# 6DII Sensor: Estimated high ISO IQ advantage over 5DIV?



## pedro (Jun 16, 2017)

Hi everyone, now that the 6DII is rumored to have a new 26 MP sensor, how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?
Any guesses?

Thanks in advance and kind regards

Peter


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2017)

pedro said:


> Hi everyone, now that the 6DII is rumored to have a new 26 MP sensor, how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?
> Any guesses?
> 
> Thanks in advance and kind regards
> ...



My guess is 2-5 percent better, a difference that can not be reliably detected by pixel peeking.....


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 16, 2017)

All my chips are on the two being indistinguishable. It's only a 15% difference.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2017)

Since the difference between the 5D and 1Dx is negligible, I would expect the difference between the 6D and the 5D will be something less than negligible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 16, 2017)

Huge. Massive. No one will ever buy a 5DIV because the 6DII image quality will be so vastly superior. 

8)

Or not...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 17, 2017)

pedro said:


> how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?



As has been the case _for pretty much every camera built since the turn of the century_, pixel count has precisely sweet FA to do with low light IQ, and indeed all of the available evidence indicates that higher pixel count = better high ISO performance.

*I see the truth of this every day*.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 17, 2017)

pedro said:


> Hi everyone, now that the 6DII is rumored to have a new 26 MP sensor, how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?
> Any guesses?
> 
> Thanks in advance and kind regards
> ...



Hi Pedro,

Imagine two FF cameras, one 10Mpixels and the other 40Mpixels....

Both sensors are built on the same fabrication line with the same technology....

In low light photography, the 10Mp pixels receive 4 times the amount of light PER PIXEL as the 40Mp sensor does, and those individual pixels should have 2 stops more DR than the 40Mp pixels.... However, keep in mind that if you resample the 40Mp image down to 10Mp, you will regain those two stops and the two images should be equal. Ultimately, your limitation is the number of photons that you can capture, and with the same total sensor area, both the 10Mp and 40Mp sensors will capture the same amount of light and therefore, should have equal performance...

HOWEVER! there are a few flies in the ointment. With the higher Mp image, you have more detail and by selecting how much you wish to resample, you can choose a tradeoff between DR and resolution of the final image..... but if you resample BOTH images to a lower than 10Mp resolution, this advantage goes away. As a result, this makes the high Mp image more versatile and therefore better....

The next fly (actually two flies) in the ointment are wasted space and edges. There is an amount of wasted space around the edge of each pixel. This wasted space does not capture photons that hit it, and therefore performance is lost. With smaller pixels, you have a greater percentage of wasted space on the sensor and thereby, a bit worse performance. This is counteracted by microlenses which attempt to focus the light away from the edges of the pixels. It helps the problem, but does not cure it. As a result, smaller Mp count sensors are more efficient and capture more light. That said, the difference between 30 and 26 Mp is going to be so slight that you will probably not be able to see it, short of putting the camera onto a calibrated test bench...

The next fly is A/D speed. With a smaller Mp count, you can run the A/D slower and that gives you a bit better accuracy and a bit less noise... but once again, the difference between 30 and 26 Mp is going to be so slight that you will probably not be able to see it, short of putting the camera onto a calibrated test bench...

The last fly is heat. Smaller Mp count = less circuitry = less heat, and once again the difference between 30 and 26 Mp is going to be so slight that you will probably not be able to see it even if you do put the camera onto a calibrated test bench...

As said earlier, I expect the 26Mp sensor to be 2 to 5 percent better, and most likely closer to the 2. Pixel peeping should not be able to detect a difference.

To sum up, it really does not matter.


----------



## sanj (Jun 17, 2017)

What is 'sweet FA'?

Internet says something about Fanny Adams. What is that got to do with photography.


----------



## davidj (Jun 17, 2017)

I agree with what is being said here, especially by Don Haines.

That said, if I'm not mistaken, the 6D was an improvement in some ways (dynamic range?) over the 5D III and 1D X because it came later and had some improved technology. I'm cautiously hopeful that this will happen again, but I wouldn't hold my breath on high ISO improvements.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 17, 2017)

Also don't forget the importance of the bayer filter and associated color resolution meaning a 40mpx image sampled down to a 10mpx image is going to give a more accurate color representation than a native 10mpx sensor.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 17, 2017)

sanj said:


> What is 'sweet FA'?
> 
> Internet says something about Fanny Adams. What is that got to do with photography.



