Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[Khalai]

not a single chance in the world. none, zilch, zero.... do not embarass yourself. 8)

800D would outperform 6DII both in high-ISO and DR

I was talking about sensor performance, as in crop vs cropped image of 6DII. Any sensor technology that is too expensive to be in a 1500$ FF camera in 2020 is also too expensive to be in 500$ crop camera in 2020.
And how do you work that out? But we are not in 2020 we are in 2017. How do you know when the 800D will be released?

Also, if manufacturer says that their 30mm f2 lens is "35mm equivalent" to 48f2 everyone on this forum would correct them that it is actually 48mm-f3.2. I wouldn't because it is not true. There are far too many variables to make such a broad statement

If 30f2 ISO400 (crop) = 30f2 ISO400 (FF), than
30f2 ISO400 (crop) and 48f3.2 ISO400 do NOT have same EXPOSURE
30f2 ISO400 (crop) = 48f3.2 @ISO1000 (FF) -- IF you want same exposure AND depth-of-field you DO need higher ISO on FF

WHAT....?

You missed the point anyway. Point is that Canon may not use on-sensor chip as other cameras, but they would not use so outdated technology for it. It will be 5DIV-like or 7DII-like sensor, not 6DI-like.
That is about the most sensible comment in this whole post. But given the above I am not sure if you have arrived at it by accident or logic...

People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).

As for the ISO - Google it. Noise performance is the same between sensor sizes. It is the availability of lenses that is different. There is no 24-70mm f2.8 IS equivalent on crop. I doubt there will ever be 15-50 F1.8 IS.

Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement and fact that people care much more about shallow DOF, that about deep DOF.

There are Sigma lenses for that need. Namely 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8. Both are excellent, either optically or mechanically. This is as close to 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on FF as you're going to get with APS-C...

 

[Mikehit]

People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).

As for the ISO - Google it. Noise performance is the same between sensor sizes. It is the availability of lenses that is different. There is no 24-70mm f2.8 IS equivalent on crop. I doubt there will ever be 15-50 F1.8 IS.

Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement and fact that people care much more about shallow DOF, that about deep DOF.

The 7D2 is better in 'every single way'...for you. I own the 6D and the 7D2 and each has its uses.

Have you tried comparing a 5DIV image at 6400 vs 7D2 at 6400? Good luck with image detail. I have used the same 400mm lens on both and I have used zoom lenses to get the same framing from the same position.
But agin - with so many variables you simply cannot make a broad statement such as 'noise performance is the same'. If you state your assumptions I will see if I agree with them.
You ask me to google it - is your opinion based on Google or on experience?

Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement

Including you because you do not define your parameters

 

[SecureGSM]

C-A430,

Have you ever considered reading a photography book? like this one for example. Have a read and we will talk then.

People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).

As for the ISO - Google it. Noise performance is the same between sensor sizes. It is the availability of lenses that is different. There is no 24-70mm f2.8 IS equivalent on crop. I doubt there will ever be 15-50 F1.8 IS.

Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement and fact that people care much more about shallow DOF, that about deep DOF.

 

[C-A430]

People buy 6D for its FF sensor, otherwise 7DII is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY (except size, which is subjective whats better).

As for the ISO - Google it. Noise performance is the same between sensor sizes. It is the availability of lenses that is different. There is no 24-70mm f2.8 IS equivalent on crop. I doubt there will ever be 15-50 F1.8 IS.

Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement and fact that people care much more about shallow DOF, that about deep DOF.

The 7D2 is better in 'every single way'...for you. I own the 6D and the 7D2 and each has its uses.

Have you tried comparing a 5DIV image at 6400 vs 7D2 at 6400? Good luck with image detail. I have used the same 400mm lens on both and I have used zoom lenses to get the same framing from the same position.
But agin - with so many variables you simply cannot make a broad statement such as 'noise performance is the same'. If you state your assumptions I will see if I agree with them.
You ask me to google it - is your opinion based on Google or on experience?

Everything else is a confusion caused by misunderstatement

Including you because you do not define your parameters

All that comes from sensor size. That is why I said "People buy 6D for its FF sensor".

According to DXo, 80D outperforms 6D in DR. Do you really think that 6DII will not outperform at least match that?

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___1076_836

 

[C-A430]

whaaaat.. where do I start you know what. go take a photo of a white wall with your 800D at ISO 6400 and post your RAW file. I will do the same with my 6D and then we will compare the noise levels seriously, let me repeat: please, do not embarass yourself. it is way too funny.

not a single chance in the world. none, zilch, zero.... do not embarass yourself. 8)

800D would outperform 6DII both in high-ISO and DR

I way talking about sensor performance, as in crop vs cropped image of 6DII. Any sensor technology that is too expensive to be in a 1500$ FF camera in 2020 is also too expensive to be in 500$ crop camera in 2020.

