# More 6D sample images - with RAW files.



## Area256 (Nov 30, 2012)

If you click around here you can find some noise comparisons to the 5D3 and D600, and some sample images. The RAW files can be downloaded. However I'm not sure if there is anything that supports them at the moment. The reviewer just used out of camera jpegs, because of the lack of compatible RAW software. It looks like the review was done on a pre-production model.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus-numerique.com%2Ftest-1566%2Freflex-canon-6d-presentation-caracteristiques-1.html


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2012)

Area256 said:


> The reviewer just used out of camera jpegs, because of the lack of compatible RAW software.



Thanks, but again the 6d shots seem to be so heavily nr'ed that it doesn't mean anything - the reviewer should have turned nr off on all cameras, then we could see any difference ... and to be fair we'd have to downsize the 5d3/d600 shots to 20mp to make a comparison.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Nov 30, 2012)

it's written réduction du bruit standard which means normal noise reduction


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2012)

Imagination_landB said:


> it's written réduction du bruit standard which means normal noise reduction



Thanks for the translation ... however, what Canon calls "normal" I'd call "extreme" as the nr kills all details and results in the infamous "wax look". It's a pity Lightroom 4.3RC is already out, and only with d600 support - I guess we'll have to wait until LR4.4 to get 6d support.


----------



## DanielW (Nov 30, 2012)

What about that "you can also download RAW" link?


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 30, 2012)

There are raw download links under each sample.




And for those wondering, the raw 7.3 is on the Adobe Labs site but the 6D isn't listed as being compatible. The S110 & G15 are, with a lens profile for the 24-70L II.


----------



## DanielW (Nov 30, 2012)

Harry Muff said:


> There are raw download links under each sample.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Have you had success opening the raw files? I haven't...


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 30, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > There are raw download links under each sample.
> ...








Nope. Was just pointing out where the links were.


----------



## skitron (Nov 30, 2012)

Capture One 7.01 just released, has preliminary 6D support, d/l'ing now...

I already d/l'd the sample raws from the site, will post findings after I play with them a bit in CO.


----------



## skitron (Nov 30, 2012)

Looks like the "RAWs" from that site are actually TIFFs. And apparently non-standard TIFFs at that. I don't have anything here that will open them.


----------



## ThuiQuaDayNe (Nov 30, 2012)

you can open the RAWs with Infraview. Maybe Rawtherapee works too.


----------



## Harry Muff (Nov 30, 2012)

I downloaded two .CR2 files. CS6 said they weren't supported raw files. Where does it say they are .tif files?


----------



## unadog (Nov 30, 2012)

I was able to open the Tiff's in Photoshop CS6.

I had to "unblock" the file in Windows 8 to be able to open the file, but it opened with no problem.

I just downloaded an updated version of all of my CS6 aps yesterday - I am not sure when the actual version was updated. But I think that might not be important, as it is likely the .cr raws were converted to Tiff in DPP.


You could also try downloading the latest version of DPP. Canon must have updated that? I don't have it installed on this laptop.


----------



## unadog (Nov 30, 2012)

Here is a screen shot at 100% of two files in Photoshop CS6.

6400 ISO is on the left, 50 ISO on the right. Opened in PS with all defaults, no NR, exposure, or other adjustments.


----------



## DanielW (Nov 30, 2012)

unadog said:


> Here is a screen shot at 100% of two files in Photoshop CS6.
> 
> 6400 ISO is on the left, 50 ISO on the right. Opened in PS with all defaults, no NR, exposure, or other adjustments.




Great, many thanks!
Can you post comparisons so we can see how it goes versus the 5DIII and the D600?


----------



## unadog (Nov 30, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Great, many thanks!
> Can you post comparisons so we can see how it goes versus the 5DIII and the D600?



Sure! Give me a couple of minutes!


