Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Guillermo Luijk on July 20, 2017, 11:30:57 am

Title: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on July 20, 2017, 11:30:57 am
Even if Canon deliberately set the 6D II at a lower step than the 5D IV, and aimed it at high ISO like the 6D was, I think perhaps they have gone too far for a general purpose FF body. It has less DR than any other smaller sensor camera up to M4/3!!!

(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rangodinamico6dii.png)

Regards
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: NancyP on July 20, 2017, 12:06:37 pm
Well, that's confusing!
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: davidgp on July 20, 2017, 12:09:48 pm
Even if Canon deliberately set the 6D II at a lower step than the 5D IV, and aimed it at high ISO like the 6D I was, I think perhaps they have gone too far for a general purpose FF body. It has less DR than any other smaller sensor camera up to M4/3!!!

(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/rangodinamico6dii.png)

Regards

I saw it this morning, even the 80D does it better recovering shadows...
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: NancyP on July 20, 2017, 12:19:42 pm
My guess is that they didn't change the sensor design itself beyond the obvious increase in pixels. The "Photons to Photo" DR applet  shows that the 6D and the 6DII have identical curves, both clearly lesser than the 5D4 and 1DXII. Too bad. No chance that an owner of a 6D would bother to upgrade.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Telecaster on July 20, 2017, 05:22:58 pm
My response at this point is "So what?!" Unless you're an obsessive all cameras are more than good enough now.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 20, 2017, 05:31:17 pm
My response at this point is "So what?!" Unless you're an obsessive all cameras are more than good enough now.

When is "now"? Because this is basically the level of performance FF sensors offered 7-8 years ago. Were all cameras more than good enough then?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: RobertJ on July 20, 2017, 08:39:23 pm
I had read about this several weeks ago, when a user at the FredMiranda forums discovered the DR behavior of the 6D2 from analyzing an early RAW file. 

All I can say is I'm not really surprised at the types of things that Canon is doing these days.  They love to give the middle finger to their users, because they sell so many damn cameras anyway, they really don't care.

Compared to the 6D2, the "old" Nikon D750 has image quality that Canon *might* be able to achieve in about 15 years... if they're lucky.

I say this because even the 5D4 still has a type of banding that's similar to the 5D3, even though people keep saying the 5D4 is a big leap ahead in terms of DR.  I strongly disagree.  I have the RAW files to prove it.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 21, 2017, 03:40:05 am
I am a former Canon 6D user. As I replied in another thread, I never had a photo ruined due to its lower-compared-to-others DR. If one needs to boost the shadows 5 stops, or 3 stops, one is not exposing properly.

Canon decided to maintain the bias in the 6D series towards high ISO performance.

No brand is without "fault", e.g. Nikon is recalling the D750 for the third time now.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: kers on July 21, 2017, 06:51:09 am
...
No brand is without "fault", e.g. Nikon is recalling the D750 for the third time now....

Are you suggesting they will recall the 6DII to put in a better sensor ;)
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: scyth on July 21, 2017, 08:51:18 am
Canon decided to maintain the bias in the 6D series towards high ISO performance.

(https://s26.postimg.org/671odzlux/bias.jpg)

so what did they do with sensor in 5DIV ? decided not to maintain such bias  ;D ?
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 21, 2017, 10:19:16 am
(https://s26.postimg.org/671odzlux/bias.jpg)

so what did they do with sensor in 5DIV ? decided not to maintain such bias  ;D ?

The 5DIV has higher DR at lower ISO, compared to 6D/6DII. For 6D series, they kept the behaviour going from 6D > 6DII.

So, if you shoot Canon, and regularly need to lift shadows 5 stops, the 6D series is not the best choice.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: scyth on July 21, 2017, 10:43:41 am
For 6D series, they kept the behaviour going from 6D > 6DII.

certainly not, right wording here shall be totally devoid of any hints to some noble nuances - they either intentionally decided to cripple it _OR_ they decided to continue to utilize some existing manufacturing lines to save money on the cost of the sensor and that somehow did not allow them to improve the bottom line (readout related noise @ low gains)... so fans have to tell us BS like "Canon decided to maintain the bias in the 6D series towards high ISO performance." to decorate the issue
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Rado on July 21, 2017, 10:44:55 am
It gets even worse when you add 80D to that chart. It has about a stop more DR at ISO 100. Canon's own APSC body outperforming its full frame offering.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: JKoerner007 on July 21, 2017, 10:55:42 am
Canon decided to maintain the bias in the 6D series towards high ISO performance.

No brand is without "fault", e.g. Nikon is recalling the D750 for the third time now.

Since you brought the venerated Nikon D750 into this Canon-mess, allow me to provide some perspective between the two:

(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/7-2017/6DII%20vs.%20D750.jpg)


Your statement, "Canon decided to maintain the bias in the 6D series towards high ISO performance," is itself, ironically, what's biased.

A more accurate statement might be, "Canon decided to cripple the base ISO performance of its brand new entry ... while offering nothing out of the ordinary in high ISO performance."
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: hogloff on July 21, 2017, 10:56:35 am
I am a former Canon 6D user. As I replied in another thread, I never had a photo ruined due to its lower-compared-to-others DR. If one needs to boost the shadows 5 stops, or 3 stops, one is not exposing properly.

This is utter BS. If a scene has more DR than what your camera can handle then you have a few choices to make:

1. You blow out the highlights to keep the shadows from going black.
2. You turn the shadows into a black holes while keeping the highlights from blowing out.
3. You take multiple exposures of the scene and blend in post.
4. You use a GND filter to control the dynamic range.

If you think properly exposing a low DR camera solves all the issues, then you are either ignorant on this issue or your standards of image quality is very low.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Guillermo Luijk on July 21, 2017, 11:05:19 am
I am a former Canon 6D user. As I replied in another thread, I never had a photo ruined due to its lower-compared-to-others DR. If one needs to boost the shadows 5 stops, or 3 stops, one is not exposing properly.

Baseline exposure correction can well be something between 0,5 and 1 stop. White balance can be 1 or more stops for the R/B channels. A simple vignetting correction can be more than 1 stop push in exposure.

This means by the time you face the 0.0EV slider in your RAW developer, exposure can have already been pushed by 3 stops. Add to that a bright/contrast curve and a moderately high contrast scene that needs its shadows to be lifted, and there you are. 5 stops is not that much and specially is not about incorrect exposure set by the user.

DR is not only about proactively pushing exposure.

Regards
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: JKoerner007 on July 21, 2017, 11:21:45 am
And now to compare Canon's new entry with its closest competitor, the Nikon D610:

(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/7-2017/6DII%20vs.%20D610.jpg)


$2,000 is a preposterous price point for this utter lemon.