Um, hmm, how to put this delicately...

"Fugue" all. Let's go with that.


----------



## AdamBotond (Jun 17, 2017)

pedro said:


> Hi everyone, now that the 6DII is rumored to have a new 26 MP sensor, how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?
> Peter


The original 6D was indeed better in both DR, and high ISO than the 5D III. Not by much, but by noticibly. Maybe its just me, but after having been used 1D X (og) for a while, I have the perception that my former 6D also had slightly better colors than the 1D X (falling short to 1DX in High ISO however). 
So your expectations make sense in a way. However, something tells me that this time we won't see as much difference between the latest generation of 6D and 5D cameras as before. 

I must admit though I can't wait to see the first raw samples out of 6D II to check how it improved over a generation.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 17, 2017)

sanj said:


> What is 'sweet FA'?


This is the _very first_ return to a Google search for the term.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jun 17, 2017)

pedro said:


> Hi everyone, now that the 6DII is rumored to have a new 26 MP sensor, how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?
> Any guesses?
> 
> Thanks in advance and kind regards
> ...



the 6D was quieter than the 5DIII because, IMHO as a Radio research & development engineer, it had GPS, which means it HAD to be quieter EMC wise.

The 6D & 5DIII both had seperate ADCs making them vulnerable to radio pickup, the "radio quiet" 6D therefore had an advantage in banding and other noise pickup.

The 5DIV and 6DII is/will be both on chip ADC, I am expecting no difference in this aspect of performance this time as neither is/will be anything like as senstive to pickup.

So it's just a pixels debate. Now that readout noise is down to sub 2e at high ISO (and increasingly at low ISO too) noise is dominated by shot noise in the detected signal.

I'm betting a 5DIV image down sampled to 26Mpix will be equal to the 6DII in all but the very darkest images.

HOWEVER..

If the 6DII is "only" 1080p 60fps capable, then the output ADCs won't need as much bandwidth as the 5DIVs ADCs which are 1080p 120fps capable.. this could reduce readout noise on the 6DII vs the 5DIV assuming both have the same number of ADCs, and so the 6D could be quieter meaning deep shadows on high ISO images could be a little cleaner.

We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > What is 'sweet FA'?
> ...



We Brits don't need Urban Dictionary for Sweet FA.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 17, 2017)

Answer to OP: Subtle, if any. 

But if I get more photos in focus because of faster, more accurate AF, then I get more choices and can overcome that subtle difference in post.

The 6DII will be a great camera. The 5DIV is a great camera.

Enjoy either one!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> We Brits don't need Urban Dictionary for Sweet FA.



Errrr... I didn't do this for you, Alan - I assume Sanj _isn't_ a Brit, and he asked what I meant.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 18, 2017)

pedro said:


> Hi everyone, now that the 6DII is rumored to have a new 26 MP sensor, how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?
> Any guesses?
> 
> Thanks in advance and kind regards
> ...



nada.


----------



## Silverstream (Jun 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> As said earlier, I expect the 26Mp sensor to be 2 to 5 percent better, and most likely closer to the 2. Pixel peeping should not be able to detect a difference.
> 
> To sum up, it really does not matter.



Thank you for such a nice summary!! The other unknown is of course the tech. As another brand new sensor and almost a year later, it will be interesting to see how that influences it as well. Maybe I have wishful thinking but straight out of the camera and without resizing (which can have some issues of its own) I am hoping for a 15-20% difference in better iso.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 18, 2017)

Silverstream said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As said earlier, I expect the 26Mp sensor to be 2 to 5 percent better, and most likely closer to the 2. Pixel peeping should not be able to detect a difference.
> ...


The biggest factors in comparing two FF sensors would be the quantum efficiency (percentage of photons converted to electrons) and the read noise. The two sensors are too close together in time and (presumably) technology for there to be a detectable difference....


----------



## Silverstream (Jun 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> The biggest factors in comparing two FF sensors would be the quantum efficiency (percentage of photons converted to electrons) and the read noise. The two sensors are too close together in time and (presumably) technology for there to be a detectable difference....