----------



## baltmin (Nov 30, 2012)

Opened with capture one 7.0.1 (preliminary support)


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2012)

unadog said:


> You could also try downloading the latest version of DPP. Canon must have updated that? I don't have it installed on this laptop.



I just checked, the Canon site hasn't dpp for the 6d yet, the latest version is for the 5d3. But probably Canon will be faster with 6d dpp support than Adobe for Camera Raw / Lightroom.



baltmin said:


> Opened with capture one 7.0.1 (preliminary support)



That's great, you get the award for the first 6d-5d3 comparison that makes sense  ! And as far as I can tell, the 6d actually does look *visibly* better than the 5d3, though I cannot tell how many stops and to be fair the 22mp of the 5d3 have to be downsized to 20mp. But maybe I'm wrong since there seems to be more color noise on the 5d3, but that's easier to remove.


----------



## Area256 (Nov 30, 2012)

baltmin said:


> Opened with capture one 7.0.1 (preliminary support)



Thanks for posting! It does look like the 6D is visibly a tad better than the 5D3. However I'm guessing no more than 1/3 stop at best (likely just from the slightly larger pixels). Still good to know Canon hasn't skimped out on the 6D sensor. Of course it has been noted this is a per-production camera, but I don't think anything is likely to have changed.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 30, 2012)

Area256 said:


> Of course it has been noted this is a per-production camera, but I don't think anything is likely to have changed.



Well, you never know ... maybe Canon marketing figured that the final 6d model shouldn't be better than the 5d3 and have "tweaked" the sensor a bit in the last stage


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> And as far as I can tell, the 6d actually does look *visibly* better than the 5d3, though I cannot tell how many stops and to be fair the 22mp of the 5d3 have to be downsized to 20mp. But maybe I'm wrong since there seems to be more color noise on the 5d3, but that's easier to remove.


The cameras seem to be very close. The 6D is perhaps a bit better, with less color noise. If the difference can be measured, I think it would be much less than a full stop.


----------



## skitron (Dec 1, 2012)

They look about the same to me if you account for the 5DIII being a tad sharper and a tad "noisier" while the 6D is a tad cleaner but also a tad softer - meaning, by the time you run them thru processing I think you're going to end up the same place.

Now I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the center AF point gets it done in low light and has a really good hit ratio.

Can someone post where they found CR2s on that site? I d/l'd what was next to the RAW label and got some odd TIFFs.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> The cameras seem to be very close. The 6D is perhaps a bit better, with less color noise. If the difference can be measured, I think it would be much less than a full stop.



I installed CaptureOne myself, imported the 5d3/6d raw files I'd say after much more color noise reduction on the 5d3 the difference 5d3->6d is *about 1/2 stop* - which is more than nothing, given the fuzz that was made about the improvement 5d2->5d3. The real world difference might be that iso 12800 is more usable on the 6d.


----------



## NotABunny (Dec 1, 2012)

ThuiQuaDayNe said:


> you can open the RAWs with Infraview. Maybe Rawtherapee works too.



IrfanView opens the preview JPEGs from RAWs. It doesn't decode RAWs.


----------



## NotABunny (Dec 1, 2012)

baltmin said:


> Opened with capture one 7.0.1 (preliminary support)



Very nice. I would say the difference is about 0.7 stops better for 6D (comparing ISO 12800 to 25600). Yummy!

(For a 1/3 stops difference, one would have to look hard to notice. That's the difference that I see between 5D3 and a normalized D800.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2012)

NotABunny said:


> Very nice. I would say the difference is about 0.7 stops better for 6D (comparing ISO 12800 to 25600). Yummy!



I just had a look again, and_ the 6d images are softer_ - that maybe because...


the pre-release raw converter is not up to it
the (preproduction!) 6d trades in a little sharpness for less noise, maybe because Canon doesn't expect 6d owners to shoot with sharp lenses anyway, but in low light 
some problem with the lens (50/1.8...)

