Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3

[Paulo Bizarro]

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

• 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:)

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[scyth]

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  ...

[Paulo Bizarro]

I'd suggest you to illustrate with even smaller images then you can beat CMOS MF sensor in DR  ...

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".

[hogloff]

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.

[scyth]

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  - for an average Joe 6D2 will work just fine and Canon will make money... amen

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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  - 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.

[scyth]

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

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[hogloff]

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

[JKoerner007]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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...

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[hogloff]

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.

[NancyP]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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