# DXO: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Sensor Review: Great Color and ISO Performance



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 19, 2017)

```
DXOMark has completed their sensor review of the Canon EOS  6D Mark II and came away impressed in some areas, most notably color and ISO performance.</p>
<p>The EOS  6D Mark  II ended up with a score of 85, which is well behind the 91 scored by the EOS  5D Mark IV and 5th place overall for Canon sensors.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Canon’s 6D proved a popular and affordable DSLR for serious-enthusiasts looking to step up to full frame, or pros after an affordable second body.</p>
<p>Five years on, it was crying out for an upgrade however, and the 6D Mark II’s resolution boost, improved autofocus system, faster frame rate and touch-screen LCD make it a more viable option in the modern market.</p>

<p>Its sensor performance continues the upward trend for Canon chips too, although it doesn’t quite hit the dizzy heights of Canon’s best sensor to date in the 5D Mark IV. This is a result of notably lower dynamic range recorded by the 6D Mark II at base ISO, which is a concern for photographers after the best image quality in good light. From ISO 800, dynamic range is much closer to the performance of semi pro rivals such as the Nikon D750 and Sony A7 II however, and with good color sensitivity at all settings and well-controlled noise the 6D Mark II lends itself better to low light photography. <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-sensor-review-great-color-iso-performance/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>I must say it’s nice to read something positive about this camera, as some of its perceived shortcomings have been the source of a lot of negative discussion. However, it is DXOMark and that can create heated discussion on its own.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 19, 2017)

Reminder to everyone about to throw a fit because something is better/worse/exactly what they thought it would be:

- Look at the total measurements for the whole range of the camera, not just the overall score or the 'best case scenario' scores.
- Colour depth really does not matter.
- ISO sensitivity matters a lot, yet is hardly ever brought up by anyone.
- The processor makes almost as much difference as the sensor, so don't talk about just the sensor as if it's the only thing which matters.
- 99% of the time absolutely any camera made in the last ~10 years will end up giving you essentially the same results, with only a few specific, specialised purposes really demanding more from any one aspect of the body.
- If you really care about getting the cleanest images and the most dynamic range, you'd probably already be used to compensating with image averaging, HDR, and other similar techniques.


With that in mind, the only part of the 6D2's measurements which is at all surprising is how low the true sensitivity is. ISO 100 is actually 63 and ISO 200 is actually 127. That's a record-low for Canon, and I believe a record-low for any SLR. That means that using like-for-like settings, the 6D2 underexposes by nearly two thirds of a stop. To compensate and get the same exposure you'll need to either use a faster lens/open up (potentially dropping in sharpness and increasing vignetting), lower your shutter speed (yay motion blur) or raise the ISO (more noise and less exposure latitude to play with).

That's a huge problem. Yes, the 80D also severely overrates its ISO, but that wasn't quite _this_ bad. Yes, Fuji do it too, but again, not by this much. Nikon and Sony haven't, as far as I'm aware, ever fudged their ISO sensitivity by any more than half a stop. (Though even half a stop is too much to get away with, in my view.)

This means that, if we assume you don't want to change your aperture or shutter settings and only raise the ISO to compensate for the 6D2's low sensitivity, you won't really get any cleaner images than you would _with a 5D mark 2_ at a 1:1 pixel level. At 1:1, the 6D2 is only 1/3rd of a stop cleaner... but it shoots 1/3rd of a stop darker. So if you have to raise the ISO by a third of a stop anyway, you end up at the exact same place.
Now, the 6D2 does of course have slightly higher resolution, which helps it along. It has about 2/3rd of a stop lead when the 5D2 and 6D2 files are scaled equally, which after compensation, would still leave it 1/3rd of a stop cleaner. But 1/3rd of a stop after 9 years is pretty awful.

Not only that but if you throw in a 5D3, which is also 1/3rd of a stop cleaner once the images have been equalised, you're matching the 6D2. Now, that 5D3/6D2 image quality is far more than good enough for _most_ uses (so is the 5D2's, really), but that's still very poor considering the time between releases and also the price of a second hand 5D2 or 3 vs a brand new 6D2.

Dynamic range is the exact same deal, although the 5D2 actually leads very slightly at the lower ISO settings. The 6D2 matches them in range but not in exposure, so once you've increased sensitivity of the 6D2 to match the 5D2/3, it's fallen behind them. And again, the higher pixel count helps when you compare the equalised measurements, but not enough to actually put it _ahead_. The only variance is at ISO 3200 and above, where the 5D2 drops off sharply. (The 5D3 remains very slightly ahead of the 6D2 once you compensate for the 6D2's lower-than-advertised sensitivity.)

For people who want long exposures matching the lower ISO settings of other cameras which Canon usually lacks (e.g. Nikon usually has a ISO 64 setting which _isn't_ just ISO 100 pulled down, like it is with Canon's extended range ISO) settings, you could see this as a benefit; buy a 6D2 and set it to ISO 100 and you're essentially at 64. But if you're not one of those few people trying to get the absolute longest shutter you possibly can, this is a big problem.


*TL;DR version:* What you're looking at with the 6D2's fundamental image quality is a 5D2 with more potential for cropping, assuming you want your final images to also be of the same brightness. The 6D2 is only better than the 5D2 if you open up the lens or shutter by half a stop or so _and_ do not crop (or any other action which would throw away pixels) so the higher resolution can work in the 6D2's favour once you've scaled the image down or printed it at its final viewing size.

Again, if any of that bothers you, re-read the very first part of my post. Also consider that the 6D2 has far better _functionality_ over the older 5D2 and 3. Considering how _most_ photos these days end up only being seen printed at relatively small sizes or scaled down to fit Instagram, I'd say the 6D2's technical image quality is more than good enough for most people and the functionality is far more important. _The few people who do _genuinely_ need better IQ (for huge printing/viewing, very heavy cropping, industry catalogue work, legitimate fine art, etc) likely already have better_. (That kind of person is unlikely to have even _considered_ a 6D2 in the first place, as they're more likely to be shooting with medium format, already have a 5DSR, etc). I highly doubt a single person who buys a 6D2 today would be bothered by the image quality in terms of the final viewed image.

The 6D line is a 'prosumer' line meant to satisfy the richer hobbiests as a primary all-round camera, or fill in nicely enough as a back-up for professionals. In that regard, the 6D2 seems to do fine. It's horrible that Canon is flat-out lying about the ISO settings, and they _should_ be taken to task for that, but in terms of the end results it can be compensated for easily enough, and the other features of the camera make it more than worthwhile for the kinds of user it is aimed at.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 19, 2017)

Bottom line: Actual photographers won't complain about the images, but gear-heads will complain about specs and charts.

Another capable, thoughtfully designed camera from Canon!


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 19, 2017)

1) So I can keep my ND grads, right? 8)

2) Why is this thread filed under Lenses?

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 1) So I can keep my ND grads, right? 8)
> 
> 2) Why is this thread filed under Lenses?
> 
> - A



[tongue in cheek]

1/ Only if you feel the need to 'look' like a photographer used to look.

2/ Because the 6D MkII is such an embarrassment we need to hide all talk of it well away from anybody. Particularly if it is positive talk, can't have any of that considering how badly crippled it is and how Canon are incapable of anything innovative. Besides, it's only a "mirror slapper" so who cares.

[/tongue in cheek]


----------



## Talys (Sep 19, 2017)

Yay, someone has a chart now, so I may not be delusional in thinking that 6DII manages high ISO noise really well.




ahsanford said:


> 1) So I can keep my ND grads, right? 8)
> 
> 2) Why is this thread filed under Lenses?
> 
> - A



1) No. You need to send them to me. ;D

2) Because the 6D Mark II Sensor... works best with lens attached! 8)


----------



## traveller (Sep 20, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Reminder to everyone about to throw a fit because something is better/worse/exactly what they thought it would be:
> 
> - Look at the total measurements for the whole range of the camera, not just the overall score or the 'best case scenario' scores.
> - Colour depth really does not matter.
> ...



Do you have a STFL;DR version?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

traveller said:


> Do you have a STFL;DR version?



Ooh, I'll try: 

*DRones are obsessed with comparing the 6D2 to the 80D when they should be comparing the 6D2 to the 5D2.*

If you're going to throw a fit: do it right, people.  

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 20, 2017)

traveller said:


> Do you have a STFL;DR version?


Yeah maybe read the bit which says "*TL;DR version*" in big bold letters. And also maybe don't quote an entire post, taking up twice as much screen space, if you're then going to complain about the length of it.



ahsanford said:


> Ooh, I'll try:
> 
> *DRones are obsessed with comparing the 6D2 to the 80D when they should be comparing the 6D2 to the 5D2.*


In all fairness, calling it a 5D2 in an 80D body would actually be fairly accurate summation. It's the functionality of an 80D and the final image quality is a-slightly-above-5D2; it's also the only camera which is overrating its ISOs more than the 80D does. There are lots of similarities.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> In all fairness, calling it a 5D2 in an 80D body would actually be fairly accurate summation. It's the functionality of an 80D and the final image quality is a-slightly-above-5D2; it's also the only camera which is overrating its ISOs more than the 80D does. There are lots of similarities.



You misunderstand my 6D2 sensor review joke. When Bill Claff first reported his testing data here, there must have been a dozen DRones wondering aloud why one would get the 6D2 when the 80D was 'better' and a whole lot cheaper -- with better being defined as 'Number of stops of DR at base ISO per dollar spent (if MP are roughly equivalent)'. 

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 20, 2017)

I know. I'm simply observing that it actually _is_ basically an 80D+5D2 hybrid, as it turns out.


----------



## dash2k8 (Sep 20, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Bottom line: Actual photographers won't complain about the images, but gear-heads will complain about specs and charts.
> 
> Another capable, thoughtfully designed camera from Canon!



I disagree. Having used it in real life, my opinion on this body was already decided before reading the numerous negative reviews and opinions: this is just not a worthy update to the original 6D. Is it a good, serviceable camera? I suppose. Is this all Canon could put together after FIVE years? Hahahaha. At this point it makes more $$$ sense to buy a 6D1 at a huge discount than to splurge on the 6D2 for marginal improvements.


----------



## AA (Sep 20, 2017)

What are you guys talking about "positive review"? What positive review? Are we reading the same thing? DXO shows what people have been talking about: the DR of the 6D2 is WORSE THAN THE FIVE YEAR OLD 6D's, and every single competitors' by Nikon and Sony in the same price range! Cameras released three years ago have 2-3 stops better DR for less!

DR is a BIG DEAL. It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!! A state-of-the-art DR of 14-15 (by Sony) still blows! Every stop counts. 12 stops is simply not good enough in 2017. The competitors do much better. So could Canon. They proved it even in their cheap APS-C cameras!

Whoever says DR is not a big deal never converted a raw file. Guys, go ahead and try it. It'll be like enlightenment! Literally. 

And if you've never tried converting a Sony / Nikon raw file, please don't weigh in. It would be like me talking about being pregnant, and I'm a single dude!

If that shit DR weren't enough, Canon gave us video that is lower data rate than the original 6D's video was. The Camera Store TV's review says the video of the 6D II is so soft, it looks more like 720p video. In 2017!? WTF Canon!?

And there is no 4K while the new iPhones shoots 4K at 60fps. $75 Chinese action cams shoot 4K video!!! Seriously Canon! WTF!?

PS: I'm not a troll. I'm a loyal and very disappointed Canon shooter. Not sure for how long... I'm an enthusiast. I don't need Canon Professional Services. What I need is a 2017 camera in 2017, not a 2010 one.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 20, 2017)

Interesting to see the full SNR curves... finally.
