> Syntho said:
> 
> 
> > ... can someone tell me in plain English if the 6d is worth buying for a video guy?
> ...



I don't think it has ALL-l video codec either, which might limit the editing ability. Happy to be proven wrong on this though. I think the first 6d did have this


----------



## Isaacheus (Jul 28, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Syntho said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know much about the technical numbers people are throwing around having to do with the dynamic range, but can someone tell me in plain English if the 6d is worth buying for a video guy? The 6d mk.ii was advertised as doing very well in low light, so is it that the 6d mk.ii sacrificed dynamic range in order to get better low light (high iso) shots?
> ...




Isn't it just electronic stabilization though? So just using a crop? I would have thought 4k and using stabilizing in post would be better overall still


----------



## Khalai (Jul 28, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > Syntho said:
> ...



Just IPB IIRC. ALL-I was omitted, which is a bit shame, considering all other video friendly features like swiveling screen, touch controlled DPAF or electronic IS...


----------



## Syntho (Jul 28, 2017)

Let me ask again to clarify: is the low light/high iso grain thing better on the 6d mk.ii, or is the overall image quality better? That's the main thing I want to know.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 28, 2017)

Better than what?
We don't know because we haven't seen the tests yet and it was only released yesterday.


----------



## MayaTlab (Jul 28, 2017)

Syntho said:


> But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?



So far there is no evidence that there exist a trade-off between low ISO DR and high ISO performances in general. 
It's better to wait for DPreview's full test scene results, as they are the only ones to control a number of variables such as shutter speed and provide files under two types of lighting, but if we take the 6D and 6DII's ISO-invariance ISO 6400 files, so far the conclusion is that at best the 6DII is a tiny bit worse than the 6D at higher ISOs under daylight lighting. Personally I'm expecting the difference to increase in the 6D's favour under tungsten light, but that's speculation on my part.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 28, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> Syntho said:
> 
> 
> > But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?
> ...



So what's the explanation for the D5, then?


----------



## MayaTlab (Jul 28, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > Syntho said:
> ...



You'll have to ask Nikon for that. But the D500 and D7500 have the best performing APSC sensor at high ISOs, and are among the very, very best APSC sensors at low ISOs. So there you go.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 28, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



My point is, high-ISO improvement is the excuse cited for the D5's sensor by those inclined to find excuses for Nikon. Somehow it is taken to not apply here.


----------



## MayaTlab (Jul 28, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



I probably won't be able to find the source again, but I believe that I read an interview some time around the D5 release where it was said that the main cause for improvements at higher ISOs with the D5 and D500 were the colour filters.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 28, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> I probably won't be able to find the source again, but I believe that I read an interview some time around the D5 release where it was said that the main cause for improvements at higher ISOs with the D5 and D500 were the colour filters.



Ha! bet they can't beat the rose-coloured filter on the 6D2 ;D


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 28, 2017)

MayaTlab said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



Which still leaves open the question of why Nikon crippled it with such a bad sensor.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 28, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> MayaTlab said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



Are you insane?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 28, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Which still leaves open the question of why Nikon crippled it with such a bad sensor.



Are you insane?
[/quote]

Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 28, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Are you insane?



This is a public forum on the web, where rather than go out and use our cameras, we engage in endless discussion about minutiae that nobody in the rest of the world cares about......

Most likely, we are all insane.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?



Well, according to DPR, the D5's sensor is perfectly fine for the camera's target audience. In case you are wondering, DPR defines Canon's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is not as good at', and Nikon/Sony's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is best at'. Not that DPR is biased or anything. :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 29, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > MayaTlab said:
> ...



Short bus is coming!


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?
> ...



DPR is a ridiculous publication, there's a ton to find wrong with their findings - chiefly of all in my eyes is that for the most part they aren't very skilled photographers or photo editors - but they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> ...they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.



The two generations preceding the D5 had a full stop better low ISO DR. The Canon 80D has better low ISO DR than the D5. 

Enjoy your ride on the short bus.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > ...they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.
> ...



Yes, they also have 5 fewer MP and worse high iso performance, among other features. Why would you bring up the 80d? Sure it beats the d5 at 1 measurement at iso 100 - while being wiped out at everything else and being bested by 1.5 stops of dr by iso 1000. The d7200 also has more DR than any sports camera ever made and any camera Canon ever made... but you're not buying an 80d or a d7200 to cover sports events and you're not buying a d5 to shoot at iso 100. I'd definitely buy one if it came in EF mount, I'd rather have a d5 backing up my 1dxmk2 than my old 1dx.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Cthulhu said:
> ...



Sorry, that was my fault. I forgot your complete lack of ability to comprehend the main point. The D5's sensor is fine, that was never the issue. But feel free to argue the point further anyway, if you like.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I had high hopes you had taken my recommendation on daily walks...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 29, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



So the D5, with its mediocre low-ISO DR, should be evaluated on the sum total of its features for its intended audience. The 6D2, with its mediocre low-ISO DR, should be evaluated on that one metric. Is that correct?


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 29, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Cthulhu said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Not really. I look at all cameras as the sum. If I wanted a small / average sized FF camera I find it easy to get a better performing camera than the 6dmk2, not so easy with the d5 if I was looking for a pro body for sports / action. 
Plus if I was a Nikon shooter and 13 stops of dr in a sports camera was a deciding factor for me I could just get a d4s instead.

In other words I think base iso dr is more important for a camera that won't be used for action / sports than it is for a camera primarily used for that purpose and that'll rarely be shot at iso 100. Low iso dr never bothered me on my 1dx, but it sure did on my 5dmk3.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 30, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> In other words I think base iso dr is more important for a camera that won't be used for action / sports than it is for a camera primarily used for that purpose and that'll rarely be shot at iso 100.



Assuming of course that you are the target population for the 6D2....and it sounds like you are not. 
That is what you seem unable to comprehend.


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Assuming of course that you are the target population for the 6D2....and it sounds like you are not.
> That is what you seem unable to comprehend.



You mean the people who are in the market for a FF with an articulating touch screen? Who don't want to carry their "pro" camera everywhere? SMH


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 30, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming of course that you are the target population for the 6D2....and it sounds like you are not.
> ...



That's a very broad characterization, it's basically "almost everyone," and this ain't the camera for "almost everyone."

Looking at my own photos, I rarely shoot at base ISO (or near it) unless it's on a tripod. Do you carry a tripod everywhere?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 30, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming of course that you are the target population for the 6D2....and it sounds like you are not.
> ...



2% of the photos in my collection are base ISO. I really don't care about it. It sounds like I am more the target customer than you are.


----------



## canonlover (Jul 31, 2017)

Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 31, 2017)

canonlover said:


> Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.



Maybe Canon shooters avoid base ISO cuz it's been so noisy for so long there's little point to not using 400 or 800 which actually provides good results with NR and FPN reduction...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 31, 2017)

Aglet said:


> canonlover said:
> 
> 
> > Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.
> ...



Or maybe its because real-world photographers need the aperture and/or shutter speed for real-world photographs.


----------



## snoke (Jul 31, 2017)

canonlover said:


> Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.



How you know this?
What is your data source?
Need be representative of all camera owners, not just CR people.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2017)

snoke said:


> canonlover said:
> 
> 
> > Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.
> ...


Probably because most pictures are taken in the automatic mode, which tends not to pick iso100


----------



## jester73 (Jul 31, 2017)

canonlover said:


> Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.


You are right about base ISO photo. But unfortunately 6d mk2 lose to 5d4 in all ISO range.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Canon%20EOS%206D%20Mark%20II
So it looks like Canon doesn't put the most up-to-date sensor available into the 6d mk2.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 31, 2017)

jester73 said:


> canonlover said:
> 
> 
> > Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.
> ...



If the 6D2 sensor was created after the 5DIV sensor then yes, it is an up to date sensor.

As for the link - you will not notice any difference in DR above ISO 800. Even at ISO 400 tell me what scene you can take with the 5DIV that you could not take with the 6D2. 
Now, if you are criticising Canon because of what the technological tests show and you want another 1/4 stop of DR simply because yu like the sound of it....fair enough. But in all practical terms it is meaningless.


----------



## snoke (Jul 31, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > canonlover said:
> ...



But no data? Claim with no data is bad claim.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2017)

snoke said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...


no data, but it will be a bell curve shaped distribution, and the centre of such a distribution is not at one of the end points.....


----------



## BillB (Jul 31, 2017)

jester73 said:


> canonlover said:
> 
> 
> > Most photos are not taken at base ISO everyone knows that. This focus on DR on the mk2 is ridiculous.
> ...