Well I will find out, I will be getting one on the first day they ship I'm sure. I got rid of my 6D earlier this year and this will replace a 5DIII. What I discovered with the mkIV is how much difference the new DR on the newer sensors makes for me with all the low light work I do. I'll have 3 bodies with the new DR sensors when I get this. Any iso performance will simply be an extra plus. I am really looking forward to the reticulating screen. I'm not tall and there are times when I have to shoot blind now with it over my head at receptions or similar events.


----------



## Jopa (Jun 19, 2017)

There is not much difference between a 50mpx 5dsr downscaled to 20mpx vs "native" 20mpx 1dx2. So I doubt it will be any difference at all.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 19, 2017)

So far, I get the impression that the dual pixel sensors hurt high ISO performance just a shade, even with the next generation of sensor technology, they are close to the same, maybe a tiny amount worse at high ISO's. At low ISO's, there is a DR improvement. I think the best that we would see is a match with the original 6D at high ISO's.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 19, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So far, I get the impression that the dual pixel sensors hurt high ISO performance just a shade, even with the next generation of sensor technology, they are close to the same, maybe a tiny amount worse at high ISO's. At low ISO's, there is a DR improvement. I think the best that we would see is a match with the original 6D at high ISO's.



I'm not so sure dual-pixel only impacts high ISO IQ. I'm seeing "odd" graininess at ISO 400 - 1250. Is that still high ISO?

On the 5DIV, I am seeing more ability to recover highlights, but it is also more contrasty, with less smooth transitions.

I never had these nagging issues and concerns with the 5DIII. I think I jumped on the upgrade wagon too quickly this time; I wish I had waited a generation for the dual photo-diode sensor tech to settle down. Live and learn over and over.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 19, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not so sure dual-pixel only impacts high ISO IQ. I'm seeing "odd" graininess at ISO 400 - 1250. Is that still high ISO?



I didn't/don't see any of this in the 70D or 7D Mk II - and _no question_ that even with Dual Pixel tech and more pixels, they're better at high ISO than the cameras that have gone before, and by a large margin.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 19, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so sure dual-pixel only impacts high ISO IQ. I'm seeing "odd" graininess at ISO 400 - 1250. Is that still high ISO?
> ...



I've been shooting digital since 2003, dSLR since 2005...I guess I should have been more curious, but I never really shot over ISO 6400. I'm going to try today! But I will take your word that dual pixel is performing well in the dark. I'm still concerned with what's happening below ISO 6400...

What a dilemma for Canon if the 6DII has significantly smoother, superior IQ to the 5DIV in the more common ISO range.


----------



## pedro (Jun 19, 2017)

Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions. Especially for what was said about how Dual Pixel sensor tech can impact high ISO IQ... Is this applied in the 1 DXII as well?


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 19, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> What a dilemma for Canon if the 6DII has significantly smoother, superior IQ to the 5DIV in the more common ISO range.



I don't think so. The same thing happened when the 6D came out so close to the 5DIII - the initial response was one of disgruntlement from those who had just bought the 5DIII but that soon settled down when people rationalised the differences. The same will happen here.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 19, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



But I thought the 6D2 was crippled so that it couldn't compete with the 5D4?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 19, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> But I thought the 6D2 was crippled so that it couldn't compete with the 5D4?



It's fun to pander to paranoia and conspiracy theories sometimes...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 19, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> But I will take your word that dual pixel is performing well in the dark. I'm still concerned with what's happening below ISO 6400...



I don't see it at any ISO, Yueng - across the range, I see better results from my Dual Pixel bodies than anything I've owned previously. 

Not saying it's _because_ of Dual Pixel, my point is that I'm not seeing any of the negative impact from the technology that Mt. Spokane speaks about.


----------



## Jopa (Jun 19, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



IMO under ISO 12800 all modern cameras make completely usable photos that may require some selective noise reductions. Over 12800 you may need to apply full noise reduction with apparent loose of details. This is ISO 8000:



I don't think it will be any perceptual difference comparing this picture taken by a 1dx2 with a shot taken by a 5dm4 or 6dm2 and downsampled to 20mpx. It's like splitting hairs, really.