5d2, 5d3, 6d2, nearly identical = no improvement except, perhaps, in the quality of the noise, which unfortunately DxOmark does not present so it's hard to tell how much FPN improvement there is over the 5d2/3.
IMO, it's still overpriced for what it delivers.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

dash2k8 said:


> I disagree. Having used it in real life, my opinion on this body was already decided before reading the numerous negative reviews and opinions: this is just not a worthy update to the original 6D. Is it a good, serviceable camera? I suppose. Is this all Canon could put together after FIVE years? Hahahaha. At this point it makes more $$$ sense to buy a 6D1 at a huge discount than to splurge on the 6D2 for marginal *sensor *improvements.



Fixed that for you (above)

For the rest of us who aren't locked in at ISO 100 manually focusing on a tripod...
*
Much better AF*
*Tilty-flippy / touch / DPAF*
Intervalometer
Anti-flicker
Burst fps within 0.5 of the 5D4

...are very nice reasons to get this rig instead of the 6D1. 

- A


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 20, 2017)

AA said:


> DR is a BIG DEAL.


Apparently it isn't such a big deal as you think.



> because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!!


Sony sensors are still >6 short of that, so you still need multiple image capture.



> 12 stops is simply not good enough in 2017.


We all want more DR, I certainly do. Better tech costs money, and may affect other characteristics of the sensor.



> Whoever says DR is not a big deal never converted a raw file.


I don't think anyone says that, I think many say that it's one factor among many, and does not often make the difference between a photo worth keeping and one that goes into the trash.




> In 2017!? WTF Canon!?


OK, you won't buy one. Now what? What do you want us to do, shower you with praise for enlightening us? We are entirely capable of making our own decisions about which gear to buy and how to use it.



> I'm a loyal and very disappointed Canon shooter.


Forget your loyalty, just buy the kit that works for you and be done with it.


----------



## -1 (Sep 20, 2017)

6D2 vs 5D4 vs 5D3:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1170_1106_795


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2017)

AA said:


> DR is a BIG DEAL. It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!! A state-of-the-art DR of 14-15 (by Sony) still blows! Every stop counts. 12 stops is simply not good enough in 2017.



No they can't, not in static pupil situations.

Best estimates put static pupil human dynamic range in the 10-14 stop range, if a scene has more DR within it the eye changes aperture so fast we can't tell, but we can't see both the light and dark areas at the same time. We can view scenes with well over 20 stops of DR in them, but only by adjusting exposure for one area at a time. 

It always amazes me how close the average static pupil range is to actual camera range, hmmm, wonder why? :


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

-1 said:


> 6D2 vs 5D4 vs 5D3:
> 
> https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III___1170_1106_795



This pretty much nails why some folks really dislike the 6DMkII -- And Canon. 

Their expectation was that the 6DMkII be at least as good as, if not better than, the 5DMkIV, for less money. Just like with computers, everything should get much cheaper and much better every single year and with every release. If that doesn't happen, it's because the manufacturer is purposely holding back to rip you off. But anyways, if 6DII did, this would be a sign of desperation.

Personally, I think the 6DII is positioned just right. It's "cheap" as far as full frame cameras go, and has a lot of good stuff, but is a little behind the 5DMkIV (which only came out at the end of last year...) in some things that matter more, and in some things that matter less. If you want a 5DMkIV... buy a 5DMkIV 

The reasons for choosing the 6DII really are the same reasons to choose (or not choose) Canon -- lens selection, which will far outlive camera bodies; OVF vs mirrorless; reliability, usability and ergonomics; and massive selection of third party accessories that spans the entire range of quality and price. The reason for most people to choose a 6DII over a 5DIV is obvious.... price.

If Canon ever wants me to desire a higher priced camera, though, they will need to add a fully articulating screen to it.


----------



## sanj (Sep 20, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Reminder to everyone about to throw a fit because something is better/worse/exactly what they thought it would be:
> 
> - Look at the total measurements for the whole range of the camera, not just the overall score or the 'best case scenario' scores.
> - Colour depth really does not matter.
> ...


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

sanj said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > With that in mind, the only part of the 6D2's measurements which is at all surprising is how low the true sensitivity is. ISO 100 is actually 63 and ISO 200 is actually 127. That's a record-low for Canon, and I believe a record-low for any SLR. That means that using like-for-like settings, the 6D2 underexposes by nearly two thirds of a stop. *[Is this a fact? Can you prove it?]* To compensate and get the same exposure you'll need to either use a faster lens/open up (potentially dropping in sharpness and increasing vignetting), lower your shutter speed (yay motion blur) or raise the ISO (more noise and less exposure latitude to play with).
> ...



No, this is not a fact. It is horse poop. If the 6DII is severely overrated... or whatever... so is the 80D and 60D, and some older xxxD Canon bodies, all to approximately the same degree, because I take photos of the same subject from different angles using the same exposure settings all the time with these cameras. I rely on that.

Also, so too must my Sekonic flash meter, because when I'm using a whole bunch of strobes and/or speedlites, especially when it's a new lighting setup, I'll usually take a reading with Sekonic, and it's pretty damned close.

But anyways, here is proof. Using exactly the same tripod location and lighting, I took 2 pictures of a ColorChecker, on the left with an 80D and on the right a 6D Mark II, both at 1/320 ISO 100. Don't mind pixel peeping sharpness, because I just used the shutter button autofocus and took a single shot; that wasn't the point. The point is, both are identically exposed, or at least close enough not to matter. _Certainly not by some massive ISO difference_. 






Full resolution: http://talys.icxi.com/cr/20170919/6D2_80D_ISO_Compare.jpg

Edit -- no idea why attachments never work for me


----------



## jester73 (Sep 20, 2017)

Talys said:


> But anyways, here is proof. Using exactly the same tripod location and lighting, I took 2 pictures of a ColorChecker, on the left with an 80D and on the right a 6D Mark II, both at 1/320 ISO 100. Don't mind pixel peeping sharpness, because I just used the shutter button autofocus and took a single shot; that wasn't the point. The point is, both are identically exposed, or at least close enough not to matter. _Certainly not by some massive ISO difference_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For me 6dII image is visibly darker.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

Not sure if it's too significant but I agree it's darker. I'm guessing maybe 1/3 stop.

Jack


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

jester73 said:


> For me 6dII image is visibly darker.



Obviously, the sensors are different, and I agree, the 6DII looks a little darker on areas like the ridged plastic. However, the trick is to evaluating exposure differences (certainly by two thirds of a stop...) is to look at the grey in the back. There is no way the grey between the two is different by 2/3 of a stop, or anything close to that.

Just take either half in the source file, and change it by 2/3, and look at how different the grey looks.



Jack Douglas said:


> Not sure if it's too significant but I agree it's darker. I'm guessing maybe 1/3 stop.
> 
> Jack



Good eye -- chimping it in Lightroom, at about +.29, they grey levels are very close. 

By the way, the 1/320 2.8 @ISO 100 is the exposure setting from the Sekonic. And ugh, I just noticed, I had profile corrections turned on during imports, which slightly changes it.

However, I stand by my original statement... it's nowhere close to a 2/3EV difference, or a difference between ISO 127 and ISO 200. I mean, for heavens sake, that would require nearly double the exposure between the two cameras to get the same results.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 20, 2017)

AA said:


> It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!!



Yes, the eye can detect 20 stops of DR.... but only 12 stops at the same time. The eye needs time to adjust..... this is why when you head outside at night you have to wait several minutes for the iris (aperture) to adjust and you can see the faint details....

Using the same logic, the 6D2 can see 12 stops of DR at the same time, but by adjusting the aperture of my lens between F1.4 to F22, I get an additional 8 stops of range that I can shift my 12 stop window over.....


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> AA said:
> 
> 
> > It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!!
> ...



I think that the main reason that most people want more DR is so that they can take a picture that looks like a shadowy block with the sun behind the subject, and then, CSI-style, make actual colors magically appear. Look! Something from nothing!

The problem is, the end result is still a crappy picture that isn't properly illuminated. So actually, it's still nothing  

Another better reason (among the likely, serious ones for people in the market for a 6DII), I guess, would be to more easily capture more near-whites. Personally, I always know if what I'm going to photograph is going to have too much bright whites, and I just knock it down a little, or you could use the white priority mode, but I guess it's legitimate to say, "but I don't have to do that if I have more DR".


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 20, 2017)

Talys said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...



May just be me but I feel the colors are slight more saturated on the 6DII images and it has a deeper color too it. Could also explain why it appears darker.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2017)

Talys said:


> I think that the main reason that most people want more DR is so that they can take a picture that looks like a shadowy block with the sun behind the subject, and then, CSI-style, make actual colors magically appear. Look! Something from nothing!
> 
> The problem is, the end result is still a crappy picture that isn't properly illuminated. So actually, it's still nothing



A common example from your hobby of bird photography is when you take a photo of a bird in flight illuminated from the sun above; the top is often perfectly illuminated and the underneath in shadow. It can be nice to lighten the shadows below, which you can do without spoiling the correctly illuminated parts using PS. Your eyes can see the details underneath when your camera can't in one take. The same reasoning applies to other scenes.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 20, 2017)

As ive said many times, it beats the 5DMKIII in every IQ metric and is £500 cheaper and £1500 cheaper than a 5DMKIV.

Its a relative bargain in the Canon line up. Ive been over the moon with mine.

For people who say its a poor camera... The 5DMKIII was one of the best Canon has ever made... with only a couple of shortcomings... namely the banding and muddy purple shadows. 6DMKII has neither.

If people are really honest with themselves how often do you stick to ISO100. I barely ever shoot that low the cameras are so capable I would rather have better quality high up and this has it in spades.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 20, 2017)

Hi Jack,

It is and by 1/3 of a stop.

but... 80D image is upscaled and 6D II image is not. when upscaled, brightness certainly is changed and is no longer representative of the original unmodified image. we should compare original images at it's native resolution instead.





Jack Douglas said:


> Not sure if it's too significant but I agree it's darker. I'm guessing maybe 1/3 stop.
> 
> Jack


----------



## jester73 (Sep 20, 2017)

tomscott said:


> As ive said many times, it beats the 5DMKIII in every IQ metric and is £500 cheaper and £1500 cheaper than a 5DMKIV.


5DMKIV body on e-bay cost less than 3k USD. Please show me offer for 6dmii for £1500 cheaper than a 5DMKIV. 
I can believe you that 6dmii is not poor camera but than it is expensive camera for 2k USD.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 20, 2017)

I paid US$2,650.00 for a brand new 5D IV body just a couple of week ago. all taxes and free delivery inclusive.



jester73 said:


> 5DMKIV body on e-bay cost less than 3k USD.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Hi Jack,
> 
> It is and by 1/3 of a stop.
> 
> ...



Does resizing images typically change the brightness?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 20, 2017)

AA said:


> Whoever says DR is not a big deal never converted a raw file. Guys, go ahead and try it. It'll be like enlightenment! Literally.



I have shot raw exclusively for over five years and I say the DR differences between the 6D2 and the best competitors is not a big deal the vast majority of real world circumstances.



AA said:


> PS: I'm not a troll.



And yet you say "And there is no 4K while the new iPhones shoots 4K at 60fps. $75 Chinese action cams shoot 4K video!!! Seriously Canon! WTF!?" so you're either lying about being a troll or utterly clueless about video.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 20, 2017)

jester73 said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > As ive said many times, it beats the 5DMKIII in every IQ metric and is £500 cheaper and £1500 cheaper than a 5DMKIV.
> ...



