December 18, 2014, 04:43:51 AM

Author Topic: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all  (Read 40946 times)

xps

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #60 on: October 09, 2012, 02:50:06 AM »
I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

If a "special adjustment" improves performance, why wouldn't they just make that adjustment to the entire production line???

Quote
But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

Proof? And by proof I mean properly controlled and executed tests. You pixel peepers don't realize that a 1/3 stop variation in exposure, or a seemingly innocent change in post processing, can produce quite large differences in noise at 100%.

Quote
So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.

He posted an example of a "bad" ISO 100 image in another thread and got pounced on. There is nothing wrong with the image at all, no noise to see what so ever. He was upset because the blue sky is not an artificially smooth sheet of plastic. (And to think, some people ADD noise/grain because they think their digital images are too smooth and plasticky!)

You just can't please some people...

Dear Mr. dtaylor!

Thanks for your clear words. You are rigth, these are no scientific tests.
But as an normal user I want to get
"normal" pictures out of my camera. No professional images, but images, where I am satisfied.
And if - in sum - my personal Camera puts grainy pictures out (6 persons changed the cameras around and worked with the 7D of another person for 4 weeks, taking more then 1500 pics each) even when we change the user, and another Camera does produce much better images, then you CAN say, that this special camera suffers from more grain.




canon rumors FORUM

Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #60 on: October 09, 2012, 02:50:06 AM »

Marine03

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #61 on: October 09, 2012, 08:05:16 AM »
and why are there 2 pages talking about the noise on a 60D?  :o
6D, 450D(collecting dust), Nifty Fifty, 565EX Flash

eyeland

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 145
  • Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
    • View Profile
    • Creative Consulting & Multimedia artistry ;)
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #62 on: October 09, 2012, 08:59:06 AM »
For a stills/video shooter like myself the 6D is looking better and better for every day that passes without a statement from Nikon that they will somehow remedy the obvious limitations of the D600.
I was a Nikon shooter back in the film days and I only switched to Canon because I got a used rebel for free.
After growing weary of the limitations of the rebel + the nifty, I upgraded to a 60D + 50 1.4 along with some old converted lenses. Having played around with a 40D belonging to a friend for a while, I thought the 60D would be somewhat similar, but I found myself somewhat dissapointed in spite og having spend countless hours researching the upgrade. I am currently entertaining the slim hope that the 6D will offer a better "feel" than the 60D but I know that I might have to go 7D or 5D to achieve that. ( 1. world problem, I know :)
I have been longing to go FF for a loong time, but seeing as the 5Dmk3 is way out of my price range, I almost jumped ship when the D600 was released. Until I held one in the shop that is.. and realized how limited the video mode is.. and remembered that the chance of a Magic lantern release for D600 is slim...
If you shoot mostly stills and happen to like the ergonomics of the D600 (this could possibly be vastly improved with a grip), it looks like a fine contender indeed. Even with my small hands however, it just didn't feel right (could be power of habit)
Anyways.. meanwhile, something "happened" to my 60D, and I am now without a proper camera whatsoever, trying to figure out if I can survive with my old Olympus e520 until the canon hits the stores, buy a 60D or a 7D (or even a D600-god forbid) and sell it when the 6D arrives... its hard to be so spoiled :)
5DIII+ML // 24-105L - 70-200 2.8L/2.8 IS II - 35/2 IS //\  AF/non-AF film bodies and lenses. (and half a darkroom in boxes:))

sandymandy

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #63 on: October 09, 2012, 09:40:17 AM »
Be patient and ur next camera purchase will feel really really good :))

The 6D seems quite good for me as an upgrade over my 1100D. I wanna stick to Canon so theres no choice anyway. Camera model doesnt make such an huge impact on the final image anymore the times we live in i think


Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5354
  • ... on superhero vacation!
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #64 on: October 09, 2012, 12:37:33 PM »
I wanna stick to Canon so theres no choice anyway.

Ssssssssshh! If Canon hears you the next camera they announce will only have one af point :-p

xps

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #65 on: October 09, 2012, 02:34:44 PM »
I wanna stick to Canon so theres no choice anyway.

Ssssssssshh! If Canon hears you the next camera they announce will only have one af point :-p

back to the roots! indeed....

dtaylor

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2012, 03:47:20 PM »
Thanks for your clear words. You are rigth, these are no scientific tests.
But as an normal user I want to get
"normal" pictures out of my camera. No professional images, but images, where I am satisfied.
And if - in sum - my personal Camera puts grainy pictures out (6 persons changed the cameras around and worked with the 7D of another person for 4 weeks, taking more then 1500 pics each) even when we change the user, and another Camera does produce much better images, then you CAN say, that this special camera suffers from more grain.