The video samples of the preproduction model were said to suffer from the same thing. Btw it isn't as obvious at higher iso levels since the noise creates an impression of artifical sharpness, for the softness look at iso 800...

I guess we have to wait for raw samples from the *final* retail model with a more recent raw converter, I hope it shouldn't take long since the the 6d is already sold.


----------



## DanielW (Dec 1, 2012)

Do you guys think the 6D pics are overexposed in comparison to the 5DIII? I noticed that the shadows seem to be lighter on the 6D shots, with the white parts (e.g., white frame) looking the same (i.e., no overall overexposure). Would that mean better DR or is it nonsense?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Do you guys think the 6D pics are overexposed in comparison to the 5DIII?



I noticed that, too, but since it's raw w/o postprostprocessing I guess the lighting in the studio was slightly different, these are no 100% pro reviewer shots (the 5d3 shots have a little different framing to and are slightly skewed). But it means the shadows shouldn't be compared between 5d3/6d, but only the equally lit areas.

EDIT: I just remembered that the lighter shadows on the 6d could also mean it has more dynamic range than the 6d ... but really ... from Canon? Nah.


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 1, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Area256 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it has been noted this is a per-production camera, but I don't think anything is likely to have changed.
> ...



I doubt so. 6D already lacks several features and design choices that make it less appealing for people who want a "pro camera". The price of it is really high also and lots of people are still wondering who is gonna buy this camera. So i think if it has better ISO than 5d mk3 (even just a tad) its a really good argument to make people buy the camera. Plus i think "better ISO" draws people in anyway even its just like half stop or such


----------



## Buyi (Dec 1, 2012)

Its raw files and i have used em in ACR 7, not impressed to soft and res is way down for a camera from 2012, good canon u made a entry level ff now lets wait 3 years and maybe the sensor dont suck


----------



## x-vision (Dec 1, 2012)

baltmin said:


> Opened with capture one 7.0.1 (preliminary support)



Many thanks. 
How about the same but both the 6D and 5DIII at ISO-6400.

There's no doubt that the 6D is better than the 5DIII at super high ISOs.
I'm also interested to find out what 'happens' at ISO-6400.


----------



## Area256 (Dec 1, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > Very nice. I would say the difference is about 0.7 stops better for 6D (comparing ISO 12800 to 25600). Yummy!
> ...



From what has been learned from the lensrentals posts, I'm guessing the 50 f/1.8 copy they used just doesn't preform as well on the copy of the 6D they got. The other issue is the light has moved locations between the tests, so it's possible that is effecting the perceived sharpness. It could even be that they didn't nail the focus as well, or it could even just be the effect of extra MP on the 5D3. It may also have nothing to do with the sensor or lens and just the anti-aliasing filter being a little on the strong side.

Overall though, the difference really isn't big enough for concern. If you really need the sharpness, the D800 is really the best option now. For me, the difference is too small to matter in my applications.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2012)

Area256 said:


> For me, the difference is too small to matter in my applications.



Same for me - but it makes you wonder what a €2000 24-70ii is supposed to do on a 6d if the sensor is in the habit of making it look like a Tamron 24-70 for half the price. That's because I'm on a budget so that €1000 does matter and €2000 for a camera body is a lot, so too much "it'll do somehow" wouldn't be worth it...


----------



## Area256 (Dec 1, 2012)

It may just be me, but I think Canon has improved their banding issues. 

The images on the left hand side have no NR, and have been pushed by 4EV.

The images on the right hand side have base 50/50 NR, and have been pushed 4EV. 

5D3 images are on top, 6D images on the bottom.

Done using Capture One.

Notes: The 5D3 images were slightly darker than the 6D images with no exposure compensation. The difference was small enough however that I don't think it would make a huge difference to the banding.

I'm looking for some 6D RAW files with a black sky to really push this test, but I haven't found any yet.

Of course this is still a pre-production camera, but I think things are looking good.

What do others think?