It should be about $699, as there are $800-$1,000 cameras that out-perform it.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Telecaster on July 21, 2017, 05:24:05 pm
When is "now"? Because this is basically the level of performance FF sensors offered 7-8 years ago. Were all cameras more than good enough then?

Yeah, I'd say they were pretty much, an outlier or two excepted. Since then it's been more pixels for bigger prints and better specs for pedants. My opinion, not a declaration, so don't get too fussed about it. The sort of thing that happens when you use decade-plus-old cameras with 50–80 year old lenses and find it all works together just fine.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: NancyP on July 21, 2017, 09:26:45 pm
I like the 6D. For most of what I do, it does the job with no fuss. I like having the superfine screen for manual focus, too. So I can't see the point of the 6D2. I have a few AIS Nikkor lenses kicking around, I use them on the Canon as well. Is it "the greatest camera"? No. But it works, and I have a set of lenses I like in Canon mount, and I should get around to buying the TSE 24mm II soon - there are some unique offerings - as can be said for the Nikon side. I just wish a 1DXII or better sensor would get put into a smaller body without a lot of other features. Weight is a real issue, all the more if I am backpacking. A 110 pound woman can't haul unlimited gear safely.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 06:56:54 am
certainly not, right wording here shall be totally devoid of any hints to some noble nuances - they either intentionally decided to cripple it _OR_ they decided to continue to utilize some existing manufacturing lines to save money on the cost of the sensor and that somehow did not allow them to improve the bottom line (readout related noise @ low gains)... so fans have to tell us BS like "Canon decided to maintain the bias in the 6D series towards high ISO performance." to decorate the issue

I am not a "fan" of anything, I was just relating my experience from when I was shooting the 6D. You do sound like a Nikon fan, and the BS is on you.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 06:59:39 am
Since you brought the venerated Nikon D750 into this Canon-mess, allow me to provide some perspective between the two:

(http://nikongear.online/examples/2017/7-2017/6DII%20vs.%20D750.jpg)

  • Nikon D750 = $1,796.85
  • Canon 6D II = $1,999.95

Your statement, "Canon decided to maintain the bias in the 6D series towards high ISO performance," is itself, ironically, what's biased.

A more accurate statement might be, "Canon decided to cripple the base ISO performance of its brand new entry ... while offering nothing out of the ordinary in high ISO performance."

Oh my, all the Nikon fans are out on a hunt:) What I said was:

"So, if you shoot Canon, and regularly need to lift shadows 5 stops, the 6D series is not the best choice."

In the end, it must be hurtful to all the Nikon fan boys to see how Canon manages to outsell their cameras with such crappy models like the 6D and the 6DII:)

I noticed that you "forgot" about the fact that Nikon has now recalled the D750 3 times... wonderful camera, if it works:)
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 07:02:55 am
This is utter BS. If a scene has more DR than what your camera can handle then you have a few choices to make:

1. You blow out the highlights to keep the shadows from going black.
2. You turn the shadows into a black holes while keeping the highlights from blowing out.
3. You take multiple exposures of the scene and blend in post.
4. You use a GND filter to control the dynamic range.

If you think properly exposing a low DR camera solves all the issues, then you are either ignorant on this issue or your standards of image quality is very low.

Oh my, the BS thing again, must be a fad? But I must be ignorant, me and countless others who use the 6D. I would love to see you work with slide film.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 07:06:41 am
Baseline exposure correction can well be something between 0,5 and 1 stop. White balance can be 1 or more stops for the R/B channels. A simple vignetting correction can be more than 1 stop push in exposure.

This means by the time you face the 0.0EV slider in your RAW developer, exposure can have already been pushed by 3 stops. Add to that a bright/contrast curve and a moderately high contrast scene that needs its shadows to be lifted, and there you are. 5 stops is not that much and specially is not about incorrect exposure set by the user.

DR is not only about proactively pushing exposure.

Regards

Thanks for the (only) civilized reply I got until now. I know that DR is not only about that; but the issue I have with all these tests is that people underexpose the image on purpose, and then lift shadows like crazy to compensate. I know a lot of photographers, and nobody works like that.

I did wrote that if you want to do that regularly, the 6D is not your best option.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 07:25:08 am
To complement my posts above, I decided to illustrate with some images I took with the 6D, typical of my camera usage back then.

Regards.

Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: scyth on July 24, 2017, 08:05:32 am
To complement my posts above, I decided to illustrate with some images I took with the 6D, typical of my camera usage back then.

Regards.

I'd suggest you to illustrate with even smaller images then you can beat CMOS MF sensor in DR  ;D ...
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 09:21:47 am
I'd suggest you to illustrate with even smaller images then you can beat CMOS MF sensor in DR  ;D ...

Feeling better? Ok, if you are interested, pm me and I will send you the high res files.

Other than that, I am out of this "Nikon vipers nest".
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: hogloff on July 24, 2017, 09:38:28 am
Oh my, the BS thing again, must be a fad? But I must be ignorant, me and countless others who use the 6D. I would love to see you work with slide film.

If you truly believe that properly exposing solves dynamic range issues, then yes you are ignorant.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: scyth on July 24, 2017, 10:46:55 am
Feeling better?

I am not using neither C nor N ... I saw good photos taken with kind of cameras - from cell phone cameras to you name it... however what is the point to argue that sensor in 6D2 was either crippled intentionally (may be it is actually capable of doing better, but firmware somehow limits - unlikely though) or simply designed to be manufactured like this to save on cost (even just to continue to utilize some existing manufacturing lines that can't make something like 5D4 sensor) ... both decisions for sure have sense for Canon... I'd rather put 5D4 sensor in 6D2 and cripple a lot else (fps, AF, etc), but I do not run Canon for a reason  ;D - for an average Joe 6D2 will work just fine and Canon will make money... amen
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 10:49:38 am
If you truly believe that properly exposing solves dynamic range issues, then yes you are ignorant.

I see you continue to choose the route of the personal attack. Perhaps you missed the part where I wrote that "if you regularly need to boost shadows 5 stops, the 6D is not the camera for you".

Other than that, the 6D is a great camera, and with proper careful exposure, it can deliver the goods for the ignorant like me:)

So no slide film from your side? I was shooting slide film 10 years ago, like below examples, with good results, so 6D was never a problem.

Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 10:51:55 am
I am not using neither C nor N ... I saw good photos taken with kind of cameras - from cell phone cameras to you name it... however what is the point to argue that sensor in 6D2 was either crippled intentionally or simply designed to be manufactured like this to save on cost (even just to continue to utilize some existing manufacturing lines that can't make something like 5D4 sensor) ... both decisions for sure have sense for Canon... I'd rather put 5D4 sensor in 6D2 and cripple a lot else (fps, AF, etc), but I do not run Canon for a reason  ;D - for an average Joe 6D2 will work just fine and Canon will make money... amen

All right then, we agree on something:) I don't buy these theories of "intentional crippling". The 6D is Canon's entry level FF camera, and it is indeed more than good enough for the avg Joe.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: scyth on July 24, 2017, 10:52:34 am
I see you continue to choose the route of the personal attack.
where did you see a personal attack here ? your opinions are free to be disputed
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 11:01:33 am
where did you see a personal attack here ? your opinions are free to be disputed

Pray tell why you reply on "hogloff's" behalf? Of course my opinions are to be disputed, but folks could refrain from resourting to "BS", "ignorant", and saying that my photography sucks:)

At least I make an effort in posting examples of what I mean, and the typical stuff I take pics of.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: hogloff on July 24, 2017, 11:18:40 am
Well who was it that wrote the following?

 If one needs to boost the shadows 5 stops, or 3 stops, one is not exposing properly.

That's fine if you don't shoot extreme lighting conditions, but your statement totally puts down others that do shoot under those conditions. I guess people using GND filters and / or merging multiple exposures just do so because they are lazy at getting the "correct exposure".

I call BS only when I see it, and your quoted statement stank and needed to be corrected upon.

Canon
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: JKoerner007 on July 24, 2017, 11:19:08 am
Oh my, all the Nikon fans are out on a hunt:) What I said was:

"So, if you shoot Canon, and regularly need to lift shadows 5 stops, the 6D series is not the best choice."

Not on a hunt; just disappointed.

I don't think the 6D (I or II) is the best choice for anything, actually.

They're just ho-hum cameras; capable but not 'the best' at anything.



In the end, it must be hurtful to all the Nikon fan boys to see how Canon manages to outsell their cameras with such crappy models like the 6D and the 6DII:)

Two things:

1) That McDonalds "sells more food" than Spagos doesn't make MD's food any better ... or anyone who eats at Spagos "hurt" by the sales volume of the former;

2) Further, regarding sales volume, I doubt very much that the 6D and 6D II, combined, will sell as many cameras as the D500.

Honestly, I believe this is actually hurting you, as a Canon fanboy, because you have no reason to be proud (or even interested in) a single feature of the 6D II.

If the camera with the 6D II's modest abilities were offered at $699, it would be a good camera at a great value.
However, for this under-powered entry to be offered at a $2,000 price point, it is almost an insult to Canon users.
(The proverbial "insult to injury" of such a tag for such a mediocre performer, after a 6-year-wait.)

If Canon does come out with a new Foveon-like, 100 mpx camera in 2018, I will be very interested in seeing how it does, and will sing its praises if it brings something new to the table.

But this? Do you honestly believe the 6D II offers anything distinguishably-excellent, and/or is worth the price, after a 6-year-wait, considering the other options $2,000 could fetch a prospective buyer?

Hope you don't view this as an attack, because it's not.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 11:55:43 am
Well who was it that wrote the following?

 If one needs to boost the shadows 5 stops, or 3 stops, one is not exposing properly.

That's fine if you don't shoot extreme lighting conditions, but your statement totally puts down others that do shoot under those conditions. I guess people using GND filters and / or merging multiple exposures just do so because they are lazy at getting the "correct exposure".

I call BS only when I see it, and your quoted statement stank and needed to be corrected upon.

Canon

Point 1 - I did not call anybody lazy, so don't put those words in my mouth.

Point 2 - as I also said (but you chose to omit, how convenient), the 6D is not the right camera for you, if you need to boost shadows 5 stops regularly.

Point 3 - but, if you do need to boost shadows 5 stops regularly, you are doing something less-than optimal in your workflow. Use GND (I do sometimes), use multiple exposures, whatever.

This is not BS, it is a simple fact. In more than 20 years of shooting, in many and variegated sorts of lighting conditions, I never had to boost shadows by that amount.

I see that you felt the need to "correct" me, must be nice being you...
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on July 24, 2017, 12:09:22 pm
Not on a hunt; just disappointed.

I don't think the 6D (I or II) is the best choice for anything, actually.

They're just ho-hum cameras; capable but not 'the best' at anything.



Two things:

1) That McDonalds "sells more food" than Spagos doesn't make MD's food any better ... or anyone who eats at Spagos "hurt" by the sales volume of the former;

2) Further, regarding sales volume, I doubt very much that the 6D and 6D II, combined, will sell as many cameras as the D500.

Honestly, I believe this is actually hurting you, as a Canon fanboy, because you have no reason to be proud (or even interested in) a single feature of the 6D II.

If the camera with the 6D II's modest abilities were offered at $699, it would be a good camera at a great value.
However, for this under-powered entry to be offered at a $2,000 price point, it is almost an insult to Canon users.
(The proverbial "insult to injury" of such a tag for such a mediocre performer, after a 6-year-wait.)

If Canon does come out with a new Foveon-like, 100 mpx camera in 2018, I will be very interested in seeing how it does, and will sing its praises if it brings something new to the table.

But this? Do you honestly believe the 6D II offers anything distinguishably-excellent, and/or is worth the price, after a 6-year-wait, considering the other options $2,000 could fetch a prospective buyer?

Hope you don't view this as an attack, because it's not.

Nice to have a civilized discussion, thanks for that. I am not, and never was, a fanboy of any brand. The 6D line of cameras is ho-hum indeed, do not excel at anything, but it gets the job done. I don't eat at Mac and don't even know what Spagos is, so I am lost there.

I have no doubts that the 6DMKII will go down in price, it is normal for such cameras to do so. Not everybody needs the camera to be "the best", and the 6D line fills nicely the requirements for a FF entry level camera in the Canon EOS system. The price is on par for entry level FF for a Canon, so no surprise there.

For those requiring better sensor performance on a Canon, there is the 5D series; with the 6D, Canon broke the previous 5DMKII lineage into two branches, one entry level (6D), the other more semi-pro (5DMKIII). If I hadn't changed from Canon 6D to Sony A7 two years ago, I would still be using the 6D series.

Why? Because it suits my requirements very nicely, and because I am not bothered by tests that push shadows 5 stops or because the sensor is not ISO-invariant. That does not affect my photography, and I suspect it does not affect the photography of many others.