Then stop wasting time in an Internet forum and get it repaired.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2012, 03:47:20 PM »

raptor3x

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #67 on: October 09, 2012, 05:27:23 PM »
For a stills/video shooter like myself the 6D is looking better and better for every day that passes without a statement from Nikon that they will somehow remedy the obvious limitations of the D600.
I was a Nikon shooter back in the film days and I only switched to Canon because I got a used rebel for free.
After growing weary of the limitations of the rebel + the nifty, I upgraded to a 60D + 50 1.4 along with some old converted lenses. Having played around with a 40D belonging to a friend for a while, I thought the 60D would be somewhat similar, but I found myself somewhat dissapointed in spite og having spend countless hours researching the upgrade. I am currently entertaining the slim hope that the 6D will offer a better "feel" than the 60D but I know that I might have to go 7D or 5D to achieve that. ( 1. world problem, I know :)
I have been longing to go FF for a loong time, but seeing as the 5Dmk3 is way out of my price range, I almost jumped ship when the D600 was released. Until I held one in the shop that is.. and realized how limited the video mode is.. and remembered that the chance of a Magic lantern release for D600 is slim...
If you shoot mostly stills and happen to like the ergonomics of the D600 (this could possibly be vastly improved with a grip), it looks like a fine contender indeed. Even with my small hands however, it just didn't feel right (could be power of habit)
Anyways.. meanwhile, something "happened" to my 60D, and I am now without a proper camera whatsoever, trying to figure out if I can survive with my old Olympus e520 until the canon hits the stores, buy a 60D or a 7D (or even a D600-god forbid) and sell it when the 6D arrives... its hard to be so spoiled :)

Just pic up a 5Dc in the meanwhile.  They're incredibly cheap right now and you'll get a taste of full frame.
Bodies: 1Ds3,5D3,X-T1,A7R Lenses:  16-35L F4 IS, X 18-55 2.8-4, Σ 35 1.4 A, 35 2.8 FE, Σ 50 1.4 A, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 100L IS, 135L,  70-200L F2.8 IS II

Aglet

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1088
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #68 on: October 10, 2012, 01:09:52 AM »
There are a few ways you could do it. The simplest would be to take a bunch of dark frames of the same exposure time as the image you wish to remove that kind of noise from. Blend those frames together in something like Photoshop to create a single pattern noise frame. You want to stack them in some kind of additive way to enhance the effect of the noise.

To remove that noise from a photo, you can do so in Photoshop. Just blend the noise frame with a "difference" setting, then adjust the opacity to tune the degree of noise removal. Keep in mind that the way pattern noise exhibits is dependent to a certain degree on exposure time, so you'll need to create a dark noise frame for a variety of exposure lengths for this trick to really work. You don't necessarily need a noise frame for EVERY shutter speed, but if you frequently use 1/15th, or 2 seconds, etc. then you'll want to make a noise frame for each of those exposure times.

Its not perfect, some pattern noise (FPN and HVBN) will remain, but you can eliminate a lot of it that way.

You can also use one of the more advanced noise removal tools on the market. They keep getting better, and some are pretty good at removing pattern (including banding) noise.

I've already tried that trick in PS, didn't work worth the effort for me.
I was hoping you know of some great raw file hacker software.  ;)
Especially since a few people on the CR forum seem to be able to extract pixel level numerical data from raw files

.. so if anyone's willing to fess up...  ;D

I'd like to effect this sort of debanding subtraction frame directly on raw file data matrix before importing to a standard image editor.  I'd even approached one software Co. with the idea of doing this but they did not respond.

Some of the commercial NR software I tried did de-band the dark areas but also smeared the actual image textures so much as to look obviously processed.
I'll keep the shot, and the dark frames I also took, Justin Case somebody comes along with even better NR tools in the future.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5354
  • ... on superhero vacation!
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #69 on: October 10, 2012, 04:16:23 AM »
You can also use one of the more advanced noise removal tools on the market. They keep getting better, and some are pretty good at removing pattern (including banding) noise.
I've already tried that trick in PS, didn't work worth the effort for me.

Could you share the information what ps trick or 3rd party software is supposed to remove banding noise? I'd really like to have it in LR, but I've got some pictures that needed shadows raised a lot (high dr shots with moving objects) and that I'd really like to postprocess to a usable state?

For a stills/video shooter like myself the 6D is looking better and better for every day that passes without a statement from Nikon that they will somehow remedy the obvious limitations of the D600.

