# PetaPixel poops on the 6D2 sensor



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2017)

Set your flamethrowers to 'scorched earth', people:

https://petapixel.com/2017/07/20/canon-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range-big-disappointment/

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Expected. More to come. And honestly, nobody should be surprised. Canon rather asks for that


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 20, 2017)

[quote author=PetaPixel]
With a competitor like Sony dominating sensor quality tests in recent years and keeping its best sensors for its own cameras, Canon may need to up its game in a big way if it hopes to stay #1 in digital camera market share, especially among serious and professional photographers. In dynamic range, at least, this new 6D Mark II was not a step in the right direction.
[/quote]

YAPODFC. :

I guess he's missed the fact that 'with a competitor like Sony dominating sensor quality tests in recent years', Canon has continued to gain market share in recent years. But hey, why let reality poke it's ugly nose into your personal fantasyland?


----------



## Jopa (Jul 20, 2017)

Dynamic Range turns into Dynamic RAGE


----------



## Khalai (Jul 20, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Dynamic Range turns into Dynamic RAGE



DR = dramatic ranting 8)


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 20, 2017)

Meanwhile I'm enjoying my 6D and the 80D.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 20, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Meanwhile I'm enjoying my 6D and the 80D.



You are not supposed to enjoy Canon products!


----------



## sebasan (Jul 21, 2017)

StudentOfLight said:


> Meanwhile I'm enjoying my 6D and the 80D.



A lot of people are doing it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=PetaPixel]
> With a competitor like Sony dominating sensor quality tests in recent years and keeping its best sensors for its own cameras, Canon may need to up its game in a big way if it hopes to stay #1 in digital camera market share, especially among serious and professional photographers. In dynamic range, at least, this new 6D Mark II was not a step in the right direction.



YAPODFC. :

I guess he's missed the fact that 'with a competitor like Sony dominating sensor quality tests in recent years', Canon has continued to gain market share in recent years. But hey, why let reality poke it's ugly nose into your personal fantasyland?
[/quote]

That doesn't mean that wedding photographers are not migrating to Nikon. Anecdotes do not a landslide make, but big market changes can start with small moves. 

It's tiresome to hear the same overblown doomsday rants, but at some point it makes as much sense to not engage as it does to keep saying Canon is the invulnerable, eternal market leader because they never make mistakes.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> but at some point it makes as much sense to not engage as it does to keep *saying Canon is the invulnerable, eternal market leader because they never make mistakes*.



No one is saying this. Many of us are just stating basic facts: Canon continues to succeed in the marketplace. We can speculate as to why, but we know that falling behind in low-ISO DR has not hurt them at all. In the end, DSLRs are unitary products, you can't select which features you want. You buy it or you don't buy it; ranting about it does nothing. I have yet to decide whether I'll buy this body.


----------



## monkey44 (Jul 21, 2017)

I believe Canon keeps its market share because of its lenses, and most folks want to buy the same camera and lens. How many want to go thru the hassle of buying one camera brand and a different lens, and then hope it is compatible on all levels ... Not everyone is tech smart enough to modify or manipulate camera and lens tech.

The majority of buyers are not pros, they are Jon and Jean Public ... they want a camera and lens that comes with no hassles, fits without adapters, and shoots memories. And many people today buy a walkaround lens and a telephoto lens, at least.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

sebasan said:


> A lot of people are doing it.



always surprises me how many are still shooting a D90!
... the first Nikon body with cleaned up shadow areas, AFAIK.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > but at some point it makes as much sense to not engage as it does to keep *saying Canon is the invulnerable, eternal market leader because they never make mistakes*.
> ...



I suspect a few more small numbers of users would have drifted to ABC if Canon did not bring out the 5d4 and 80d when they did. Or not improve the noise character of the 7D2


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

monkey44 said:


> I believe Canon keeps its market share because of its lenses, and most folks want to buy the same camera and lens. How many want to go thru the hassle of buying one camera brand and a different lens, and then hope it is compatible on all levels ... Not everyone is tech smart enough to modify or manipulate camera and lens tech.
> 
> The majority of buyers are not pros, they are Jon and Jean Public ... they want a camera and lens that comes with no hassles, fits without adapters, and shoots memories. And many people today buy a walkaround lens and a telephoto lens, at least.



Reasonable points.
Canon has always been good at marketing to the entry level and many of those buyers do not go on much farther in the purchase or upgrade cycle.

I sold an old 50mm lens to someone last week who was still perfectly happy shooting their old Rebel XT.
It was good enough for what they wanted.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?

Anyway, I know half of you will pull this to pieces but....



1st shot. So here is a crop of the 100iso shot from the 6D MkII vs the D750 both lifted 5 stops, and it's link.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

2nd shot. I downloaded the 6D MkII file and processed it close to optimally and this is the result. I took five minutes to do this, given a few hours I could do better and work out profiles for each iso and lift amount that could be saved as presets in LR.

You cannot apply the same 'standard' settings to different cameras and say look at the differences. You have to process each file optimally! 

When you do you get very different results. When will people stop eating this sh!t up?


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 21, 2017)

Aglet said:


> I suspect a few more small numbers of users would have drifted to ABC if Canon did not bring out the 5d4 and 80d when they did. Or not improve the noise character of the 7D2



I'm not sure how to respond to this. On one hand I want to ask for your evidence that proves folks were leaving Canon before the release of these products, and thus they (5D4, 80D, 7D2) saved them. I also want to point out how Canon stuck their 18 MP APS-C sensor in every crop camera they made for like a 5 year period, yet folks kept buying them.

On the other hand, I want to argue that your whole point boils down to a very generic, general statement that could really be applied to any company, probably in any industry where tech advancements manner. Like this, "If company ABC didn't continue to release next generation products as technology allowed, customers may have moved on to a competitor."


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2017)

monkey44 said:


> ...The majority of buyers are not pros, they are Jon and Jean Public ... they want a camera and lens that comes with no hassles, fits without adapters, and shoots memories...



The majority of pros want a camera and lens that comes with no hassles, fits without adapters and shoots whatever the client needs shot.

Hardly any pros care about the small differences in dynamic range that so many people on this forum obsess over.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?
> 
> Anyway, I know half of you will pull this to pieces but....
> 
> ...



OK. So I have to ask?... did you download and optimally process the D750 file also?..
(I suspect you did not and from the look of the pushed sample, likely did not _need_ to)

So the points I'm trying to make are:

- if you optimize the processing for Canon _and_ an ABC body... does the gap in final IQ at least narrow enough to make it worth the effort?

- I don't even want to spend 5 seconds in post if I can avoid it and I do that by starting with a cleaner file


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

Aglet said:


> So the points I'm trying to make are:
> 
> - if you optimize the processing for Canon _and_ an ABC body... does the gap in final IQ at least narrow enough to make it worth the effort?
> 
> - I don't even want to spend 5 seconds in post if I can avoid it and I do that by starting with a cleaner file



- Optimized the Nikon is better, but not by enough to worry me for the occasions I need to globally push files by a true 5 stops.

- If you learn your craft and don't stubbornly stay in M mode because you think that's what pro's do you don't need to spend any time in post. I have never had a camera in any auto mode come close to five stops under exposed. The example is entirely artificial but if I needed to save an image I had underexposed by five stops I'd look for a new job knowing the 6D MkII is better than me anyway.....


----------



## Jopa (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?
> 
> Anyway, I know half of you will pull this to pieces but....
> 
> ...



Did you run any noise reduction?


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?
> 
> Anyway, I know half of you will pull this to pieces but....
> 
> ...




I hate to say it, but your processing doesn't help, part of the bottle is still missing because it was so drowned in noise, the details have still been destroyed.

Yes, the noise pattern is gone and it's a smooth image, but you haven't necessarily saved the picture.

The original 6D is a better low light camera.
(Which is not to say that the 6D2 is "bad" or that thousands upon thousands of people wouldn't find it the best camera for their purposes, but in terms of sensor development I don't think there's going to be very much positivity from anyone.)


----------



## Jopa (Jul 21, 2017)

9VIII said:


> The original 6D is a better low light camera.



I thought we're talking about DR, not low light performance? The same image would look great if shot at ISO 3200 (5 stops above ISO 100).


----------



## Aglet (Jul 21, 2017)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?
> ...



I both agree and disagree...
The processing methods he used will provide a clean looking image that many people will still like.
But having seen the other camera's rendering... I'd take the Nikon version as the faint reflection is still there and there's no _disembottled_ cap floating there.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?
> ...



You can adjust it however you personally want. My point was, and it hasn't been contested yet, is that it is showing a completely different result to the DPReview crap. Yes I could take more time and make it marginally 'better', yes the Nikon is still better, but not by close to the amount DPReview are implying and certainly enough for me to use on any areas I needed to do a 5 stop lift.

I disagree on you saying all detail has been lost, the writing on the label is comparable.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> You can adjust it however you personally want. My point was, and it hasn't been contested yet, is that it is showing a completely different result to the DPReview crap. Yes I could take more time and make it marginally 'better', yes the Nikon is still better, but not by close to the amount DPReview are implying and certainly enough for me to use on any areas I needed to do a 5 stop lift.
> 
> I disagree on you saying all detail has been lost, the writing on the label is comparable.



You're correct that the writing on the left looks good, there certainly is still a usable exposure range even with such a noisy base image, but the shaded side of the gold foil on the other bottle is heavily deteriorated.

I still consider the wi-fi utilities worth more than an extra stop of DR, but Canon is going to have a hard time explaining this one.




Jopa said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > The original 6D is a better low light camera.
> ...



A bit of both, I'm probably carrying ideas between threads. With the Nikon D5 a compromise was made in order to boost high ISO performance, and that has traditionally been the advantage to Canon sensors (in the D800 era the 6D was alwas held as the low light king), 
logically we should expect Canon to actually make progress in low light performance if they're still taking the same approach. Thus far there is nothing to indicate that being the case though.


----------



## edoorn (Jul 21, 2017)

I'm as Canon fanboy as it can get, but I would not touch this sensor with a 10 ft pole for wedding and event work when you have the option to pick alternatives that are not at least 5 years behind. Did they just went cheap, picked an older production line to make as much profit as possible?


----------



## Pippan (Jul 21, 2017)

edoorn said:


> I'm as Canon fanboy as it can get, but I would not touch this sensor with a 10 ft pole for wedding and event work when you have the option to pick alternatives that are not at least 5 years behind. Did they just went cheap, picked an older production line to make as much profit as possible?


Perhaps if you're doing wedding and event work you should use a camera designed for it. AFAIK the 5D MkIV is just such camera.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 21, 2017)

Right! Would you still hesitate if the price was, say: 2 for $2,500.00 ? I wouldn't 



edoorn said:


> I'm as Canon fanboy as it can get, but I would not touch this sensor with a 10 ft pole for wedding and event work when you have the option to pick alternatives that are not at least 5 years behind. Did they just went cheap, picked an older production line to make as much profit as possible?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > So the points I'm trying to make are:
> ...


With Canon's RGB Live View histogram I find it very easy to "pre-chimp" and adjust for my white point (and Kelvin Temp) when I change venues. This makes it relatively easy to get consistent in-camera results in full manual both in terms of exposure and color. #TapLV


----------



## snoke (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> You can adjust it however you personally want. My point was, and it hasn't been contested yet, is that it is showing a completely different result to the DPReview crap. Yes I could take more time and make it marginally 'better', yes the Nikon is still better, but not by close to the amount DPReview are implying and certainly enough for me to use on any areas I needed to do a 5 stop lift.



If DPR did post work like remove noise then the review become a review of their skill in post and of software to remove the noise and not (only) camera. ISO invariant test almost inappropriate but accept only because it isn't skilled. The review isn't what you can make image look like but how the camera works and what in its files. Post processing to remove noise destroys the detailed evidence of what the camera recorded.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

snoke said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You can adjust it however you personally want. My point was, and it hasn't been contested yet, is that it is showing a completely different result to the DPReview crap. Yes I could take more time and make it marginally 'better', yes the Nikon is still better, but not by close to the amount DPReview are implying and certainly enough for me to use on any areas I needed to do a 5 stop lift.
> ...



I can see your point, but no-one is ever looking at the data coming off the sensor, they are looking at a processed version of that data so yes, it is about how they make the image look. So how do you define what your standard process should be? One that suits (even unintentionally) Nikon? Or Sony? Or Canon?
What use is the information from DPR if the output on which they base their assessment of the camera bears little relationship to what you or I can produce? There isn't an easy answer to this which is why standardisation is a bitch and why standardised tests can be so polarising.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

snoke said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You can adjust it however you personally want. My point was, and it hasn't been contested yet, is that it is showing a completely different result to the DPReview crap. Yes I could take more time and make it marginally 'better', yes the Nikon is still better, but not by close to the amount DPReview are implying and certainly enough for me to use on any areas I needed to do a 5 stop lift.
> ...



Agreed. Showing what could be done to salvage the image was a pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon.

Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I saw PBD comments not as an apologist but pointing out that after a 5-stop push the difference to other marques is far less than the basic DPR image would suggest. I have no problem people saying the sensor is disappointing but if they are going to reject the 6D2 as an option base that decision on what the sensor is actually capable of, not based on some non-optimal standardised process.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.



Complain all you want, that's perfectly valid. But if you're complaining about a camera that is meeting Canon's sales expectations, then yes, your complaints are futile and irrelevant _to Canon_. That's reality. It's unfortunate that having reality explained upsets you, but really, that's your own problem.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 21, 2017)

I'm not in the market for a 6DII as I have the 5D IV already.
I think a big chunk of the 6DII market is upgrade from APS-C group of photographers.

I think the camera has a number of good improvements over the original 6D.
The frame rate, focus points, and flippy screen are great improvements.

I think Canon made a mistake not using the 5D IV sensor in the 6D II.
Having a high dynamic range is very useful to a generalist shooter. 
They will shoot in a lot of high contrast situations.
I'm sure the 6D II sensor is probably not that bad and most people wouldn't notice but its a factor once highlighted takes away from the camera if you were going to invest alot of your hard earned money on it.

If you are not over invested in Canon you may well consider a switch to Nikon / Sony.
Someone like me is highly entangled with Canon and have to hope each generation of the cameras keep improving to maximise the glass that I have (which still remains top class).

The 6DII will be interesting to watch over time as to whether it's a success or not. It will do well initially with Pre-orders from the initial announcement. If the reviews are poor in magazines I'm not sure it will do well in the long run. It's still basically a good camera but might not look so good against it's direct competitors.


----------



## hbr (Jul 21, 2017)

Check this out:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/07/20/canon-6d-mark-ii-first-shots-production-level-lab-samples


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

hbr said:


> Check this out:
> 
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2017/07/20/canon-6d-mark-ii-first-shots-production-level-lab-samples



Interesting. 
The 6D2 has more texture in the cloth than both other cameras but seems to have a bit less detail and richness in the dark areas. SO I can see why the 6D2 has been touted as the best possible sensor but it is not on all aspects of the performance.


----------



## Luds34 (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I agree, it's tough. And heaven forbid one company started cooking the RAWs a little bit and all of a sudden they start looking really good in some of these basic tests.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 21, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Dynamic Range turns into Dynamic RAGE
> ...



Ha ha ha ha. Good one.

Canon really messed up - I just bought a 5DIV instead of a 6DII.


----------



## monkey44 (Jul 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> monkey44 said:
> 
> 
> > ...The majority of buyers are not pros, they are Jon and Jean Public ... they want a camera and lens that comes with no hassles, fits without adapters, and shoots memories...
> ...



Yes, exactly my point taken to the next level. Most of us shoot well enough in the field to pretty much print what we need with minimal post processing - and least that's true for my work. And, most applications for our print in whatever media we need works quite well without tweaking it in areas most viewers will never notice.

I suspect very high end commercial work or gallery work might require a bit more, but in general public and in the majority of pro work, my experience tells me major post processing with all the little tweaks is more a personal perception of what an individual photographer wants to see in his/her work, than what might be required for the production image or print. 

Is extra tweaking necessary sometimes to pull the shadow detail, or some other hidden factor? Sure, but in general, when it requires that much additional tweaking, I'll just go to a different image in the series.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 21, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



*cha-ching* from Canon's bank account


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 21, 2017)

Khalai said:


> DR = dramatic ranting 8)



Ha ha ha ha. Good one.

Canon really messed up - I just bought a 5DIV instead of a 6DII.
[/quote]

*cha-ching* from Canon's bank account 
[/quote]

I really wanted the articulating screen, but when I saw the IQ bump the Sigma 135 Art gave my 6D and 80D, I decided 30 MP would be nice. I was firmly on the fence until the DR discussion. That was the slight nudge I needed to decide.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jul 21, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



You just proved Canon right, they want you to buy 5DIV instead of 6DII


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.
> ...



"Upset" is not the right word. Every time generally happy customers share a negative opinion about a feature or spec that compares poorly to the competition, we get exactly the same response from the same four or five CR members. As if it is your mission to stop the negative talk, to declare that your seasoned, worldly perspective trumps all, and that criticism must stop.

"Bewildered" better applies to how I feel about obviously intelligent people reacting robotically to criticism, trying to end critical threads, or steer conversations back to only the joys and miracles of life under Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I think you're missing the point, still. 

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."



YuengLinger said:


> Agreed. Showing what could be done to salvage the image was a pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

And speaking of helpful, suggesting hot-headed critics wait for more reviews and RAW samples makes more sense to me. In fact, I can admit that I go off half-cocked based on a comparison thrown out by a website with a spotty record for accuracy. But when a valid criticism of a product is met with, "They are the market leaders. Resistance is futile," then I'm bewildered.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I believe you misunderstand, no one is trying to suppress legitimate criticism. If you assert that a certain feature doesn't meet your needs, or that you wished Canon had chosen to put a better sensor in the 6D2 because the 80D had it, that would be legitimate (whining excepted). Actually, I feel that way: if later tests show that APS-C-sized crops of the 6D2 don't match the 80D I'll be disappointed, and I may choose not to buy a 6D2 (I had started saving for it).

It is not, however, legitimate to claim your own needs as universal. Some here (I'm not saying this is you) will claim that a single "inadequate" feature makes the camera useless, or that it demonstrates Canon's fatal error or fatal arrogance. Many people will buy and use this camera very successfully. It looks like it'll be a pretty nice budget studio camera, among other things.

By all means, continue telling us how it fails to meet your needs, though we may not listen. If you go beyond your own needs you may be called-out for it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Perhaps I've become too jaded to the hysterical rhetoric used so often on the Web that I confuse trolling rants with actual opinions? While I might read, "Canon's newest sensor is useless, the company is *******, I "translate" it as, "This is really disappointing, the sensor is noisier than a cropped sensor from three years ago..."


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."
> ...



How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Then you're more charitable than I am.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Perhaps I've become too jaded to the hysterical rhetoric used so often on the Web that I confuse trolling rants with actual opinions? While I might read, "Canon's newest sensor is useless, the company is *******, I "translate" it as, "This is really disappointing, the sensor is noisier than a cropped sensor from three years ago..."



Then perhaps you could also read, "Canon is the market leader, shut up you wanker, resistance is futile," and translate it as, "Canon makes good cameras, have a nice day."


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Because the point of the comparison is to show a baseline. Demonstrating what can be done to salvage a botched exposure is another interesting topic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.



Do you really think any manufacturer would do that – make changes in a product designed to fool standardized testing processes? I highly doubt any manufacturer would even consider doing such a thing, either for camera sensors, or...say...diesel engine emissions.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.
> ...



I see the  , but will answer more seriously. I know that Sony was accused of this, but I don't have the technical knowledge to address it. I do know, however, that the end-result is what matters.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 21, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> On the other hand, I want to argue that your whole point boils down to a very generic, general statement that could really be applied to any company, probably in any industry where tech advancements manner. Like this, "If company ABC didn't continue to release next generation products as technology allowed, customers may have moved on to a competitor."



From the products' technical specs point of view, this is a red queen's race.

From the customers' point of view, this is trolling. Products on the shelves are so good, photographers who *need* (in contrast to will benefit from) a better camera are a negligible minority.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



If one manufacturer pre-processes its raw files, then there is no possible way to achieve such a baseline. It's true that a baseline would be ideal; however, since the handling of raw files (between photon capture and raw encoding) is completely hidden from us, then it's impossible to achieve that objective baseline. The *only* option left to us is to compare using optimal capture and optimal processing on each, then compare those end-results. We could then infer the inherent capabilities of the sensors.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



How is applying the same post process to files storing information a different way a _"comparison"_ and where is the _"baseline"_?

Another car analogy, acceleration test, two cars, one in reverse, what do we learn? How good one car is going forwards and by _'comparison'_ how badly one performs with an artificial limitation. You have to point both cars the same way, if that means you have to turn one around because it was on the transporter the opposite way how is that fudging anything?

I'll leave the personal stuff aside for now but I am not apologizing for Canon, they are big boys and can live or die by their own hand, I am pointing out that in this _"comparison"_ one 'car' is backwards and I am an apologist? You are an idiot. I apologize, you are not an idiot, you are so derisory of any post I make you can't read the actual words I write and you just jump to a conclusion that fits your preconceived notion of what you think my point might be.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I've become too jaded to the hysterical rhetoric used so often on the Web that I confuse trolling rants with actual opinions? While I might read, "Canon's newest sensor is useless, the company is *******, I "translate" it as, "This is really disappointing, the sensor is noisier than a cropped sensor from three years ago..."
> ...



We don't have a laughing emoji, so, "Ha ha." And, "Touché!"


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Explain to this idiot how showing, side by side, images from two sensors at the same ISO raised by the same amount, +5 EV, is analogous to having one car going forward and one in reverse. Educate me!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



*BECAUSE ONE USES A FLOATING BLACK POINT AND ONE DOESN'T!*

At least two posters, including me, have pointed that out so far in this very thread.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 21, 2017)

kphoto99 said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Canon really messed up - I just bought a 5DIV instead of a 6DII.
> ...



For profit companies want customers to buy products with higher profit margin? No!


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> *BECAUSE ONE USES A FLOATING BLACK POINT AND ONE DOESN'T!*



He may not know what that means.


----------



## snoke (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I can see your point, but no-one is ever looking at the data coming off the sensor, they are looking at a processed version of that data so yes, it is about how they make the image look.



Your "they" is Adobe, not DPR. DPR use ACR. The "out of camera" raw file look is by Adobe, independent company.

Look at graph:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Ideal%20FF/FX


Perfect ISO invariant sensor is "ideal" line. Ideal sensor would produce same output with "ISO100,EV-1" as "ISO200,EV+0".

What this got to do with the price of fish? Everything and nothing.

Simplest way to think of it: when sensor graph match "ideal" line then sensor is perfect. 

Difference between images of ISO100,EV-5" and "ISO3200,EV+0" because noise introduced inside the camera by the ADC/read circuit. This test show how good/bad ADC and circuit design in camera is.

Who cares about it? Photographer that want texture in shadow, not only black. To others, splitting hairs.

Of course picture by privatebydesign is too simple for noise - where is details? Just need black! Choose section have hair or fine detail/texture and see difference! Why nobody see this? Nobody here ever do much NR work????


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > *BECAUSE ONE USES A FLOATING BLACK POINT AND ONE DOESN'T!*
> ...



He can Google it rather than chew me out as an_ "apologist"_ without knowing what he is talking about. 

I am very generous with my time and skillset inside and outside the forum, I have sent multiple people from here prints, videos and countless messages to help each and every one of them. All I was trying to do was point out this is not a "comparison" and I get pissed on because he has decided I have sold my soul to Canon and every word out of my mouth is an apology for anything they do.

If people are interested in learning I will take a lot of time and trouble to help them if I can. If they come out of their corner swinging they can piss off. If they come out of their corner swinging and it turns out they don't know what they are talking about and stop mid punch to actually ask for help (_"educate me"_) they can Google it, my horses lean-to needs the roof fixing and she will appreciate it. ;D


----------



## CanonCams (Jul 21, 2017)

Big disappointment.


----------



## snoke (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> *BECAUSE ONE USES A FLOATING BLACK POINT AND ONE DOESN'T!*
> 
> At least two posters, including me, have pointed that out so far in this very thread.



Floating black point let Canon hide problem with sensor design. DPR find way to show problem. For old Canon sensor design. Not new sensor design in 80D or 5D Mark IV.

Floating black point is not unknown. It is not mystery nobody know about before:

http://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/dcraw-float-c-code.html
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12280

Adobe know it. ACR can know it too.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

snoke said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > *BECAUSE ONE USES A FLOATING BLACK POINT AND ONE DOESN'T!*
> ...



No. It is not hiding a problem it is different ways round the same problem. 
DPR is not showing the problem in the sensor design, it is highlighting a problem in the way DPR does its testing. Nikon etc all all have fixed black point so you could validly argue that DRP is allowing for Nikon's fixed blackpoint in the way they have designed their standardised processing, but is not allowing for Canon's variable black point. 

And if blackpoint is (as you surmise) well known, why have DPR and Adobe not allowed for it? That smacks of incompetence at DPR and Adobe, not incompetence at the way Canon have chosen to design their sensors.


----------



## snoke (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> And if blackpoint is (as you surmise) well known, why have DPR and Adobe not allowed for it?



How you know they don't? Because some Canon look noisy with +5? How ACR make good photo and good black without it? Read links I post. Knowledge about blackpoint isn't Canon secret.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > And if blackpoint is (as you surmise) well known, why have DPR and Adobe not allowed for it?
> ...




http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/canon.raw.processing1/


> Part of the problems in digging out the dynamic range is due to the image editing programs. Photoshop, for example, clips data at zero. If the image editors would handle negative numbers I believe we could produce better images without fear of clipping the low end during processing.