Your talking 2 different currencies bud. Im talking £

Just been discounted but was £3599
https://www.jessops.com/p/canon/eos-5d-mark-iv-digital-slr-body-100506

In the UK the 6DMKII is £2000 so there you go.

https://www.jessops.com/p/canon/eos-6d-mark-ii-dslr-body-125988

I bought my 6DMKII grey market the week it was released for £1468. Grey market the 5DMKIV is still £2459. Still dont think the 5DMKIV is worth £1000 more grey market. 

When it gets to £2-2250 will probably pull the trigger. Would say it will be in that range by Christmas. 5DMKIV an incredible camera but the 6DMKII is literally 90% for nearly 50% less. Ive had no issues what so ever so far.

Check out my thread if your interested.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33212.0


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 20, 2017)

depends on the RAW editor of your choice and type of interpolation selected. sharpness and contrast are affected as well.



scyrene said:


> Does resizing images typically change the brightness?


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 20, 2017)

https://www.e-infin.com/uk/item/3071/canon_eos_5d_mark_iv_dslr_camera_(body_only)

As you wish, *GBP £2,149.00*, all taxes inclusive, free delivery, 14 days Money Back Guarantee, 12 Month Warranty .How is that for Christmas in September? 



tomscott said:


> ...Grey market the 5DMKIV is still £2459. Still dont think the 5DMKIV is worth £1000 more grey market.
> 
> When it gets to £2-2250 will probably pull the trigger. Would say it will be in that range by Christmas.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> https://www.e-infin.com/uk/item/3071/canon_eos_5d_mark_iv_dslr_camera_(body_only)
> 
> As you wish, *GBP £2,149.00*, all taxes inclusive, free delivery, 14 days Money Back Guarantee, 12 Month Warranty .How is that for Christmas in September?
> 
> ...



That's pretty good. £300 less than any other grey market distributor. Does make you wonder why.

Reviews of the site look good tho.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 20, 2017)

I bought from these guys few weeks ago. They also sell on eBay at about 5% more.
The trick is to wait until eBay goes on 10% off everything promo and it does nearly every month these days.
with 10% eBay discount, the price that I paid for my 5D IV was 5% less than what is advertised on their website. so that would be another £100 off for you.

I ended up paying these guys A$3300.00. that's *£1,980.00*

Camera was courier delivered.

 I was able to register the camera on Canon Australia website.  




tomscott said:


> That's pretty good. £300 less than any other grey market distributor. Does make you wonder why.
> 
> Reviews of the site look good tho.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 20, 2017)

sanj said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > With that in mind, the only part of the 6D2's measurements which is at all surprising is how low the true sensitivity is. ISO 100 is actually 63 and ISO 200 is actually 127. That's a record-low for Canon, and I believe a record-low for any SLR. That means that using like-for-like settings, the 6D2 underexposes by nearly two thirds of a stop. *[Is this a fact? Can you prove it?]*


Well, I think he refers to these DXOmark measurements:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-80D---Measurements
and
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-6D-Mark-II---Measurements

The first "tab" is ISO Sensitivity. However, at ISO 100 both 80D and 6dii are measured as ISO 64.


----------



## zim (Sep 20, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> https://www.e-infin.com/uk/item/3071/canon_eos_5d_mark_iv_dslr_camera_(body_only)
> 
> As you wish, *GBP £2,149.00*, all taxes inclusive, free delivery, 14 days Money Back Guarantee, 12 Month Warranty .How is that for Christmas in September?
> 
> ...



Damn there's some real good prices on that site, never even heard of it before, thanks for the link!
How's your experience with them? 

Has anyone bought regularly from them?


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 20, 2017)

No worries, Sir! . Experience wise: so far so good. I paid through PayPal in order to protect transaction and received camera just 5 days later. Once received, I jumped on Canon Australia website and registered the product.




zim said:


> Damn there's some real good prices on that site, never even heard of it before, thanks for the link!
> How's your experience with them?
> 
> Has anyone bought regularly from them?


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 20, 2017)

AA said:


> DR is a BIG DEAL. It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!!



No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye


> The retina has a static contrast ratio of around 100:1 (about 6.5 f-stops).



I have another source that says 10 stops, but photo enthusiasts have the tendancy to vaslty exaggerate their own capabilities simply as a form of post purchase rationalization.

When I look at test images across multiple sensors I still like the low ISO images from the 5D2 more than almost anything else, that may very well be the case because it has less DR. "Black" shadows, deep and rich without unnecessary confusion.
This idea of putting detail in every pixel of every photo didn't even exist when I joined this forum less than 6 years ago, it's simply a reaction to the different capabilities being brought about in the brand wars.

Of course having more DR isn't stricly "bad", making an evening exposure look like daylight is great fun, but hardly necessary.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

Some of the responses to news of this data coming out has been entertaining. 

This animated GIF is worth a gander. Subtle.

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

And my big white gives me even more!  Oh, DR, the sacred cow. How did it get such status? 

Jack


----------



## Hflm (Sep 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:



> Some of the responses to news of this data coming out has been entertaining.
> 
> This animated GIF is worth a gander. Subtle.
> 
> - A


Where is the 5div (13.6) and 1dxii?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

Hflm said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Some of the responses to news of this data coming out has been entertaining.
> ...



See the timescale in that plot. This is the pre- on-chip ADC era for Canon. 

- A


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It obviously goes to show that all the negativity directed at canon over DR did not go unnoticed and so bias/no bias, Canon has responded and that's a positive outcome that even the trolls contributed to. The squeaky wheel got greased.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2017)

9VIII said:


> AA said:
> 
> 
> > DR is a BIG DEAL. It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!!
> ...



Static contrast ratio. When you view a scene, your eyes move around, with extreme rapidity. In essence, your eye and brain are great at HDR imaging, which means the static contrast ratio is relatively unimportant.


----------



## Hflm (Sep 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


I wasn't sure, as the image showed date selected, only.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AA said:
> ...



So, what is the DR capability of Hooty? How can we possibly function, we're so handicapped. 

Jack


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 20, 2017)

But, in fairness, I will actually offer the same DXO data with a tiny, tiny change: the vertical axis _actually going to zero instead of zooming in on the range of values_. All values from DXO, this plot is representative of the 'company record' DR each company has delivered in FF as a function of time. 

Yep, Canon's just getting _murdered_ with base ISO DR. 

I appreciate that in 2017 Canon inexplicably didn't deliver 1DX2/5D4/80D-level DR in the 6D2. That's why some Canon faithful folks are seething about the 6D2: the 80D got the good stuff and their chosen horse didn't. I get it.

But you should ask yourself if the absolute delta between companies (_at base ISO only!_) is so vast as to walk away from the EF portfolio, Canon's ergonomics / handling / interface / quality / reliability, etc. If you are even remotely considering a yes to that, I must tip my cap and acknowledge that you are not me and wish you good luck on your path to photographic happiness. 

Meanwhile, five years running, my 5D3 has let me down exactly zero times and I have built up a nice little cabinet of EF glass that I will own for a very long time. _Somehow, I endure._

- A


----------



## dak723 (Sep 20, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AA said:
> 
> 
> > DR is a BIG DEAL. It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!! A state-of-the-art DR of 14-15 (by Sony) still blows! Every stop counts. 12 stops is simply not good enough in 2017.
> ...



Glad you pointed that out so I didn't have to. In other words, the DR of every camera brand at base ISO is within the actual DR range of the human eye. There are so many folks who want more and more DR and seem to have no idea what that means in terms of the actual IQ of their photos. They see review sites measure that metric and see that it continues to go up over the years so more must always be better. Yes, there are some instances where more DR capture from the camera is better, but in most scenarios in my experience, I am adding contrast in PP and reducing DR. I can already tell the difference in how much more often I need to do that with my new M5 compared to my older cameras that had less DR. So, yes, if you want flatter photos with less contrast, by all means keep pushing camera makers to keep adding more DR.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

@dak723 That's kind of how I see it. Increasingly we see photos that are simply unrealistic and the eye, at least mine, says this doesn't look real. The more extreme HDR photos I see I simply don't like. What I do like on wildlife is to bring up shadows at times to show feather detail etc. but it does contribute to a less contrasty photo. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> @dak723 That's kind of how I see it. Increasingly we see photos that are simply unrealistic and the eye, at least mine, says this doesn't look real. The more extreme HDR photos I see I simply don't like. What I do like on wildlife is to bring up shadows at times to show feather detail etc. but it does contribute to a less contrasty photo.
> 
> Jack



Hi Jack, when lifting shadows, especially with Canon RAW files, it is absolutely essential to pair that with a black slider movement, moving your black point will enable good shadow lifts yet retain 'natural' contrast.


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the main reason that most people want more DR is so that they can take a picture that looks like a shadowy block with the sun behind the subject, and then, CSI-style, make actual colors magically appear. Look! Something from nothing!
> ...



Well, that's actually a perfect example that makes my point.

The type of bird in flight that you're likely to get illuminated by the sun above and blacked out below is waterfowl, or another bird low-flying over water. Unless you're at an unusual elevation, it will otherwise be difficult to catch a bird at that sort of angle. For example, hawks and falcon will just too often be too high up for you to catch them from above. You'll rarely get the shot you describe with a songbird.

In this kind of shot, _yes_ you can improve the photo by lifting the shadows. But it will never be an amazing shot, because the water reflections won't be pretty, and no matter how you raise those shadows, the sun will be at the wrong angle to reflect nicely off the bird's eye and lifting shadows will always result in losing the definition in the plumage (being able to see the feathers) that you'd get if you if the bird were shot earlier or later in the day. Sure, you can fix the water to a degree with a polarizer, but it still won't be as nice as in the right light, and there goes your shutter speed or ISO; what kind of trade is that? 

So you get to turn some poor shots into mediocre keepers in post... but if you came at a different time of day, you'd start with much better shots, even before they're touched. Why waste your time with the crappy shots? Just look at where the sun is first, and if it's not where you need it to be, come back another time. I'll be the first one to admit that when I bought my first DSLRs and it didn't cost anything to take pictures (unlike film), I ran out there and took bad shots that I knew wouldn't work out all the time. When I buy a new body or new lens, I do the same thing, because I'm very eager. But it never turns into great photographs.

I think a much better argument would be sports, where your time, lighting, and positioning are much more constrained. But, first, the 6DMkII is not marketed as a sports photography camera, and even if it were so used, I think it has plenty of DR to handle most real-life sports situations.


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

Looking at the comparisons between 6DMkII and 5DMkIV, and considering that they are grey marketed at about $1,800 / $2,900 or MSRP'd at $2,000 / $3,300, and then looking at the major elements:

- Resolution
- Drive speed
- AF System
- Low ISO DR
- High ISO DR
- High ISO Noise
- Shutter Speed
- 4k Video
- Dual Cards

Which would you be willing to sacrifice to save a third of the price? If you're only allowed to keep a couple of them at near-parity, which would they be?

I think that for the target market of the 6DII, Canon picked the right items to be great at -- High ISO, resolution, and shutter speed are close; shutter speed is something most people can live with. Low ISO performance isn't as good, nor is AF, and absent are 4k and dual cards.

I mean, that seems like a reasonable compromise _for the price difference_ to me. Plus, you get some nice extras like Bluetooth and GPS, and it's a smaller body that's easier for people who aren't used to FF bodies to handle.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > @dak723 That's kind of how I see it. Increasingly we see photos that are simply unrealistic and the eye, at least mine, says this doesn't look real. The more extreme HDR photos I see I simply don't like. What I do like on wildlife is to bring up shadows at times to show feather detail etc. but it does contribute to a less contrasty photo.
> ...