If you look at the curves, the differences between the 6DII and the 5DIV is much less as ISO increases above base levels. Your call, but I doubt that the difference above ISO 200 would make much difference to most peoplle


----------



## unfocused (Jul 31, 2017)

snoke said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...



The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days. I don't think automatic mode has much to do with it.


----------



## snoke (Jul 31, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> no data, but it will be a bell curve shaped distribution, and the centre of such a distribution is not at one of the end points.....



If no data then everything is guess and assumption. Not Fact.

Unless your name "Donald Trump", then anything can be fact.



unfocused said:


> The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days. I don't think automatic mode has much to do with it.



You also no data, just assertion.

Everyone say which ISO popular and unpopular. But nobody got real data on ISO usage?

flickr? 500px? instagram?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 31, 2017)

snoke said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > no data, but it will be a bell curve shaped distribution, and the centre of such a distribution is not at one of the end points.....
> ...



ISO 100 the most popular ! 

(From Sporgon data).


----------



## x-vision (Jul 31, 2017)

unfocused said:


> The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days.



For every photo taken outside, I try to stay at ISO 100.
And most of these photos need/require shadow lifting.

So, overall, unless most of your photos are indoors, then dynamic range (DR) at base ISO is quite important.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 31, 2017)

x-vision said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days.
> ...



Flash is getting exhausted quickly @ ISO 100.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

snoke said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > no data, but it will be a bell curve shaped distribution, and the centre of such a distribution is not at one of the end points.....
> ...



For the original assertion, "_Most photos are not taken at base ISO_," would data pulled from the EXIF information of over *19 million* online images suffice to adequately demonstrate the truth of the statement? Or would you prefer to argue the point further?


----------



## bclaff (Jul 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> For the original assertion, "_Most photos are not taken at base ISO_," would data pulled from the EXIF information of over *19 million* online images suffice to adequately demonstrate the truth of the statement? Or would you prefer to argue the point further?


If you remove "Other" which might include unable to know from the Exif, then ISO 100 would be about 48% and let's not forget that some cameras start at ISO 200.
In any case, based on the Mode, Shutter Speed, and Aperture stats I suspect that's not a representative sample (despite it's size).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

bclaff said:


> If you remove "Other" which might include unable to know from the Exif, then ISO 100 would be about 48% and let's not forget that some cameras start at ISO 200 (.



In other words, the statement, "_Most photos are not taken at base ISO,_" is supported by those data.  Based on the way they report the other stats, it would seem that 'unable to know from EXIF' is excluded from the count.




bclaff said:


> In any case, based on the Mode, Shutter Speed, and Aperture stats I suspect that's not a representative sample (despite it's size).



The question is, representative sample of what? It's clearly not a representative sample of photography, since Apple 'cameras' account for ~5% of their EXIF sample. Even for ILCs, I sincerely doubt that the 5DIII+6D+5DII account for ~30% of that population. But it is likely a reasonable approximation of representative for full frame users, which is relevant to the 6D discussion.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bclaff said:
> 
> 
> > If you remove "Other" which might include unable to know from the Exif, then ISO 100 would be about 48% and let's not forget that some cameras start at ISO 200 (.
> ...


My suspicion is that "other" is 160, 320, 640, etc, etc.... all the results that were not 100


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bclaff said:
> ...



Indeed. 'Other' is everything other than the top 5. If you look at the aperture data, f/5.6 is not among the top 5, and therefore is classified as 'other'. Bill's suggestion that one should exclude the other category because it 'might include unable to know from the Exif' and thus ISO 100 accounts for 48% of the images is, to be polite, silly.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 31, 2017)

unfocused said:


> The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days. I don't think automatic mode has much to do with it.



Uhhmmmm... on Mars?.. 
You must be thinking of action and sports and long focal lengths
Cuz ISO 100 allows plenty of practical shutter and aperture range outdoors as long as the sun is up and even when it's below the horizon.
HANDHELD. Optically stabilized lenses have greatly increased the practicality of using base ISO for static scenes even in low light.
I did once shoot a particular landscape type of shot at iso 3200, handheld, 1/4 second or so with my 70-200mm. (Nikon of course) and processed it into a very impressive 5 ft print. I was too lazy to dig out a tripod. Took a few tries to get a really crisp shot but it was a lot quicker than messing around with a tripod on the side of a road in the (near) dark.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 31, 2017)

x-vision said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > The data is simple physics. ISO 100 is inadequate to get sufficient shutter speed and sufficient f-stop for all but the brightest, sunny days.
> ...



That's not necessarily the best way to shoot. It's all very well bashing Canon sensors as some have done here and elsewhere, but different equipment demans different techniques, and "shoot at base ISO - lift shadows" is just one way of getting the result you may want (one might call it the Sony/Nikon way; with all but the most recent Canon cameras, ETTR then pulling the exposure down can produce better results, as we know). A one-size-fits-all policy is one of the reasons some people incorrectly believe Canon sensors can't handle most real world situations, when they clearly can.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2017)

scyrene said:


> A one-size-fits-all policy is one of the reasons some people incorrectly believe Canon sensors can't handle most real world situations, when they clearly can.



They clearly can, in capable hands. Some hands are just less capable, see the post before yours for an example of such hands.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > A one-size-fits-all policy is one of the reasons some people incorrectly believe Canon sensors can't handle most real world situations, when they clearly can.
> ...



The less said about *that*, the better


----------



## snoke (Aug 1, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> For the original assertion, "_Most photos are not taken at base ISO_," would data pulled from the EXIF information of over *19 million* online images suffice to adequately demonstrate the truth of the statement? Or would you prefer to argue the point further?



Good. Someone find real data. No more stupid "most people use ISO1600." Now just argue what data means. Better than arguing about assumptions and guesses.

What data saying?

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." 

Thread moved past lies, damned lies, now at statistics. Good progress.

From data, > 50% photos at ISO 400 and less. What more popular: high ISO or low ISO? Data tell it to not be high ISO. Is ISO 400 low or high? Argue now about that one.

There something else to know here.

High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.

If football team will win, pray for everyone to be good, not one player. Think ISO like this. All ISO values on same team. When all better, team is big better. When just one better, team only little better.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 1, 2017)

There is too much generalization relative to that chart.

Would it be safe to say if the subject being shot is birds or wildlife for example then there is no way base ISO is being used most of the time. 

For 4 years I've lived around ISO1250 and wished I could get better IQ at say double that. Of course I haven't been doing much landscape or portraits and almost always cropped. 

Also it's seemed to me that if the full uncropped frame is used then unless you're talking poster size, the noise performance at around ISO 800 or lower with the 6D was good. Guess I'm not fussy enough or need to be exposed to more illustrations of why it isn't. That's why I pay attention to these threads; to learn.

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Aug 1, 2017)

snoke said:


> High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.



So you disagree with those like Dpreview who claim that the D5 trades low ISO DR for high ISO performance?



Jack Douglas said:


> Also it's seemed to me that if the full uncropped frame is used then unless you're talking poster size, the noise performance at around ISO 800 or lower with the 6D was good. Guess I'm not fussy enough or need to be exposed to more illustrations of why it isn't. That's why I pay attention to these threads; to learn.



And even a generalisation like 'up to ISO 800' is good (even ignoring subjective differences about how much noise is acceptable) - because if you ETTR at a given ISO and lower the brightness later, the noise will be different compared to a shot exposed 'correctly' at the same ISO speed, and different again to a shot underexposed at that ISO and then brightened later - which is one good reason why shadow lifting is so contentious round here.


----------



## snoke (Aug 1, 2017)

scyrene said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.
> ...



No. But I disagree that best path for Nikon. Look at photostophotos graph. Stairs. Compare with D4. 1 stop DR @ISO200 trade for .5 stop DR @ISO3200. Gain less than lose.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 1, 2017)

snoke said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > snoke said:
> ...



So where's the outrage at Nikon?


----------



## snoke (Aug 1, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Ask wrong person.

Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 1, 2017)

snoke said:


> Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.



Because the D5 is a specialist tool and as such is not for the most common photographer. Have you considered that? 
Probably not.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.
> ...


You mean that people who buy a camera for action in low light will use it for action in low light? Inconceivable!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.
> ...



I detect a "one track mind", here. 

Sports and wildlife, D5, is Nikon's response to Canon and they are not dummies. And there was no huge outcry but hey we've suspected this bias now for years of debate with Rishi. 