And if they did , how come PBD can create a superior image by allowing for the black point?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



So Canon now needs a special RAW editor? Can't fairly assess their sensors' DR and other IQ aspects in currently popular editors such as ACR, LR, On1, etc, etc?

Oy vey.


----------



## snoke (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> And if they did , how come PBD can create a superior image by allowing for the black point?



Who know what PBD did? Only PBD. We Cannot. Did not post recipe!


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > And if they did , how come PBD can create a superior image by allowing for the black point?
> ...



Yet no comment on the Clarkvision site? Hmmm...


----------



## scyrene (Jul 21, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> I think Canon made a mistake not using the 5D IV sensor in the 6D II.



Not if that meant it was unprofitable. The assumption I think many people are making is that this has been done to cut costs - or to put it another way, to increase profits. We don't have the information to decide what putting the 5D4's sensor in would have made to that, but it's not unreasonable to assume it would cost more (if only because that camera costs more). If so, maybe they'd not make enough profit on the 6D2 to make it worth their while bothering to produce it, who knows. Just because it disappoints some people doesn't mean it's a bad business decision.

And for those feeling 'bewildered' by decisions like this, this is not a defence, it's an attempt to understand them so we are less bewildered 



Hector1970 said:


> Having a high dynamic range is very useful to a generalist shooter.
> They will shoot in a lot of high contrast situations.



This is quite an assertion, and requires some evidence imho. It could be that a generalist, being exposed to a wider range of conditions, learns how to get the best results out of their device because they are tested more (than, say, people who shoot mostly under controlled conditions, be that in a studio, using flash, or only at certain times of day or year).


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> So Canon now needs a special RAW editor?



Unbiased is not the same as 'special.'


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > So Canon now needs a special RAW editor?
> ...



Unbiased = "Made by Canon for Canon." :


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



That seems a bit insulting, is that what you meant?


----------



## captainkanji (Jul 21, 2017)

Is the new sensor better than the original 6D? If so, I'm sold. Though the 5DSR tempts me a little.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


No I take it back, you are displaying all the characteristics of an idiot.

Just move the slider by the arrow, until the stuff in the circle isn't clipped. You can do other stuff too, but that one thing accomplishes the heavy lifting.

I did my edit 100% in LR in under 5 mins.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Again you're playing ping-pong with the topic. We try to talk about a baseline comparison of sensor IQ, and you go back to how you can salvage a poorly exposed image. Misdirection?

I thought your point was that we can't use the same editor to judge what lifting shadows looks like. Now I guess you mean we can't use the same editor unless we somehow massage the Canon image, while simply adding +5EV to a Nikon image?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2017)

Actually, it would be nice if some of the more skilled folks on this forum (PBD, etc.) would start a thread providing some tips and guidance on their workflow in Lightroom/Camera Raw. I've been using Camera Raw for almost a decade (and Photoshop long before that) and still learn new things all the time.

I suspect that a lot of the people who worry obsessively over Dynamic Range just aren't very good at post processing. Too many people have this idea that images should be perfect coming right off the camera. In the film days, no one would have expected that (Well, yeah, you had to have it pretty much perfect if you were shooting transparencies, but that just meant you had to do a lot more work before you took the exposure and accept that under certain conditions, you weren't going to be able get acceptable results).


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Again you're playing ping-pong with the topic. We try to talk about a baseline comparison of sensor IQ, and you go back to how you can salvage a poorly exposed image. Misdirection?
> 
> I thought your point was that we can't use the same editor to judge what lifting shadows looks like. I guess you can't mean we can't use the same editor unless we somehow massage the Canon image until get inky blacks without details, while simply adding +5EV to a Nikon image?



Jeesh! Some people just want to argue.

I think the point is that most people are trying to take pictures, not run sensor tests. I really don't give a rat's behind about esoteric sensor tests unless they have some real world meaning. If a perceived "flaw" in a sensor can be addressed with the most basic post-processing techniques, that everyone should be able to do and ought to be doing, then that "flaw" becomes meaningless for anyone but internet arguments.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Actually, it would be nice if some of the more skilled folks on this forum (PBD, etc.) would start a thread providing some tips and guidance on their workflow in Lightroom/Camera Raw. I've been using Camera Raw for almost a decade (and Photoshop long before that) and still learn new things all the time.
> 
> I suspect that a lot of the people who worry obsessively over Dynamic Range just are very good at post processing. Too many people have this idea that images should be perfect coming right off the camera. In the film days, no one would have expected that (Well, yeah, you had to have it pretty much perfect if you were shooting transparencies, but that just meant you had to do a lot more work before you took the exposure and accept that under certain conditions, you weren't going to be able get acceptable results).



1) Typo above? (Seems like an "aren't" might have been intended there.)

2) I use ACR and the highlight/shadow sliders are my close friends. I try not to ask too much of them. : Sometimes, however, with my insistence to shoot handheld with available light, I get stuck in losing exposure battles. This leads me to overcook things in ACR and cross over to the painful 'one-shot HDR' territory -- huge highlight pull, big shadow push -- that we all so often cringe when we see. Example below.

In general, if I'm rocking (in ACR) -50 or greater highlights while simultaneously +50 or higher shadows, I should have waited for better light, brought a tripod to allow ISO 100, etc. But sometimes I still have to capture that moment and I take the shot despite these sort of results. 

- A


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> We try to talk about a baseline comparison of sensor IQ


The point being made is that there is no such thing as baseline due to the way SoniKon generate their raw files as compared with Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Again you're playing ping-pong with the topic. We try to talk about a baseline comparison of sensor IQ, and you go back to how you can salvage a poorly exposed image. Misdirection?
> 
> I thought your point was that we can't use the same editor to judge what lifting shadows looks like. Now I guess you mean we can't use the same editor unless we somehow massage the Canon image, while simply adding +5EV to a Nikon image?



No I'm not, you are just being argumentative and/or deliberately obtuse.

There is a fundamental difference on how the information within the RAW files is stored. Open them both in ACR/LR and one is analogous to a car facing backwards, all moving the Blacks slider does for the Canon file is the heavy lifting of turning that car around so both are closer to an equal starting point.

Effectively, what you are looking at in the Canon RAW is a file that has already had a negative exposure setting applied (not quite but for simplicities sake analogous), is that a fair starting point? No. So what is wrong or complicated about the concept that to have an actual comparison you need to place them both at the same starting point?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it would be nice if some of the more skilled folks on this forum (PBD, etc.) would start a thread providing some tips and guidance on their workflow in Lightroom/Camera Raw. I've been using Camera Raw for almost a decade (and Photoshop long before that) and still learn new things all the time.
> ...



Very nicely done.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Again you're playing ping-pong with the topic. We try to talk about a baseline comparison of sensor IQ, and you go back to how you can salvage a poorly exposed image. Misdirection?



What you fail to understand is that the only baseline is the 1s and 0s coming off the sensor. But we cannot 'see' 1s and 0s so we have to process the data to create a visible image. The image you see is processed which means [drum roll]... *it is not baseline* - it is manipulated data.
What you are saying is that you believe the way to manipulate SoNikon data is correct but the way to manipulate Canon data is not.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Again you're playing ping-pong with the topic. We try to talk about a baseline comparison of sensor IQ, and you go back to how you can salvage a poorly exposed image. Misdirection?
> ...



So, if you put a Nikon image and a Canon image into LR CC, both shot in camera underexposed, it's unfair to simply use the same slider on both images to lift shadows and compare noise? If this is so, say so, because I will admit that with cars going forward and backwards, and floating black points, I'm trying hard not to think of used car salesmen pushing a zero interest loan that has an APR of 5.99%...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it would be nice if some of the more skilled folks on this forum (PBD, etc.) would start a thread providing some tips and guidance on their workflow in Lightroom/Camera Raw. I've been using Camera Raw for almost a decade (and Photoshop long before that) and still learn new things all the time.
> ...



Yes. I have fixed it in the original post. Sorry about that. Should have proofed the post.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> ...I use ACR and the highlight/shadow sliders are my close friends. I try not to ask too much of them. : Sometimes, however, with my insistence to shoot handheld with available light, I get stuck in losing exposure battles. This leads me to overcook things in ACR and cross over to the painful 'one-shot HDR' territory -- huge highlight pull, big shadow push -- that we all so often cringe when we see. Example below.
> 
> In general, if I'm rocking (in ACR) -50 or greater highlights while simultaneously +50 or higher shadows, I should have waited for better light, brought a tripod to allow ISO 100, etc. But sometimes I still have to capture that moment and I take the shot despite these sort of results.



Certainly nothing wrong with that shot. Nice. BTW, I am a heavy user of smart objects. Just different workflows, but I tend to focus on optimizing the main subject in ACR, import it into PS as a smart object then immediately make a duplicate smart object and reopen that in ACR to adjust other areas of the scene. Go back to Photoshop, add a mask and paint in or out areas that I want to save.It's all about personal preference, but I do this because I don't like to boost shadows or crush highlights globally in an image -- prefer to adjust locally.

I'm sure others can do the same with different techniques, but it is one of the fantastic things about the often underutilized smart object.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



As an analogy, imagine that one of the raw files already had noise-reduction applied before it was opened in LR. Would it be fair to say that sensor had lower noise? Or if one file had been sharpened before it was opened in LR, would it be fair to believe that sensor was sharper? No, the correct approach would be two steps:

1. Expose each optimally

2. Process each optimally

A better sensor should produce files that respond better to processing, not merely look good SOOC. I have no trouble believing that a Sony sensor would win this contest at low ISO; the goal, however, is to do the test fairly.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



You can do whatever you want. If you believe that +10 clarity, 109 amount, radius 1.5 and detail 30 is optimum and always apply the same criterion to process very image irrespective of situation and camera model than who am I to argue. 
Me? I prefer to process each image to produce maximum effect and find that different cameras need different settings. Noise rendition differs between cameras (even within the same marque) and as such they need different processing. 

I don't give a flying toss if at a fixed setting one camera has more or less noise than another.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Very nicely done.



Appreciate that, but I see that shot being painfully overworked, IMHO. 

However, I am glad that a very fond memory of a roadtrip with some lifelong friends was captured with at least some context in the background instead of a blown out sheet of glass. So _sometimes_, in some Machiavellian way, I tell myself it's okay to go wild with the sliders. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...I use ACR and the highlight/shadow sliders are my close friends. I try not to ask too much of them. : Sometimes, however, with my insistence to shoot handheld with available light, I get stuck in losing exposure battles. This leads me to overcook things in ACR and cross over to the painful 'one-shot HDR' territory -- huge highlight pull, big shadow push -- that we all so often cringe when we see. Example below.
> ...



I'd happily post new threads if you tell me what you like and preferably send me a problem file or ten. 

My workflow varies enormously by image so I don't have a 'set' workflow. The other major thing is software, despite the Adobe bashing, is constantly improving, not only the actual software but peoples understanding of how it works so they can use tools in new and effective ways previously not commonly know.

I do make camera profiles for all my camera bodies and lenses and lights. On initial import I apply a basic import preset that removes default NR and Sharpening, applies the relevant custom camera profile and the Adobe lens profile for distortion, vignetting and CA. This tends to make the image pretty flat and unsharp.

Depending on the job I then.....

I'll start another thread


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Very nicely done.
> ...



I actually thought it might have been shot for a client. I imagine the restaurant owner would be thrilled with that shot, showing off the interior very nicely and also showcasing the setting. A commercial client wouldn't notice the HDR effect, they'd just be happy that you got their restaurant and the mountains.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Very nicely done.
> ...



Of course it is. And if you'd had spot metering linked to AF point you'd have completely lost any hope of getting that scenery back. Not having a dig, honestly.

If i had to work it I'd process the RAW file twice then blend them as layers in PS. In theory there shouldn't be much difference, in practice there is. But I think you have done a great job and the image iOS perfectly exposed to enable you to get detail at both ends of the luminance range.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course it is. And if you'd had spot metering linked to AF point you'd have completely lost any hope of getting that scenery back. Not having a dig, honestly.
> 
> If i had to work it I'd process the RAW file twice then blend them as layers in PS. In theory there shouldn't be much difference, in practice there is. But I think you have done a great job and the image iOS perfectly exposed to enable you to get detail at both ends of the luminance range.



I need to learn better skills in PS, honestly. A friend is a professional photographer who loves editing/retouching and such and he thinks I'm a caveman for taking 2-3 minutes in ACR to wash my file through a very simple workflow. I don't do anything in PS of any difficulty or nuance. Honestly, the four most common PS moves I make are:

1) Saving directly to JPG after ACR import (not kidding)
2) Resizing output for web/e-mailing purposes
3) Making funny infographics for CR Forums
4) Stitching the occasional pano (just with Photomerge scripts, nothing manual)

_"I ran into a luminosity mask once but I wasn't sure how to put it on my face."_ -- Me, just now 

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is. And if you'd had spot metering linked to AF point you'd have completely lost any hope of getting that scenery back. Not having a dig, honestly.
> ...