Thanks Scott, but I haven't yet graduated from DPP. If the highlights are not blown everywhere, right now I'll push the contrast up one, which may be similar. I've also dabbled with the curves a bit but that's not well understood so not particularly helpful at the moment. I did buy ON1 RAW but all I've had time for is viewing how to videos they've put out.

Summer work projects really got in my way again - not even a holiday this year ... and our garden is ... how can I complain it's self inflicted!

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

Talys, you didn't even mention the flip screen which is not a small item for many.

"So you get to turn some poor shots into mediocre keepers in post... " 

You sound like a purist. In the real world we find ourselves at various places, possibly once in a lifetime and we need to be good at exactly what you describe. Avoiding taking a once in a lifetime shot because lighting is less than perfect simply doesn't cut it for me. Many of the worlds most noteworthy photos are far from technically perfect. I say, fire away, regardless.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



In DPP it is the left hand gamma adjustment.

This example isn't ideal but its the one I had to hand.

Second of the four is out of camera with camera profile applied.
Third of four is 100% shadow slider adjustment.
Fourth of four is the black slider compensation for the shadow slider adjustment.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 20, 2017)

Just heading outdoors so I'll digest in due course, but thanks ever so much. Since DPP is fairly simple it's been my savior for now working only on half decent shots I want to send folk.

Jack


----------



## Talys (Sep 20, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Talys, you didn't even mention the flip screen which is not a small item for many.



It's actually the deciding factor, for me. Even at the same price, I would choose 6DII over 5DIV over flip screen, because without it, for work, I would need an HDMI monitor or remote liveview screen. And in some cases, 3 of them... But I was actually making a list of subtractive, rather than differential features, as in "what would you take away". I don't think that flippy screen not being in 5DIV is a technological or cost reason; I think that they have to do with the buttons on the left, more than anything, and Canon not wanting to mess with that. Plus weather sealing, depending on whether or not you believe that.

Bluetooth is actually incredibly useful for me, too.



Jack Douglas said:


> "So you get to turn some poor shots into mediocre keepers in post... "
> 
> You sound like a purist. In the real world we find ourselves at various places, possibly once in a lifetime and we need to be good at exactly what you describe. Avoiding taking a once in a lifetime shot because lighting is less than perfect simply doesn't cut it for me. Many of the worlds most noteworthy photos are far from technically perfect. I say, fire away, regardless.
> 
> Jack



In my original post (sorry, it's pages back now), I was taking the extreme situation where people are critical of the 6DMkII's low ISO dynamic range. My point is that a lot of the people who complain that 6DII's base ISO DR isn't good enough are trying to take bad shots and fiddle with them in post to make them... slightly less bad shots. 

I'm not sure there are real-life situations where you could substitute a 6DMkII with a 5DMkIV or A7RII, where the picture on the 6DII would be terrible and the picture on one of the others would be great. Of course, if you want to spend more money, there are options with sensors that will give you a little more flexibility, and of course, there will be times when you won't get the shot again and why not get the most out of what you can shoot. I carry a camera around with me as often as I can, and there are a lot of subjects of opportunity like what you describe. 

However, when I wrote what you quoted, I was responding to AlanF's reference to BIFs where the top of the bird is well-illuminated because the sun is above the bird; but the the bottom therefore becomes so poor that you need to turn charcoal into feathers. I understand _why_ shadow recovery is useful here, but my point is that the photo will still be not as good as your 600 other photos of the same bird that were taken at a better time of day -- and not just because of the bird, but because you'll have other composition/lighting problems too (especially the shots are over water).

Rather than making it the camera's fault that there isn't 14 EVs of DR... just show up 4 hours earlier/later depending on the location, and you'll have much nicer BIF photos with just 9 EVs of DR


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 21, 2017)

Talys, I won't ague that back lighting doesn't result in poorer photos. I'm not sure that any of us would purposely choose back lighting. Perhaps your premise is that the BIF are readily available whenever you would like them, like gulls at the ocean, but that's not my typical scenario. However, I do scheme as best I can to get the desired lighting

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 21, 2017)

Scott, do you have any suggested references where the various adjustments to curves etc. are explained? At the moment I don't have the required understanding to know how I should manipulate curves.

BTW what units are on the various sliders. Brightness slider in stops. Shadow slider in ?? or is this a dumb question? 

Jack


----------



## Talys (Sep 21, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Talys, I won't ague that back lighting doesn't result in poorer photos. I'm not sure that any of us would purposely choose back lighting. Perhaps your premise is that the BIF are readily available whenever you would like them, like gulls at the ocean, but that's not my typical scenario. However, I do scheme as best I can to get the desired lighting
> 
> Jack



Hey, we are not really disagreeing on anything.

I'm just saying that if you want to shoot a great picture of a (insert a bird) -- I mean, one that you can be really proud of or excited about -- it's not going to be from a badly illuminated photo with cranked shadows. To accomplish this, it will take planning the excursion based on likely location of your subject, available light and weather, studying the subject's behavior, and some luck. For birding, some prep gives you a much, much higher ratio of good photos, some of which might turn out to be amazing photos. And that might just be mean thinking things through, and coming back to the same spot another day.

Definitely, there are photos that you just take because you just take 'em; they don't have that element of planning or purpose, and of course, it's helpful to adjust them in post and try to make them better. Sure, more DR is better than less DR (duh).

However, the complaint that the 6DII is a flawed camera because its ISO 100 DR is lower than *** camera doesn't hold a lot of water to me, because in a lot of cases the difference that you can get out of *** camera vs a 6DII is likely to be small. Both will have enough DR to make your marginal photo into a more satisfactory one; sure, with the 5DIV (for example) you might make it a little better and you can be a little happier with the outcome. On my photos that are good enough to keep, but not good enough to share, I don't think using a 5DIV or A7RII would change that. If someone thinks I'm wrong... I'm willing to listen.

Either way, this doesn't make the 6DII a terrible option, because it has a different featureset and a lower price -- and in my opinion, my marginal photos will still turn into a little more satisfactory ones, and virtually all of my photos that I'm really excited about used fewer EVs of DR than a 6DII offers anyways.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 21, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> ..Oh, DR, the sacred cow. How did it get such status?



it's a popular _beef_


----------



## Talys (Sep 21, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > ..Oh, DR, the sacred cow. How did it get such status?
> ...



Good one


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2017)

Talys said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > "So you get to turn some poor shots into mediocre keepers in post... "
> ...



We don't turn "charcoal into feathers", we are not talking about extreme underexposure, we just lift shadows and lower highlights etc from regions that are still within DR. As Jack writes, we come across once-in-a-lifetime shots that cannot be planned, are not in ideal conditions but with skill we can use post-processing to produce a stunning photo (or accept it as it is). If you visit the local park or go and stay in a fixed location for a few days you can go back over and over again and take thousands of shots. If you go on a day trip, a safari, or are an opportunistic photographer you don't have that luxury.

I don't shoot at base iso, I tend to use the 640-2000 region where the DR is limited not by the sensor but by photon noise and so it makes very little difference of whether I would use a 6DII a 5DIV or even a 5DSR. What matters to me is not DR but the speed and accuracy of AF because out-of-focus or motion blur can't be corrected.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 21, 2017)

Generally none of us are disagreeing with the accepted premise that more is good but we already have, for the most part, what we need for decent photos.

I had to chuckle because, with my focus on wildlife and birds more specifically, my 6D practically sat at ISO 1250 for 3 years. Then I read all the dumping on the 6D2 and became concerned until I reminded myself that DR is more or less the same for all decent cameras at ISO 1250, as Alan suggests. Of course that's just me and my particular focus but there have been folk trying brow beat me into accepting that my camera can't deliver the goods. Thankfully, I didn't know much about anything when I bought the 6D or I might have gotten ulcers! The salesman said, yep it's a good camera, and I bought it.  

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 21, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Generally none of us are disagreeing with the accepted premise that more is good but we already have, for the most part, what we need for decent photos.
> 
> I had to chuckle because, with my focus on wildlife and birds more specifically, my 6D practically sat at ISO 1250 for 3 years. Then I read all the dumping on the 6D2 and became concerned until I reminded myself that DR is more or less the same for all decent cameras at ISO 1250, as Alan suggests. Of course that's just me and my particular focus but there have been folk trying brow beat me into accepting that my camera can't deliver the goods. Thankfully, I didn't know much about anything when I bought the 6D or I might have gotten ulcers! The salesman said, yep it's a good camera, and I bought it.
> 
> Jack


Realistically, in descending order of importance, what gets you a good picture is photographer, lens choice, and finally, camera.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 22, 2017)

I think I need to replace the first one!

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I think I need to replace the first one!
> 
> Jack


Same here.... Mine needs a knee upgrade....

As for gear, If I had to pick the one piece of gear that has had the biggest effect on my photography, it would be my canoe(s)...They still work well, but they are getting old and every know and then, they freeze up


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 22, 2017)

Life is just fine if you have a sense of humour! Even with a crummy 6DII.

Jack


----------



## cpsico (Sep 23, 2017)

The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 23, 2017)

cpsico said:


> The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens



As a 3 year owner who loved the 6D and sold it recently, I don't agree at all. Even just the transition to 26 MP would be a blessing for me cropping my tele shots not to mention the other niceties, including F8 AF. It all depends on usage. At the moment I don't really need the camera and so I'm waiting for a lower price. 

Based on price alone I might concur that the person who bought my 6D for $1100 is getting a better deal than buying the 6D2 at this moment.

Jack


----------



## cpsico (Sep 23, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens
> ...


I still have mine. It's light, versatile and perfect in low light. The 5dIV is a huge step up and I was very much looking forward to the 6d II but Canon took of in a different direction than I hoped. I was hoping for little to no bump in resolution but a huge bump in low light performance a few more was placed focus points, not a jumbled mess in the center. I like the flip out screen, the dual pixel auto focus, would love to be able to use a camera like this with a nice fast prime like the 35 1.4 II but would like a fast shutter speed of 8000 instead of 4000. I guess to many wedding photographers where willing to work with the limits of the original 6d over the 5d III and Canon didn't want a repeat. It's a good camera I am sure, but it's just not making me want to run out and buy it over what I already own.


----------



## Talys (Sep 23, 2017)

If you're into trial by numbers, looking at the High ISO performance ("sports"), the 6D Mark II is DXOMark's third highest ranking camera manufactured by Canon, and not far behind 5DMark IV. Only the 1DX Mark II is significantly better. In High ISO performance, 6DMkII is a small leap ahead of 5DS, 5DSR, 5D Mark III, and flattens APSCs like the 80D, or, for that matter APSCs and MFTs from any make.

1DX Mk II - 3207
5D MkIV - 2995
6D MkII - 2862
1DX - 2786
5DS - 2381
6D - 2340
5DSR 2308
5DMark III - 2293

And for reference, Canon's APSC sensors fall off a cliff, scoring below the original 5D:
5D - 1368
M6 -1317
80D - 1135
7D Mark II - 1082

If you want to throw in other brands, high ISO performance of the 6DII is between the A7II and A7RII, and is around the same performance as the Nikon D810/750:

Sony A7RII - 3434
Sony A9 - 3517
Sony A7II - 2449

Nikon D750 - 2956
Nikon D810 - 2853

Olympus OMD E-M1 Mk II - 1312

Big caveat: I'm not really a believer in the trial by numbers game, especially when those numbers come close. I would never choose a camera that scored 3,300 over one that scored 3,000 on the basis of DXOMark. But it is useful to see patterns of large breaks and generations of camera. 

For example, I've been saying that the 6DII has a massive, observable improvement over 80D in low light ISO noise; even giving a wide berth for testing variance and methodologies, 2862 vs 1135 is such a big difference that unless the test is totally worthless, it should be indicative of a meaningful difference. 