Jack


----------



## Aglet (Aug 2, 2017)

scyrene said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > High ISO performance never be same as low ISO. Not possible due to physics. See "Ideal" line at photonstophotos. Pentax K1 best example. If Pentax want next camera with better high ISO, how they do it? Best way is to move entire line higher. Better high ISO come with better low ISO - and vice versa. This even true for old Canon design.
> ...



shadow lifting is likely only contentious around here because, for the longest time, Canon files quickly fell apart when doing so. with the 6d2, they still do. shoot 5d4 or 80d and push as much as you likely need.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 2, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Think differently. Data show high ISO not most common. Therefore D5 not for most common photo. Mistake make all camera like D5 because not best for most common requirement. D5 not sales leader.
> ...



It looks like you missed the point, Mike. You're actually in agreement.


----------



## Gnocchi (Aug 2, 2017)

This dynamic range talk reminds me of the old days when nikon released there D5, or was that only recently!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 6, 2017)

Aglet said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



You've missed my point (but of course) - in many situations, an _output_ image can be produced with a Canon camera that's the same as a Nikon, Sony, etc, but the _technique_ differs - so instead of, e.g. shooting at ISO 100 and raising shadows five stops, you shoot at ISO 400 and pull the exposure down and maybe shadow lift 1-2 stops (ETTR). In many situations, you have highlight headroom* and ETTR means the shadows are cleaner. Neither technique is perfect; the Sony sensor allows for a bit more flexibility in some ways, I don't think that's in dispute. But it's possible to produce images that are equivalent with modern cameras from every manufacturer, if you know what you're doing (*and as an aside, as many here have pointed out, in most situations where there's too much DR for a single Canon exposure, there's likely to be too much for a Sony sensor too - the difference is only a stop and a bit at most either way isn't it?).

Or to put it another way, people like you only love shadow lifting and go on about it so much because it's what Canon is least good at, and you like to stir the pot. Most people just want to produce the best images they can, and that means learning how best to use their gear, whoever it's made by.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 6, 2017)

"Or to put it another way, people like you only love shadow lifting and go on about it so much because it's what Canon is least good at, and you like to stir the pot. Most people just want to produce the best images they can, and that means learning how best to use their gear, whoever it's made by."

Exactly! 

Work-arounds can be simple but they require some skill/mental capability. Most of this excess focus on DR is simply bragging rights. Any time I am making pontifications, I should have to back it up with excellent photo examples that illustrate my expertise/competence - how's that? Too many arm-chair quarterbacks.

Jack


----------



## Talys (Aug 6, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Most of this excess focus on DR is simply bragging rights.



At popular birding spots, once in a while, I will see people who hang around the parking lot for a while with a big camera and a big lens, and show off 10+fps by holding down the shutter for 5 seconds to hear the mirror whir, all the while pointing at pavement or blue sky. There have been times when I want to point out that it might be more convincing if they took the lens cap off, but bite my tongue out of politeness. They usually laugh and yap a bit, then head off, without ever having taken a picture of an real bird.

I suspect the bragging rights crew often falls in this category.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 6, 2017)

Ah, all the gear and no idea type of folks. It is good though that they do exist. Once the initial excitement worn off, they tend to sell their gear off on local classifieds website or the FlickBay and often at a very good discount. 
I was able to find a virtually new 5D III with only 250 shutter count, in full retail package and at A$1,350.00 (us$1,100?) only. Hopefully it shipes tomorrow and in my hands by Thursday later this week.



Talys said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Most of this excess focus on DR is simply bragging rights.
> ...


----------



## scyrene (Aug 6, 2017)

Talys said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Most of this excess focus on DR is simply bragging rights.
> ...



This is actually hilarious!


----------



## Joules (Aug 6, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Work-arounds can be simple but they require some skill/mental capability.


I've been paying a bit more attention to the DR of my current T3i to get a better grip on how much more I actually need (On the side of wanting, I'm unfortunately in he bragging group I fear). And with most of my shots, I found that even the 2 Stop push the T3i can handle at base ISO before showing that terrible banding pattern was mostly fine.

But I have one spot that never worked out for me so far, on all three occasions that I took pictures of it (See Attachment? First try on posting a picture, not sure if that works).

The bright blue LEDs on the boats are just so much stronger than anything around them, I always end up with patches of pure color on the water and the boats themselfes, where there is no detail. 10 seconds, ISO 200, f 7.1. This file is pushed by 1.4 Stops in LR, the highlightsslider is all the way down and the shadow slider slightly upped. There's already banding in the sky, but the edit isn't final anyway.

I'm just wondering about any workarounds for this. Blending isn't really an option, as the lights on the building changed their color rather quickly, and the reflections in the water did so too. Also, the boats are moving a little from the water, which would make regaining fine detail there through blending rather hard I think. Is this an image that basically "Can't be captured"? Or is the 6D2 dynamic range possibly enough for it? The 80D? I'm wondering about this. Maybe the artificial lightning itself is the problem, and not actually the dynamic range?

Just interested in it, since I read something along the lines of "You just need to expose properly" around here a few times. I'm not as good at taking pictures as I'd like, so: How to you expose something like this properly?


----------



## tcmatthews (Aug 6, 2017)

I think that the Sony Cameras would struggle with that as well. I would suggest you check out the Magic Lanterns Dual ISO hack. Before you get to hung up on the DR discussion. There are simply times where no camera has enough DR. There are also times when you need to be at ISO 3200. Believe it at not most Canon Cameras have quite good DR at 3200. It is nearly always base ISO that people complain about. 



Joules said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Work-arounds can be simple but they require some skill/mental capability.
> ...


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 6, 2017)

Joules said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Work-arounds can be simple but they require some skill/mental capability.
> ...



While artificial light sources can have a brightness close to the sun's brightness the night sky and the shadows of buildings are nearly without any light.
Here something about 20 stops of DR would be convenient to simulate our eyes which can handle this DR - just compare 1 000 Joule per second and square meter in the bright sun to 0.001 Joule per Second and square meter with a tiny LED lamp illuminating a room. EDIT: Forgotten to praise our built-in biological imaging system which can handle this extreme DR by different adaptation processes.

So it is not always about exposing correctly - sometimes our tools capabilities are limiting / matter.

I do not understand these war-like discussions about what DR is necessary - I (as scientist, here physicist) always enjoy to have the best data quality of an experiment. And each photograph is an experiment which has to be evaluated during post processing. So I enjoy more DR / less noise / precise ADCs and I hate sometimes the physics which limits the quality of the data taken intrinsically.

The "pure color problem" might be caused by LEDs which have narrow spectral distributions which might be inside the spectral windows of the R, B or G channels. Maybe it is a good idea to check the R-G-B histograms to see what happens - e.g. saturation in one or more color channels.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 6, 2017)

Now here's an illustration of a "wonderful" photo being made even better! 

https://www.on1.com/promo/spring-into-summer/?utm_campaign=Spring-Summer&utm_source=RAW_Own&utm_content=email14_Blake&utm_medium=email

My comment was sarcasm. The sunflower photo came in my email from ON1 animated to show original and improved. This link is the video of the process. It struck me that it was a very poorly exposed photo to start with so I guess the idea was that an ON1 customer could be so poor at exposure but still be PP there photos. 

Jack


----------



## Joules (Aug 6, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> While artificial light sources can have a brightness close to the sun's brightness the night sky and the shadows of buildings are nearly without any light.
> Here something about 20 stops of DR would be convenient to simulate our eyes which can handle this DR


So, in that case it's probably too much for any camera and it would be acceptable to want more DR if scenes like that were something I shot often. It's a shame then, that the boats are so strongly illuminated. The building with the colored lighting is Hamburg's Elbphilharmonie, the thing was so insanely expensive to build I had hoped it would get illuminated properly too. Why doesn't anybody think about the poor photographers 

Good idea with the color channels as well. Sadly, I'm not quite as advanced with Photoshop yet, but it might be something that's worth playing around with. Thanks.

BTW, should someone think the image is fine, I generally agree. But when I showed a friend of mine a similar picture of the boats and building, just taken from a different angle and on another day, he asked me if the picture was "Photoshopped". When I asked him why he thought that, he pointed out that the blues looked so unnaturally solid, not like water should look like in his opinion. And he does have a point there, I think.

tcmatthews, good call with the magic lantern Dual ISO feature. I use ML on the T3i, but I only tried Dual ISO when it first came out and the processing wasn't fully developed. I had some artifacts back than, but I know it was improved later. I'll try that at times. Sadly, it's not an option for the 80D or 6DII I guess (i'm saving to upgrade to one of those, most likely), and the T3i falls apart above ISO 800 so that's what, 3 Stops extra DR?