No doubt the D750 or the D500 are great cameras, but lately Nikon has had too many problems; can you honestly say that you trust the system at this entry level? The D600 had all the oil splatter on the sensor issues; the D750 has seen 3 recalls. This is a crucial segment of the market, the FF entry level one.

What the testers seem to forget is that, despite all this negative criticism, Canon users will remain happy with the 6D line, because at the end of the day, the 6D delivers the goods for them. It's the best FF camera from Canon for travel and general use.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: hogloff on July 24, 2017, 12:29:51 pm

Point 2 - as I also said (but you chose to omit, how convenient), the 6D is not the right camera for you, if you need to boost shadows 5 stops regularly.


Sorry Paul, I fail to see in the quoted post where you mention the above. Sure later when you start to back track you supplement the post, but the post I replied to originally was as I stated...basically saying that if you have to boost your image by 3 to 5 stops...then you don't know how to expose. That is what I called you out on and still will as it is BS.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: NancyP on July 24, 2017, 01:36:08 pm
Many, but NOT ALL, of the situations where one needs to boost 5 stops can be handled by a soft graduated filter, in my experience. The problem with GND filters comes when the straight gradient doesn't match the image - grossly irregular skyline, etc.

Slightly fussy processing helps. Here's an interesting article: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/canon.raw.processing1/
Of course, if you shoot jpg from preference or for news, you are SOL.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: JKoerner007 on July 24, 2017, 01:49:09 pm
Nice to have a civilized discussion, thanks for that. I am not, and never was, a fanboy of any brand. The 6D line of cameras is ho-hum indeed, do not excel at anything, but it gets the job done. I don't eat at Mac and don't even know what Spagos is, so I am lost there.

I have no doubts that the 6DMKII will go down in price, it is normal for such cameras to do so. Not everybody needs the camera to be "the best", and the 6D line fills nicely the requirements for a FF entry level camera in the Canon EOS system. The price is on par for entry level FF for a Canon, so no surprise there.

For those requiring better sensor performance on a Canon, there is the 5D series; with the 6D, Canon broke the previous 5DMKII lineage into two branches, one entry level (6D), the other more semi-pro (5DMKIII). If I hadn't changed from Canon 6D to Sony A7 two years ago, I would still be using the 6D series.

Why? Because it suits my requirements very nicely, and because I am not bothered by tests that push shadows 5 stops or because the sensor is not ISO-invariant. That does not affect my photography, and I suspect it does not affect the photography of many others.

No doubt the D750 or the D500 are great cameras, but lately Nikon has had too many problems; can you honestly say that you trust the system at this entry level? The D600 had all the oil splatter on the sensor issues; the D750 has seen 3 recalls. This is a crucial segment of the market, the FF entry level one.

What the testers seem to forget is that, despite all this negative criticism, Canon users will remain happy with the 6D line, because at the end of the day, the 6D delivers the goods for them. It's the best FF camera from Canon for travel and general use.


Paul, I was about to type another long post ... but, instead, how about we just enjoy each other's images and not worry about our equipment differences?

Everyone has his/her preferences, and (at the end of the day) we're all going to shop and buy what features/price ranges we are comfortable with.

Have a good one.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 24, 2017, 08:56:26 pm
Paul is right again.

Nikon did mess up big time with both the D600 (D610 was ok) and the D750 in terms of product quality. Of course these are most probably indirect consequences of the 2 major issues they were hit with with the earthquake in Nortern Japan and the Thailand floods, but why should I care as a user?

This being said, these issues were overblown way out of proportion. The shutter of most D750 didn't have any negative impact on most users but the burden of having to send a camera back. At least mine was ok.

At least, we should all agree that this was not intentional on Nikon's part. All their recent releases (bodies and lenses) have been under tremendous scrutinity and have been flawless. There is little reaon to be worried as we speak.

The issue with the 6DII sensor that should make 6D users think is that Canon decided for them intentionally that DR was not important for their buying power. They could have used the 5DIV sensor, probably at little to no extra-cost but decided to create segment differentiation with the most impirtant aspect of image quality.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Bernard ODonovan on July 25, 2017, 05:53:05 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=opaq1vOs4HI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gkmqh3T1jc


They want to believe  :D
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 25, 2017, 07:16:41 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=opaq1vOs4HI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gkmqh3T1jc


Amazing! Brits used to be a skinny nation ;)
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BJL on July 25, 2017, 09:07:29 pm
There are some strange extremes here. It seems to me that the 6D Mark II (and probably every recent ILC) has more than enough dynamic range for the great majority of photography, including any image that can be printed "straight" rather than with substantial compression of contrast, so it will probably be fine for many users. And I do not agree that maximum DR is "the most important aspect of image quality". But having more DR than slide film is a very low bar for a US$2000 camera: that medium did at times require using graduated ND filters, and people would clearly want to minimize the need for that hack. It is not as if being the cheapest Canon 35mm format DSLR makes this a camera for nothing more than casual snapshots.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: RichDesmond on July 25, 2017, 10:39:52 pm
It it just me, or has this site moved in the DPReview direction in the last year or so?? Seems like a lot brand bashing going on, for no apparent purpose.
Obsessing over a particular technical spec seems just weird here. Lots of ways to make great photos (perhaps I'll eventually figure one out :)), if the new 6D Mark II doesn't suit you then don't buy it. I'm not going to either, but that doesn't make Canon a bad company, or the people who do buy one ignorant dolts.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: shadowblade on July 25, 2017, 11:32:50 pm
SNR (i.e. DR at base ISO), resolution and strength of the colour filters are the three sensor-based factors that affect technical image quality at any given sensor size. Of these, SNR (plus the read noise contribution to noise) is probably the most important. Resolution matters for large prints and heavy cropping, and absolute colour accuracy matters for specialised things like art reproduction, but SNR matters for almost every application. Not just for high-DR situations, but also for image quality in standard DR situations at high ISO (you lose 1 stop of SNR for every step of ISO gain, although the biggest contribution to Canon's low-ISO DR weakness is read noise, rather than a difference in underlying SNR) and standard DR situations in anything other than white light (individual channels can get pushed or pulled by several stops just for white balance).

That said, the 6D2 was never going to be a ground-breaker, and not a good product by which to judge the state of Canon's technology. It's an entry-level full-frame camera, like the D610 and A7ii, designed to be price-competitive against the higher-tier offerings and for users who want to take nice photos in non-challenging lighting conditions, but who don't come close to pushing technical limits either in ISO, DR or AF. For instance, such a sensor or body would be perfect for a studio photographer with complete control over lighting, who has better things to spend money on than a body with unneeded DR, ISO or AF capability. Better to add a few more lights or accessories in that case, or a faster PP workflow.