For what it's worth, there is no MFT camera with competitive low light performance to FF. The OM-D E-M1 Mark II is the best performing MFT at 1317, and the low light performance is in the range of modern APSCs, the best performing of which is the Nikon D7500 at 1483. So if you believe in these sorts of measurements, and you want a high ISO camera, don't bother with MFT or APSC.

Again, assuming that you give some credence to these test methodologies, if you want a high ISO camera, the 6DII should be a candidate to consider _given its price_.

I think something that people have also not mentioned much is the other part of DXOMark's headline. The 6DII has very good color depth. I don't know why nobody talks about this, because in my opinion, color sensitivity that you will use is more important than Dynamic Range that you won't use. Here, it is Canon's fourth best offering, with numbers similar to 5DSR and slightly behind 5DMark IV and 5DS. 

The ONLY thing score that the 6DII is weak on is base ISO dynamic range. 12 EVs of DR is still a lot of dynamic range, and more DR than most people shoot on the vast majority of their photographs. Would I like 14 EVs of DR for ISO100? Sure, of course. Would I pay another $1,000 for it? No.

Yes, I would like to have it all, but if I take DXO's trifecta of color sensitivity, dynamic range, and high ISO performance, and had to sacrifice one of them to reduce the price by a third, to the level where I'd actually buy the camera -- dynamic range would be the one I'd pick.

Last thing -- I would have liked 1/8000, too. But it's a compromise I'm willing to accept, considering the price, mostly because I rarely have enough light to make use of 1/8000 anyways. I just don't foresee my budget including the telephotos over 200mm where I could take advantage of 1/8000.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 23, 2017)

@ cpsico, that's perfectly valid. Our needs are quite different.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 23, 2017)

Give it some time and the 6D2 will again come out faring much like the 6D did. Canon knows what they are doing. And they don't seem to be concerned too much about the fact that all of us have something about the camera we really hoped would be better.

I got a blender. It had 5 speeds. Then I saw one with 10 speeds and then later, one with 20 speeds and I had a nervous breakdown because mine obviously was totally useless and I quit processing food and then I starved to death. It's just not fair! How could they treat me like this. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2017)

Talys said:


> If you're into trial by numbers, looking at the High ISO performance ("sports"), the 6D Mark II is DXOMark's third highest ranking camera manufactured by Canon, and not far behind 5DMark IV. Only the 1DX Mark II is significantly better. In High ISO performance, 6DMkII is a small leap ahead of 5DS, 5DSR, 5D Mark III, and flattens APSCs like the 80D, or, for that matter APSCs and MFTs from any make.
> 
> 1DX Mk II - 3207
> 5D MkIV - 2995
> ...



That is an over-simplistic take on the DxO numbers. 
Firstly, for the 5DSR and 5DS vs the low resolution FFs, if you downresolve the 5DS to give the same number of pixels as the lower ones, you regain high iso performance. For example, reducing the 50 mpx of the 5DS to the 26 mpx of the 7DII reduces the noise by a factor of sqrt(50/26), ie 1.39, increasing the effective iso performance to ~3,300 (minus a small factor). The S/N on the 5DIV is actually better than that on the 1DXII when you downsize the the pixel count.

Secondly, the APS-C do not "fall off a cliff" with iso. It all depends on what lens you put on them and whether or not you crop. If you have to crop the FF and APS-C to the same size for say a small bird in the middle of the image, then the relative DxO numbers you quote become to approximately the same for both. Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 23, 2017)

AlanF said:


> ...Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).



I’m sorry but no matter how many times people try to say this is an advantage, in practical reality the Crop body _always_ loses that scenario.
135f2 vs 200f2.8? Full Frame costs half as much and probably gives better IQ.
85f1.4 vs 135f2? Same thing, you’re looking at a more expensive lens on crop and the wide open performance at 85f1.4 isn’t anywhere as good as 135f2 on Full Frame.
50f1.0 vs 85f1.4 is an almost impossible scenario to achieve just based on the lack of f1.0 lenses, and of course moving to 50f1.4 pits the crop body against the inexpensive 85f1.8, which isn’t even a full stop disadvantage anymore.
35f1.4 vs 50f1.8, again, crop sensors lose horribly in all three metrics of Light Gathering, IQ and Cost (the smaller Crop sensor produces an extra 1 stop worth of noise and must be run at 1 stop lower ISO for equivalence, and “technically” it should be 1.3 stops to offset the sensor noise).

I’m probably going to get the Mitakon 35mm f0.95 for Fuji mount because “somehow” it’s actually sharp in the middle wide open, and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. I’m just calling it The Chinese Miracle for now though because I don’t think anything else on the market comes that close to giving a crop sensor full equivalence for a half-decent price.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 23, 2017)

9VIII said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > ...Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).
> ...



I did not say "this is an advantage", I was pointing out why the DxO figures for sports iso should not be taken literally and can be misleading.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2017)

Last night I was shooting night skies with a 20mmF1.4 lens on a 6D2. There is no crop equivalence for field of view and Fstop, and the 6D2 vastly outperforms crop cameras at high ISO. This is why I bought it.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 24, 2017)

cpsico said:


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



A couple of points of order, because these are the sorts of commonly-held assumptions that can spoil discussions here as well as confusing casual readers: first, there is not much more high ISO capability to be squeezed out of current technology (standard silicon Bayer filtered sensor etc). The _quality_ of noise has been improved a little, and the useability of in-camera high ISO _jpegs_ seems to be getting better, but all the top cameras have been within a stop, stop and a half of each other for years now (compare DPR's studio scene for e.g. 6D with the D5 for example), so that "huge bump" was just wishful thinking, sorry (unless possibly you go for a very low res sensor, like the ME20F-SH).

And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But _*they cannot be much more spread out*_. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.


----------



## cpsico (Sep 24, 2017)

scyrene said:


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


All good points, but the same sensor tech in the 5d IV on a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor is more personally what I would have wanted. It's a nice resolution, decent file size, still room to crop size. I really like dual pixel autofocus, it's fantastic to have in live view. Subtle improvements on a winning formula for a price that left room for other accessories was my wish list. I can't call the new 6dII a bad camera, but it's an odd mix. Aps-c focus system, still no uhs-2 Sd slot, or 2 card slots, what appears to be the same mediocre LCD, even the LCD on the 5d II was better than the 6d. The original 6d offered a top notch sensor in a bargain body. The new 6d offers plenty of resolution but no real improvement. It's never meant to be a sports camera so why the 80d focus system is there seems silly. The old focus points were limited but well placed. Improving the already very good battery life was nice, tilting screen very nice, but at the end of they day it's not for me at 2000 dollars. Canon could easily put 4K video in this camera and leveraged there amazing lens line up to regain lost market, instead we get 1080p. Canon needs to realize it's no longer a market where canon is only competing with canon. Sony, Panasonic,Pentax and Nikon now have serious options to compete in the "first full frame" camera market. They need to end the practice of needlessly hobbling camera features for fear of not selling there own high end cameras.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 24, 2017)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



It is implicit in your sentence that it was intended to say "this is an advantage".
That doesn't make the rest of your post meaningless, but:


AlanF said:


> ...put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense...



This is a fallacy that has been used ad-nauseam over the last 5 years trying to sell smaller sensors to mis-informed consumers. People will use this to say Full Frame is inferior and letting that just casually slip on this forum would be a disservice to everyone.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2017)

9VIII said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



It was not implicit in any way whatsoever, and there is absolutely no justification for your comment. I did not intend to say what you claim to say and I did not write it. I make no brief for FF vs APS-C - I use both as each has its pros and cons, depending on what your uses are. What I do not appreciate is people rubbishing APS-C because they own a FF and those who rubbish FF because they own APS-C. Respect other peoples choices of gear.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 24, 2017)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I’m glad that you’re not confused about sensor equivalence, but it is still implicit in the words regardless of whether or not that was the intention. I guarantee casual observers would have taken it the wrong way.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2017)

Scyrene,

yes AF points can be spread out and considerably so. see the image attached. 5D IV vs 6D II.
I love my Canon system, but the 6D II AF spread was a BUSINESS decision by Canon rather than a technical issue. I hope common sense prevails.



scyrene said:


> And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But _*they cannot be much more spread out*_. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.


----------



## BillB (Sep 24, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Scyrene,
> 
> yes AF points can be spread out and considerably so. see the image attached. 5D IV vs 6D II.
> I love my Canon system, but the 6D II AF spread was a BUSINESS decision by Canon rather than a technical issue. I hope common sense prevails.
> ...



Well, the point spread of the 6D is somewhat smaller than the 5DIV, but whether it is considerably so is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that it is considerable, others think not. Both cover the central ninth of the screen. Neither provides much coverage of the remaining eight ninths of the screen, and that would seem to reflect the state of the art.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2017)

The argument was that AF points cannot be much more spread out. I have proven the statement wrong
The AF point area coverage of 5D IV is 40% (fourty) larger than the same of 6D II
This number is considerable to me and after giving it much consideration, I purchased 5D IV



BillB said:


> SecureGSM said:
> 
> 
> > Scyrene,
> ...


----------



## scyrene (Sep 24, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> The argument was that AF points cannot be much more spread out. I have proven the statement wrong
> The AF point area coverage of 5D IV is 40% (fourty) larger than the same of 6D II
> This number is considerable to me and after giving it much consideration, I purchased 5D IV
> 
> ...



I'm not sure you've "proven" anything. Can you provide a less confusing diagram? These arguments have been had elsewhere and I thought the conclusion was the spread wasn't much tighter on the 6D2 than the 5D4 or other FF cameras? Where is this 40% figure coming from?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 24, 2017)

cpsico said:


> All good points, but the same sensor tech in the 5d IV on a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor is more personally what I would have wanted. It's a nice resolution, decent file size, still room to crop size. I really like dual pixel autofocus, it's fantastic to have in live view. Subtle improvements on a winning formula for a price that left room for other accessories was my wish list. I can't call the new 6dII a bad camera, but it's an odd mix. Aps-c focus system, still no uhs-2 Sd slot, or 2 card slots, what appears to be the same mediocre LCD, even the LCD on the 5d II was better than the 6d. The original 6d offered a top notch sensor in a bargain body. The new 6d offers plenty of resolution but no real improvement. It's never meant to be a sports camera so why the 80d focus system is there seems silly. The old focus points were limited but well placed. Improving the already very good battery life was nice, tilting screen very nice, but at the end of they day it's not for me at 2000 dollars. Canon could easily put 4K video in this camera and leveraged there amazing lens line up to regain lost market, instead we get 1080p. Canon needs to realize it's no longer a market where canon is only competing with canon. Sony, Panasonic,Pentax and Nikon now have serious options to compete in the "first full frame" camera market. They need to end the practice of needlessly hobbling camera features for fear of not selling there own high end cameras.



Sure, some of your points are fine and it is of course right to choose a camera (or anything else) that seems good value to you, and which offers the features you want. Although I would say it's easy to dismiss things other people consider crucial as just 'nice' - some people were adamant that without a mobile screen, for instance, it would be DOA to them. 4K? The question is whether this is the body to bring it to the DSLR masses (given it's supposedly 'entry-level' and nobody else is offering 4K at this price point in DSLRs yet, perhaps not). As for the market analysis, well that's best left to the experts


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2017)

Red lines - 6D II AF points coverage
Blue lines - 5D IV area coverage. 

Can you say that blue area is larger than red area? Great! It means that AF points can be spread out wider than with 6D II. Contrary to your statement that AF points cannot be spread out any wider. Yes they technically can be spread out wider, but Canon choose not to. That’s is fine with me, but let’s admit the fact and stop the argument.