Jimmy McIntyre (creator of Raya Pro) has amazing videos of luminosity mask blending. Also f64 channel has very comprehensive videos about general blending in PS. And tutvids or Wex are good sources for photographers in PS in general.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Jimmy McIntyre (creator of Raya Pro) has amazing videos of luminosity mask blending. Also f64 channel has very comprehensive videos about general blending in PS. And tutvids or Wex are good sources for photographers in PS in general.



That's the sad bit -- it's not like the internet isn't burying me in educational riches. 10-20 years ago, this would have required a course, a lucky connection to a pro, or (for me, most likely) grabbing a book and fighting through tutorials.

Now it's all on YouTube. I have no more excuses not to learn it.

This is the whole 'I won't replace my 5D3 until I've surpassed its limits' vow I've made -- it speaks to making a commitment to growing as a photographer and not just shooting what I like to shoot _and processing how I like to process_. I need to work harder at this, especially with tripod work. Merging 3-5 shots at the mercy of some HDR tool is madness, and I should strive to do better.

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy McIntyre (creator of Raya Pro) has amazing videos of luminosity mask blending. Also f64 channel has very comprehensive videos about general blending in PS. And tutvids or Wex are good sources for photographers in PS in general.
> ...



I understand that. I've recently purchased two Zeiss lenses to challenge myself. Needless to say that manual focusing 85/1.4 without EVF is hell unleashed. Even with Eg-S superprecision screen. I'd love to have oldschool split-image with microprism collar, but current DSLRs are not much MF friendly anymore. I'm using LiveView with Magic Lantern and it's doable but not perfect. Currently contemplating getting some LCD loupe from Zacuto, which unfortunately isn't exactly cheap. Chioices choices


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 21, 2017)

Khalai said:


> I understand that. I've recently purchased two Zeiss lenses to challenge myself. Needless to say that manual focusing 85/1.4 without EVF is hell unleashed. Even with Eg-S superprecision screen. I'd love to have oldschool split-image with microprism collar, but current DSLRs are not much MF friendly anymore. I'm using LiveView with Magic Lantern and it's doable but not perfect. Currently contemplating getting some LCD loupe from Zacuto, which unfortunately isn't exactly cheap. Chioices choices



FF mirrorless opens doors for me, personally -- I want to shoot large aperture manual focus lenses through the viewfinder. Until mirrorless happens, Zeiss/Samyang/etc. are dead to me unless they are for landscape/macro work on a tripod.

- A


----------



## Jopa (Jul 22, 2017)

Khalai said:


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



Have you seen a link to Kinotehnik I've sent you the other day https://www.kinotehnik.com/? Those are under $100 @ B&H.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Actually, it would be nice if some of the more skilled folks on this forum (PBD, etc.) would start a thread providing some tips and guidance on their workflow in Lightroom/Camera Raw. I've been using Camera Raw for almost a decade (and Photoshop long before that) and still learn new things all the time.



I've found _The Digital Negative_ by Jeff Schewe to be very helpful. I keep the Kindle version on my iPad, and refer to it when I have a few minutes to kill. I often discover a feature I had missed or a different way to do something that I'm used to doing differently. I've used Camera RAW so many years that I have a lot of habits. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes I miss a better way.

Some things in Lightroom and Camera RAW are based on work done by Schewe and his late collaborator Bruce Fraser.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 22, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course it is. And if you'd had spot metering linked to AF point you'd have completely lost any hope of getting that scenery back. Not having a dig, honestly.



Oh, wow -- totally missed this, sorry.

Agree, actually.

This isn't the instance I'd use that feature. In a shot like that one -- too much to reel in in one shot -- I knew I'd simultaneously be on both ends of the histo -- in that case, I stick with Evaluative and hope I don't clip too hard on either end.

I'd use spot metering at the linked AF point where I clearly have a subject that crushes all other exposure priorities. An off-center / large aperture / headshot candid-travel-street shot comes to mind. To hell if I blow out the background, I want to nail the subject there, and spot would help me do that if properly used.

Whereas the example I posted above is more an environmental shot to me where I very much wanted to balance the foreground and background. If I had a 1-series and spot metered off-center on my friends in that example, _they_ would have looked great and I would not have had to push the shadows at all in post -- but the window would have been a sheet of white.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Very nicely done.
> ...



As a demonstration of highlight recovery and filling in shadows, it is an excellent illustration.

As a picture, it makes me wonder whether it is a nice picture of some mountains with distracting people in the foreground, or a nice picture of some people with distracting mountains in the background. I would have used a lighter touch on the highlight recovery.

But as is, it successfully reinforces your point.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is. And if you'd had spot metering linked to AF point you'd have completely lost any hope of getting that scenery back. Not having a dig, honestly.
> ...



Ok, but, in the spirit of a genuine conversation, if you have the time to change metering mode you have time to change EC. On the latest releases you can program both options onto a C button and have instant access to either.

I'm not saying other models shouldn't have the feature, they should, but it isn't as useful as you might think and there are other ways to achieve a good exposure in the situations you talk about. Indeed the easiest and fastest is the street photographer social of moderate wide angle, f8 hyperlocal focusing and in your head exposures, which are very satisfying when you give them a little practice.

And seriously, I am not being a dick here.

With my latest body I am enjoying Av mode with shutter speed set to one stop faster than auto and Auto iso with EC on the back dial. Complete control with a nice mixture of auto to help when the light changes a lot.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 22, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Have you seen a link to Kinotehnik I've sent you the other day https://www.kinotehnik.com/? Those are under $100 @ B&H.



Thanks. Yes, I've seen it. Unfortunately, B&H does not have EU store AFAIK. But I've checked other brands, which are available locally. Basically no free lunch, you get what you pay for. I'll have to hop around and try a few LCD loupes at local photostores.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 22, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Ok, but, in the spirit of a genuine conversation, if you have the time to change metering mode you have time to change EC.



I bet the farm you'd bring up EC. ;D

(Totally fair point.)

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but, in the spirit of a genuine conversation, if you have the time to change metering mode you have time to change EC.
> ...



It's one of the reasons I don't get on with BBF, I am always riding the rear dial with my thumb doing EC, but that is what I am used to since the 1V so I doubt I'll change. 

Horses for courses....


----------



## Pippan (Jul 22, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Private, I hope you don't mind me jumping in on A's free lesson but I'm wondering what your experience thinks of this. Playing with EC seems to be guesswork for me as well as taking time, plus I use BBF. What I'd have done if I were taking A's picture and had a few seconds to prepare is (on 80D in M) spot meter the brightest part of the sky out the window and adjust SS or ISO so the meter reads 2 2/3 above 0. This would keep the highlights just below clipping and the darker areas as light as they can be (albeit still darkish) to keep lightening them to a minimum. Thoughts?


----------



## LesC (Jul 22, 2017)

PetaPixel say "The full frame 6D Mark II should have better image quality than the APS-C 80D when photos are examined at the same size, DPReview says, but test photos show that the 80D’s photos “shot with the same exposures look cleaner, when brightened to the same degree.”

Well, I have both cameras that that's not my experience, far from it. My original 6D produces much cleaner RAW files than my 80D at any iso, low or high. There's simply no comparison, the 6D is far superior.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 22, 2017)

LesC said:


> PetaPixel say "The full frame 6D Mark II should have better image quality than the APS-C 80D when photos are examined at the same size, DPReview says, but test photos show that the 80D’s photos “shot with the same exposures look cleaner, when brightened to the same degree.”
> 
> Well, I have both cameras that that's not my experience, far from it. My original 6D produces much cleaner RAW files than my 80D at any iso, low or high. There's simply no comparison, the 6D is far superior.



LesC, are you talking about version I of the 6D while PetaPixel is talking about version II? How have you personally been able to compare the 6DII to anything yet?


----------



## LesC (Jul 22, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> LesC said:
> 
> 
> > PetaPixel say "The full frame 6D Mark II should have better image quality than the APS-C 80D when photos are examined at the same size, DPReview says, but test photos show that the 80D’s photos “shot with the same exposures look cleaner, when brightened to the same degree.”
> ...


Sorry, should have made clear, I'm comparing the original 6D to the 80D (I don't have the 6d MKII ... yet). 

But the DP Review article doesn't suggest the MKII is that much _worse_ than the original, just that it's not much better. So I'm still expecting the MKII to be significantly better than my 80D.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2017)

Pippan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Hi Pippan,

Very sound approach, like you say assuming you have the time to do the meter reading and then wind in the exposure corrections. 

I would point out that 2 2/3 stops above meter reading is still going to leave a lot of headroom in your file. A neutral meter reading is around 2/3rds below midpoint and if we assume even the worst cameras have 9 stops of true scene recording DR you can take your lightest points to 5 stops above metered and still have a touch of headroom. 

If you are shooting RAW don't forget the blinkies in playback will warn you of over exposure way before the RAW file hits that saturation point.


----------



## Pippan (Jul 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Pippan said:
> 
> 
> > Private, I hope you don't mind me jumping in on A's free lesson but I'm wondering what your experience thinks of this. Playing with EC seems to be guesswork for me as well as taking time, plus I use BBF. What I'd have done if I were taking A's picture and had a few seconds to prepare is (on 80D in M) spot meter the brightest part of the sky out the window and adjust SS or ISO so the meter reads 2 2/3 above 0. This would keep the highlights just below clipping and the darker areas as light as they can be (albeit still darkish) to keep lightening them to a minimum. Thoughts?
> ...


Thanks Private, I would have thought too that there'd be way too much headroom but in practice very little (I use blinkies with picture style on Neutral and contrast turned right down, and I analyse all raws with FastRawViewer and sometimes, for more info, Rawdigger, to see how close to clipping (or how much is over) they really are. Maybe it's the way the spot meter is calibrated. Sometimes I can get away with 3 stops over or even 3 1/3 stops if the bright area is quite even across the spot meter area but definitely no more or large bright areas clip. Odd, especially since it's an 80D usually used at ISO 100 or 200.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2017)

Hi Pippan,

Yes I wasn't very clear. 3 stops over is about ideal for good tonal retention in the highlights, depending on where your meter is actually metering. Mine was +2/8 so all my images were overexposed if I went by the meter.

It's interesting in that something seems to have changed in the Canon metering values, all my old cameras underexposed and had a ton of highlight headroom because of that, my new cameras are overexposing cutting highlight headroom but they have much greater capacity to lift shadows.

Personally I make a little test image and dial in my meters and then progressively over and under expose, then pull all those images into LightRoom and see what I am happy doing, what I can save and can't save etc etc. Certainly my latest cameras, even though I have the ability, and have, adjusted the meter offset, do not need an ETTR technique whereas my old ones very much did, I could easily pull over 3 stops down in the highlights, now, not so much but I have a lot more lower end to play with so I tend to expose to the offset meter or lower for midtones.

Here is a sample of my testing image. With this I can calibrate a metering offset and work out how under and over I can expose and retain detail. First image as metered, second over exposed three stops and then pulled three stops.

Great talk, thanks.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2017)

Private,

If I may, Sir:

new mettering sensors in 5D IV or 80D is RGB type. now mettering sensor sees in colour, if you will.
old cameras were underexposing whites by around 2.8* stops and over exposing black by approx. 2.8* stops, as metering system treated all colors and levels as 18% grey. hence if I was spot mettering for the hilghlights with my trusty 6D, in order to place highlights right at the right edge of the histogram, I would typically increase exposure levels by +2.5 EV.
it turns out that modern RBG mettering system is mich smarter these days and no longer under or over expose buy such a large amount. I had only limited time to play with 5D IV but noticed that to ETTR, I needed only +0.7EV EC for spot metered highlights. blinkies were coming up on the lcd screen for jpgs at +0.5 EV level but really I was able to push RAW another +0.5EV. Again, I have very limited experience with 5D IV therefore all numbers are not exact. 

*** -Usable DR of 6D sensor is 5.8 EV ( full is 9.8 EV, but less safety margins: 5.8EV only). old metering system treated spot metered highlights as mid greys and placed them right in the centre of the historgram: 5.8EV / 2 = 2.9EV shift on 6D, (2.7-2.8) EV shift on 5D III.



privatebydesign said:


> Hi Pippan,
> 
> Yes I wasn't very clear. 3 stops over is about ideal for good tonal retention in the highlights, depending on where your meter is actually metering. Mine was +2/8 so all my images were overexposed if I went by the meter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 23, 2017)

Boy I should be sleeping instead of reading a thread that's gotten as heavy as this!  I might just have to give up photography since by theory I don't have a clue how to take or process a picture. Never the less people keep liking my photos, which reinforces the idea that the average public doesn't engage with the nuances that come up for discussion in CR threads. Thus, the 6D2 is going to sell well to people like me in spite of it being ______________ (adjective of your choice). 