Edit: It's easier to see the difference if you download the full image.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2012)

Area256 said:


> It may just be me, but I think Canon has improved their banding issues.
> The images on the left hand side have no NR, and have been pushed by 4EV.



I wouldn't be surprised about an improvement because Canon (5d3, esp. 7d, 5d2) has still very bad banding in comparison over Nikon so there's big room for improvement. 

But raising shadows +4ev is not a realistic scenario given the dynamic range of the sensor, the more interesting thing is raising +1ev or +2ev at high iso (i.e. less dr) which might often happen in real life postprocessing... a shot that needs to be raised +4ev is either broken in the first place or was with a lens with extreme vignetting, so only the borders have the issue.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 1, 2012)

Quick and dirty tentative result:

Looking at the edge of the frame, the black outer masked part it, looks (SNR as measured in Iris) better than the 5D3 and perhaps even a trace better than the 1DX (5.0 vs 5.3 ADU and 6D also has just a trace more MP) but not close to an Exmor. It might have about the best DR at low ISO that Canon has made so far, maybe about like the 1Ds3. Seems like the 6D,1Ds3,1DX will be Canon's best for low ISO DR most likely. Still a far cry, from Exmor/Aptina/etc., as expected. Rough results though, sometimes the main frame is worse than the masked area, that didn't seem to be the case so much for the 1DX but was for the 5D2/5D3 so perhaps the 6D might end up a touch worse or the same instead of a touch better than the 1DX, probably doesn't realistically matter too much either way.

So not a bad result by any means but hardly cutting age in this era.

It is a bit of a shame that they could not have at least given the 5D3 at least their best effort if they can manage it in the cut down low cost model.... the 5D3 they actually gave a bare trace worse DR than the old 5D2 at low ISO (better at high ISO though). Pretty weak that the 6D will have cleaner low ISO and basically the 5D3 will have the least clean low ISO DR of any body release for the year. That said the 6D is definitely not using some new uber line, not that I expected it, so it's not WORLDS better than the 5D3 in this regard by any means, but it does seem like it will be better and just enough to be noticeable in the real world, looks like you will be able to push it a bit more. At least for low ISO, the sensor seems like it is probably modestly better than the 5D3 sensor.

Doesn't make their 5D3 effort look like they tried so hard and if they can do better in a cheap model then it means they could have done better in a pricey one.

Hopefully this is not off of the rumored new process line otherwise they will still be far behind Exmor for years it would seem, but I bet it is more just a modified 1DX line. Maybe the 7D2 or the new high MP FF later next year uses the new line??? assuming that there really is one


----------



## Woody (Dec 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Seems like the 6D,1Ds3,1DX will be Canon's best for low ISO DR most likely. Still a far cry, from Exmor/Aptina/etc., as expected.



I am about to cry


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 1, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But raising shadows +4ev is not a realistic scenario given the dynamic range of the sensor, the more interesting thing is raising +1ev or +2ev at high iso (i.e. less dr) which might often happen in real life postprocessing... a shot that needs to be raised +4ev is either broken in the first place or was with a lens with extreme vignetting, so only the borders have the issue.



a shot that needed +4ev raised in the low tones was not necessarily broken by any means, it just means that it had lots of DR, enough with that nonsense


----------



## Area256 (Dec 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> a shot that needed +4ev raised in the low tones was not necessarily broken by any means, it just means that it had lots of DR, enough with that nonsense



Agreed. I shoot a lot of landscape/architecture at ISO 100, and there are lots of times I need to push shadows by quite a few stops - maybe not 4 stops all the time, but pushing by 4 stops gives a good idea of how it will break down, or not. Plus if you are shooting any photojournalism type stuff, sometimes you miss the getting the right exposure even in good light, and have no choice but to push the image. That's what make's the Sony/Nikon sensors so great at the moment - they have more DR, and don't "band" when you push them. I'm still sicking with Canon for the time being, but I would love it if they could improve this weakness of banding + low DR.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> a shot that needed +4ev raised in the low tones was not necessarily broken by any means, it just means that it had lots of DR, enough with that nonsense



Thanks for your input, but I think you're confusing available sensor dr with postprocessing. If a sensor has rather limited dr (like Canon) raising shadows a lot won't help much because the resolution in the shadows is very low - in these cases, a real hdr should would be required (or get a d800). So at least with whatever I have been shooting, +2ev was the max to leave enough resolution, and imho only in these cases it's important that banding doesn't kick in - except for emergency cases of course.

