DPreview adds 6D sample images to their preview

[traveller]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/19/Canon

[Canon-F1]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/19/Canon?comment=7915871544


i am not that impressed by the image quality.... sorry to say.
not for a new camera in 2012.

maybe i have to take a closer look at the high iso images.
but as i shoot mostly under iso 1600 i don´t see much that makes me want to sell my 5D MK2.

lets wait for RAW samples....

[azizjhn]

I like the low light performance u can get useful photo at ISO 102,000 Cool

[x-vision]

What are you talking about?

I just compared the 6D at ISO-6400 vs the 5DIII at ISO-6400 ... and the 6D is cleaner and with better colors.

Overall, the 6D image quality is shaping up as better than the 5DIII.

[Marsu42]

url=http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/11/19/Canon

Well, unfortunately they did extremely heavy global nr on the shots again (compare the details on iso 50 to the other studio shots), obviously to them a noise-free black background is more important than details :-x ... hail to raw and the LR nr brush!

But looking at the iso samples it might be clean 6400 and the the 51200 iso shot look better than 6400 on my 60d, so if it's a 3 stop improvement over the current crop sensor I'd say that's a definitive step up :-) ... on the other hand side we don't know how the dynamic range degrades @high iso.

[Dylan777]

What are you talking about?

I just compared the 6D at ISO-6400 vs the 5DIII at ISO-6400 ... and the 6D is cleaner and with better colors.

Overall, the 6D image quality is shaping up as better than the 5DIII.

Would you care to share your comparision? by posting some images

[x-vision]

Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.

[azizjhn]

Agree with x-vision
6D sample is better
Very very Cool 

[Dylan777]

Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.

I didn't see lens profile on your 5D III pictures, I'm assuming that you used same lens. Since you shot these pictures in studio, the light becomes MAJOR role. I do not believe your light setups were the same, in term of location and height.

Picture below was shot at f11 with 250W studio light in low light location, not the best , but it does show what 5D III can produce.

[extremeinstability]

Wish they'd shoot in RAW, remove just the color noise and then post jpgs of that. 

[Area256]

Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.

I agree it does look like the 6D is a little bit better at noise.  The better colour could just be from changes in lighting between dpreviews setups, it's hard to tell.  However the default NR on the latest Canon cameras has been far too heavy handed of late, and it shows in the other samples as well.  Need to see some RAW files before we can really tell (but that will need to wait for RAW support).   Although seeing the 6D jpeg better than the 5DIII jpeg, does suggest the larger pixel pitch is doing what would be expected (assuming no major changes to the jpeg engine of course).

I didn't see lens profile on your 5D III pictures, I'm assuming that you used same lens. Since you shot these pictures in studio, the light becomes MAJOR role. I do not believe your light setups were the same, in term of location and height.

Those pictures are from DPReview, we can only assume they used the same lighting setups, but it's possible they didn't manage to keep it exactly the same.

[Marsu42]

Picture below was shot at f11 with 250W studio light, not the best but it does show how sharp the 5D III can produce.

At iso 100 like your shot you hardly need a 5d3 to produce a good result (actually the 5d2 is said to be a bit sharper at low iso due to the weaker aa filter). Esp. for studio shots putting money into a sharp lens might be smarter than the newest camera body...

The jpeg iso samples of dpreview are to compare noise, in the way that you can see what's left of the details after nr.  I guess dpreview is a reliable site and they had the same setup, and imho the 6d is indeed visibly better in these shots (detail left and noise in background) - I just loaded all into lightroom and compared them side by side.

So either Canon at last really did something about their sonsors (rejoice!) or the 5d3 shots were done with an older firmware version that had a worse in-camera jpeg converter - we have to wait for a 6d software raw converter and raw shots to be sure.

[scrappydog]

In the dappled light, a lot of shadows appear black or near black in the 6D shots, which does not bode well for its dynamic range.

Also, in the ISO 6400 shots, it seems that there is less muddiness with the 6D (e.g., the wood grain on the tray, the brown rabbit fur).

These are two areas where Canon can improve.

[dpollitt]

Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg - or attachment

[Marine03]

6D looks better so far but is logical from my view.  To have a body that is cleaner image wise but slower in AF and FPS. This makes me excited as a 450D user looking at the near endless possibilities.  Just curious what the 7ad2 will do.