BTW PBD can be a little, shall we say "forthright", but I can vouch for his willingness to share knowledge, his helpfulness and his generosity! Much appreciated.  In fact I think the vast majority of stalwarts on CR are similar.

Jack


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2017)

The average public does not give a rabbits rear past selfies and iPhone taken snapshots or "professional" Rebel bodies used in "A" ( A for Advanced  ) mode. A family friend who is an award winning pro photog has no idea about 95% of the stuff that comes up in CR discussions on daily basis.  This place is priceless!



Jack Douglas said:


> ... Never the less people keep liking my photos, which reinforces the idea that *the average public doesn't engage with the nuances that come up for discussion in CR threads*...


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Boy I should be sleeping instead of reading a thread that's gotten as heavy as this!  I might just have to give up photography since by theory I don't have a clue how to take or process a picture. Never the less people keep liking my photos, which reinforces the idea that the average public doesn't engage with the nuances that come up for discussion in CR threads. Thus, the 6D2 is going to sell well to people like me in spite of it being ______________ (adjective of your choice).
> 
> BTW PBD can be a little, shall we say "forthright", but I can vouch for his willingness to share knowledge, his helpfulness and his generosity! Much appreciated.  In fact I think the vast majority of stalwarts on CR are similar.
> 
> Jack



Sometimes we get a bit "full of ourselves" on the forum. The average user in the real world shoots mostly in "green box mode" and most of the things discussed here have no bearing.....

BTW, have you ever tried "green box mode" ? I think that for most conditions under good lighting, that it does a really good job... bet that I could go out and shoot a bunch of images in it, post them here, and nobody could tell the difference between them..... hmmmmmmmmm....... must go conduct an experiment.......


----------



## Khalai (Jul 23, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> The average public does not give a rabbits rear past selfies and iPhone taken snapshots or "professional" Rebel bodies used in "A" ( A for Advanced  ) mode. A family friend who is an award winning pro photog has no idea about 95% of the stuff that comes up in CR discussions on daily basis.  This place is priceless!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do not forget "P" for "professional" mode as well


----------



## Pippan (Jul 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> It's interesting in that something seems to have changed in the Canon metering values, all my old cameras underexposed and had a ton of highlight headroom because of that, my new cameras are overexposing cutting highlight headroom but they have much greater capacity to lift shadows.
> 
> Here is a sample of my testing image. With this I can calibrate a metering offset and work out how under and over I can expose and retain detail. First image as metered, second over exposed three stops and then pulled three stops.


Thanks again for taking the time to explain your thoughts on these things, Private. In my limited experience I'd agree with your assessment that Canon's metering has changed and maybe Secure's post about metering 'in colour' is why. My 80D does seem to often meter higher than my 100D, and often clips too many highlights for my liking if not EC adjusted. Ironic really when there's less need to keep shadows as light as possible. That's why I'm teaching myself to use M when I have those few seconds to spot meter and adjust--it's more accurate (but of course harder to keep up with changing light) and I can control whether and how much to clip.

In your images I'm interested that the faces in the first image have much richer colour than in the second. Was there any clipping in the second before you pulled it back or is it that some colour is lost when it's exposed too close to the edge of clipping (not what I'd have thought)?


----------



## lgn55063 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

I have a Canon 70D and have been looking for a light weight full frame to be my second camera. I am a "seenager" with some disabilities, a moderate income and am about to retire. I do not have the means to buy the Canon 5DMarkIV. I really was looking forward to purchasing the Canon 6DMarkII as my solution to getting my first full frame camera due to the lower weight and better price range. In reading the many reviews regarding the new Canon 6DMarkII, I decided to go with one that I have felt more comfortable with since becoming a more than just an intermediate amateur photographer, DPREVIEW. One particular review caught my attention. I am not sure if this is allowed on this site, but here is the link: 

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0227421206/should-i-buy-a-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii?slide=3

This has been the most comprehensive and the most, in my opinion, unbiased review I have read. 
My genre are children and ballroom dancing. Two very difficult to photograph genres due to moving actions, low light situations and the need to have a heavier zoom lens in order to capture the right shot. 
I had heard "rumors" that Canon was building the 6DMarkII to be a somewhat "full frame Canon 80D" which can be used for sports and low light situations and was lighter in weight than the 5D line. I was looking forward to purchasing this camera. This did not turn out as I hoped. By the graphic comparisons shown on the DPreview, I will now have to wait longer for a full frame camera. I have not ruled out going with the 5DMarkIII. I now also have to rethink my purchasing of a heavier zoom lens. I am disappointed that after waiting a long while and all the hoopla about this camera, it's turned out to be a camera for hikers who take wonderful landscape pictures and portrait camera.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

Hello,

just a couple of point I would like to clarify first:

1. you are a seeenager with some health issues and looking to shoot with 2 DSLR cameras with a "heavier zoom" lenses attached.
2. you need a realible FF DSLR with excellent LOW LIGHT capabilities, reliable and responsive AF to shoot in low light and your genre is ".. children and ballroom dancing. Two very difficult to photograph genres due to moving actions, low light situations and the need to have a heavier zoom lens in order to capture the right shot..."
3. you are also on a somewhat limited budget.

ok. 
1. shooting 2 DSLR bodies with 2 heavy zoom lenses attached could posses some serious chalenges as we are talking 2 x 2.5 kg rigs hanging of your hips or shoulders depending on your setup. It could be quite a challenge. I am speaking from personal experience shooting 2 x 6D bodies with 24-70 and 70-200 zoom lenses attached.
Can you get away shooting a single FF body with 70-200 zoom lns attached? can you hold 2.5kg rig for extended period of time? 5 minutes?
2. Canon 6D II bodies are excellent camera for the low light situation! that seems to be what you are looking for.
Shots taken at ISO 3200 come out are very clean. 
AF performance is very adequate for your genre. you will be likely shooting in ZONE AF mode and 45 AF points is more than enough shooting children and ballroom dancing. Tilty Flippy screen is another God's send for low angle or over heads shots. I do not see how 6D II is a wrong camera for you. In fact it perfect for your applications.
3. Would you consider selling you 70D body to finace 6D II purchase? that would certainly help to offset the cost of the new body and heavy zoom lenses you are also planning to obtaing.
from experience shooting in your genre, you can perfectly get away with 2 lenses only: 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8. Tamron 24-70 VC and 70-200 VC may be the lenses you are after. These lenses are capable of delivering a very nice image quality and are much cheaper than similar lenses made by Canon.
I do not see 5D III body being an advantage over 6D II body for your applications. in fact, lighter 6D II body with tilty flippy screen and improved RGB metering may serve your better than the heavier and larger 5D III. 




lgn55063 said:


> I have a Canon 70D and have been looking for a light weight full frame to be my second camera. I am a "seenager" with some disabilities, a moderate income and am about to retire. I do not have the means to buy the Canon 5DMarkIV. I really was looking forward to purchasing the Canon 6DMarkII as my solution to getting my first full frame camera due to the lower weight and better price range. In reading the many reviews regarding the new Canon 6DMarkII, I decided to go with one that I have felt more comfortable with since becoming a more than just an intermediate amateur photographer, DPREVIEW. One particular review caught my attention. I am not sure if this is allowed on this site, but here is the link:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0227421206/should-i-buy-a-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii?slide=3
> 
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*



SecureGSM said:


> Hello,
> 
> just a couple of point I would like to clarify first:...
> ...I do not see 5D III body being an advantage over 6D II body for your applications. in fact, lighter 6D II body with tilty flippy screen and improved RGB metering may serve your better than the heavier and larger 5D III.
> ...



Secure's comments are spot on.

I'm perplexed by Ign55063's conclusions.

The 6DII is indeed a "full frame Canon 80D" with a different sensor. At this point we really don't know much about how the new sensor will perform in real world situations, but it is certainly reasonable to expect that it will perform better than the 80D at higher ISOs– it certainly won't be worse.

The only full-frame camera that is going to perform much better for "sports and low-light situations" would be the 1DX II, which is not a camera for anyone limited by ability to carry a heavy load (I know, I am 63 and believe me, the 1DX II gets damn heavy, especially when paired with a 70-200mm lens for indoor sports or a 100-400 for outdoors.) 

I have one suggestion -- pick up a carbon fiber monopod. A monopod is light and unobtrusive. It will help support the heavier lenses that you need for low light, without adding too much bulk.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Private,
> 
> If I may, Sir:
> 
> ...



It's a good idea, but I am conducting my comparisons from defocused Kodak grey cards so I don't understand how color could come into the metering. But whatever it is, and for sure the color metering must be changing something in most if not all images, at least I am not alone in noticing this trend to over expose rather than previous cameras that tended to under expose.

I wish they'd document this stuff so we didn't all have to learn it on the fly! :




Pippan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting in that something seems to have changed in the Canon metering values, all my old cameras underexposed and had a ton of highlight headroom because of that, my new cameras are overexposing cutting highlight headroom but they have much greater capacity to lift shadows.
> ...



Agree, my two most used modes are Av with constant EC with the thumbwheel, and M with constant attention to the metering scale in the viewfinder.

As for the test images, yes I just did a straight exposure pull, I normally find if the highs had good color I need to finesse them with vibrance and/or highlights tonal adjustments as well as the straight pull. I think because of the tone curve/gamma correction that is applied to the RAW file the two files can never be exactly the same with just a straight exposure pull, the higher parts won't come down as much as the less over exposed parts. 

We had another interested thread about this color difference in correctly exposed vs over exposed and pulled tonality and color. I believe the main issue with pulling images is if you apply a camera profile, and you have to even if you don't know it, the three channels are given different curves so if you apply a set numeric value adjustment to all three the relationship between them changes, if you start out with that different value then you get the same issue in reverse.


----------



## hbr (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*



SecureGSM said:


> Hello,
> 
> just a couple of point I would like to clarify first:
> 
> ...



Agree with SecureGSM's comments.


----------



## lgn55063 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

Hello SecureGSM,
Thank you for your response! I am learning as I go along and am grateful for your help. Experience is not something I can brag about; yet. This is why I have been depending on "reviews" to help me choose my next camera. 

In answer to your questions:
-- I have the Canon 24-105 f4L II and love the results I get with it for close range shots. But need a longer 
reach for when the dancers are on the other side of the ballroom and I can't get there fast enough. 
Also when taking candid pictures of children in a natural environment and do not want the camera to be a 
distraction. I tried the Canon 24-70 F4L and did not feel comfortable with it. (exchanged it for the 24-105 
above)
-- I have the kit lens Canon 70-250mm but want better picture results. I did try the new Tamron 70-200 G2 and 
the Canon70-200 F2.8L; they are too heavy without a tripod for me. (non allowed in competitions) 
I have tested the Canon 70-200 F4L IS and can handle it for longer periods; which I plan to purchase after I 
get a second camera. Low light is my challenge when it comes to the longer range reaches. 
-- As for selling my 70D, I have always heard a decent photographer always has a back up camera handy for 
"just in case." It's also good to have it ready with a second lens. No, I cannot carry both cameras at the same 
time; but can have both cameras handy for a quick grab and shoot. (getting better at grab and shoot!)

You are correct, the 5DMarkIII is heavier than my 70D and the 6DMarkII. 
With your response, I will be rethinking the purchase of the Canon 6DMarkII. I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience and knowledge.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

My pleasure.
if F4 aperture lens is wide enough for your situations ( provides enough of light to keep your shutter speed high enough to help you freeze the moment, then may I suggest Canon 70-200 F4 IS L is a very nice lens. Some photogs shoot with this lens in studio professionaly and swear by it.
please consider that shooting ballroom, chidlren action your shutter speed would be ideally at 1/1000s and faster for very fast moving subject.
please see the image attached. nothing artistic, I was test shooting rehersal to familiarise myself with the scene setup, actors movements, angles and framing. Anyway, this shot was taken at between 200-300mm, F2.8, 1/1000s ISO 3200(!). i would not go any higher than ISO 3200 shooting 6D. Shooting with F4 zoom lens would see the ISO moving into 6400 territory. You mayt be able to get away shooting at F4 and 1/1800s shutter speed and ISO 4000-ish. It depends on the lighting available.

Let me share my opinion ion regards to the following your statement"... As for selling my 70D, I have always heard a decent photographer always has a back up camera handy for "just in case... It's also good to have it ready with a second lens...."

I can provide a ton of evidence that decent photographers not always have back up cameras ready, unless:
1. They can afford the second rig and;
2. Must ensure that the camera failure will not affect their ability to deliver resulting images to their client and;
3. shoot in a fast pace, run and gun situations where they absolutely must to swtich cameras really really fast or condition are not accomodative ( dust, sand, dirt, etc).

how quickly are you able to swtich your lenses? You may consider focusing on mastering the skills of changing your lenses faster and that way avoid the need for the second DSLR body all together. can you do it in 10 seconds? if yes, then you are not risking to miss alot of action. 