Btw, this has been discussed all over when the 5d3 was new and it was discussed if tests like this have any real world meaning: http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 2, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > a shot that needed +4ev raised in the low tones was not necessarily broken by any means, it just means that it had lots of DR, enough with that nonsense
> ...



Yeah but the whole point of what he was doing was to find out if there is a point to bothering with being able to raise that much or not.


----------



## baltmin (Dec 2, 2012)

Some more comparisons including 1Dx (original files first, followed by resized files - all cameras 18mp)


----------



## baltmin (Dec 2, 2012)

resized files


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 2, 2012)

baltmin said:


> Some more comparisons including 1Dx (original files first, followed by resized files - all cameras 18mp)



My suggestion is to do chroma noise reduction and then compare again. Chroma noise is easy and artifact-free to remove in my experience, and if the 5d3 only shows more of this type and just needs a higher setting it isn't much of a difference - it's luma noise that's the main problem.

Comparisons with zero nr are interesting, but what counts is the ability to do (small to moderate) nr without introducing artifacts or killing the details.


----------



## baltmin (Dec 2, 2012)

There is noticeable difference in luminance noise as well


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 2, 2012)

baltmin said:


> There is noticeable difference in luminance noise as well



Thanks for the comparison shots - and what you're writing is also my impression. But all fairness the difference is not very large after downsizing, and it's most visible in the black/dark grey parts... less banding might be more important than the noise difference. And we'll have to see how much dynamic range is lost on the 6d vs. the 5d3.

While you're at it :-> you could do an iso6400/3200 comparison, too because that's the range that's imho most important (ok shutter speeds with still ok dr).... iso12800+ is more for specialized scenarios, at least as far I'm concerned.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 2, 2012)

Woody said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like the 6D,1Ds3,1DX will be Canon's best for low ISO DR most likely. Still a far cry, from Exmor/Aptina/etc., as expected.
> ...



Somebody cried already... Don't worry, that's how it is.


----------



## baltmin (Dec 2, 2012)

Here is what you asked for: iso3200 and 6400 comparisons


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 2, 2012)

wow, loving these example images. These makes my decision more difficult - the 6d images seem to stack quite nicely against mk3 images. Which means it may make for a real nice backup/secondary body....

Any thoughts on the AF? Now that it seems like in most situations IQ is similar (better even in some cases), how good/bad the AF is will be the deal breaker I think.


----------



## DanielW (Dec 2, 2012)

baltmin said:


> Here is what you asked for: iso3200 and 6400 comparisons




Both look the same and very good to me


----------



## x-vision (Dec 2, 2012)

baltmin said:


> Here is what you asked for: iso3200 and 6400 comparisons



Many thanks. 

There's no discernible difference At ISO-3200 but at ISO-6400 the 6D seems a trace better. 
Look at the black patches at the bottom of the frame to see the difference (between the circuit board and the grey card).


----------



## x-vision (Dec 2, 2012)

Overall, it looks like the 6D will get a higher DxO score than the 5DIII when DxO does their thing.

This is one of those weird things that I don't understand about Canon:
The cheaper 7D has a better AF system than the 6D, which in turn has a better sensor than the (much) more expensive 5DIII. 
Why would someone do these things ???. Wouldn't it make more sense if the more expensive product is also the better one?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 2, 2012)

x-vision said:


> Look at the black patches at the bottom of the frame to see the difference (between the circuit board and the grey card).