EDIT: @Jack Douglas, is your link working? It brings me to my Google Mailbox, which doesn't seem right!?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 6, 2017)

The only solution is to take the picture earlier in the evening when the sky still has some natural light and the range is not a large.
But yes, I do like the picture as it is.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 7, 2017)

Blending will work out just fine as the rest of the frame will be simply black. There is that much difference in light levels between the lights and the rest of the frame )
Take one shot exposed for your lights. Adjust exposure so the lights are exposed correctly, check your histogram / highlights blinkies or spot meter with a longer lens right on the lights. Take a shot, check the image on your LCD ( do not forget to set LCD brightness level to 3-4 instead of auto). 
Trust me, the frame will be completely black with your lights nicely exposed. 
Now take your long exposure, make sure the photo exposed correctly. Do not worry about blown lights. You will get them back in post easily. 
One more suggestion if I may:the colour of that sodium vapour affected sky can be corrected too 
Happy shooting 




Joules said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Work-arounds can be simple but they require some skill/mental capability.
> ...


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 7, 2017)

Joules said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > While artificial light sources can have a brightness close to the sun's brightness the night sky and the shadows of buildings are nearly without any light.
> ...



Don't fall for the "DR is not a problem" trap, if this is the kind of image you want to be taking you'd greatly benefit from more dynamic range. A crop camera such as the Nikon d7200 has 3 full stops of DR over the t3i, which is an whole lot of wiggle room in the shadows, and 2.5 more bits when it comes to color depth, which might help you have less solid color patches in the water - providing they're not there to the naked eye.

Other options are the Sony a6500 and to a lesser extend the 80d, though it'd do just fine.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



Thank-you.  Well put.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

scyrene said:


> You've missed my point (but of course) - in many situations, an _output_ image can be produced with a Canon camera that's the same as a Nikon, Sony, etc, but the _technique_ differs - so instead of, e.g. shooting at ISO 100 and raising shadows five stops, you shoot at ISO 400 and pull the exposure down and maybe shadow lift 1-2 stops (ETTR). In many situations, you have highlight headroom* and ETTR means the shadows are cleaner. Neither technique is perfect; the Sony sensor allows for a bit more flexibility in some ways, I don't think that's in dispute. But it's possible to produce images that are equivalent with modern cameras from every manufacturer, if you know what you're doing (*and as an aside, as many here have pointed out, in most situations where there's too much DR for a single Canon exposure, there's likely to be too much for a Sony sensor too - the difference is only a stop and a bit at most either way isn't it?).
> 
> Or to put it another way, people like you only love shadow lifting and go on about it so much because it's what Canon is least good at, and you like to stir the pot. Most people just want to produce the best images they can, and that means learning how best to use their gear, whoever it's made by.



much of what you say is correct, I'm not going to argue that.

My point is that someone who's looking to push some creative boundaries with Canon files _has to learn the technique_ to compensate for the particular shortcomings of that system.. Both in shooting and in post.
And, in a few situations, no matter what techniques you use, ABC will still deliver much better data to work with. i.e. no pattern noise.

DR is less limiting than the pattern noise problems inherent in so many Canon cameras. 
The fact that these 2 are related does not put me on the DR bandwagon. 
I'm blowing the horn on the anti-FPN float.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

Joules said:


> I've been paying a bit more attention to the DR of my current T3i to get a better grip on how much more I actually need (On the side of wanting, I'm unfortunately in he bragging group I fear). And with most of my shots, I found that even the 2 Stop push the T3i can handle at base ISO before showing that terrible banding pattern was mostly fine.



And here's a good example of someone who'd trying to creat his image (which looks pretty nice as-is, BTW) and is finding pattern noise to be a problem in some areas.
ABC camera - no banding.
80D or 5d4 - no banding

Everything else you try to do is going to require some thinking and compromise.

The "just expose properly crowd" is just going to tell you their compromise.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

tcmatthews said:


> I think that the Sony Cameras would struggle with that as well. I would suggest you check out the Magic Lanterns Dual ISO hack. Before you get to hung up on the DR discussion. There are simply times where no camera has enough DR. There are also times when you need to be at ISO 3200. Believe it at not most Canon Cameras have quite good DR at 3200. It is nearly always base ISO that people complain about.



Any camera will struggle with bright light and night photos.
difference is, when the artist is creating his image, which cameras are not going to put banding noise in there for them to deal with?

Good DR at iso 3200?!?
No. There isn't. you'll have less than 6 stops on a crop body. Certainly good enough for some images but you're going to clip a lot at both ends on a scene like the one above. Which is fine if clipped is what you want.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

Joules said:


> So, in that case it's probably too much for any camera and it would be acceptable to want more DR if scenes like that were something I shot often. It's a shame then, that the boats are so strongly illuminated. The building with the colored lighting is Hamburg's Elbphilharmonie, the thing was so insanely expensive to build I had hoped it would get illuminated properly too. Why doesn't anybody think about the poor photographers



same problem in my home city with an iconic hotel so overlit it's nearly blown out at base ISO on the best DR camera in a night shot. Fortunately it doesn't move around so bracket and blend works for that. 

consider cheap used ABC camera like Nikon D5x00?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 7, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> The only solution is to take the picture earlier in the evening when the sky still has some natural light and the range is not a large.
> But yes, I do like the picture as it is.



another compromise

good advice when you can come back to the scene at your convenience... only.

but... what it the boats weren't even there until after twilight?
Or what if he wants a naturally black sky?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 7, 2017)

@ Joules I corrected the link. It now takes you to the video of the not so great flower that gets worked on. Unfortunately, my sarcastic comment doesn't make as much sense as it would viewing what I got directly in my email (animated before/after) as opposed to the link when opened. Oh well.

Jack


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 7, 2017)

Joules said:


> [...]
> 
> Good idea with the color channels as well. Sadly, I'm not quite as advanced with Photoshop yet, but it might be something that's worth playing around with. Thanks.
> 
> [...]



The histograms split into RGB channels is a feature of the 600D / T3i (i own the camera) and is available in image play back as one option accessible via the info button. The brightness histogram seems to be o.k. but sometimes one color channel is on his limits.

Elbphilharmonie and lighting: Maybe the building of it ate up all the money which was reserved for some better lighting or it is not allowed due to environmental laws - it would waste energy


----------



## Joules (Aug 7, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Blending will work out just fine as the rest of the frame will be simply black. There is that much difference in light levels between the lights and the rest of the frame )
> 
> [...]
> One more suggestion if I may:the colour of that sodium vapour affected sky can be corrected too


We'll see about that, I'm not sure... Like I said, the lights on the building cycled through all the colors of the rainbow in a good speed, so no two exporsures would be lit the same. I actually have three different brightness levels that come pretty close though. I'll try blending them once I find the time. But as one exposure is really short, it has way more detail in the reflections in the water than the other two longer exposures, which have that almost silky water. And the boats shake in the water slightly ... Although that might be fine as I was pretty far away from them this time.

Well, doesn't seem so easily for me right now, but I'll try.

The night sky is supposed to be blue too, right? Hard to tell there, the opposing waterfront is crowded with the citys industrial and harbour buildings, which for some reason are all lit up in that boring yellow light... The clouds look yellow from that too, so much even that I can see the location of the harbour from my home just by looking into the night sky.

[quote author=mb66energy]
The histograms split into RGB channels is a feature of the 600D / T3i (i own the camera) and is available in image play back as one option accessible via the info button. The brightness histogram seems to be o.k. but sometimes one color channel is on his limits.

Elbphilharmonie and lighting: Maybe the building of it ate up all the money which was reserved for some better lighting or it is not allowed due to environmental laws - it would waste energy 
[/quote]
Hm, true. That's quite a good idea, I always just have it set to luminance as I find it less distracting and easier to read. But it might help a lot with getting these boats under control if I head back there again.

I think it's just lit to look good for the eye, not for the camera. After all, with it having cost almost 800 Million € to build and swallowing millions of € to operate per year, it really doesn't seem to matter anymore how much money is thrown at that thing : Besides, it's just a few minute walk from there to building that's seemingly a gift just for photographers: https://500px.com/photo/177330507/canal-castle-by-julius?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=18747037

Whenever I go there I find at least two other ILC owners and a bunch of tourists with their smartphones.