And I am sure that you know how to calculate and compare area coverage. 
I am not in a position to argue Canon business decisions. They obviously know how to build good cameras and sell them too. I also know that they did a good job in differentiating 6D and 5D product lines. It makes sense but let’s stop kidding ourselves: 6D is no 5D. I am sorry to rain on your day. 




scyrene said:


> I'm not sure you've "proven" anything. Can you provide a less confusing diagram? These arguments have been had elsewhere and I thought the conclusion was the spread wasn't much tighter on the 6D2 than the 5D4 or other FF cameras? Where is this 40% figure coming from?


----------



## cpsico (Sep 24, 2017)

scyrene said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > All good points, but the same sensor tech in the 5d IV on a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor is more personally what I would have wanted. It's a nice resolution, decent file size, still room to crop size. I really like dual pixel autofocus, it's fantastic to have in live view. Subtle improvements on a winning formula for a price that left room for other accessories was my wish list. I can't call the new 6dII a bad camera, but it's an odd mix. Aps-c focus system, still no uhs-2 Sd slot, or 2 card slots, what appears to be the same mediocre LCD, even the LCD on the 5d II was better than the 6d. The original 6d offered a top notch sensor in a bargain body. The new 6d offers plenty of resolution but no real improvement. It's never meant to be a sports camera so why the 80d focus system is there seems silly. The old focus points were limited but well placed. Improving the already very good battery life was nice, tilting screen very nice, but at the end of they day it's not for me at 2000 dollars. Canon could easily put 4K video in this camera and leveraged there amazing lens line up to regain lost market, instead we get 1080p. Canon needs to realize it's no longer a market where canon is only competing with canon. Sony, Panasonic,Pentax and Nikon now have serious options to compete in the "first full frame" camera market. They need to end the practice of needlessly hobbling camera features for fear of not selling there own high end cameras.
> ...


I will say that any full frame camera is not entry level to photography, but more entry level to emerging professionals or people that are looking for professional quality images without professional features. What I am most disappointed with is camera is clearly not aimed here, it's a social, casual use camera not a value back up camera that will match the image quality of your pro camera. Which I feel was canons intended result. The old 6d sacrificed features and build quality but never image quality, we now have a reversal of that. I despised the image quality of anything less than perfect exposure on the 5d mark II and this camera reminds me of that one.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2017)

9VIII said:


> It was not implicit in any way whatsoever, and there is absolutely no justification for your comment. I did not intend to say what you claim to say and I did not write it. I make no brief for FF vs APS-C - I use both as each has its pros and cons, depending on what your uses are. What I do not appreciate is people rubbishing APS-C because they own a FF and those who rubbish FF because they own APS-C. Respect other peoples choices of gear.



I’m glad that you’re not confused about sensor equivalence, but it is still implicit in the words regardless of whether or not that was the intention. I guarantee casual observers would have taken it the wrong way.
[/quote]

Only observers who who jump to incorrect conclusions because they are casual and not careful.


----------



## Alejandro (Sep 24, 2017)

I'm curious about low light AF performance compared to the original 6D. Does that -3 EV is "3" EV or ir it more like "-3.5 EV"? 

And another thing is the UHS-1 write speeds on the 6D2.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 24, 2017)

cpsico said:


> I will say that any full frame camera is not entry level to photography, but more entry level to emerging professionals or people that are looking for professional quality images without professional features. What I am most disappointed with is camera is clearly not aimed here, it's a social, casual use camera not a value back up camera that will match the image quality of your pro camera. Which I feel was canons intended result. The old 6d sacrificed features and build quality but never image quality, we now have a reversal of that. I despised the image quality of anything less than perfect exposure on the 5d mark II and this camera reminds me of that one.



If you believe the camera produces non-professional images, and is a "social, casual use camera" I believe you will find yourself in a very small minority. The original 6D produced professional quality images, so, clearly this camera will as well. Since there is virtually no difference in IQ between all the FF cameras *in actual usage* (as opposed to test results with targets) you could certainly use this camera as both your only pro camera or as a backup to another pro camera. The fact that you are apparently an extremely picky photographer that found the 5D II unacceptable is not Canon's fault - nor is it Canon's fault that you find the 6D II unacceptable. They produced a camera that will give excellent results to those that use it and aren't looking for the "highest possible quality" in a camera that is at the low price point end of the FF alternatives.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 24, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Red lines - 6D II AF points coverage
> Blue lines - 5D IV area coverage.
> 
> Can you say that blue area is larger than red area? Great! It means that AF points can be spread out wider than with 6D II. Contrary to your statement that AF points cannot be spread out any wider. Yes they technically can be spread out wider, but Canon choose not to. That’s is fine with me, but let’s admit the fact and stop the argument.
> ...



This is getting a little arcane, but fwiw...

For clarity I have created a new diagram as yours arbitrarily separates the focus zones for the 6D2 but not the 5D4 and I still find it needlessly confusing. Here, the 5D4 AF points are in black, 6D2 in red. Measuring on this diagram, the width of the 5D4 is ~560 pixels, the 6D2 424; the heights are 279 and 223 respectively (outer edge of focus points, ignoring the outer lines*; the actual measurements don't matter, it's the ratios that count). So the 6D2's spread is 75% as wide and 80% as tall. The difference is more than I'd realised, so maybe I'll modify my language a touch in future, but the overall difference is not as much as you claim.

I didn't say they couldn't be spread ANY wider. This may sound like splitting hairs, and perhaps this whole discussion is; but I said it couldn't be MUCH wider, and that is the nub of the issue. It is of course to some extent a matter of subjectivity - my much and your much are clearly not the same. But I stand by my original statement: the claims that I've seen repeated on these forums that the 6D2's AF point spread is unusually small or somehow notably bad are wrong. Nobody denies the spread is less than the 5D4's but the differences are minor and it is unfair to claim otherwise. It's also worth noting that the 6D2's AF point spread is a touch less wide horizontally than the 6D's (although many here have claimed that the outer points on that older camera aren't worth using), but no less vertically - and one could well argue that *this* is the key comparison, not that with the 5D4, which is a much more expensive camera.

*I'm not sure what the outer lines represent; note the 6D2's outer line is further from the edge of the outer focus points compared to the 5D4.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 24, 2017)

cpsico said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



I think it's fair to say that the 6D punched above its weight with regard to IQ in some regards, and the emphasis may well have shifted in its successor. Of course, some have long argued that it was an aberration in that regard; it may also be reasonable to think, when they addressed the complaints of current users (more AF points, a mobile screen etc), they had to cut back elsewhere in order to keep it at this price point - so maybe it was unrealistic that some people expected both.

As for the entry level thing - I'll just agree to disagree. There's no reason a FF camera can't be entry level in its class. The same argument could be made at each sensor size - an APS-C camera can't be entry level because there's 4/3 etc. That would clearly be ridiculous. Entry level just means the lowest tier in a category or range.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2017)

Did you allow for the different viewfinder coverage?


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2017)

Scyrene, 
Thank you for your efforts. Looks good there. 
As you mentioned, 6D II AF spread horizontally is 75% of 5D IV’s. In other words:

5D IV AF spread is 1/3 (33.3%) wider. 75% x 1.33(3) = 100%


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 24, 2017)

Fair point, I have in my red blue diagram but that makes a very minor difference in the scheme of things.
Even 33% difference is large enough to (at least) consider. 



privatebydesign said:


> Did you allow for the different viewfinder coverage?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 24, 2017)

And now I have my 1DX2 AF coverage. It was a very big step up from the 6D because of the quality of the outer points BUT it still isn't enough spread when I'm lining up certain poses of birds aiming for eye focus and good framing. Usually, in those cases I just use one shot with the best AF point and make the small framing correction.

I am confident that Canon went the extra mile in trying to spread them out and you pay accordingly so in my mind a good comparison would be price and AF spread between 6D/6D2 and the absolute best spread, 1DX2. 

The 6D2 has been reasonably outfitted. The problem is those folk who are accustomed to crop compared to FF - that shocks and starts the ridicule from the trolls.

Today, I understand a little. When I shopped to purchase the 6D 4 years ago I was far more ignorant, not even fully comprehending crop vs. FF issues so I try to restrain my negativity towards uninformed CR posts. OTOH when I don't really know what I'm talking about I generally keep quiet. 

CR helped/is helping immensely in my education and thankfully those old timers/pros that read some of my early posts/questions didn't crucify me! It's free education - wow.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> And now I have my 1DX2 AF coverage. It was a very big step up from the 6D because of the quality of the outer points BUT it still isn't enough spread when I'm lining up certain poses of birds aiming for eye focus and good framing. Usually, in those cases I just use one shot with the best AF point and make the small framing correction.
> 
> I am confident that Canon went the extra mile in trying to spread them out and you pay accordingly so in my mind a good comparison would be price and AF spread between 6D/6D2 and the absolute best spread, 1DX2.
> 
> ...



The 1DX MkII plays all kinds of light bending tricks to expand the AF area, really extreme, and even that is only a modest bump up from the 1DX. I think that is pretty much it as far as phase detect AF is going to be developed.


----------



## Talys (Sep 24, 2017)

I see people who try to complain about 6DII's AF coverage in comparison to, for example, to 7DII. For birding, practically, I will normally one-shot AF center point only, and then reframe. If I'm going to take multiple shots I just hit the MF switch, or you can get rid of half-shutter press and just AF from the back button.

For studio stills from a tripod, I will usually choose an AF point, then make a small adjustments in framing and/or just switch to MF. Sometimes, for apparel, for example, I'd like the left chest to be the focus point so that an embroidered logo can be guaranteed to be perfectly crisp, and for that, the 6DII works just fine. 


Just to put it out there, here is the Nikon 750, 810, and 850 coverage:







And the 1DXMkII viewfinder looks like this:


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 24, 2017)

Seems like there shouldn't be any more confusion at this point, perhaps we've beaten it to death. 

I should be totally thrilled to have the amazing quality of the camera I have and totally forget about any nit picking. That's what *I* should do. 

Then if there are possible improvements forward the suggestions to Canon and continue to be a happy shooter. That's what *I* should do.  

 Happy shooting everyone! 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2017)

Talys said:


> For birding, practically, I will normally one-shot AF center point only, and then reframe. ]



I generally use centre point A1 servo. There is a technical problem in focussing and then reframing. Lenses are designed so as far as possible all the points in the plane of the focal point perpendicular to the axis of the lens are in focus. If you focus on one part of a subject then turn the camera to reframe on another, you twist the plane of focus so that the original point is no longer in focus. If the movement is very small and there is sufficient depth of field, you might get away with it. It's for that reason that we have the choice of choosing off-centre focus points so that, for example, you can focus on the bird's eye and have it's belly in the centre of the frame.


----------



## Talys (Sep 24, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > For birding, practically, I will normally one-shot AF center point only, and then reframe. ]
> ...



By twist the frame of focus, do you mean, rotate the pitch of the camera? I don't think I would do that intentionally, though of course, it won't be millimeter perfect. My intent is to not have to rotate photos in post, because that also messes with the sharpness of the finished image.

You're right though, DoF will give some leeway, because my photos are usually being taken at apertures of 5.6 and higher, with many portraits where I'd have the luxury of focusing specifically on the eye set to f/8 (not being one of the fortunate who own a 600f/4 ).

The reason I only use AI servo when I'm specifically trying to photograph a large bird in flight is because many of my photos of opportunity are of quick smaller birds, and to catch them doing something interesting, I have to manually focus. Grabbing the MF ring doesn't really work with AI servo (since it will refocus on what it thinks the subject should be, usually foliage).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 24, 2017)

I mean just turn it away from the point on which you have focussed to another point. Eg, you focus on the eye, and then point the camera at the feet. I use back button focus and A1-servo with my finger pressed down continually so if the bird moves back or forth the camera will refocus, but if I want to freeze the focal distance I just release the pressure on the back button.