The 6D2 sensor would have been designed with these users, and cost savings, in mind. Canon still has older fab plants which can make these sensors, but not the newer ones capable of making sensors with column-parallel, on-sensor ADC which have base DR in the same ballpark as sensors from other manufacturers. Better to use these fab plants to make sensors for a product which doesn't need a higher-grade sensor, while saving the higher-grade lines to make 5D4, 80D, 1Dx2 and future 5Dx2 sensors, than to leave them sitting idle while taking up higher-end capacity which could otherwise be making sensors for products which really need them.

I would expect the 5Ds2/other 5Ds replacement to be a much better gauge of the state of Canon's technology than an entry-level body which doesn't even pretend to be aimed at users who push technical boundaries. If it can hit 14 stops of DR (at 1:1 SNR, which is the level DxO uses in testing) while reaching 60MP resolution, it will be a competitive product, irrespective of what Sony brings out.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: shadowblade on July 25, 2017, 11:40:10 pm
Also, I find it interesting how certain groups of photographers like to put down anyone needing higher DR or resolution ('learn to expose properly', 'work on skill/composition,not the technical stuff'), while giving a free pass to those who call for higher ISO (we got by with ISO 400 film), AF (they used to shoot sports with MF) or frame rate (learn to time). Almost invariably, these are people whose subject matter or photographic style don't push technical boundaries and who have little understanding of how these boundaries limit and affect the final output.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BJL on July 26, 2017, 01:43:25 pm
I agree that greater DR (the real thing, measured at base ISO-speed) is an advantage in some not-uncommon situations, and the 6DII is therefore inferior for some uses, even compared to similarly-priced competitors.

But this is a very strong claim:
SNR (i.e. DR at base ISO), resolution and strength of the colour filters are the three sensor-based factors that affect technical image quality at any given sensor size. Of these, SNR (plus the read noise contribution to noise) is probably the most important.
For example, with the great majority of scenes with SBR about six stops or less, 10 stops of DR is plenty, and there will be no visible difference from having 14 or even 16 stops instead. Any given scene needs "enough" SNR, beyond which any more gives no practical improvement.

Not just for high-DR situations, but also for image quality in standard DR situations at high ISO (you lose 1 stop of SNR for every step of ISO gain, although the biggest contribution to Canon's low-ISO DR weakness is read noise, rather than a difference in underlying SNR) and standard DR situations in anything other than white light (individual channels can get pushed or pulled by several stops just for white balance).
That is not necessarily so, as a graph above shows: the 6DII seems to have no SNR disadvantage at higher ISO speeds.  DR at base-ISO can have a complicated relation to high ISO speed SNR, due to the different ways that different cameras handle read-noise. This relates to the nearly "ISO-less" aspect of some column-parallel ADC approaches.

That said, the 6D2 was never going to be a ground-breaker, and not a good product by which to judge the state of Canon's technology.
Agreed! The 6DII is apparently using Canon's previous generation sensor technology, from before it adopted column-parallel ADC.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: scyth on July 26, 2017, 04:17:15 pm
it will be a competitive product, irrespective of what Sony brings out.

Actually so far Canon by itself is competitive irrespective of what Sony brings out... just because it is established itself... so one can assume that 6D2 might simply outsell any Sony dSLM  ;D
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: shadowblade on July 26, 2017, 10:22:11 pm
I agree that greater DR (the real thing, measured at base ISO-speed) is an advantage in some not-uncommon situations, and the 6DII is therefore inferior for some uses, even compared to similarly-priced competitors.

But this is a very strong claim:For example, with the great majority of scenes with SBR about six stops or less, 10 stops of DR is plenty, and there will be no visible difference from having 14 or even 16 stops instead. Any given scene needs "enough" SNR, beyond which any more gives no practical improvement.

Not true, on two accounts.

Firstly, almost any backlit scene, sunrise/sunset landscape or interior scene with light coming through windows will have more than six stops of DR. Not relevant if you exclusively shoot portraits or studio work ('portraits' meaning anything from seated portraits to live sports through an 800mm lens), but common enough that many photographers will encounter it fairly regularly, and some for the majority of shots.

Secondly, even if the scene fits within the dynamic range, higher SNR still means less noise in the shadows, since they are further from the noise floor. Instead of a 20:1 SNR in the shadows, you may have a 400:1 SNR with a higher DR sensor, giving you a cleaner image. This is why HDR/image blending will give you cleaner shadows (in situations where it is practical), even with a high-DR sensor such as the D810 or A7r2.

Quote
That is not necessarily so, as a graph above shows: the 6DII seems to have no SNR disadvantage at higher ISO speeds.  DR at base-ISO can have a complicated relation to high ISO speed SNR, due to the different ways that different cameras handle read-noise. This relates to the nearly "ISO-less" aspect of some column-parallel ADC approaches.

I did mention the read noise contribution. But that still doesn't change the utility of more DR at any given ISO for dealing with colour correction and general post-processing - shooting in incandescent light, blue light or almost anything other than direct sunlight (or an electrical mimic), you can be pushing or pulling a channel by several stops just to get to neutral.

Quote
Agreed! The 6DII is apparently using Canon's previous generation sensor technology, from before it adopted column-parallel ADC.

It's probably a case of getting one last use out of the old production lines, for a product that doesn't really need the newer ones, before shutting them down or upgrading them. This gives them a bit of a buffer, time to set up newer lines for modern sensors, to make personnel changes, etc.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BJL on July 27, 2017, 09:28:37 am
@shadowblade, I do not dispute that some photographers have reason to care about what I called the "not un-common" situation of dealing with far more than six stops of SBR—and the 6D2 is not the camera for them.

On the other hand, the 6D2 and all recent ILCs have comfortably better handling of high SBR than slide film, and a lot of good photography has been done with such film without hacks like grad ND filters, so I expect that the 6D2 will meet the needs of many good photographers, but not all.

About the idea that "higher SNR is always an advantage", even in scenes of only moderate SBR: there is an important difference between differences that are measurable versus ones that are visible anywhere short of on-screen pixel peeping.  20:1 SNR in the shadows is imperceptable; some reputable guidelines are that 40:1 in the midtones is "excellent" (as in the ISO SNR40 measure of low-light sensitivity) and the old film ISO speed standard which was based on "film base plus fog" (the film version of the noise floor) being a bit over four stops below the mid-tones.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: shadowblade on July 27, 2017, 09:42:26 am
@shadowblade, I do not dispute that some photographers are often in the "not un-common" situation of dealing with far more than six stops of SBR—and the 6D2 is not the camera for them. On the other had, it and all recent ILCs have comfortably better handling of high than slide film, and a lot of good photography was done with such film, without hacks like grad ND filters, so I expect that the 6D2 will meet the needs of many good photographers, but not all.