[quote author=Aglet]
good advice when you can come back to the scene at your convenience... only.

but... what it the boats weren't even there until after twilight?
Or what if he wants a naturally black sky?
[/quote]
Well, I can go back there, but now the lights on the building aren't there anymore. They just go on for special occasions, such as the homosexual pride parade that was this weekend in Hamburg. And spent the time around sunset at the Wasserschloss (See link above), so that's why it was so dark. Can't be everywhere at once. Besides I wonder if the colors would come of so strongly if it hadn't been so late. Well, I'll won't find out I guess.

Well, thanks for the input. If I get my hands on some better bodies to try them out I#ll make sure to check the boats and see what i can do with them. It's certainly the most extreme lighting condition that I'd actually shoot, even if not very often.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 7, 2017)

No, nigth skies not supposed to be blue. Do not get sarcastic. The "yellow light" can and needs to be dealt with. This is typical sodium Vapour street lighting that kills everything. It is easy to correct in post. You need to pay attention though. 



Joules said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Blending will work out just fine as the rest of the frame will be simply black. There is that much difference in light levels between the lights and the rest of the frame )
> ...


Hm, true. That's quite a good idea, I always just have it set to luminance as I find it less distracting and easier to read. But it might help a lot with getting these boats under control if I head back there again.

I think it's just lit to look good for the eye, not for the camera. After all, with it having cost almost 800 Million € to build and swallowing millions of € to operate per year, it really doesn't seem to matter anymore how much money is thrown at that thing : Besides, it's just a few minute walk from there to building that's seemingly a gift just for photographers: https://500px.com/photo/177330507/canal-castle-by-julius?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=18747037

Whenever I go there I find at least two other ILC owners and a bunch of tourists with their smartphones.

[quote author=Aglet]
good advice when you can come back to the scene at your convenience... only.

but... what it the boats weren't even there until after twilight?
Or what if he wants a naturally black sky?
[/quote]
Well, I can go back there, but now the lights on the building aren't there anymore. They just go on for special occasions, such as the homosexual pride parade that was this weekend in Hamburg. And spent the time around sunset at the Wasserschloss (See link above), so that's why it was so dark. Can't be everywhere at once. Besides I wonder if the colors would come of so strongly if it hadn't been so late. Well, I'll won't find out I guess.

Well, thanks for the input. If I get my hands on some better bodies to try them out I#ll make sure to check the boats and see what i can do with them. It's certainly the most extreme lighting condition that I'd actually shoot, even if not very often.
[/quote]


----------



## Joules (Aug 7, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> No, nigth skies not supposed to be blue. Do not get sarcastic. The "yellow light" can and needs to be dealt with. This is typical sodium Vapour street lighting that kills everything. It is easy to correct in post. You need to pay attention though.


Well, I mean a dark, dark blue instead of the current muddy grey / orange tint it has now. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, apologies if I come accros that way. Or would your preference be black? I was experimenting with some astro stuff lately and in those long exposures, the night sky does get blue, so that seems to me the most natural choice. After all, when cleaning up this stuff in post, it is altering reality anyway. To my eye at least, the sky there really looks pretty dirty.

What would you recommend to clean it up? Masking and adjusting tint and saturation until it feels right or is there a proper method?

On a side note, a totally different question: Does the amount of thermal noise you gather when exposing for longer periods of time vary from camera to camera? With the T3i, I find that to be a deal more distracting than the fixed pattern Noise once I expose for more than 30 seconds. From 60 seconds up, it doesn't even require any shadow pushed or sharpening to ruin the image. Is that something that a 80D or 6DII would handle better? Is it something where the larger Pixels of a full frame body help?

Not something I need to often, its more a question out of curiosity. It's hardly something that's affected by the lack of on chip ADC, so is it something where the newer 6DII sensor might still have improved?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 7, 2017)

Aglet said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > You've missed my point (but of course) - in many situations, an _output_ image can be produced with a Canon camera that's the same as a Nikon, Sony, etc, but the _technique_ differs - so instead of, e.g. shooting at ISO 100 and raising shadows five stops, you shoot at ISO 400 and pull the exposure down and maybe shadow lift 1-2 stops (ETTR). In many situations, you have highlight headroom* and ETTR means the shadows are cleaner. Neither technique is perfect; the Sony sensor allows for a bit more flexibility in some ways, I don't think that's in dispute. But it's possible to produce images that are equivalent with modern cameras from every manufacturer, if you know what you're doing (*and as an aside, as many here have pointed out, in most situations where there's too much DR for a single Canon exposure, there's likely to be too much for a Sony sensor too - the difference is only a stop and a bit at most either way isn't it?).
> ...



Fair enough, and I appreciate some people want to spend as little time postprocessing as possible. Fixed pattern noise is indeed objectionable - I do some astrophotography where it really is annoying - but I'm not sure how much of an issue it is with the latest Canon sensors (I genuinely don't know as I've not used them, but it seems that people complain about it less than they used to).


----------



## scyrene (Aug 7, 2017)

Joules said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > While artificial light sources can have a brightness close to the sun's brightness the night sky and the shadows of buildings are nearly without any light.
> ...



I'd try blending too, as others have suggested.

I suppose in theory you could try to find a coloured filter that reduces the amount of blue light, so the blues don't saturate so fast, but essentially these sorts of shots are beyond any current camera (in a single exposure) as far as I can tell. Or even try using a graduated ND filter, upside-down (dark bit at the bottom)?



Joules said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > No, nigth skies not supposed to be blue. Do not get sarcastic. The "yellow light" can and needs to be dealt with. This is typical sodium Vapour street lighting that kills everything. It is easy to correct in post. You need to pay attention though.
> ...



The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way - this is an excellent rundown: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/ (although this mostly about astrophotography, it has some relevance to night landscape work, I reckon). Of course, you can tint it however looks best to you - none of these photos will match what the eye would see anyhow.


----------



## Joules (Aug 7, 2017)

scyrene said:


> The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way - this is an excellent rundown: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/ (although this mostly about astrophotography, it has some relevance to night landscape work, I reckon). Of course, you can tint it however looks best to you - none of these photos will match what the eye would see anyhow.


Okay, good point. In that case, it was the Twilight Blue I was seeing in my long exposure wannabe astro shots. I didn't get much of the milkyway because of cloud cover and too much brightness from the low hanging sun (Was one week after the longest day this year had) ... probably why it was still so blue in the sky. Although it doesn't really matter anyway, my monitor isn't calibrated and I don't go for natural pictures, so blue or black, it would both be nicer than orange, I agree with that.

I'll see what i can get with blending, I'll have the time for that towards the end of this week. Thanks for all the input, I'll try to make use of it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2017)

scyrene said:


> The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way



The night sky, no. The evening sky...yes. Many people generally find 'blue hour' photos much more appealing than the nighttime equivalent. Having said that, I do understand that it's often not possibly to be where you want when you want, and never possible to be two places at once...

The shots below were both taken at the same time of day (~9:15pm, after business and dinner were done), but one was in February and the other in June. Late sunsets are convenient for combining photograhy with business travel.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 7, 2017)

see how you go. Attached is a few of my night shots. Not the best, but likely shows what I was talking about. overblown lights were not corrected as really did not have time back then for setting up proper blending exposures. I do try my best to correct for the evil sodium vapour light as much as I can usually, but not always possible due to mix of light sources in the scene. but I am sure that you can see where I was going with this. note the night sky colour in the img 3037. I chose to crush blacks at the time as otherwise skies looked unacceptable.




Joules said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way - this is an excellent rundown: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/ (although this mostly about astrophotography, it has some relevance to night landscape work, I reckon). Of course, you can tint it however looks best to you - none of these photos will match what the eye would see anyhow.
> ...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 7, 2017)

This thread has grown more useful/interesting of late.  Thanks all for the comments and explanations.

Jack


----------



## stevelee (Aug 8, 2017)

Isn't the reason that the moonless night sky without light pollution looks black is that in low light we see with the rods and not with the cones in our eyes at low light level?

In other words, whatever the measurable hue might actually be, we are going to see it in black and white.

So if your goal is to make the scene look somewhat like we see it, then the background sky should be black except where we have some visible coloration. Right?


----------



## Aglet (Aug 8, 2017)

stevelee said:


> Isn't the reason that the moonless night sky without light pollution looks black is that in low light we see with the rods and not with the cones in our eyes at low light level?
> 
> In other words, whatever the measurable hue might actually be, we are going to see it in black and white.
> 
> So if your goal is to make the scene look somewhat like we see it, then the background sky should be black except where we have some visible coloration. Right?