----------



## K (Jun 19, 2017)

The 5D4 has very impressive high ISO cleanliness even though it maintains a large amount of low-ISO dynamic range. Also, Canon is conservative aka realistic with their ISO ratings unlike Nikon. This is why the 5D4 appears to have a lower max native ISO. But in reality, it produces more usable higher ISO images.

I think in this generation, the 6D2 will not be that much better if at all over the 5D4's sensor. Sure, maybe a little bit on the ISO if you pixel peep to the extreme - but the higher rez will probably make up for it once you clean it up in post. 

Larger pixel wells I don't think will matter that much on these newer sensors unless they are significantly larger (as in a 20mp or lower sensor), 30mp vs 26mp should be meaningless. 

They did say all new design, so it is possible that some refinements and/or new tech is in this sensor that can make more of a difference - but I'm merely guessing that won't be the case. Pixel peeping level improvements, ok. Obvious, practical improvement - no.

The cameras that really need the new sensor tech is --

7D2, a 7D3 should be the higher dynamic range, better ISO sensors without AA filter. This would be a huge win.

5DS/R - these don't need high ISO, but they need tons of dynamic range. If Canon can tune that sensor for maximum dynamic range, this becomes a big, big win too. This camera is not for event shooters or low light. ISO 6400 max is fine. Go for the big DR where it matters on the lower ISO ranges and studio / landscape people will go crazy over it.


Reason I bring these up is -- the most exciting stuff coming from Canon is updates to those cameras, not the 6D2 which is a turd, or the 5D4 which is a great camera but a jack of all trades, master of none. However, it will probably be 2018 before we see any update to either.

The only nice thing about the 6D2 will be that it is a preview of the matured sensor technology of this generation that will make it into the 7D3 and 5DS/R II.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 19, 2017)

K said:


> The 5D4 has very impressive high ISO cleanliness



In the other thread you said 


> 5D4 still has unacceptable and unadmitted by Canon banding issues, even with some non-extreme adjustments (2 stops shadows).



So not sure where the 5D4 lies...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D4 has very impressive high ISO cleanliness
> ...



Well, if the 6DII is a turd, the 5DIV is merely a puddle of urine. The D750, though...that's solid gold, for the price of tarnished bronze. I'm still not sure why 'K' isn't posting all the pictures he's taking with his D750.


----------



## K (Jun 19, 2017)

The 6D2 isn't a turd because of its sensor, that remains to be seen. The rest of the specs are sub-par.

5D4 has gorgeous image quality, even at high ISO. Except for the low-ISO shadow pushes that provides heinous (defect?) banding.

Canon is dodging that, but the internet is full of people reporting the issue. Granted, most lands in an extreme range of adjustment so that most don't care - but it nevertheless is a problem.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 19, 2017)

pedro said:


> Hi everyone, now that the 6DII is rumored to have a new 26 MP sensor, how will 4 MP less pay off in lowlight IQ?
> Any guesses?


Think the newer Canon FF sensor will make a (potentially) bigger difference than the last 4 MPIX for high ISO shots.

We will only know when it arrives. Meanwhile, I remain hopeful based on the 6D's noticeable improvement over the 5DIII - even if I expect a possible difference will be less between the 6DII and 5DIV. I'd welcome a high-iso champ from Canon for sure.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 23, 2017)

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on all things quantum.

Even if the 5D-IV and 6D-II are based on the same generation of silicon technology and both would be using on-sensor-ADC:
i) the color filter arrays (CFA) could be different, and 
ii) the AA-filter strength could be different

A less stringent CFA will allow more light gathering at the cost of color accuracy
A weaker AA filter means faints are not spread across as many pixels so more likely to generate a detectable signal on a specific pixel rather than spreading thinly across many adjacent pixels.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Disclaimer: I'm no expert on all things quantum.
> 
> Even if the 5D-IV and 6D-II are based on the same generation of silicon technology and both would be using on-sensor-ADC:
> i) the color filter arrays (CFA) could be different, and
> ...



True. A thicker CFA just factors into the QE of the sensor (or at least, many lump it into that term). The 1Ds3 had relatively poor high ISO performance but a very strong CFA.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jun 23, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Disclaimer: I'm no expert on all things quantum.
> 
> Even if the 5D-IV and 6D-II are based on the same generation of silicon technology and both would be using on-sensor-ADC:
> i) the color filter arrays (CFA) could be different, and
> ...