... such as? Since I love Magic Lantern I won't switch to Nikon, so I don't monitor the specs closely. What's wrong with the d600 that makes the 6d shine? I'd be somewhat comforting that Nikon isn't throwing away money after all :-o

eyeland

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 145
  • Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
    • View Profile
    • Creative Consulting & Multimedia artistry ;)
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #70 on: October 10, 2012, 07:11:23 AM »
Quote
What's wrong with the d600 that makes the 6d shine?
1. Lack of aperture control in Video mode (To change aperture for video, one has to drop out of video mode or use a pre - "G-series" lense with aperture ring. This is a fine solution for video, but then one looses FTM which I personally find very usefull for stills...)
2. Crippled HDMI out. (When you output to an external recorder to take advantage of the uncompressed signal, you only get 95% of the frame (5%black border) for some odd reason. I guess this one could be a FW fixable bug) On top of that I recall reading that the screen overlays also suffer from issues when using HDMI out)
These are the obvious issues. Some reviews have also been very critical concerning control layouts and handling, which they claim makes it very frustrating to switch between stills and video on the fly.
For events, I personally enjoyed the way the 60D let me do this, and some of the issues I DID have with the 60D were vastly improoved by Magic Lantern.

Quote
Just pic up a 5Dc in the meanwhile.
Not a bad idea at all ;) Better go hunting for prices.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 07:15:18 AM by eyeland »
5DIII+ML // 24-105L - 70-200 2.8L/2.8 IS II - 35/2 IS //\  AF/non-AF film bodies and lenses. (and half a darkroom in boxes:))

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4799
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #71 on: October 10, 2012, 11:04:33 AM »
Quote
Just pic up a 5Dc in the meanwhile.
Not a bad idea at all ;) Better go hunting for prices.

I don't believe the 5D classic does video. As far as I know, that was introduced in the 5D II.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4799
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #72 on: October 10, 2012, 11:09:13 AM »
There are a few ways you could do it. The simplest would be to take a bunch of dark frames of the same exposure time as the image you wish to remove that kind of noise from. Blend those frames together in something like Photoshop to create a single pattern noise frame. You want to stack them in some kind of additive way to enhance the effect of the noise.

To remove that noise from a photo, you can do so in Photoshop. Just blend the noise frame with a "difference" setting, then adjust the opacity to tune the degree of noise removal. Keep in mind that the way pattern noise exhibits is dependent to a certain degree on exposure time, so you'll need to create a dark noise frame for a variety of exposure lengths for this trick to really work. You don't necessarily need a noise frame for EVERY shutter speed, but if you frequently use 1/15th, or 2 seconds, etc. then you'll want to make a noise frame for each of those exposure times.

Its not perfect, some pattern noise (FPN and HVBN) will remain, but you can eliminate a lot of it that way.

You can also use one of the more advanced noise removal tools on the market. They keep getting better, and some are pretty good at removing pattern (including banding) noise.

I've already tried that trick in PS, didn't work worth the effort for me.
I was hoping you know of some great raw file hacker software.  ;)
Especially since a few people on the CR forum seem to be able to extract pixel level numerical data from raw files

.. so if anyone's willing to fess up...  ;D

I'd like to effect this sort of debanding subtraction frame directly on raw file data matrix before importing to a standard image editor.  I'd even approached one software Co. with the idea of doing this but they did not respond.

Some of the commercial NR software I tried did de-band the dark areas but also smeared the actual image textures so much as to look obviously processed.
I'll keep the shot, and the dark frames I also took, Justin Case somebody comes along with even better NR tools in the future.

Well, you can't simply use a low-level RAW processor to eliminate fixed-pattern and banding noise. You need some kind of template that represents them, and to a great enough magnitude that the "difference" blending mode in Photoshop actually has something to work with (hence the need to take a bunch noise frames, say 15 - 20, and additively stack them). And since the nature of FPN and HVBN change at least a little between shorter exposures and longer exposures, you need multiple templates. You don't necessarily have to keep recreating the templates...once created, they should be reusable. At that point, its simply a matter of loading up your photo in PS, add the noise template, and difference it.

I haven't done this in a while. All my work is at higher ISO on the 7D, and I never see banding noise anymore unless I lift the shadows by a couple stops...which I never do. I did this a few times with my 450D when lifting shadows in some of my landscape shots. It can be a little tedious, but its the best solution out there at the moment.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #72 on: October 10, 2012, 11:09:13 AM »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5354
  • ... on superhero vacation!
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #73 on: October 10, 2012, 02:00:24 PM »
Quote
What's wrong with the d600 that makes the 6d shine?
1. Lack of aperture control in Video mode
2. Crippled HDMI out.

Argh, that's not what I wanted to hear since I don't care about video. Canon, please release a 5d3s w/o video for $2500, will you?

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #74 on: October 10, 2012, 02:49:38 PM »
Argh, that's not what I wanted to hear since I don't care about video. Canon, please release a 5d3s w/o video for $2500, will you?
While that would be lovely, the reality is it'd cost $4500, not $2500...seeing as Magic Lantern can unlock all their features, video is largely firmware...and without more people to buy it, they have to charge more to recoup costs. I guess they could release a DSLR without live-view for cheaper...is that what you'd want?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 03:03:20 PM by preppyak »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« Reply #74 on: October 10, 2012, 02:49:38 PM »