True, but on 99,9% of (my) shots that doesn't matter because the shadow resolution on Canon's current sensors is rather low, so if you see a difference to the 5d3 that's probably the part you cutoff with black anyway.



x-vision said:


> Why would someone do these things ???. Wouldn't it make more sense if the more expensive product is also the better one?



Simple - the 7d was released in 2007 (!), the 5d3 in 2012 and the 6d is just a quick defense against the Nikon d600.

And imho a more expensive product does *not* need to be "better", because "better" is relative to individual preferences - Canon is putting too much weight into a "linear" product progression as it is, that's why they did severe and unnecessary cuts to the 6d (1/4000 shuter, 1/180 x-sync, ...). It would be better if "more expensive" would just mean more "pro"-oriented like dual card slots or stellar tracking for pro sports shooting.


----------



## baltmin (Dec 2, 2012)

6d sensor is better in high iso, actually marginally better (almost 1/2stop, which is hardly visible in lower iso values, especially if chroma noise is removed).
This seems to be weird concerning the lower price than 5D3 (something like wrong strategy by canon), but it is not weird at all if we consider the 6D's higher pixel pitch. In my opinion, technically this difference should be expected.


----------



## Pag (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm not really surprised by the good low-light performance. Why would Canon have used an exceptionally light-sensitive auto-focus module if the camera didn't perform very well in low light? It would have made little sense considering they cut a lot of features to keep the price low (including in the auto-focus system).


----------



## MarkII (Dec 2, 2012)

baltmin said:


> ... but it is not weird at all if we consider the 6D's higher pixel pitch. In my opinion, technically this difference should be expected.


The difference in pixel pitch is small enough to be negligible in performance - certainly not 1/2 stop.

I think that the only thing you can take away from these images is that the sensors are pretty close. For example, in my 5DII shows *less* colour noise at low ISO than my 5DIII, so which is the better sensor? I suspect that this is partly because of the different CFA design (less luminance noise, more chroma), but also down to the RAW converters. As long as the technology remains at 0.5um, a significant improvement seems unlikely.

Another possibility is that Canon has implemented more RAW-level NR. Currently, the 5DIII cooks the very highest ISOs (eg see some of the threads looking at FFT plots). It is quite possible that for the more consumer-oriented 6D Canon have started to apply similar corrections at lower ISOs, which would be consistent with softer but lower noise images.

When Canon move to 0.18um or smaller, then there will be something to shout about (7DII?)...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 2, 2012)

MarkII said:


> For example, in my 5DII shows *less* colour noise at low ISO than my 5DIII, so which is the better sensor?



It's known the 5d2 sensor is "better", i.e. sharper after nr @low iso... not exactly a feather in Canon's cap, they really just seem to be shifting around trade-offs and improve the readout circuits for less banding.



MarkII said:


> Another possibility is that Canon has implemented more RAW-level NR. Currently, the 5DIII cooks the very highest ISOs (eg see some of the threads looking at FFT plots). It is quite possible that for the more consumer-oriented 6D Canon have started to apply similar corrections at lower ISOs, which would be consistent with softer but lower noise images.



I didn't know that the 5d3 did raw nr (but I *do* know Nikon like the d7000 does it), so this explanation seems plausible. But it's still annoying and a bug and not a feature to me because this way you have to *double* the nr step (in hardware, and then on top of that in software) which certainly won't improve iq... 

Unfortunately this might be also the explanation for the better iso12800+ images of the 6d, they just do some nr in-camera ... hard to say if the sample 6d files are a bit softer as a result. But Canon probably thinks 6d owners won't use sharp lenses anyway so that the softer raw files won't matter


----------



## MarkII (Dec 2, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I didn't know that the 5d3 did raw nr (but I *do* know Nikon like the d7000 does it), so this explanation seems plausible. But it's still annoying and a bug and not a feature to me because this way you have to *double* the nr step (in hardware, and then on top of that in software) which certainly won't improve iq...