Also SPEED.. more speed means more bandwidth means more noise; White noise is equal power per unit bandwidth.. i.e. -173dBm/Hz (thermal noise floor on planet earth) where as Pink noise is the sound flying pigs make


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer: I'm no expert on all things quantum.
> ...



Which way did the 1D3 go? I've always loved the output from that sensor; it somehow looks very clear and smooth compared to others before and since.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2017)

We will not know about the sensor until some accurate tests are done.

Be very wary about claimed specifications by manufacturers. Canon specifies High ISO settings based on jpeg files. A bit faster processor can process more noise reduction, and make it appear that the high ISO performance is better, when its just more NR.

The RAW performance is closer to the actual sensor performance, but it is also influences by on sensor noise reduction circuitry. There is no such thing as straight off the photosites, there is always noise reduction involved.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 23, 2017)

1) We know how the 1DXII sensor performs at high ISO 
2) We know how the 5DIV sensor performs at high ISO

These represent the top range and the bottom range for Canon's current generation of full frame sensors.

There is virtually no perceptible difference between the performance of these two sensors. 

So, why would anyone expect that the 6DII sensor will fall anywhere *except* between these two sensors? 

There just isn't much space between those sensors, so anything other than maybe a quarter of a stop difference seems pretty unlikely.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 23, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Interestingly, Canon's APS-H sensors were very good. The 1D4 nearly matches the 5D3 at all ISO's and actually is a little better at the high ISO end. I'm guessing there was less read noise.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > But I will take your word that dual pixel is performing well in the dark. I'm still concerned with what's happening below ISO 6400...
> ...



My comment was not intended to mean that DPAF is a negative, but that improvements to high ISO were not happening as they usually do with a new sensor, so do not expect a big boost in high ISO sensitivity, it did not happen on the 1DX II or the 5D MK IV, they are pretty much the same as far as High ISO's go. However, the on-chip A-D converter gives increased DR at lower ISO settings, and overall, DPAF is a very good thing and highly desirable.

AS far as low light autofocus using DPAF, I believe that it has a very good reputation. 

I am leaning toward ordering a 6D MK II primarily because of DPAF.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Huge. Massive. No one will ever buy a 5DIV because the 6DII image quality will be so vastly superior.
> 
> 8)
> 
> Or not...



But don't forget. Canon has to protect the 6D II from being cannibalized by the sensor crippled 5D IV.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> Interestingly, Canon's APS-H sensors were very good. The 1D4 nearly matches the 5D3 at all ISO's and actually is a little better at the high ISO end. I'm guessing there was less read noise.



I wish they could still be had, maybe in the 7D line, but apparently it's too much trouble to make three sizes. Still though, there's a look to the 1D3 images that I find even more pleasing than similarly-resized 1D4/ 1DX/ 1DX2 images that I can't put my finger on.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2017)

Estimated advantage? 2percent better? We are getting pretty far along the curve to diminishing returns and the days of big jumps between sensors is over...... short of a disruptive technology......


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Estimated advantage? 2percent better?



Or 200% better, or 20% worse, or any other arbitrary guesstimate. Pixel count has _precisely no bearing_ on high ISO performance (except in the sense that empirically, more pixels = _better_ high ISO performance). 

This has demonstrably been true for years, and years, and years.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 24, 2017)

We also don't know if and subsequently how Dual-pixel RAW might be implemented. If the new sensor is able to allow dual-pixel dual-ISO operation then you could have better highlight retention at high ISO which could be useful in some shooting conditions.


----------



## Talys (Jun 26, 2017)

I suspect that for practical purposes, it won't be very noticeable one way or the other. My guess (which could be wrong, of course) is that the main distinguishing factors between 5D4 and 6D2 will be the non-IQ features that are very important to some, like better weathersealing versus articulating screen, memory card slots, controls, etc.

On the other hand, I imagine we'll probably see core imaging enhancements that are meaningful, at least to some, in 5D4's successor. More pixels would be good, of course, support for some future super expensive but faster SD cards, 4K video, et cetera.

I think (hope?) that I'll be very happy with 6D2 IQ, and that in conjunction with 80D, this will meet most of my shooting requirements for this technology cycle (a few years).


----------