----------



## cpsico (Sep 24, 2017)

It's a nice balanced little camera, and if I didn't already have a good lowlight camera it would unarguably end up in my possession. It's just not enough to upgrade over the previous 6d for me. Will it take amazing pictures? Yes!!! Ironically you will have to understand exposure and lighting to get the best out of it. Not truly an issue for the most part, I haven't used one just yet. Maybe in a year or two it will find home in my bag , or I will sit this upgrade out and buy a lens or two. Hard to say just yet, maybe when I see more real world reviews I will change my tune. Btw more or less everyone thought the original 6d was crap until they shot with it and found it to be a seriously fun little camera. So hear we are again, some are bashing and some are defending a nice little camera that in a few years most will own that already have canon lenses. Still chafed over the crappie UHS1 single slot.....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 24, 2017)

Alan, we choose the best AF point that we judge will do the job well. For example with 400DO II X2 the best choice is probably within the center rectangle since those are cross type at F8. That leaves us with minimal recompose shifting to do, possibly to get the tail in the photo since sometimes shots may be close to filling the frame. 

Often at closer range none of the AF points on an eye will allow for a best composition and LV is not the answer. To top it off, if lighting is not the best, then the sensitivity of AF points off center, particularly with AI servo, is not as good as AF center, double cross, one shot. We're stuck with that reality.

I'm not saying that this reality is such a big deal but it does come into play.

Alan, BTW your technique is essentially the same as one-shot but it is not actually using the one-shot algorithm, so not as accurate , according to my feedback from Canon.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 24, 2017)

cpsico said:


> It's just not enough to upgrade over the previous 6d for me.



There is always this assumption that when a new model is released, the main target is getting people using the current model to upgrade. I very much doubt it. It is there to keep people who own lower models and are looking to upgrade, to upgrade with the same manufacturer. 

But for me, the 6D2 would be worth upgrading for the tilty flippy and better AF point spread alone. My choice is whether I get the 6D2 or 5DIV.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > It's just not enough to upgrade over the previous 6d for me.
> ...



I am fairly sure that the target audience is not up-graders of the same line. Considering the very small differences between camera generations, if that was the target market, camera makers would go out of business. Most folks (I believe) will keep their camera until it breaks down, until a major new feature hits the market, or if they are moving upmarket (crop to FF, or entry level to more pro level). If you have the original 6D, then you probably are completely satisfied with the IQ. The major desires with an upgrade were the AF system and a tilty screen. And that is exactly what Canon upgraded. You could easily argue that Canon was very smart. If they had only upgraded the low ISO DR, then only the few DR complainers found on forums would upgrade. To the vast majority of camera buyers who don't care about DR test results, they would see no difference between the 6D and the 6D II - and would have absolutely no reason to upgrade.


----------



## cpsico (Sep 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > It's just not enough to upgrade over the previous 6d for me.
> ...


I do have new 5D IV, it is an unbelievable work of art. Canon hit this one out of the park. The autofocus is amazing, can be customized to switch between AI servo and one shot by holding down a button, and there is alot of latitude in the files in terms of dynamic range, and 30 megapixels is really a sweet spot in resolution. It's every thing canon users have been asking for in a camera. Battery life does fall short of the 6d.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 25, 2017)

cpsico said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



In that case why consider the 6D2 - only reason I see is flip screen and I wouldn't use that enough to justify owning both.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 25, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Alan, we choose the best AF point that we judge will do the job well. For example with 400DO II X2 the best choice is probably within the center rectangle since those are cross type at F8. That leaves us with minimal recompose shifting to do, possibly to get the tail in the photo since sometimes shots may be close to filling the frame.
> 
> Often at closer range none of the AF points on an eye will allow for a best composition and LV is not the answer. To top it off, if lighting is not the best, then the sensitivity of AF points off center, particularly with AI servo, is not as good as AF center, double cross, one shot. We're stuck with that reality.
> 
> ...



Jack
If it moves you have to use A1 servo. I use One-Shot for calibration and static targets, but to use it for birds I would miss out on BIF, and birds that suddenly take off, leaping around or jerking their heads etc. There are problems in being too close to birds because of shallow depth of field at close distances and they fill up too much of the frame. When birds are close, I much prefer to use a zoom and not my 400 prime and I zoom out to get better overall sharpness. The technique of using off-centre points is that employed by Art Morris and other experts, though everyone is at liberty to use any technique they wish. I personally use only the centre point.
Alan


----------



## cpsico (Sep 25, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...


Backup, second camera


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 25, 2017)

Alan I should have clarified for more static subjects, certainly not BIF. However, a center AF point on an eye regularly results in less than ideal framing for me, especially if we are talking a somewhat longer profile, say a long-tailed bird. Of course the higher MP camera allows you to do your framing after the fact so you shoot with greater distance and don't loose needed resolution. Which takes us to the trade-off Canon has made between speed and resolution. I don't have the resolution you have.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 25, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Alan I should have clarified for more static subjects, certainly not BIF. However, a center AF point on an eye regularly results in less than ideal framing for me, especially if we are talking a somewhat longer profile, say a long-tailed bird. Of course the higher MP camera allows you to do your framing after the fact so you shoot with greater distance and don't loose needed resolution. Which takes us to the trade-off Canon has made between speed and resolution. I don't have the resolution you have.
> 
> Jack



You have made the decision to go for the low resolution built-for-speed 1DXII and a 400mm prime lens. You have to make compromises with that combination. Look at Art Morris's latest blog http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/ "favorite egret photography camera body, the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV." and "You Can't Do This With a Fixed Focal Length Lens" ... 

He has traded in his 5DSRs for 5DIVs. However, I prefer my 5DSR over my 5DIV for static shots. The resolution of the 5DSR combined with the absence of low-pass filter gives in practice about 42% linear resolution over my 5DIV (1.29x for extra pixels and about 1.1x for the filter, measured by me from charts). And I estimate about 1.74x that of your 1DXII given reasonable light.

If I concentrated on BIF, and was younger and stronger, I would go for your 1DX and the 400mm DO II plus extenders. However, the 5DIV with the bare 400mm DO II is no slouch, and i like a wide field of view for BIF. If I had just one body, I would opt for the 5DIV.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 25, 2017)

AlanF said:


> He has traded in his 5DSRs for 5DIVs. However, I prefer my 5DSR over my 5DIV for static shots. The resolution of the 5DSR combined with the absence of low-pass filter gives in practice about 42% linear resolution over my 5DIV (1.29x for extra pixels and about 1.1x for the filter, measured by me from charts). And I estimate about 1.74x that of your 1DXII given reasonable light.



But Artie has the field skills to get close enough, or uses his arsenal of mega-whites, to not rely on cropping. Mere mortals like us rely more on the camera to be able to crop.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 25, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Fair point, I have in my red blue diagram but that makes a very minor difference in the scheme of things.
> Even 33% difference is large enough to (at least) consider.
> 
> 
> ...



Mine was taken from The-Digital-Picture overlays, I don't honestly know but I'd assume Bryan would have scaled them to be correct but I'm not certain.



privatebydesign said:


> The 1DX MkII plays all kinds of light bending tricks to expand the AF area, really extreme, and even that is only a modest bump up from the 1DX. I think that is pretty much it as far as phase detect AF is going to be developed.



Perhaps this is a better way of framing it than I did originally: the 1Dx2 is the upper limit of possible AF spread, and you pay for that. The 6D2 isn't much worse considering the price differential, and I'd still strongly claim that most of the negative chatter about that aspect of it was wrong for that reason.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > He has traded in his 5DSRs for 5DIVs. However, I prefer my 5DSR over my 5DIV for static shots. The resolution of the 5DSR combined with the absence of low-pass filter gives in practice about 42% linear resolution over my 5DIV (1.29x for extra pixels and about 1.1x for the filter, measured by me from charts). And I estimate about 1.74x that of your 1DXII given reasonable light.
> ...



Err? I am a mere mortal, with a VERY limited income. I do not even qualify for UK income tax!

Yet my primary lens is the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, in other words the longest and most expensive lens they currently make. Oh yes there is a 1DX on the back of it and Wimberley + Gitzo underneath. I won't mention the 300 F2.8 L IS and the 100-400 L Mk2 or the 7D2 (just for fun). I have some very nice shorter lenses too, and a few more Gitzos.

There is NO replacement for field skills! However gear is easy. Just get your finances sorted and you can have anything that Canon/Nikon make for this sort of photography. I can say this with confidence as I have got them.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > He has traded in his 5DSRs for 5DIVs. However, I prefer my 5DSR over my 5DIV for static shots. The resolution of the 5DSR combined with the absence of low-pass filter gives in practice about 42% linear resolution over my 5DIV (1.29x for extra pixels and about 1.1x for the filter, measured by me from charts). And I estimate about 1.74x that of your 1DXII given reasonable light.
> ...



Mike
You have got the wrong end of the stick! Jack wrote that when he was close he couldn't frame the bird and focus on the eye at the same time. I pointed out that I zoom out under such circumstances so I could and referred to Art Morris who also uses a zoom when close up. I don't mind zooming out on the 5DIV or 5DSR because both of them have enough pixels to give excellent images form crops.significantly more so than the 1DXII.

Interestingly, Art Morris does not use field craft - he goes back to places he knows well and where the birds are close, and takes parties with him. You don't necessarily need field craft to get close: sit in a hide and wait; go to the Farne Isles etc.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 25, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Mike
> You have got the wrong end of the stick! Jack wrote that when he was close he couldn't frame the bird and focus on the eye at the same time. I pointed out that I zoom out under such circumstances so I could and referred to Art Morris who also uses a zoom when close up. I don't mind zooming out on the 5DIV or 5DSR because both of them have enough pixels to give excellent images form crops.significantly more so than the 1DXII.



Thank you for the clarification, Alan.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 25, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, in other words the longest and most expensive lens they currently make.



Reminds me of:
"..this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world." Dirty Harry


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 26, 2017)

In these discussions there is never one right answer because we're dealing with numerous variations of requirements and situations. If it were just a matter of choosing resolution over speed then obviously everyone would opt for the 5D4. No question the 5D4 is a great camera.

A point I stated before; I really like my illuminate AF points , which I believe in some circumstances help me get shots. There are things to be very satisfied about the 1DX2 but high resolution isn't one of them. That's life. I'm managing.

I wouldn't mind owning the 100-400 but I'm quite happy with the fixed 400 and really happy with 400 X2. For blind shooting I've found the 70-200 to be good including sometimes with X1.4 since my setup puts me pretty close to the birds. IOW I'm not presently suffering with GAS.

Jack


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 26, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> Err? I am a mere mortal, with a VERY limited income. I do not even qualify for UK income tax!



Do you have a national health care system that's likely to take you through your working years and retirement? Do you have a national pension system that will keep you out of poverty? Here in the U.S. we have an abundance of economic uncertainty. Every time I make an extra dollar I need to decide whether I should use it to shore-up my retirement account against unpredictable changes in national policy, or to spend it on enjoyment of the present. For the next 3 years, at least, most of those extra dollars will be saved.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 26, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Err? I am a mere mortal, with a VERY limited income. I do not even qualify for UK income tax!
> ...



If I may point out, owning a Canon supertele is better than many investments


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 26, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



Hmmmm...I see your point. I'll make a withdrawal from my 401(k) and buy several of them! Of course, it does them no good simply to sit at home in a locked case, so I'll need to take them out and exercise them frequently.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 26, 2017)

Seems like we've managed to steer this thread well off topic! 