May I also suggest that the Lowepro S&F Lens Exchange Case 200 AW makes lens swapping action as quick and as painless as it could be:

http://store.lowepro.com/s-f-lens-exchange-case-200-aw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsL4znCKO-U

Do you still feel that you _need_ that second DSLR body? 






lgn55063 said:


> Hello SecureGSM,
> Thank you for your response! I am learning as I go along and am grateful for your help. Experience is not something I can brag about; yet. This is why I have been depending on "reviews" to help me choose my next camera.
> 
> In answer to your questions:
> ...


----------



## lgn55063 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

Good day all,
As you notice, my in-experience is noted. However, my comments are based on what "I" know, not on what I should know. Yes, I am in my senior years; yes, I am not as knowledgeable as most of you; yes, my budget is much more limited than most, (regarding the 1Dx response) and finally, yes, I have so much to learn in this fast paced ever changing world of digital photography. The fun part is that I "am" willing to learn and try new things. This is what I hope to do with "all" of you that comment here. 

Photography is a creative form in which I have always loved and will continue to love. I love "still" photography. I love to capture dancers in their craft and the joy and fun of children being creative in thought and play. 
I enjoy the awe on a dancer's face when I give them a photo on a move they performed or the joy of a parent when their child's character is caught in a picture. 

This medium has changed drastically since I left it years ago in the black and white develop your own film, "don't you dare open that door while the light is on!" era. 

I want photography to be my social security fill in job after retirement; which I will be reaching very shortly. I am willing to learn with constructive criticism. 

So for those of you taking the time to show me:
-- how to learn to buy and use new equipment (or good used equipment) preferably Canon 
-- how to take better pictures of both of my chosen genres
-- how to respond properly with the correct photography dialect 
-- and how to network with friendly and fun photographers, (share other sites where I can further learn)
I thank you ahead of time...


----------



## brad-man (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*



lgn55063 said:


> Good day all,
> As you notice, my in-experience is noted. However, my comments are based on what "I" know, not on what I should know. Yes, I am in my senior years; yes, I am not as knowledgeable as most of you; yes, my budget is much more limited than most, (regarding the 1Dx response) and finally, yes, I have so much to learn in this fast paced ever changing world of digital photography. The fun part is that I "am" willing to learn and try new things. This is what I hope to do with "all" of you that comment here.
> 
> Photography is a creative form in which I have always loved and will continue to love. I love "still" photography. I love to capture dancers in their craft and the joy and fun of children being creative in thought and play.
> ...



Hello. An excellent source for new equipment is https://www.canonpricewatch.com/. Of course ebay is another great resource as long as you pay attention to the seller's record/feedback. Craig's List is another option, but much more risky (I don't use it personally). Most of the rest of your requirements can be accomplished on this site (the friendly and fun photographers is hit or miss  ). Another site worth checking out is http://www.fredmiranda.com/.


----------



## lgn55063 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

both of these with Canon 70D... sorry type o!
One of dancing 
child thinking


----------



## lgn55063 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

Hello, Secure GSM
have been an awesome help...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 23, 2017)

There are also fast and affordable telephoto primes. Namely 135/2L or Sigma 135/1.8 Art. And then there are two 200 primes. Rather cheap 200/2.8L and much more expensive 200/2L IS or legendary 200/1.8L if you can find one second hand.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*



lgn55063 said:


> both of these with Canon 7D...
> One of dancing



The EXIF data says it was shot with a 70D not a 7D and that even though you shot at 4,000ISO it still needed a 1.43 stop lift.

Here is a comparison between the 7D, 7D MkII, 70D, and 6D (the MkII hasn't been posted yet though higher iso seems better than the MkI). I put in 6400 because that is the kind of noise you are fighting underexposing a high ISO shot like that, indeed your image will be worse than these swatches.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos70d&attr13_1=canon_eos6d&attr13_2=canon_eos7d&attr13_3=canon_eos7dii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.8237724240988066&y=0.18803854525184435

As you can see the FF camera is noticeably better at these iso's. If you add in an f2.8 lens, which you need to, this will give you another two stops of exposure, then you are going to get a much better result. Moving to a FF camera, even a 6D MkI, and an f2.8 zoom will get you close to four stops of improvement off the bat. 

If you can only afford one now get the lens first, it will make a bigger difference. Used 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI's are around $1,000 used.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 23, 2017)

Private, I think the weight of the 70 200 F2.8 is an issue here, hence I suggested to see if ign55063 would be able to get away shooting with F4 lens instead. He may be able judging by the EXIF data of the image provided. 

P.s. DXO Optics Pro Prime noise reduction cleans up noisy 6D ISO 6400 images pretty well.

"...I have the kit lens Canon 70-250mm but want better picture results. I did try the new Tamron 70-200 G2 and 
the Canon70-200 F2.8L; they are too heavy without a tripod for me. (non allowed in competitions) 
I have tested the Canon 70-200 F4L IS and can handle it for longer periods; which I plan to purchase..."


----------



## lgn55063 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

Hi all
eventually I will be getting the Canon 70-200 F4L IS... I borrowed one... the pictures are good...


----------



## lgn55063 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*

Hi all,
I did not expect all the help I have been getting from everyone... 
can't name all of you, but thank all of you for taking the time and giving me great advise... 
thank you!!! 

will keep reading, and correcting my mistakes with all of your advise... 
it's lots to keep up with and learn...


----------



## dak723 (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*



lgn55063 said:


> I have a Canon 70D and have been looking for a light weight full frame to be my second camera. I am a "seenager" with some disabilities, a moderate income and am about to retire. I do not have the means to buy the Canon 5DMarkIV. I really was looking forward to purchasing the Canon 6DMarkII as my solution to getting my first full frame camera due to the lower weight and better price range. In reading the many reviews regarding the new Canon 6DMarkII, I decided to go with one that I have felt more comfortable with since becoming a more than just an intermediate amateur photographer, DPREVIEW. One particular review caught my attention. I am not sure if this is allowed on this site, but here is the link:
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0227421206/should-i-buy-a-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii?slide=3
> 
> ...



If you are looking for a very high quality FF Canon camera that will be a good all-around camera for all purposes - and not too large and heavy - definitely the 6D II would be your best choice.

I see you are very new to this forum, so there are some things to keep in mind. The folks on this forum are very much equivalent to the audiophiles of the 1960s and 70s. They are interested in the ultimate in technology even when it makes no difference compared to lesser equipment when it comes to actual real- life experience (thus the frequent references to being "gear-heads".) They are pixel peepers and folks who underexpose 4 or 5 stops to make comparisons of different sensors. That does not sound like what you are interested in. It sounds like you are interested in actual photography.

Having owned the original 6D, for real world results in terms of image quality, you won't at all be disappointed if moving from crop to FF. The 6D II should have IQ that is just as good (which, as you can see, is not enough for the photo-philes) and has an improved AF system making it more of an all-around camera than the original 6D. 

If you do not need a more advanced AF system to shoot moving subjects, then I would consider buying a used or reconditioned 6D, which you should be able to get for around half the price of the new 6D II. Otherwise, do not hesitate getting the 6D II if you need lighter and smaller (compared to the 5D series cameras). Unless you are a pixel peeper, you can pretty much ignore these tests are reviews and just go about and enjoy your photography. 

One last comment. Again, this is a gear forum with a strong emphasis on technology. If you are more interested in photography and technique, then I would run away from this forum as fast as you can and try some of the other photography forums. If you search for "photography forums" or "friendly photo forums" you should get some links.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> Private, I think the weight of the 70 200 F2.8 is an issue here, hence I suggested to see if ign55063 would be able to get away shooting with F4 lens instead. He may be able judging by the EXIF data of the image provided.
> 
> P.s. DXO Optics Pro Prime noise reduction cleans up noisy 6D ISO 6400 images pretty well.
> 
> ...



I know, and agree. 

I was just trying to reframe the issue and put in perspective the improvements to be expected. Certainly any of the 70-200's is going to be a big improvement on the 55-250 used, and on a cost per stop basis working out how to use the f2.8 is going to get you 'more' than any other route. If you can't, you can't, but there isn't a cheaper way to 'buy' another full stop of performance.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*



dak723 said:


> lgn55063 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Canon 70D and have been looking for a light weight full frame to be my second camera. I am a "seenager" with some disabilities, a moderate income and am about to retire. I do not have the means to buy the Canon 5DMarkIV. I really was looking forward to purchasing the Canon 6DMarkII as my solution to getting my first full frame camera due to the lower weight and better price range. In reading the many reviews regarding the new Canon 6DMarkII, I decided to go with one that I have felt more comfortable with since becoming a more than just an intermediate amateur photographer, DPREVIEW. One particular review caught my attention. I am not sure if this is allowed on this site, but here is the link:
> ...



No, NO, don't run away from this forum, just keep things in perspective. There is nothing like hanging around those in the know for gleaming the deepest insights! 

I hadn't be shooting seriously with my Canon F1 for many years and a friend showed me the state of affairs with DSLRs and I was blown away. My 6D purchase was the best thing I could have ever done in getting me back into a love I'd forgotten and giving me immense pleasure. I'm retired and the gear is heavy but until I can't, I will, and I will enjoy it in spite of the fact that Canon gear is _____________ (add your own adjective). 

Go for the 6D2, it'll be fantastic.

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 23, 2017)

I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 23, 2017)

Fstoppers and SLR Lounge now jump onto the Canon DR-lack bandwagon as well 

Fstoppers tabloid title speaks for itself:
Disappointment After Disappointment — What Is Wrong With Canon?

SLR Lounge remains calm and impartial:
Canon’s 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Worse Than Its Predecessor & APS-C 80D | Who Is It For?

Brace yourselves, DRavagers are coming!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Fstoppers and SLR Lounge now jump onto the Canon DR-lack bandwagon as well
> 
> Fstoppers tabloid title speaks for itself:
> Disappointment After Disappointment — What Is Wrong With Canon?
> ...



Did they also publish their disappointment over the Nikon D5 losing a stop of low ISO DR compared to its two generations of predecessors, and also being bested by the Canon 80D in that particular metric?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 23, 2017)

And you were accused of not using logic - hmm. These sites are after hits and they get it through controversy.

All I can say is why bother replying when nothing is going to change. 

When I was little and excavation for a church had produced a huge pile of dirt we played (rough play indeed) king of the castle. Even at 8 years of age we understood that the one at the top had to be brought down at all cost. Childishness carries on right through life. That's how I see it, anyway. 

Jack


----------



## Khalai (Jul 23, 2017)

But it's sometimes fun to poke the most prominent trolls or DRavagers


----------



## hbr (Jul 23, 2017)

*Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...*



lgn55063 said:


> Good day all,
> As you notice, my in-experience is noted. However, my comments are based on what "I" know, not on what I should know. Yes, I am in my senior years; yes, I am not as knowledgeable as most of you; yes, my budget is much more limited than most, (regarding the 1Dx response) and finally, yes, I have so much to learn in this fast paced ever changing world of digital photography. The fun part is that I "am" willing to learn and try new things. This is what I hope to do with "all" of you that comment here.
> 
> Photography is a creative form in which I have always loved and will continue to love. I love "still" photography. I love to capture dancers in their craft and the joy and fun of children being creative in thought and play.
> ...



Hi lgn55063.
Let me throw my 2 cents worth in. I also think that the 6d II will still be the best bet for you. A lot depends on if you plan to to a lot of shooting indoors or not. I assume that you will be. I think the focus system, the higher resolution over the original 6D and the tilty flippy screen will aid you a lot in the type of photography you plan to do. I think the 6D II is a little expensive for what Canon is offering on it. There is not a tremendous difference between the 5D Mark IV and the 6D II sensors.

I think the biggest disappointment right now that we are seeing is the lack of innovation with this camera, I too am very disappointed but I am still buying one. It appears that Canon just cobbled together a bunch of parts they already had developed for other cameras and gimped out on the sensor. 

Yet, it will still be a very capable camera and should handle your needs quite well. 

This is just my humble opinion.

Brian


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.



Sporgon's word is as good as it gets, as far as I am concerned. 

For those new to the forum, he's reasonable and also a extremely talented photographer. 

Please, people though, read his comment as it is written. He's not saying the 6DII is a bad camera or anything of the sort. He is simply saying that if you are considering upgrading from the original 6D, you should not do so expecting to see major differences at lower ISOs. Lots of other reasons to upgrade or just buy a 6DII.

Now I'm curious though, what are you seeing at higher ISOs, Sporgon? I'm interested in noise at 3200 and 6400 and how it compares to the original 6D. 

Purely selfish reason. I'm getting tired of switching between a 70-200 f2.8 and either a wide angle zoom or the 21-105 f4. I've been thinking about picking up an original 6D when the prices drop and sticking the wide angle on the 6D, so I don't have to change lenses at events.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Sometimes we get a bit "full of ourselves" on the forum. The average user in the real world shoots mostly in "green box mode" and most of the things discussed here have no bearing.....
> 
> BTW, have you ever tried "green box mode" ? I think that for most conditions under good lighting, that it does a really good job... bet that I could go out and shoot a bunch of images in it, post them here, and nobody could tell the difference between them..... hmmmmmmmmm....... must go conduct an experiment.......