About the idea that "higher SNR is always an advantage", even in scenes of only moderate SBR: there is an important difference between differences that are measurable versus ones that are visible anywhere short of on-screen pixel peeping.  20:1 SNR in the shadows is imperceptable; some reputable guidelines are that 40:1 in the midtones is "excellent" (as in the ISO SNR40 measure of low-light sensitivity) and the old film ISO speed standard which was based on "film base plus fog" (the film version of the noise floor) being four stops below the mid-tones.

On the other hand, there was a reason many photographers used negative film, despite the poorer resolution. Slide film just didn't offer enough dynamic range. Landscapers who shot slide film all carried a case full of GND filters, and often ran into trouble when they had to deal with a non-linear horizon.

High DR - just like high ISO (which is really just the other end of the same spectrum) - lets you capture shots in a much greater variety of situations, particularly those where you don't have complete control of the lighting. Not that you can't capture good shots with a camera with limited DR or ISO - just that you can now capture good shots in situations where, previously, you wouldn't even have bothered taking out the camera. The shots aren't any better, but you can capture them in a far greater range of situations, with better output quality. If all you do is shoot touristy snapshots (if the subject's in focus and the shot's not tilted or motion-blurred, it's good enough) or take portraits in friendly (or controlled) lighting, you probably don't need that latitude. But, the moment you have to deal with adverse lighting (backlighting, darkness or strong contrasts), you want that extra latitude.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BJL on July 27, 2017, 11:25:06 am
High DR - just like high ISO (which is really just the other end of the same spectrum)
Not quite: as I pointed out before, some cameras have quite good high ISO performance but not great DR at base ISO speed; in particular this is true of older technology Canon CMOS sensors when compared to the best new sensors with column parallel ADC. For example, the graph in post http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=118996.msg988691#msg988691 shows that the Canon 6D2 has about the same high ISO speed noise performance as the Nikon D750, but lags by two to three stops at base ISO speed.

I think this is because the older Canon sensors apply "ISO gain" amplification in the transfer from photo-sites to the sensor's edge, and then transport that amplified analog signal to A/D convertors that are off-board, or maybe at the corners of the sensor. Therefore, significant read noise can enter after this analog amplification, and at lower ISO speed settings with less of this analog amplification, this noise has a greater effect on the final signal. In comparison, the modern column-parallel ADC approach has no signal transport between analog gain and ADC, so essentially no noise enters after the analog gain stage.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: shadowblade on July 27, 2017, 01:14:46 pm
I know how DR relates to ISO, and the impact of read noise. I've only been talking about it for the past 8 years, since the 5D2 and A900...

That doesn't change the way DR relates to ISO capability. Read noise mostly causes problems and nonlinearity below ISO 800 or so. A camera with higher DR at ISO 800 will probably retain more detail at ISO 25600 or 51200. Visible noise may differ with default settings, but that is mostly due to varying amounts of NR being applied, and differing NR algorithms - the higher-DR sensor will retain more detail in the RAW file.

Column-parallel ADC doesn't change this relationship - it merely allows the linearity to continue to much lower ISOs. You'd probably start to see some nonlinearity appear again if sensors had greater well depth and could shoot at ISO 12, 6 or 3.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BJL on July 28, 2017, 10:09:32 am
I know how DR relates to ISO, and the impact of read noise . . . That doesn't change the way DR relates to ISO capability.
. . .
Column-parallel ADC doesn't change this relationship - it merely allows the linearity to continue to much lower ISOs.
I think that your last point about "linearity failure" is also my point: these older generation Canon sensors have a failure in the linear "one stop of SNR for each stop of ISO speed" pattern at lower ISO speeds, leading to a worse DR there than is the case with newer, better approaches. This is nicely illustrated by the above 6D2 vs D750 comparison graph, which shows substantially lower "photographic DR" at base ISO speed but not worse SNR at high ISO speeds.

Perhaps one issue is the difference between what I will call "photo-site dynamic range"—the ratio between full well capacity and dark noise level before read-out—and the measures we actual get, which include other "downstream" noise sources that have a sensor-dependent relationship to ISO speed. If the only noise were that present in photo-sites (photon shot noise plus dark current noise?), then there would be a simple relationship predicting SNR at a given ISO-speed from that "photo-site dynamic range". I seem to remember that studies of Canon sensors some year ago (when they were the start of the art) showed that the DR of the photo-sites themselves was substantially higher than the usual measurements give, due to noise entering later in the process. People complained then about Canon squandering the potential for better low ISO performance—and they still are!
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Bernard ODonovan on July 31, 2017, 04:33:05 pm
Amazing! Brits used to be a skinny nation ;)

The first video was set in South Africa...

The second video had our new Kate Moss...  ;)

You may prefer this review:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wenD1Nr8ygo


Here is an infomercial:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eeezLCMWt10
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 31, 2017, 07:38:05 pm
... You may prefer this review:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wenD1Nr8ygo
...

But of course, if only because she is from my home country, from the same part as Melania :)
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 01, 2017, 05:25:28 am
Given all this talk about how the sensor on the 6DMKII sucks:

https://translate.google.com/translate?act=url&depth=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/info/6dmk2-delivery/release.html

Apparently, Canon are not able to meet initial demand of the camera plus kit zoom lens. Initial demand is higher than expected. All those poor suckers buying this crappy camera:)
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: mecrox on August 01, 2017, 06:21:08 am
Given all this talk about how the sensor on the 6DMKII sucks:

https://translate.google.com/translate?act=url&depth=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/info/6dmk2-delivery/release.html

Apparently, Canon are not able to meet initial demand of the camera plus kit zoom lens. Initial demand is higher than expected. All those poor suckers buying this crappy camera:)

Well they would say that, wouldn't they. To get to the bottom line, would you buy this camera? i wouldn't, not after going through some of the online assessments. I think I could get quite a bit better for my money elsewhere and I also suspect that this camera is going to seem sorely outdated a long time before its natural life cycle is up. It's a trap, in other words. Plenty of people will probably never notice this camera's limits but those who do - landscape shooters, enthusiasts, etc - are going to feel they've been had. The way this camera is configured makes me wonder whether Canon's intention is to issue something whose weaknesses will make it easier to persuade people to upgrade to some $$$ mirrorless camera which does have a modern sensor in two years' time.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 01, 2017, 08:57:45 am
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. To get to the bottom line, would you buy this camera? i wouldn't, not after going through some of the online assessments. I think I could get quite a bit better for my money elsewhere and I also suspect that this camera is going to seem sorely outdated a long time before its natural life cycle is up. It's a trap, in other words. Plenty of people will probably never notice this camera's limits but those who do - landscape shooters, enthusiasts, etc - are going to feel they've been had. The way this camera is configured makes me wonder whether Canon's intention is to issue something whose weaknesses will make it easier to persuade people to upgrade to some $$$ mirrorless camera which does have a modern sensor in two years' time.