I wish I could buy myself some more free time to use what I've got.

Jack


----------



## Talys (Sep 26, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Hmmmm...I see your point. I'll make a withdrawal from my 401(k) and buy several of them! Of course, it does them no good simply to sit at home in a locked case, so I'll need to take them out and exercise them frequently.



The great thing is that whether you have a T2i or a 1DXII, when you take out that shiny super tele and exercise them, you'll actually be getting exercise, and that's good for your health.

So see, not only is it a good investment, you'll be healthier too. 




Jack Douglas said:


> Seems like we've managed to steer this thread well off topic!
> 
> I wish I could buy myself some more free time to use what I've got.
> 
> Jack



Story of my life!!

The sad thing is, if I had more free time, I probably wouldn't be able to afford what I've got, hahahaha.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 26, 2017)

scyrene said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



There are very few investments that are worse than owning a Canon Supertele - a Ponzi scheme, for example. When inflation was high, economies high and Canon regularly increased prices, buying used could make a later profit. Just try selling your big white now - you will make a stonking great loss from new.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 26, 2017)

Good old inflation/stagnation coupled with demand. The best investments are intangible, like friendships.  Alan, I haven't even tried to sell my 300 and now you're raining on my party. 

Jack


----------



## BillB (Sep 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Sony cameras might be a worse investment.


----------



## Talys (Sep 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There are very few investments that are worse than owning a Canon Supertele - a Ponzi scheme, for example. When inflation was high, economies high and Canon regularly increased prices, buying used could make a later profit. Just try selling your big white now - you will make a stonking great loss from new.



That's true if your intention is to take your super tele and stuff it in your closet for 5 years. These are not treasury bonds 

When I talk about "investment" I factor in the usage during the time of ownership -- If you need a tool of some sort, the best investment in a tool that is most useful, will depreciate the least, and will remain current (or at least not need to be replaced) for the longest period of time.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > the Canon 800 F5.6 L IS, in other words the longest and most expensive lens they currently make.
> ...



Much as I loved my Ruger 44 Mag (and had some particularly accurate hand-loads for it) the 44 was never the most powerful pistol/revolver in the world - though it was as much as I could handle! Handguns (Hande Gonne) were getting a bit passe at Bosworth in 1485 - I like more modern stuff hence I shot pistols.

As to the Canon 800mm? It is simply the most used and useful lens that I have + it was relatively cheap. Note "RELATIVELY" it was still quite a few pennies.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 26, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Err? I am a mere mortal, with a VERY limited income. I do not even qualify for UK income tax!
> ...




A good point - however do you have our taxes? I think not!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 26, 2017)

AA said:


> DR is a BIG DEAL. It is a big deal because our eyes can see 20 stops of DR!!! A state-of-the-art DR of 14-15 (by Sony) still blows! Every stop counts. 12 stops is simply not good enough in 2017. The competitors do much better. So could Canon. They proved it even in their cheap APS-C cameras!
> 
> Whoever says DR is not a big deal never converted a raw file. Guys, go ahead and try it. It'll be like enlightenment! Literally.



I've never seen a single post where somebody says that dynamic range is not a big deal. Probably nearly every person on this forum has converted raw files.

Maybe I am missing what you are trying to say, but comparing the human eye's dynamic range to that of a DSLR isn't really fair. The human eye can see blacks as blacks and whites as whites. A DSLR sees in grey tones. The blacks are "effectively black" but still grey. The year we live in (2017) is irrelevant.

Yup, wide dynamic range might be a deal, but* the big deal is getting a proper exposure in the first place.*


----------



## stevelee (Sep 26, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> A good point - however do you have our taxes? I think not!



For a lot of us, your taxes are lower than our health insurance.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 26, 2017)

Talys said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There are very few investments that are worse than owning a Canon Supertele - a Ponzi scheme, for example. When inflation was high, economies high and Canon regularly increased prices, buying used could make a later profit. Just try selling your big white now - you will make a stonking great loss from new.
> ...



You don't own a Canon supertele. I own two, and I didn't buy them as investments but to use. Depreciation wasn't a factor in buying either, it was just their usefulness for what I need.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> You don't own a Canon supertele. I own two, and I didn't buy them as investments but to use. Depreciation wasn't a factor in buying either, it was just their usefulness for what I need.



It doesn't matter if it's a supertele or a camera flash. 

An "investment" when it comes to a tool doesn't mean that the value increases from today to next year. It isn't real estate or a treasury bond.

An investment means that you buy something for $x today, and you get use out of it between today and the day it is no longer your asset, whether because it's sold, obsolete, destroyed. In the case of a sale, there is a recovery value.

A good investment is an asset where the value of the use (which is easy to quantify if it's a business, and harder if it's for a hobby) plus the recovery value. It should also be compared to other places where you could spend that money, if money is a constraint, just because something else might be a better investment.

So, a $12,000 lens is a great investment if you get $8,000 back upon its sale, and you get more than $4,000 of use out of it. Whether I own one or not doesn't change that  

What I said still holds: If you're buying a supertele to stuff in your closet for 5 years, it's going to be a terrible investment.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 27, 2017)

What does "more than $4,000 of use" mean? If you are pro, then you can measure your income from it and put a figure on your profits. If you are a hobbyist, like me, then how is the monetary value calculable - I have as much fun from my £700 lens as I do from my £7000? So, please explain $4000 of use because I don't know how to put a value on my use.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> What does "more than $4,000 of use" mean? If you are pro, then you can measure your income from it and put a figure on your profits. If you are a hobbyist, like me, then how is the monetary value calculable - I have as much fun from my £700 lens as I do from my £7000? So, please explain $4000 of use because I don't know how to put a value on my use.



I am sure that I have a million dollars worth of cat pictures, so for me, it was a great investment


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> What does "more than $4,000 of use" mean? If you are pro, then you can measure your income from it and put a figure on your profits. If you are a hobbyist, like me, then how is the monetary value calculable - I have as much fun from my £700 lens as I do from my £7000? So, please explain $4000 of use because I don't know how to put a value on my use.



Sure.

Yes, for a business, it's just the profit you would derive from having an extra tool.

For pleasure, how else would you spend $4,000 of discretionary, hobby spending, and what kind of enjoyment would you derive from it? Is there something else that would give you more hours of pleasure for less money? Is the lens that's 10x more going to give you more enjoyment?

The definition of invest is: "To invest is to allocate money (or sometimes another resource, such as time) in the expectation of some benefit in the future."

That benefit does not need to be monetary, and most of us will internally compute (sometimes incorrectly) relative future benefits against the cost of a discretionary purchase. There are plenty of other things we invest in too, like relationships, where our expected benefits are not monetary. Circle back to my original statement - if you stuff it in your closet, there will be zero benefit, and a financial loss, hence, a poor investment. 




Don Haines said:


> I am sure that I have a million dollars worth of cat pictures, so for me, it was a great investment



Cat pictures are priceless 

My cat runs my life.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 27, 2017)

Talys said:


> if you stuff it in your closet, there will be zero benefit, and a financial loss, hence, a poor investment.



Putting something unused in its original packaging and leaving it for 50 or so years, preferably a hundred, is a way of investing for you or your heirs because collectors prize original packaged collectibles. Old toys in pristine condition in their original boxes sell at auction for large sums. The same is true for cameras - see:

"Cameras such as special-edition M7s are rarely even taken out of the box, as merely opening them would cause huge depreciation."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2144700/The-1923-Leica-camera-expensive-world-snapped-1-5m-actually-works.html


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > if you stuff it in your closet, there will be zero benefit, and a financial loss, hence, a poor investment.
> ...



For some items that is true.... for others it is not.... the trick is to know which one is which. At the time, nobody thought that Superman #1 would be one of those items... and now you can hardly give away Royal Dalton china figurines....


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > if you stuff it in your closet, there will be zero benefit, and a financial loss, hence, a poor investment.
> ...



Original Apple computers made from Steve Job's basement are worth a lot too!

Yes, there are antiques and exceptional cases where things become worth a lot. But cameras aren't likely to be good investment that way, because you don't know what will be garage sale junk and what will be treasure. The ratio is pretty poor. You're better off spending that money on fine whiskey 

But anyways, this is a camera site! Buy a lens, get out and shoot pictures of stuff and half fun.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 28, 2017)

stevelee said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > A good point - however do you have our taxes? I think not!
> ...



I knew that your Health Insurance is very expensive and has limited payouts = SCARY! Here, in the UK, a single person earning £32K pays about £7K tax and National insurance. Then we have our taxes and duties! How do you fancy $6.21 for a gallon of gas/petrol? Luckily we have a good selection of economical cars here but we pay more for them!

Two different systems, you get less cover but more choice - we get more cover but little choice.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 28, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



Choice here depends pretty much on where you live and the market. I was lucky to get in with my primary physician when I did. Until I turned 65 and became covered by Medicare, I was paying over $1,000 a month for health insurance, so maybe £9K a year. Then all my taxes were on top of that. I had good coverage by American standards, but could have still wound up owing many thousands of dollars with a hospital stay and surgery.

With our distances and lack of public transportation except in a relative handful of metro areas, we need cheap petrol. We fund our highways with gasoline taxes in large part, and there is a lot of resistance to gas tax increases, so our infrastructure is falling apart in many places.

My out-of-pocket for prescription medicine right now is around $500 a month. But I can still afford the 6D2 I should be able to pick up on Friday. And if I can't afford it, interest rates are low right now, and I have plenty of credit. I admit that my choice of the STM kit lens instead of the L was partly economic, and partly the convenience of a little less weight.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 28, 2017)

johnf3f said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...


I pay a higher percentage of my salary in income taxes and Social Security premiums. This does not include health insurance; fortunately my employer provides decent coverage with modest contribution out of my pocket.



> Then we have our taxes and duties!


And minimum 2-year warranty...at least until Brexit is complete. :-\ 



> How do you fancy $6.21 for a gallon of gas/petrol?


I don't fancy it at all, but the environmental benefits of expensive fuel are good, and you have a public mass transit system that works. I expect many of you don't need a car, or maybe just one per family, rather than one per person over the age of 16.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 28, 2017)

Guess it's time to unnotify this thread. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2017)

You are too focused Jack. Turn off your AFMA.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 28, 2017)

AlanF said:


> What does "more than $4,000 of use" mean? If you are pro, then you can measure your income from it and put a figure on your profits. If you are a hobbyist, like me, then how is the monetary value calculable - I have as much fun from my £700 lens as I do from my £7000? So, please explain $4000 of use because I don't know how to put a value on my use.



You are right for the hobbyist, Alan. So true. I'm a hobbyist too.

There are people here that talk of using gear for a couple of years and then selling at a profit. Maybe so, but I think that it is very rare if it happens.


----------



## Ryananthony (Sep 29, 2017)

CanonFanBoy said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > What does "more than $4,000 of use" mean? If you are pro, then you can measure your income from it and put a figure on your profits. If you are a hobbyist, like me, then how is the monetary value calculable - I have as much fun from my £700 lens as I do from my £7000? So, please explain $4000 of use because I don't know how to put a value on my use.
> ...



I live in a large city and there is tons of camera gear for sale used on craigslist. Currently 1760 items tagged canon, from batteries, rebels, 5dsr, 1dx2, small, and big whites, from $1-9000. Lots of good deals to be had. I think I have only "lost money" on used cameras, as expected. Lenses I break even when I sell them, and many times have purchased used gear to make money on. It depends on the local market. If one lives hours from a large city and their town has 50,000 people there will be no opportunity to buy/sell. I have never purchased used gear on ebay.


----------