I'd agree your perception of the topic is correct as when I am away from most light pullution the sky appears black unless there's airglow as described in the clarkvision link posted earlier.
When it's significant there can be a slight greenish- tinge that I've seen by eye which looks more blue-green to me actually. Along the horizon it can pick up other hues depending on various factors but the astro guys should be able to provide the best answers on that topic. Can vary with location and latitude and sun activity as well as human made light, etc.


----------



## Adelino (Aug 8, 2017)

And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen. Here's to hoping for a new camera between the 6 and 5 series. Price wise it makes sense.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 8, 2017)

Adelino said:


> And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen. Here's to hoping for a new camera between the 6 and 5 series. Price wise it makes sense.



DPR have never done well testing Canon AF. I would take their results with a big pinch of salt.

There is not enough room between the models for a meaningful intermediary. Unless you can suggest what functions would be in each model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2017)

Adelino said:


> And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen.



When DPR 'tested' the 1D X II AF system, they criticized it for performing exactly as Canon states it should (e.g., automatic point selection initially selecting the closest subject), and used settings which Canon explicitly recommends against (e.g., Spot AF with moving subjects). Too hard for them to RTFM, I guess. DPR is already biased against Canon, and when you factor in their incompetence at using Canon's AF systems, I'd take anything they say about Canon AF performance with a few grains of salt. About this many should do the trick.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 9, 2017)

Good old DPR and the bias they can't comprehend or at least pretend they can't. 

Jack


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Adelino said:
> 
> 
> > And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen.
> ...



I love how they complain Canon's af system has too many options and is too confusing to be usable, but when Sony copied it was amazing and perfect.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 9, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way
> ...



Yeah, good point, I hadn't thought of that!


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 9, 2017)

scyrene said:


> The night sky is not blue, although many photographers try to make it look that way - this is an excellent rundown: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/color.of.the.night.sky/ (although this mostly about astrophotography, it has some relevance to night landscape work, I reckon). Of course, you can tint it however looks best to you - none of these photos will match what the eye would see anyhow.



In addition to what others have said on the topic, I remember watching a documentary on the development of the F-117 Nighthawk ("Secrets of the Stealth"), which said that the correct color for a night-time stealth plane would be a very deep blue or purple (which would disappear into the sky better), but it was black because the brass demanded it no matter the science. I make no claims to the accuracy of that, mind.


----------



## EdB (Aug 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> EdB said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Not really, nothing special here. I'm not shill like you either.


----------



## malarcky (Aug 12, 2017)

Please, let's not mimic FM here. That place has become absolutely unbearable with the trite comments. Everyone over there knowing more than everyone else to the point that the bantering back and forth becomes a useless place to gain any useful information. They could write a book the size of War And Peace and after reading it, one would come out more confused, and bored, among other things. The reader certaintly wouldn't have gained any knowledge of information about photography, that's for sure.

Sorry FM, you guys have let your focus get onto trivial things and no longer have any real value among us photographers. IT's like Romper Room over there as of late.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 12, 2017)

I heartily agree. The solution is to simply not respond to posts that take things in that direction, it's so simple.

Many CR threads are just so good and informative and it's all because of good will and considerate/mature behaviour.

Jack


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Adelino said:
> 
> 
> > And now a very weak review of the autofocus from DPR it really seems as if the upgrade is just the flippy touch screen.
> ...



Are there any reasons the focusing wouldn't have the same performance wise as in the 80d? Obvious the spread is smaller than on the crop, but other than that, I was under the impression it was borrowed directly, so would have essentially the same performance?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Are there any reasons the focusing wouldn't have the same performance wise as in the 80d? Obvious the spread is smaller than on the crop, but other than that, I was under the impression it was borrowed directly, so would have essentially the same performance?



Different processor, different firmware. But probably no different, and if so, not worse.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 13, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Adelino said:
> ...


Based on dpr focusing tests 80d also did pretty bad. They suppose to be redoing those tests by selecting initial focus point. They seem to test/print only with all points auto mode in view finder tests and ignore rest of the stuff. It always comes down to canon auto mode with all points vs Nikon 3d focusing. I think Nikon has option to pick the face in view finder. In their recent comparison between sl2 vs d3400, they even mentioned strengths of Nikon 3d focusing system when compared to Canon sl2. But it is Nikon 11 points focusing system vs Canon 9 focusing points. How much difference 3d focusing makes only with 11 points vs Canon 9 focusing points.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 14, 2017)

If you are stuck with Canon gear, DPR helps to make switch less painful. I think they are slowly turning in to news aggregator like specific gear rumor websites rather than spending serious time on gear reviews.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4815339354/sony-trade-up-program-gets-you-500-plus-trade-in-value-towards-a-new-a9


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 14, 2017)

Someone will get some really good C/N cameras for cheap. Good scheme - Until folk find out the grass isn't so totally green on the Sony side. 

Jack


----------



## Talys (Aug 14, 2017)

ritholtz said:


> If you are stuck with Canon gear, DPR helps to make switch less painful. I think they are slowly turning in to news aggregator like specific gear rumor websites rather than spending serious time on gear reviews.
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/4815339354/sony-trade-up-program-gets-you-500-plus-trade-in-value-towards-a-new-a9



On the A9 deal, it all depends what they give you for your old Canon/Nikon. Chances are, the trade in values won't be super awesome.

The A7RII, that's pretty cool, if you're in the market for one. Just go find someone who will sell you an old, barely-working ILC for $50... or free... and presto, a few hundred bucks off 

I wonder how many people are trading in the Leica M10 for an extra $500 off 



Jack Douglas said:


> Someone will get some really good C/N cameras for cheap. Good scheme - Until folk find out the grass isn't so totally green on the Sony side.
> 
> Jack



You think? I'd imagine they'd use them for internal R&D or destroy them... they wouldn't want more C/N's out there, right?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 15, 2017)

Well they're asking for 1DX2, 6D2 etc. as trade - destroy?! Or are we to assume that no one having better gear is foolish enough?

Jack


----------



## Talys (Aug 16, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Well they're asking for 1DX2, 6D2 etc. as trade - destroy?! Or are we to assume that no one having better gear is foolish enough?
> 
> Jack



Well some $6000+ Leica's too  I think they're on the list, just to be on the list, frankly, because nobody is going to trade in their 1DX2 for a $500 discount (if they're going to get an a9 and own a 1DX2, the $500 will be neither here nor there).

What I meant is that I doubt the traded-in 1DX2 will go back "onto the market". Sony could use them for internal R&D, but they wouldn't want the possibility that they could end up being resold, and re-enter the public market, because after all, the purpose of the rebate is to get rid of (one) high-end camera in favor of a Sony one. If I were a Sony employee, and happy with my Sony A9, but I got a cheap 1DX2, I might be sorely tempted to turn that into a Christmas bonus.

On the cameras like A7RII, they'll take any working camera, and I assume Sony doesn't want any of those to go back into the used camera market either, so destruction would seem like a reasonable thing to do, if they don't have a use for it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 16, 2017)

Talys said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Well they're asking for 1DX2, 6D2 etc. as trade - destroy?! Or are we to assume that no one having better gear is foolish enough?
> ...



Of course. I was only half serious. Who knows what they will do and whether this will really prove successful. One thing for sure there is pressure being brought to bear on Canon by the other innovators and that is a positive thing.

Jack


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 16, 2017)

Today I announced my own Canon gear trade in program that sure to put pressure on Canon Australia:

Trade in your low mileage, mint Canon 5D IV for my used 5D III and receive instant cashback of A$1,000.00
or
Trade in your low mileage, mint Canon 5D IV for my very slightly used 6D and receive instant cashback of A$1,500.00 and receive brand new Vanguard Pro camera bag valued A$150.
Limited offer, while the stock lasts.

Any takers in Australia? 



Jack Douglas said:


> ...One thing for sure there is pressure being brought to bear on Canon by the other innovators and that is a positive thing.
> 
> Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 16, 2017)

Now why didn't I think of that!

Jack


----------



## Jopa (Aug 16, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Someone will get some really good C/N cameras for cheap. Good scheme - Until folk find out the grass isn't so totally green on the Sony side.
> 
> Jack



Actually Sony sensors are notorious for their love to green color


----------



## Jopa (Aug 16, 2017)

I think that was the original Sony plan:

1. Make a camera to sell with no margin
2. Create a buzz and convince people to trade in their expensive cameras for peanuts
3. Sell the cameras from #2 in bulk on eBay
4. ?????
5. Profit


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 17, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Until it dents Canon's sales, it doesn't even put pressure on them.