Oh my... as I said many posts above, I have shot with the 6D, and the 5DMKII before that. I actually shoot a lot of landscape, travel, people. I was never in a situation where I thought: gee, if only I had a camera with better X, Y, or Z parameter. These entry-level FF cameras are actually very good to use and shoot with.

I only moved from Canon to Sony A7 system, because the system has matured enough, and I can carry a smaller and lighter backpack without compromising on quality. Even today, I use a A7 and A7II; apparently Sony has issued better stuff since these two were the latest and greatest. But I don't go for that, I just buy judiciously, if stuff works fine for me, then that is that.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: NancyP on August 01, 2017, 11:08:06 am
So, Paulo, what is your typical kit now and its weight, vs your similar focal length kit with the 6D and its weight?
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 01, 2017, 11:26:59 am
So, Paulo, what is your typical kit now and its weight, vs your similar focal length kit with the 6D and its weight?

The last kit I had with Canon included a couple of 6D cameras, plus several lenses: Zeiss Distagon 21, EF 16-35 f4, EF 70-300L, 100 macro IS, 50 f1.4.

Since early 2015 I pruned my shooting to travel, landscapes, people. Today I have the A7, A7II, Tokina Firin 20 (fantastic lens with f2 aperture), ZA 55 f1.8, FE 85 f1.8 (no need for the Batis once this gem came out), and I will complement this with the G 90 Macro and be done with it.

One year ago I climbed Pico mountain, in the Azores (the highest mountain in Portugal), with an overnight camping stay. I carried the two cameras with two primes in a small Lowepro backpack, plus all the camping gear, food, mini tripod, etc. A lot less weight and size.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: NancyP on August 01, 2017, 02:52:16 pm
So your weight savings have come in pruning the number and type of lenses, as well as the weight difference in comparable lenses and in cameras. 6D, ~720 grams. A7RII, ~ 625 grams; Zeiss Distagon 21 mm ~750 g, Tokina 20 mm 430 grams; Sony 90 mm and Canon 100 mm macros a dead heat at 630 grams each.

This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: John Cothron on August 01, 2017, 03:18:04 pm
I suspect the 6DII will do just fine.  Would I buy it? No, but I've been shooting the 5D series for years.  There are cameras with better sensor technology for sure, but I suspect if someone has already bought into Canon mount glass, and they want to be in this price range (2k) they will buy the 6DII.

Having said that, I don't understand why Canon seems to have moved a tad backward with the 6DII regarding sensor technology.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: John Cothron on August 01, 2017, 03:20:13 pm
The last kit I had with Canon included a couple of 6D cameras, plus several lenses: Zeiss Distagon 21, EF 16-35 f4, EF 70-300L, 100 macro IS, 50 f1.4.

Since early 2015 I pruned my shooting to travel, landscapes, people. Today I have the A7, A7II, Tokina Firin 20 (fantastic lens with f2 aperture), ZA 55 f1.8, FE 85 f1.8 (no need for the Batis once this gem came out), and I will complement this with the G 90 Macro and be done with it.

One year ago I climbed Pico mountain, in the Azores (the highest mountain in Portugal), with an overnight camping stay. I carried the two cameras with two primes in a small Lowepro backpack, plus all the camping gear, food, mini tripod, etc. A lot less weight and size.

I somewhat envy your weight savings :)  Carrying around 4-5 Zeiss metal lenses does get a tad heavy at times, although I still say they are worth it!  Still, if I had some serious packing to do I would probably carry a 16-35 f4, Zeiss 50 MP, and a 70-200 f4 and call it a day.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: RichDesmond on August 01, 2017, 06:55:47 pm
So your weight savings have come in pruning the number and type of lenses, as well as the weight difference in comparable lenses and in cameras. 6D, ~720 grams. A7RII, ~ 625 grams; Zeiss Distagon 21 mm ~750 g, Tokina 20 mm 430 grams; Sony 90 mm and Canon 100 mm macros a dead heat at 630 grams each.

This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.

The shorter flange distance does let a mirror-less wide angle lens be smaller/lighter than it's SLR counterpart. So if WA lenses are a major part of your kit then that matters. But from normal on out it really doesn't make a difference.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 02, 2017, 04:04:34 am
So your weight savings have come in pruning the number and type of lenses, as well as the weight difference in comparable lenses and in cameras. 6D, ~720 grams. A7RII, ~ 625 grams; Zeiss Distagon 21 mm ~750 g, Tokina 20 mm 430 grams; Sony 90 mm and Canon 100 mm macros a dead heat at 630 grams each.

This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.

Size matter a lot to me too. I can carry easily 2 cams + 2 primes in a smaller backpack when trekking or hiking. I have also went to a lower sized tripod and ball head. Everything counts. Of course if you go for f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms, the size and weight of lenses is not different.

But for sure, you just need to check the size of the recent Sony FE 12-24 f4 versus the Canikon counterparts, to see the advantages.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: scooby70 on August 02, 2017, 04:47:21 am
This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.

I think it's best to stop reading spec sheets and instead handle, carry and use the kit and then decide if any bulk and weight savings are significant.

I never had a 6D, my FF Canon was the original 5D and my current A7 is in a different league bulk and weight wise.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BJL on August 02, 2017, 08:33:40 am
The shorter flange distance does let a mirror-less wide angle lens be smaller/lighter than it's SLR counterpart. So if WA lenses are a major part of your kit then that matters. But from normal on out it really doesn't make a difference.
Yes, that is the main advantage in bulk, along with modest reduction of body bulk (more relevant to those who carry two bodies).

Note that the "wide angle" bulk advantage includes zoom lenses whose range includes wide angles, as with standard wide-tele zooms. So the very common walk-around kit of "body with standard zoom lens" benefits.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 02, 2017, 08:55:22 am
I just don't get this weight story... I am doing fine with my H6D-100c, 3 lenses, a pano head and a tripod.

You guys need to do some serious working out! ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 02, 2017, 10:36:32 am
I just don't get this weight story... I am doing fine with my H6D-100c, 3 lenses, a pano head and a tripod.