I'm surprised at how often when I'm working in ACR on RAW photos from my G7X II that I use for travel, that after tweaks and eye dropper clicks and such on the color temperature sliders, that I go back to "As Shot," and decide that looks better. Auto exposure works pretty well, too. Sometimes when I have bracketed exposure in less extreme situations, I can get quite decent pictures from two of the three RAW files. At times I can't quite decide between them, so I go ahead and stack them, and might do something as simple as setting the upper one to 50% to deal with my indecision. So really, the auto settings can be surprisingly good, especially as a jumping off spot for ACR, and after the automatic lens corrections.

I don't know how my T3i would compare in that regard. I use it in different ways in somewhat different circumstances. It has a bigger sensor and vastly better lenses, but the technology is older otherwise. I certainly haven't seen any consistent error with any particular lens.

And I can't say the same for the G7X II's video. I haven't shot much with it, and that was under the quirky lighting in an arena with just the practice lights on, and not the ones they use for games and need to look good on TV. The video was a little underexposed and had an odd cast that I couldn't quite correct. A lot of that is my ineptitude with color correction in Final Cut Pro. Premier works better for me in that regard, having controls that seem more Adobe-ish. If it were critical, I might import my video into Photoshop and apply the correction to all frames. But to my limited knowledge, I don't have that much control over the movie file Photoshop exports. Maybe next year I'll try a manual white balance with a piece of white paper, or something. (Sorry to ramble away from the topic; but then maybe next year I'll try shooting the video with the 6D2 I could have by then.)


----------



## hbr (Jul 24, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.
> ...



Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."

The problem is that Canon went back to the thinking that this would be just an "enthusiast's" camera. Therefore they did not leave a good upgrade path for the people who bought the original and Canon decided that a few "gimmicks" would sell the camera to enough first time buyers to make the upgrade from APS-C worthwhile. This is the first time that I know of that Canon went backwards. Not the first they used gimmicks when they had no good sensor upgrade to offer. Secondly, one of the things that also helped the sales of the original was when a lot of professionals started to buy it as a cheaper second camera. That meant a lot of wedding photographers bought it. I realize that Canon does not consider the 6 series to be professional grade so, therefore, did not put in a second card slot. I think that had they done that, a lot of wedding photographers would buy the upgrade, (they still might, but won't be happy about it).

I wonder if Canon has pissed off the 4k crowd, (I think Canon still does not have a good working 4k system), and pissed off the wedding photographers and pissed off the purchasers of the original 6D if this version will be as good of a success as the first one.

I am in the pissed off crowd that is very unhappy about the lack of innovation this time around, but after a lot of agonizing have decided to buy one as the other features will help me with my style of photography,

Very sad, Canon

Brian


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 24, 2017)

the more I thinking about it, the bigger this idea grows on me:

It could be that Canon decided to include the older generation sensor in 6D II due to forward projection of expected street price of 6D II model 1 to 2 years from now.
I recon, they were thinking: ok, this sick puppy would have to be competitive and we still have to make some profit from selling it cheaper than at launch by the time those new Nikon and Sony bodies hit the market in next 12 months from now... So let's make the cost as low as we reasonably could and then drop the price to meet market expectations later on while still maintaining the minimum profit margin to keep balls rolling.

If that was true, then we can expect 6D II street price to hit $1,500.00 level by the end of the year.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 24, 2017)

Wishful thinking - I hope you're right!

Jack


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?
> 
> Anyway, I know half of you will pull this to pieces but....
> 
> ...



I would be VERY interested in those kinds of profiles. If you ever do generate them for various bodies and set up a marketplace, let me know and I can help promote them.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 24, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.
> ...



Thanks for those kind words Unfocused; my wife and the Inland Revenue would take issue with you over the 'reasonable' bit 

My interest is whether the 6DII would be a suitable low ISO IQ upgrade from my 5DIIs. The answer is no, just as the 6D didn't give me any real advantage once Adobe had introduced the 2012 process raw converter. (Or rather once I has upgraded to it; like a fool I hadn't bothered until after I had bought the 6D). The 2012 process gives that much more latitude at the highlight end that it means I can ETTR in a high contrast scene to an extent that the deepest shadows move from the 0, 1, 2, 3 RGB range to 8, 9, 10 etc. And that makes all the difference in the world when lifting shadows the modest amount that I ever want to. 

So for anyone that has the ability to optimise their exposures to suit the 6DII the camera's DR is going to be absolutely fine - just like the 6D. From my point of view I think that the flip screen and DPAF will make it an interesting proposition for tripod shooting - can be comfortable with the tripod at a lower level. The 6.5 fps makes a big difference from 5 IMO, and I'll take the AF system though I manage fine with the old one. So I think for many the upgrade will be worth it. 

As far as the difference in really high ISO is concerned, honestly I'm not qualified to comment. I think I only ever once used my 6D at 3,200 in a church to see what it was like, and I can't now lay my hands on that folder. I remember that it seemed quite good at the time because of the way it was responding to NR. Take all the NR off and it was pretty well as ugly as the 5DII, although that camera doesn't respond to the NR as well as the 6D does. I'm really wary of shots that are taken at high ISO for the sake of it, i.e. there is plenty of light, as this can be misleading . However I downloaded some high 1,600 to 6,400 shots from the 6DII that were from genuine low light and it looks to me like it has a tighter, finer "salt and pepper" noise pattern / grain which may well be better than the 6D. 

If the sensor tech has somehow enabled Canon to keep the 6DII price down then I'm sure they will have done the right thing for the vast majority of potential purchasers. However it does look like Canon have drawn a line in the sand with the different sensor architecture between the 5 and 6D lines now. At low ISO the 6DII will require more skill from the user in optimising image IQ in challenging light situations than someone using the 5DIV.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 24, 2017)

hbr said:


> Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."
> 
> The problem is that Canon went back to the thinking that this would be just an "enthusiast's" camera. Therefore they did not leave a good upgrade path for the people who bought the original and Canon decided that a few "gimmicks" would sell the camera to enough first time buyers to make the upgrade from APS-C worthwhile. This is the first time that I know of that Canon went backwards. Not the first they used gimmicks when they had no good sensor upgrade to offer. Secondly, one of the things that also helped the sales of the original was when a lot of professionals started to buy it as a cheaper second camera. That meant a lot of wedding photographers bought it. I realize that Canon does not consider the 6 series to be professional grade so, therefore, did not put in a second card slot. I think that had they done that, a lot of wedding photographers would buy the upgrade, (they still might, but won't be happy about it).
> 
> ...



"Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 24, 2017)

scyrene said:


> "Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.



I started reading this site about a year ago when I decided not to upgrade to an 80D but go to FF. More recently I started to read (and then joined) this forum to follow thoughts on the 6D II. Nothing I've seen here has discouraged me from purchasing one. I have seen some helpful comments. I've even made a few comments myself about experience with regard to DR with my current cameras and with using ACR.

But I keep coming back here sort of like people who can't quit looking at auto wrecks.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 24, 2017)

stevelee said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > "Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.
> ...



It will be a great camera and can be used to take wonderful pictures.... If my camera were older, this would be a no-brainer upgrade for me.... As it is, it is still tempting and I am waiting to see reports from the real world as to how it performs before I decide one way or another....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 24, 2017)

Don Haines said:


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



I think I have the same auto-wreck mentality so right now I'm exercising my will power and hitting unnotify! 

Jack


----------



## hbr (Jul 24, 2017)

scyrene said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."
> ...



scyrene, maybe I needed to elaborate a little more in my post. Firstly, I have pre-ordered the 6D II and as I said, I pretty much have decided to keep it due to the things you mention, but my agonizing has been whether to purchase the 5D III or the 6D II. I own both the 6D version 1 and the 7D II, and I even considered purchasing the 80D. Both of them are fantastic cameras and maybe I shouldn't upgrade.

The 80D would give me all the features of the 6D II, but IQ wise I believe the 6D is superior and the 7D II while not having the IQ of the newer 80D, it is by far a better camera.

The 5D III would give me the better focusing, speed and weather proofing over the 6D, but IQ wise I would not be much better off than what I already have. Plus If I want speed, the 7D II blows it out of the water.

I do want the increased resolution of the 6D II along with the better focusing and tilty flippy, but after 5 years of owning the 6D I expected a better sensor especially having the on chip ADC. IQ and signal to noise ratios are also very important to me.

Sony and Nikon seem to have much better sensors than Canon and Canon does not seem to catch up. For example, My sister in law owns the Nikon D7200 which is Nikon's equivalent to my 7d II. While the Canon is much more fun and easier to use, the IQ of the 7D II lags behind the D7200.

In the case of the 6D II there does not seem to be any innovation that I can see, The AF was already developed for other cameras. The tilty-flippy was already designed for other cameras. The touch screen had already been designed for other cameras. So it appears that Canon just cobbled together a few items from other cameras and along with a old style sensor, (although recently designed) put them all in the 6D II to save money. IQ is one of the reasons one purchases a FF camera over a crop sensor. If I was still into crop sensor cameras I would have purchased the 80D. If Canon is trying to protect their 5D IV then why were the original 6d and the 5D III so close to each other in the sensor performance. I am not the first one to say that Canon took a step backwards on the sensor design. 

Anyway, yes, the 6D II is still a great camera and makes taking photos a lot easier than before, a lot of owners of the original 6D will not upgrade to the version II.

Sad


----------



## scyrene (Jul 25, 2017)

hbr said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. I think - as many others have said here and elsewhere - DSLRs are mostly a mature technology, and to expect "innovation" of the type I think you mean is to set oneself up for disappointment. I don't think it's entirely fair to say, for instance, 'articulating screens already existed, so the addition to this line is not innovative' - it is in as much as it's the first Canon FF camera to have one (as far as I know). Virtually *nothing* will be truly new. That doesn't mean it is in some way innovative. Assuming innovation is as important as some seem to believe.

As for the 80D versus the 6D2, I can't comment. I think the waters have been very muddied by a few vocal people online, but in general, a FF camera offers a small number of advantages to some people, regardless of the model. If those are not important to you, then the 80D is a much better value option. If they are important, then your decision is between the 6D2 and other current FF cameras.

I hope you enjoy your purchase


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 27, 2017)

hbr said:


> Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."



that was a figment of your imagination. 

or prove it.

Canon never stated anything about the sales of the 6D. Considering amazon rankings, the 6D sold quite well in the US.


----------



## hbr (Jul 27, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."
> ...



Check out http://www.canonrumors.com/eos-6d-mark-ii-to-move-upmarket-cr1/. I don't tell lies!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2017)

hbr said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



So are you suggesting that the content of a CR1 rumor posted on a site unaffiliated with Canon somehow represents a statement _by_ Canon?


----------



## hbr (Jul 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



No, I just posted that link as it was the first one I found that showed that I wasn't making things up, If my memory serves me correctly, I originally read this on another site that was conducting an interview with one of the Canon execs. 
The point is not worth arguing over. I'm not going to search for the interview.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2017)

hbr said:


> No, I just posted that link as it was the first one I found that showed that I wasn't making things up, If my memory serves me correctly, I originally read this on another site that was conducting an interview with one of the Canon execs.
> The point is not worth arguing over. I'm not going to search for the interview.



Fair enough. Just understand that 'it's not worth arguing over and I'm too lazy to back up my claims' is easily interpreted as 'I just make this crap up as I go along'.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 28, 2017)

hbr said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



By your definition, what "innovation" would it be if they had included the on-chip ADC from the 5D4? After all, that was also already developed for other cameras. In fact, by your definition, how many actual innovations occur for just about any camera release from any manufacturer? It's not like the Sony and Nikon lines regularly come out with things not seen before on any other body. The only ones I'm aware of are on-chip ADC and dual-pixel. Everything else is derivative of previous technologies.


----------



## hbr (Jul 28, 2017)

Fair Point. I was on a rant when I wrote those posts.


----------



## Alejandro (Jul 29, 2017)

Any news on writing speed from the UHS-1 slot?

And small question: We can write 4k video on the current UHS-1 speed, right?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 30, 2017)

Alejandro said:


> Any news on writing speed from the UHS-1 slot?
> 
> And small question: We can write 4k video on the current UHS-1 speed, right?


The faster "UHS-I U3" cards can write video with 4K resolution.
Notice the difference between the maximum write speed and the maximum read speed.


----------



## Alejandro (Jul 30, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Alejandro said:
> 
> 
> > Any news on writing speed from the UHS-1 slot?
> ...




So the good old sandisk extreme pro are more than enough?
Anything above 80mb/s is enough? Im thinking out loud because many said the UHS-1 wasn't enough for 4k video. (Digic 7 is more than capable of handling it).


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 30, 2017)

Alejandro said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Alejandro said:
> ...