----------



## Talys (Aug 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Today I announced my own Canon gear trade in program that sure to put pressure on Canon Australia:
> 
> Trade in your low mileage, mint Canon 5D IV for my used 5D III and receive instant cashback of A$1,000.00
> or
> ...



I have a better deal exclusively for people in the North American ABC market who are having a hard time unloading their Canon 5DIV.

Trade in your working Canon 5DIV of any condition, and I will ship you, at no charge, a camera that I guarantee will not be manufactured by Canon. Plus, FREE, a your choice of quality Chinese camera bags, filters, nonfunctional IR triggers and tripods that are normally exclusively available only as bundled Amazon stuff, also, guaranteed to not be manufactured by Canon. Act now, and I will throw in a Gary Fong light modifier.

But for a limited time, I will also extend this deal to our Australian friends!


----------



## tomscott (Aug 17, 2017)

Im finding my 6DMKII is having focus inconsistencies in the same way documented with the 70D/80D and 7DMKII. Having 3 of these cameras I can attest to this.

When it hits its perfect, it seems to hit and not be tack but slightly off or some cases it thinks it locks on and nothing in the frame is in focus at all like its at infinity.

From what ive read it seems all the cameras with DPAF have the same issues, my 5DMKIII didn't have any of these inconsistencies when it was off, it was my fault. The 7DMKII has the same AF system but I find it often does the above and it can be really annoying and it would seem for no reason.

I shot a wedding on Friday and from looking at the images it seems to do it more than the odd image... but the shots it hit were beautifully sharp.

One way I find you can combat is instead of run and gun 3 shot shooting, quickly press the and depress so it refocuses or set the AFON to AI servo in quick situations. 

Obviously the difficulty with portraiture and wide apertures is although your subject is still, people move. Even F2.8 you only get a couple of CM of DOF so if your on the eye then one small sway will result in an off shot. Sounds a bit silly but AI servo with portraits and large aperture lenses can be really useful.

Unfortunately this doesnt solve the issue of the camera being way out with nothing in focus. The only thing that can change this is by changing the acquisition speed by biasing the AF toward critical focus before it it will allow the shutter to be pressed. Although issues with this is it makes the camera slower and doesnt always shoot when you want it to.

I think i need to play with it some more but it should be hitting static subjects with portraiture at 90% or more imo. Im used to having the cases and although you can set the 6DMKII up the same way you have to set custom AF cases to the C buttons. 

It could well be that it doesn't play so well with my 24-70mm F2.8 MKI although it is in the group A for usable focus points. My 70-200mm MKII seemed to play nicer and barely had any inconsistencies with it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 17, 2017)

Tom, I am sorry to hear that you are having AF consitency issues with some lenses on your new Canon 6D II.
However the issues you are experiencing have unlikely anything to do with the DPAF capabilities of the sensor.
Just a reminder that 1DX II and 5D IV cameras are also DPAF enabled cameras but so far not known to exibit AF consistency issues.
Please note: metering sensor in 5D IV and 1DX II is vastly different from the one in 80D and 6D II.

please read here for details:
http://www.canon-asia.com/cplus/en/metering-system/





tomscott said:


> Im finding my 6DMKII is having focus inconsistencies in the same way documented with the 70D/80D and 7DMKII. Having 3 of these cameras I can attest to this.
> 
> When it hits its perfect, it seems to hit and not be tack but slightly off or some cases it thinks it locks on and nothing in the frame is in focus at all like its at infinity.
> 
> *From what ive read it seems all the cameras with DPAF have the same issues*


----------



## tomscott (Aug 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Tom, I am sorry to hear that you are having AF consitency issues with some lenses on your new Canon 6D II.
> However the issues you are experiencing have unlikely anything to do with the DPAF capabilities of the sensor.
> Just a reminder that 1DX II and 5D IV cameras are also DPAF enabled cameras but so far not known to exibit AF consistency issues.
> Please note: metering sensor in 5D IV and 1DX II is vastly different from the one in 80D and 6D II.
> ...



I understand that I was meaning the issues of the 70/80D and 7DMKII are present in the 6DMKII meaning it doesn't seem to have been tweaked and behaves very similarly.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 17, 2017)

Tom, I have posted before that I see you stepping up to 5D IV body level relatively shortly as 6D II as a tool, in my humble opinion, is way too limiting for your professional applications. Cost difference between 6D II and 5D IV body is negligible for a business tool that you can amortise over relatively short period of time and seeing you are serving enterprise clients (meaning reasonably well paid jobs), I would not be too much concerned about USD € £ 1000 whatever price difference.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Tom, I have posted before that I see you stepping up to 5D IV body level relatively shortly as 6D II as a tool, in my humble opinion, is way too limiting for your professional applications. Cost difference between 6D II and 5D IV body is negligible for a business tool that you can amortise over relatively short period of time and seeing you are serving enterprise clients (meaning reasonably well paid jobs), I would not be too much concerned about USD € £ 1000 whatever price difference.



Shoot with one before you come to conclusions. 

This is the reason I am relaying feedback of my experience. To help people get a better idea of what the camera is actually capable of.

The camera body is only one aspect of a rather large financial wheel when running a photography business.

Without doubt the 5DMKIV is a better camera but what is offers isn't night and day and isnt worth nearly 50% more than what I paid for this 6DMKII. Give it 6 months when the 5DMKIV is around the £2000/2200 then I will consider one. 

I for one wont play this game of you have to have XYZ to shoot professionally. We are at a point where you can get incredible images from entry level gear and stepping up has negligible benefits and nearly double the cost.

In reality that £1000 to be dissolved would be roughly an extra 4-5 weddings, by the time you pay tax, pay yourself for time, print books, pay for fuel, paying for the rig to edit and of course a roof over my head etc etc it goes on. 

I dont think its worth it. I would be better investing in advertising my business for the 2019/20 season and waiting for costs to reduce.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 17, 2017)

Sure. Sounds like are solid business plan.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 17, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Without doubt the 5DMKIV is a better camera but what is offers isn't night and day and isnt worth nearly 50% more than what I paid for this 6DMKII. Give it 6 months when the 5DMKIV is around the £2000/2200 then I will consider one.



Are you really expecting a 30% drop in 6 months?


----------



## tomscott (Aug 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Sure. Sounds like are solid business plan.



Whether you agree with me or not, amateurs pretending to be professionals undercutting by 50% makes life difficult. The last 5 years has seen such a huge influx of photographers.



Mikehit said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Without doubt the 5DMKIV is a better camera but what is offers isn't night and day and isnt worth nearly 50% more than what I paid for this 6DMKII. Give it 6 months when the 5DMKIV is around the £2000/2200 then I will consider one.
> ...



Only if history is anything to go by. I paid £2599 for my 5DMKIII with 24-105 in Nov 2013. Body only I think it was around £2099. 19 months after release. 

5DMKIV was released August 2016 year in now and its already seen between £5-750 price reduction from RRP. Looks like its probably on a similar trajectory. Especially with the range of cameras that are being released from the competition the innovation of the 5DMKIV is lacking in contrast.

IMO it is pretty much the perfect camera so the more competition the better I wont be switching, really enjoy shooting with my canon gear.

The benefits for me of the 5DMKIV are obviously the better AF, dual slots, better weather sealing and the af joystick.

Otherwise, seriously the 6DMKII has solved the only real gripe I had with the 5DMKIII, colour noise and muddy shadows. The DR seems similar but its so much cleaner and the noise is a lot nicer and easy to clean up.

It has been slated but honestly I challenge you to go and grab one and not be impressed with its handling, speed and performance for the price. It really is impressive for all of that to be 50% less than the MKIV.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 17, 2017)

> ...Im finding my 6DMKII is having focus inconsistencies in the same way documented with the 70D/80D and 7DMKII. Having 3 of these cameras I can attest to this.
> 
> When it hits its perfect, it seems to hit and not be tack but slightly off or some cases it thinks it locks on and nothing in the frame is in focus at all like its at infinity...


 
And 



> ... it really is impressive for all that to be only 50% less than 5D IV..."



AF consistency is obviously not a primary concern for your photography then. I surely see some elements of logic there.


----------



## amorse (Aug 17, 2017)

tomscott said:


> The benefits for me of the 5DMKIV are obviously the better AF, dual slots, better weather sealing and the af joystick.