There is a thread on DPReview here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3175510 - and yes, Nikon do this much more than Canon.

Applying NR before RAW is not necessarily bad. If information needed to improve the image is available in-camera and can not be written out with the RAW file (eg due to size constraints), it might make sense to perform some processing in-camera.

But all of these are generally small effects, and you will probably find that the 6D sensor is as comparable to the 5DIII as (say) the 60D to 7D, where there was a small difference, but not enough to make people that wanted the 7D feature set jump to the cheaper model.

It will be interesting to see what the major technical sites eventually make of the new camera (e.g. DXO or Imaging Resource)...


----------



## andy (Dec 2, 2012)

When I look at the samples, what strikes me is that the 6D colours are cooler. That is to say they are shifted slightly towards blue. Also I think the images look flatter somehow as the shadow areas are lighter. Perhaps the contrast is lower than the 5d III samples?


----------



## Marine03 (Dec 3, 2012)

Has there ever been side by side comparisons of 5D3 or 6D against current crop bodies? I think these test samples posted look good but I'm a 450D owner so being able to see how something like that stacks up


----------



## learncanon (Dec 3, 2012)

would like to see Crop vs 6D.

I am a rebel 550D user and 6D is almost an natural progression to FF setup. 5Dm3 is way out of my budget and im not a professional.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2012)

learncanon said:


> would like to see Crop vs 6D.



From what I've seen you'll find that iso800 on crop = iso6400 on 6d ...what's left to analyze is how much the dynamic range degrades on the 6d, for that iso800 on crop might still have a little advantage if Canon didn't do something about it.


----------



## Marine03 (Dec 3, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> learncanon said:
> 
> 
> > would like to see Crop vs 6D.
> ...



whoa... when you put it like that it makes it feel like I'm in the 1950's with a black and white tv that takes 5 minutes to turn on and the 6D/5d3 are current slim LED's


----------



## meli (Dec 3, 2012)

Depends i suppose, definitely not "crop 800 = FF 6400" though.., 
Comparing with the undying current 18mp crop i would say the difference is between 1 & 3/2 stops, comparing with something like Pentax's K5(which has the best implementation of Sony's 16mp) I would say the difference is around 1/2stop.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 3, 2012)

meli said:


> Depends i suppose, definitely not "crop 800 = FF 6400" though..,



I admit this was a rough guess and maybe exaggerated because I'm so annoyed by the crop sensor's high iso performance. But realistically 2 stops are what I'd definitely expect, so crop 18mp 800 = ff 20mp 3200. The dpreview site has good comparisons across all cameras, I hope they include the 6d soon so that we can really tell.


----------



## schmidtfilme (Dec 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The cameras seem to be very close. The 6D is perhaps a bit better, with less color noise. If the difference can be measured, I think it would be much less than a full stop.
> ...



I have the 6D since Monday and to me the 12800 ISO is very usable. Now there might be very different opinions on this but to me the shoots look extremely good. Of course I am comparing to my old DX cam....


----------



## kubelik (Dec 5, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> Has there ever been side by side comparisons of 5D3 or 6D against current crop bodies? I think these test samples posted look good but I'm a 450D owner so being able to see how something like that stacks up



plenty of folks. you can choose to compare them using tools at Dpreview or Imaging Resource's comparometer.

purely judging from the images on these sites, I personally find the 5D3 looks about 1/2 stop better than my 5D2, which in turn is 1 whole stop better than the current 18 MP APS-C sensor. comparing my 5D2 against my old 30D crop sensor, it's at least 2 whole stops better. I think your 450D sensor slots in somewhere between the 30D's sensor and the current 18 MP APS-C sensor, so I'd expect the 5D3 to be about 2 whole stops better than the 450D.


----------



## dexstrose (Dec 5, 2012)

Here is a noise comparison from The Digital Picture:
http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------