There are different types of card speed measurement:

Maximum read speed (like anything above 80mb/s)
Maximum write speed (lower than read speed)
Minimum sustained write speed (much lower than the others)

The minimum sustained recording speed is the most important data for those who need to record video, and is usually hidden in the manufacturer's specification list. To reduce the labyrinth of acronyms and numbers, a velocity classification was already present on the label of models manufactured in 2017:

V6 (also called Class 6)
V10 (also called Class 10)
V30 (equivalent to Class 30)
V60 (equivalent to Class 60)
V90 (equivalent to Class 90)


----------



## Freddell (Jul 30, 2017)

lgn55063 said:


> Hi all
> eventually I will be getting the Canon 70-200 F4L IS... I borrowed one... the pictures are good...



70-200 will not have enough reach on Full frame camera. Please also evaluate 70-300L which has a newer AF firmware comp to 70-200f4.
You will love the 70-300L and it also works perfectly on old 6D or 70D.


----------



## OSOK (Jul 31, 2017)

The 6d2 is taking a beating in all the reviews and youtube vidz. I'd wager this is the most poorly received Canon release ever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 31, 2017)

OSOK said:


> The 6d2 is taking a beating in all the reviews and youtube vidz. I'd wager this is the most poorly received Canon release ever.



Thanks for sharing, I just knew there had to be a reason the 6DII is the best-selling FF camera on amazon.com right now.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Jul 31, 2017)

Too bad about the 6Dm2, as I had thought it would be the base for the Full Size M. 
Guess, I will need to hold off on the full size M for now. The 6D should hold me over then until 2020.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> OSOK said:
> 
> 
> > The 6d2 is taking a beating in all the reviews and youtube vidz. I'd wager this is the most poorly received Canon release ever.
> ...



Neuro, we all know that release sales are not indicative of long term sales... almost every camera is #1 on release week..... wait a few months before bringing out that argument.

And yes, I expect that in three months, when things settle down, the 6D2 will be Canon's top selling FF DSLR.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 31, 2017)

OSOK said:


> The 6d2 is taking a beating in all the reviews and youtube vidz. I'd wager this is the most poorly received Canon release ever.



plenty of rabid fans will eat it up anyway
but it likely is one of the most contentious cameras in a while


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 31, 2017)

Aglet said:


> but it likely is one of the most contentious cameras in a while



Ain't that the truth. 
I think this is a 'borderline' camera - the things people are complaining about are 'nice to haves' but that will not be the case in 3 years' time. I suspect the successor will open a whole bag of goodies.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 31, 2017)

I suspect a lot of buyers don't really understand DR and are just looking for a decent camera at their price point. The 6D2 will be fine for them. Canon will make a profit on the body, and enthusiasts will debate why Canon did this for a long time.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 2, 2017)

I think, posts like this will be common in the coming days. Canon is just playing a dangerous game IMO (just saw this post in a local fb group)


----------



## Aglet (Aug 2, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> I think, posts like this will be common in the coming days. Canon is just playing a dangerous game IMO (just saw this post in a local fb group)



HAHA! Maybe he's switching to Fuji. 
I prefer to sell my Canon gear one piece at a time... get better return on it.
Sold another high end EF-S lens last nite. Only a little more to go to be as Canon-free as I'd like. 

Now... let's watch to see how quickly street price of the 6d2 drops..


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 2, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> I think, posts like this will be common in the coming days. Canon is just playing a dangerous game IMO (just saw this post in a local fb group)



I think he lives in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that stuff is worth close to $11,500 as a kit or individually. But good luck to him on his sales and new system.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 2, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> I think, posts like this will be common in the coming days. Canon is just playing a dangerous game IMO (just saw this post in a local fb group)



Awesome. Hopefully someone (or a lot of someones) are spurred to change, and the price of a lightly used 5D4 plummets and I can pick one up and shoot it until it dies in a decade. It wouldn't break my heart even slightly if Nikon forced Canon to lose some of its pricing power and C had to really compete.

Of course I have my doubts this will happen, just like AMD had a great little run with the Athlon a decade and a half ago and didn't really manage to hurt Intel with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2017)

CanonGuy said:


> I think, posts like this will be common in the coming days. Canon is just playing a dangerous game IMO (just saw this post in a local fb group)



It seems his 1DII and 5DII bodies have served him well for close to a decade. I hope his new system serves him that well.


----------



## jester73 (Aug 2, 2017)

I have a clear analogy of the situation with the sensor 6d mark 2:
If the 5d4 sensor is the original Canon sensor of the last generation, then the sensor 6d mark 2 is like a "Chinese fake", as Canon claims to use the most advanced sensor available. Regardless of how much it is worse than the original, or how much it justifies its price, or how many people will buy a camera with such a sensor, it remains a "fake".
And on any serious trading platform sellers of fakes will be banned for the sale of fakes.
If someone wants to sell sensors of the previous generation, then do not talk about the last generation, and do not deceive customers.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 2, 2017)

jester73 said:


> I have a clear analogy of the situation with the sensor 6d mark 2:
> If the 5d4 sensor is the original Canon sensor of the last generation, then the sensor 6d mark 2 is like a "Chinese fake", as Canon claims to use the most advanced sensor available. Regardless of how much it is worse than the original, or how much it justifies its price, or how many people will buy a camera with such a sensor, it remains a "fake".
> And on any serious trading platform sellers of fakes will be banned for the sale of fakes.
> If someone wants to sell sensors of the previous generation, then do not talk about the last generation, and do not deceive customers.



If the 6D2 is the first camera it has been used in, then surely it is the latest sensor? Because as I see it, if it is better than pre-80D/5D4 sensors then surely it is a new improved sensor. 
No-one has yet done a tear down to know the architecture of the camera so we do not know the technology it uses. So on what basis do you call it a 'chinese fake'. Are you saying that you know for sure that only cameras with on-chip ADC can produce decent result nowadays? 

By the way, what is a 'chinese fake' as opposed to a 'fake'?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 2, 2017)

jester73 said:


> I have a clear analogy of the situation with the sensor 6d mark 2:
> If the 5d4 sensor is the original Canon sensor of the last generation, then the sensor 6d mark 2 is like a "Chinese fake", as Canon claims to use the most advanced sensor available. Regardless of how much it is worse than the original, or how much it justifies its price, or how many people will buy a camera with such a sensor, it remains a "fake".
> And on any serious trading platform sellers of fakes will be banned for the sale of fakes.
> If someone wants to sell sensors of the previous generation, then do not talk about the last generation, and do not deceive customers.



The analogy for the 6D → 6DII sensor is the 5DII → 5DIII upgrade. The sensor was basically the same ('if it ain't broke, don't fix it), pretty much everything else got a major performance bump.


----------



## squarepants (Aug 3, 2017)

I - for one - got swept up in the measurements and "numbers"... I'll admit it :-[

I don't usually like this guys videos, but have a look for a refreshing alternative to the doom & gloom over the 6D2's base ISO DR. Also... enjoy some awesome voiceovers too 

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


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 3, 2017)

squarepants said:


> I - for one - got swept up in the measurements and "numbers"... I'll admit it :-[
> 
> I don't usually like this guys videos, but have a look for a refreshing alternative to the doom & gloom over the 6D2's base ISO DR. Also... enjoy some awesome voiceovers too
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Po4Ct8B2Oo



Haha, I saw that too. Is it just me or is "The Fro" coming across sensible more and more these days. He's come a long way from his early videos. I'm starting to enjoy his work. Plus he actually knows how to take a photo.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 4, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> jester73 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a clear analogy of the situation with the sensor 6d mark 2:
> ...



I'm not so sure everything got an upgrade though; it really looks like all that's improved is the af (both stills and video) , screen and fps. The sensor has a small resolution bump, but otherwise is the same tech, and the video quality has been downgraded from the looks. 

I was under the impression the 5d2 to 5d3 added quite a bit more, dual cards, better video, headphone jack etc. Correct me if I'm wrong though. 

My opinion at this stage is that the 6d 2 is an improvement overall, but for the cost, it really fell short of the potential camera it really could have been.


----------



## slclick (Aug 4, 2017)

petapixel...are they even remotely in the realm of 'regarded reviews'? bah.


----------



## Jopa (Aug 5, 2017)

Aglet said:


> CanonGuy said:
> 
> 
> > I think, posts like this will be common in the coming days. Canon is just playing a dangerous game IMO (just saw this post in a local fb group)
> ...



I had no idea Canon makes high-end EF-S lenses?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 5, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Sold another high end EF-S lens last nite. Only a little more to go to be as Canon-free as I'd like.



I was just wondering.......

When you're totally Canon-free does that mean CR will become Aglet-free ?


----------



## Khalai (Aug 5, 2017)

Jopa said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > CanonGuy said:
> ...



Maybe the only one there is rather old 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Build quality is far from L, but optically, that lens is quite decent. And price was in the low L territory. So maybe that one? Apart from that, maybe also old 10-22 can be considered as "high-end" EF-S, but high-end only relative to other EF-S offerings.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 5, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Sold another high end EF-S lens last nite. Only a little more to go to be as Canon-free as I'd like.
> ...



Never. Remember, he has to continually persuade every Canon heathen to convert to the only righeous way of supreme DReligion


----------



## stevelee (Aug 5, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Maybe the only one there is rather old 17-55/2.8 IS USM. Build quality is far from L, but optically, that lens is quite decent. And price was in the low L territory. So maybe that one? Apart from that, maybe also old 10-22 can be considered as "high-end" EF-S, but high-end only relative to other EF-S offerings.



The 10-22 is a good lens, though bulky and heavy, relatively. I don't use it much any more, which suggests to me that when I get a 6D2, I'll still use the T3i with it rather than buying anything superwideangle FF any time soon. I made a bit of money shooting interiors for realtors, enough to pay for the lens. I would buy the 10-18 today instead. It is not quite as fast, but a lot handier and supposedly just as sharp. And I use the kit lens if I'm shooting in the 19-22mm range anyway.


----------



## BillB (Aug 5, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jester73 said:
> ...



Sensor is not "otherwise the same tech". Dual pixel, phase detect AF in Liveview and touchscreen focussing are major changes in technology, at least in my opinion.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 6, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Sold another high end EF-S lens last nite. Only a little more to go to be as Canon-free as I'd like.
> ...



You can keep rubbin' that lamp but you may not get that wish granted. LOL

As Canon-free as I'd like means I've reduced my inventory of that brand down to some basics.
If the 6d2 would have had a decent sensor I may have added it when the price came down but I don't want more bandy cameras.


----------



## Aglet (Aug 6, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



That's right.  I'm here as the voice of pro-choice.


----------



## pwp (Aug 6, 2017)

Luds34 said:


> squarepants said:
> 
> 
> > I - for one - got swept up in the measurements and "numbers"... I'll admit it :-[
> ...



Hah! Yes I watched this too. The Fro is sounding pretty sensible and being a sane voice in this fairly ridiculous round of 6DII sensor bashing. 

Constructive criticism is important, but persistent cycles of compulsive negativity are rarely good for the soul.

-pw


----------



## BillB (Aug 6, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Out of curiosity, Aglet could you clarify what you meant by "as Canon-free as I'd like"?


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 6, 2017)

BillB said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ah yes, you're quite correct, and those additions are really good (I mean, imagine the outrage if it didn't even get dual pixel...). I had meant the same tech as the original in the iq sense of the sensor, where the other three feel more in the af side of things. The dual raw pixel that the 5dmk4 has may have been interesting to help with the highlights (from rumors I've heard at least) but I can't see any mention of it being included in the 6dmk2

I have seen some initial reviews showing the resolution bump can be fairly noticeable from the 6d, which is great. Unfortunately, as I was hoping for a lighter ff landscape camera with a tilt screen, the lack of dr improvement is a real bummer to me.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 9, 2017)

Aglet said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Who, exactly, has expressed the opinion that people shouldn't choose whatever camera system they prefer?


----------



## Khalai (Aug 10, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



According to Aglet, people should choose camera HE heavily prefers in a single metric performance


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 10, 2017)

Khalai said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



It's funny; this whole holy war of camera brands seems to only exist online. I have friends who shoot Nikon and Sony (as well as Canon), and the only thing we talk about (well, photography-related) is either technique or results. No one cares what the others shoot, except for specific tips or borrowing gear. No one whines about DR, or AF, or 4k, or card slots. At all. No one brags about them, either. It's only a thing here.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 28, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jester73 said:
> ...



RGB+IR metering
Flicker reduction

If you've never shot sports under artificial lighting (or anything else under the kind of lights found in most gyms and most stadiums that don't host NBA, NFL, MLB, or major college teams in sports that are regularly televised), you have no idea how much those two are worth.

Particularly the flicker reduction. Not only does it time the shutter to release at the same point in the 100Hz/120Hz cycle such lights blink at, but it does so at the *peak* of each cycle. Not only do you get near uniform color and brightness from one frame to the next (and very little to no color shift from top to bottom of the frame), but you gain anywhere from 1/2 to a full stop of shutter speed where you need it the most!


----------