I just moved from a 6D to a 5D IV two weeks ago, and I have to say that I was expecting to really use the joystick for af selection a lot, but the touch screen has been used much more by contrast. Selecting auto focus points using the touch screen while looking through the viewfinder just feels very intuitive.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 17, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> > ...Im finding my 6DMKII is having focus inconsistencies in the same way documented with the 70D/80D and 7DMKII. Having 3 of these cameras I can attest to this.
> >
> > When it hits its perfect, it seems to hit and not be tack but slightly off or some cases it thinks it locks on and nothing in the frame is in focus at all like its at infinity...
> 
> ...



Please dont misquote me.

Its an observation that it performs like a 70/80D in the AF department. Certainly doesn't mean it cant get the job done.

We will have to agree to disagree im afraid. I can tell your trying to wind me up but im perfectly happy with the camera. 

Im trying to give people more information, good and bad about the camera. Instead of people getting on the bandwagon who haven't used the camera and have nothing productive to add.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 17, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The criticisms of the 6D were its low grade AF and how it needed a tilty-flippy screen.
> ...


If your referring to Bill Claff then he does have credibility and his tests are consistently conducted in the same way. I have said on this forum the flaw I feel is a non-batch approach to testing, Lens Rentals tests batches of cameras and lenses and this makes sense. 
My own tests using a set up with auto analysis (Arri system) showed my own 6D MKII to be better in DR than the version Bill Claff tested and almost identical to my 6D for DR. The noise floor is definitely better as is the resolution so overall the camera is better (colorimagery is also better). I would not publically show my test simply because it is only one camera and goes against my training and belief.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 17, 2017)

That's what you said in the post on this page. Not trying to wind up anyone. I have better things to do in my life. It just appears to me that your logic is emotionally originated. I can get any job done with my Canon 6D using central AF point only .... with a little bit of luck. I am sure that any pro can produce great imagery with either camera these days. The rate of keepers in challenging situations is what makes a great camera body in my opinion. If you can afford 90% success rate - that's according to information you have provided in the post above, then fine. Good for you. 
I certainly would be concerned. 
6D II appears is an excellent camera if you can make it work.



tomscott said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > > ...Im finding my 6DMKII is having focus inconsistencies in the same way documented with the 70D/80D and 7DMKII. Having 3 of these cameras I can attest to this.
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 17, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Just a quick point, Mr Claff doesn't do 'testing', generally he just running analysis on RAW file data captured by others.

The issues I have with almost all these test and analysis results and comparisons nowadays is relevance. The differences in camera outputs is so small and the 'consistent' application of any metric might skew any result to the point where all we do is argue about methodology of tests and unfair 'comparisons'.

For me the only relevant metric of any value is real world output IQ, that means optimal processing of optimally exposed images within the ISO ranges I generally use. Show me real world images, or consistent test exposures of known values (Stouffer wedges and color checkers) and show me the differences.

I download the RAW files from DPReview and do my own processing to them for any comparison I am interested in.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 17, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I download the RAW files from DPReview and do my own processing to them for any comparison I am interested in.



I do this too in order to get a feeling of the raw output from different cameras, but the problem I find is that virtually all the images, whether they be from DPR or others, are either exposed for an unedited ooc jpeg, or under exposed. Often the two go together. So it is difficult for me to establish from these on-line downloadable files what the results would be if the exposures were optimal for the kind of output I had in mind. This brings us back to the point you were making about being able to compare optimally exposed and processed files for a specific camera, rather than an across the range standard that often disadvantages Canon.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 17, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I download the RAW files from DPReview and do my own processing to them for any comparison I am interested in.
> ...


The tests we do are in a controlled environment using a sphere with an evenly lit aperture that can be consistently checked so we know its the same from one test to another. This has a grate that has an equivalent of a 20 stop DR change and shots taken with this using a base ISO of 100 (for instance) are then analysed automatically i.e. no human interpretation. The process we use is identical to manufacturers. 

The same light sphere can also be used to shoot resolution tests with the CIPA High resolution chart which we also do however these are not automatically referenced and do rely on human "knowledge" the same as using a projector to test lenses for a number of aberrations but again nothing different to how the majors lens manufacturers work because we have visited them and had their training as well as our own. 

Finally we shoot LOTS of footage / images in varying light conditions and know the ones that will really test equipment. 

I stand by the Bill Claff comment my point was his methods are consistent.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 17, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yes I agree his methods are consistent, what I am questioning is the relevance of the results. 

What real world value do esoteric numbers have from an undemosaiced RAW file? My point is if every file has to run through an algorithm to be able to see the image then what is happening is we are seeing people applying the same post processing to different files or showing differences in unseeable data, neither of those has much relevance to people interested in actual output image quality. Yes that information can give pointers to performance, but neither illustrates what we can actually expect from the files if we bought the camera.

Further, to Sporgon's point, even consistent test images are regularly found wanting, have you seen the illumination difference between the right side (brighter) and left side (darker) of the test images DPReview puts out?

I am not saying jeffa can't be more consistent, or take better quality test images, what I am saying is how you present those comparisons is critical for that comparison to have meaning and relevance. Personally the only relevant comparison I am interested in is an optimally processed image that was optimally exposed because that is what I will be working with if I buy the camera. 

Optimally processed invariably, and in my experience, means different processing for each camera.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 17, 2017)

Just added a few images from the wedding

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33212.msg682114;topicseen#new


----------



## Aglet (Aug 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ..test images are regularly found wanting, have you seen the illumination difference between the right side (brighter) and left side (darker) of the test images DPReview puts out?



I believe that's a specific feature of the test so you can see the difference of those color wheels at different illumination levels. Hue shift, noise, etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 18, 2017)

Aglet said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ..test images are regularly found wanting, have you seen the illumination difference between the right side (brighter) and left side (darker) of the test images DPReview puts out?
> ...



I don't.


----------



## Talys (Aug 18, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Just added a few images from the wedding
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33212.msg682114;topicseen#new



Anyone who is seriously interested in purchasing a 6DII should check out the link. Tom's photos have a good mix of real-world uses, and then it's pretty easy to judge for yourself whether 6DII is good enough for you.

Plus, lovely photos.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2017)

Talys said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Just added a few images from the wedding
> ...



To be fair, the key thing is not the quality of pictures from a skilled practitioner because I think the 6D/5D3 may well have got pretty close. Rather, it is how it measures up against the other options, and I put a lot of store in Tom's comments when he says he got images with the 6D2 that he would not have got with the 5D3. Next to the old trope of 'the best camera is the one in your hand' is 'do you know how to use the damned thing' and sometimes if the haptics of a camera make it more likely to get the shot then it is a better camera.


----------



## Talys (Aug 18, 2017)

Mikehit said:


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



Indeed -- I couldn't agree more that he would have gotten great shots out of 6D/5D3 (for that matter, a 5DII), too, and his comments are very helpful. 

There's enough variety that it's a good indication that for a professional purpose (a) the 6DII isn't _deficient_ and (b) the low light performance is pretty great. Whether the latter is attributed to less actual noise, or noise that AI then processes in a more pleasing way is kind of immaterial to me. I think that a reasonable person would conclude that this is a viable $2,000 option for taking those sorts of photos. 

What do most people who buy a $2,000 6DII for want out of their camera? Frankly, I have no idea how that breaks down. I bought my 70-200 L 2.8 II for 70% of retail from a guy who had it for 8 months that couldn't have been in more pristine condition, because, and it had, in his words, seen the light of day just once -- at the camera store. And he would have died owning it, probably never having taken it out of the zippered pouch, had he not been moving overseas and wanted to get rid of easy-to-sell stuff. So, go figure. I'm sure there are people on the far opposite side of that spectrum too, and all sorts of skill levels.

But I think, for the vast majority of people who would consider the 6DII, the quality of the output and the usability are pretty good.


----------



## Adelino (Aug 18, 2017)

tomscott said:


> Just added a few images from the wedding
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33212.msg682114;topicseen#new



Wow those are beautiful!


----------



## tomscott (Aug 18, 2017)

Adelino said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Just added a few images from the wedding
> ...



Thank you


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 20, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I stand by the Bill Claff comment my point was his methods are consistent.



And what's the value of consistent testing of inconsistent subject matter, exactly?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 20, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > I stand by the Bill Claff comment my point was his methods are consistent.
> ...



As I understand it, each frame (maybe this I unique to Canon, I don't know) has a small border where no image is recorded but is used as a noise reference point to generate the image, and Bill takes data from that area which would mean that image content is irrelevant to how he is taking his measurements. 

I wait to be corrected but if so it may inspire someone to give an idiot's guise as to how he does it.


----------