You guys need to do some serious working out! ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Ok, good for you. My days of travelling with EOS1V plus two f2.8 zooms are done and over with:)
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on August 02, 2017, 11:20:46 am
My last Canon was a 6D. A commercial decision. I used it to photograph catalogue work. Thousands and thousands of images. In three years just over 200 000 actuations. All in studio. Nothing ever printed bigger than A4. It did the job and I wasn't fussed if it should break or get stolen. Didn't need any kind of auto focus and dynamic range was controlled by my lighting. It needed to be replaced simply because of the actuation count and I can understand someone buying a 6D II as a replacement. It will do the job.

Not everyone buying a camera is upgrading or chasing newest bleeding edge technology. Loads of us simply don't have a need for that. We just making a living.

Having said all that the 6D was my least favorite camera of all time. No character and no excitement to using it. To break myself out of the rut I changed systems. It was a smart move.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 02, 2017, 12:42:05 pm
Ok, good for you. My days of travelling with EOS1V plus two f2.8 zooms are done and over with:)

I guess it does indeed depend on your starting point. I used to do 1500m vertical with a D3x, 300mm f2.8, zeiss 100mm, pano head and the heaviest Gitzo carbon tripod... on top of all the equipment needed to survive in the wild. ;)

And there are many guys much crazier than me out there.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: NancyP on August 02, 2017, 02:23:36 pm
Bernard, why yes I do need to work out.  :-[


Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 08, 2017, 09:16:48 pm
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review/4

It may be the first time I see a camera not getting at least a DPreview Silver award... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 09, 2017, 04:52:57 am
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review/4

It may be the first time I see a camera not getting at least a DPreview Silver award... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

From their conclusion:

"With all of that in mind, the EOS 6D Mark II is a classic Canon DSLR. Is it particularly exciting? No, but really, neither was the original 6D aside from its fairly accessible price point. What the 6D Mark II is, though, is a solid, well-built camera that is capable of producing great images while improving upon its predecessor in almost every measurable way."

If I had a stable of Canon lenses, I would rather take this camera, than other cameras that have better DR at low ISO, but that had 3 recalls so far, or oil splatter problems on the sensor:)

Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 09, 2017, 06:08:03 am
I believe that you would most probably buy a Somy a7 II instead... Even with Canon lenses it features a better AF, better sensor, more compact design,... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: shadowblade on August 09, 2017, 09:49:33 am
I believe that you would most probably buy a Somy a7 II instead... Even with Canon lenses it features a better AF, better sensor, more compact design,... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

If you had a stable of Canon lenses, you'd be better off buying a 1Dx2 (or 5D4) and A7r2. One to track things that move, one for resolution for things that don't move, all using the same set of lenses.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 09, 2017, 10:42:22 am
I believe that you would most probably buy a Somy a7 II instead... Even with Canon lenses it features a better AF, better sensor, more compact design,... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

I did move from Canon 6D to Sony A7 and A7II, but not because of better AF. It was because I looked at the system in 2015, and in 2 years it matured enough in terms of small high quality, affordable, lenses.

Otherwise, I would still be happy using the original 6D:)
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 09, 2017, 10:40:04 pm
I did move from Canon 6D to Sony A7 and A7II, but not because of better AF. It was because I looked at the system in 2015, and in 2 years it matured enough in terms of small high quality, affordable, lenses.

Otherwise, I would still be happy using the original 6D:)

Exactly. And you would have taken the exact same decision 2 years ago if you had owned a 6DII instead of a 6D, right?

The comparison btwn Canon and Nikon is not very relevant, because the switch is costly however superior the Nikon may be, and new entrants in the SLR world are likely to go mirrorless.

So the only hope for Canon is pretty much to convince 6D users to buy 6DIIs, right? Who else would do such a thing? Canon APS-C users wouldn't be able to use their lenses on a 6DII, they will go Sony or Nikon if they prefer cameras with OVFs... and take a fact based decision.

But Canon also has lots of marketing cash... and many buyers will based their decision on biased information... I just feel sorry for them. I would think that you and I agree that leading them towards better solutions such as the Sony offering will help them, right?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on August 10, 2017, 12:04:10 am
I completely agree with you Bernard. When my 6D came to the end of its life I didn't want to replace it with a new one and decided to go mirrorless. . My decision was made easier by the simultaneous need to replace aging glass. Sony it was. If the 6D mk II was around at the time it would have in no way tempted me.
Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on August 10, 2017, 08:45:14 am
Exactly. And you would have taken the exact same decision 2 years ago if you had owned a 6DII instead of a 6D, right?

The comparison btwn Canon and Nikon is not very relevant, because the switch is costly however superior the Nikon may be, and new entrants in the SLR world are likely to go mirrorless.

So the only hope for Canon is pretty much to convince 6D users to buy 6DIIs, right? Who else would do such a thing? Canon APS-C users wouldn't be able to use their lenses on a 6DII, they will go Sony or Nikon if they prefer cameras with OVFs... and take a fact based decision.

But Canon also has lots of marketing cash... and many buyers will based their decision on biased information... I just feel sorry for them. I would think that you and I agree that leading them towards better solutions such as the Sony offering will help them, right?

Cheers,
Bernard

The thing is, each person will have his definition of "better solution", as it is a personal decision. Again, from the DPR review conclusion:

"What the 6D Mark II is, though, is a solid, well-built camera that is capable of producing great images while improving upon its predecessor in almost every measurable way."

So the 6DMKII actually and factually improves upon the 6D in almost every way. For example, the movable screen may be reason enough for some to upgrade.

In my case, I waited two years to see where the Sony FE system was heading; once the cameras matured, and more lenses were available, I changed. I do agree that for first users, there are today many other options in the 6DII tier; many more than 5 years ago, when the original 6D showed up.

Title: Re: Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3
Post by: BJL on August 10, 2017, 09:09:36 am
From their conclusion:

"With all of that in mind, the EOS 6D Mark II is a classic Canon DSLR. Is it particularly exciting? No, but really, neither was the original 6D aside from its fairly accessible price point. What the 6D Mark II is, though, is a solid, well-built camera that is capable of producing great images while improving upon its predecessor in almost every measurable way."

If I had a stable of Canon lenses, I would rather take this camera, than other cameras that have better DR at low ISO, but that had 3 recalls so far, or oil splatter problems on the sensor:)
"improving upon its predecessor in almost every measurable way" may not be enough when the predecessor is from five years ago (2012) and the competition has moved on meanwhile. After all, the same could be said of the iPhone 5S compared to its predecessor, the 2012 iPhone 5, but if the iPhone 5S were released today, it would be doomed.

I agree though that for many, in particular owners of Canon-mount lenses, the 6D2 might be a perfectly reasonable option.