(Note: Here "0" EV was an even exposure at 1/60, 2.8 ISO 400).
You're adding a lot of confusion here by arbitrarily defining your own zero. It's like saying you're going to start counting everything from the number 4, so if there are of 2 of something on a table, you're telling everyone there are 6. Makes no sense.
0 EV has a real, absolute definition - an exposure of 1 s, f/1.0, ISO 100.
Technically, your "0" EV is actually EV = 5. That means your -7 EV is really -2 EV (and in fact, the 6D is spec'd to AF at -3 EV, but of course, that may not equate to real world numbers).
It would help avoid confusion if you restate your numbers according to the real definition of EV = 0, otherwise many people will read that you're testing at "EV = -7" and think you're spewing complete
Sorry, but the fact that you don't seem to understand some of the basics, like the fundamental definition of the basis for the specification you are testing
, makes me question what you're doing. I definitely appreciate individual testing (and especially the fact that you did post your definition, so the error could be spotted), but post/blogs like this contribute to the vast and growing pool of bad and/or unreliable information out there.
How can you not understand the interest in testing beyond the rated limit? The light around you won't stay to the rated limit of your camera, right?
See...this is my point. He's not
testing beyond the rated limit of the 6D, he hasn't even tested it as low as
the rated limit.