Also, if manufacturer says that their 30mm f2 lens is "35mm equivalent" to 48f2 everyone on this forum would correct them that it is actually 48mm-f3.2.

If 30f2 ISO400 (crop) = 30f2 ISO400 (FF), than
30f2 ISO400 (crop) and 48f3.2 ISO400 do NOT have same EXPOSURE
30f2 ISO400 (crop) = 48f3.2 @ISO1000 (FF) -- IF you want same exposure AND depth-of-field you DO need higher ISO on FF

You missed the point anyway. Point is that Canon may not use on-sensor chip as other cameras, but they would not use so outdated technology for it. It will be 5DIV-like or 7DII-like sensor, not 6DI-like.

800D/T7i is 750$ right now - 6DII is 2.5x the price and has 2.5x bigger sensor.
So, there is no reason for 6D to be too cheap to use same technology as 800D.

There, I simplified it for you.

Yield isn't even close to linear with size. That's why TVs start getting crazy expensive for each extra 5" after a certain point.

I know it is not linear, but it is not like 6D is 1399$ in preorder and will reach 999$. It starts at 1999$ and will never be 999$ on the shelf. Even if the sensor is not as good as 5DIV (and it will be) there is no cost-effectiveness in using SAME technology as in mark I.

Maybe I didnt understand this well. Rumor is that 6DII will not use the 5DIV/1DxII generation technology, nor 7DII techonology, not even 5Ds generation technology, but something that FULL-FRAME version of 750D/T6i would leave in the dust. That is the rumor, right?

 

[Mikehit]

According to DXo, 80D outperforms 6D in DR.

Under what real-world circumstances?

Do you really think that 6DII will not outperform at least match that?

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___1076_836

How did you come to the conclusion that that is what I thought?
And what has a comparison 80D vs 6D got to do with the 6D2?

 

[Don Haines]

Enough is enough!

A FF camera gathers 2.6 times the light as a crop camera. In order for the crop camera to outperform the FF camera it is going to need to be either 2.6 times as efficient, or have a noise floor that is only 40 percent of the FF camera.

Since Canon is redesigning all the sensors to the newest technology, IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! unless the deliberately make the circuitry into garbage instead of using a superior design that is in production

 

[C-A430]

According to DXo, 80D outperforms 6D in DR.

Under what real-world circumstances?

Do you offer other source that says 80D does not have that DR, or are just trolling?

Do you really think that 6DII will not outperform at least match that?

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-80D-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___1076_836

How did you come to the conclusion that that is what I thought?
And what has a comparison 80D vs 6D got to do with the 6D2?
[/quote]

I said that I don't find the rumor believable nor do I find the cost-effectiveness a good explanation for it.

I came to my conclusion of what you think from what you said. Tell me what I misunderstood and what you really think and I will listen

 

[ahsanford]

Trying to help C-A430 here to make their point (and hopefully allow us to get back OT) -- he/she has left out a few critical clarifiers that would make his statements seem less nutty. If I heard them and interpreted them correctly:

• An 80D and its on-chip ADC setup offers more base ISO DR than a 6D1. For a non-astro landscaper (which I'll just call a landscaper) who doesn't need high ISO or thin DOF work -- throwing all considerations of crop vs. FF lenses out -- you could argue an 80D is better for landscape work as a result of that fact.
  
  
• 
  He/she expects -- as I believe many of us do -- that the 6D2 will be afforded the same on-chip ADC Canon seems to be giving everything these days. If Canon withholds an on-chip ADC setup from the 6D2 and the DR does not improve over the 6D1, why on earth would a landscaper who never leaves base ISO buy such a camera? You might as well just get an 80D in that case.
  
  
• 
  Re: C-A430's noise comments -- they are on their own there. : I'm not getting into a FF/crop equivalence discussion wormhole on that.
  
  

I'm not agreeing with this position, but it appears that if all you care about is base ISO DR, you should not get a camera that delivers less on that metric. Their point may be as simple as that.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

All that said, for all the bluster of some posters that they are 'one issue voters' and will never buy a rig that does not improve their one metric (e.g. resolution, AF, high ISO noise, base ISO DR, etc.), it has been my experience that few people truly tie themselves to the mast for one aspect of performance.

Otherwise, all those worshiping at the altar of base ISO DR would have been shooting a D810 the last few years. :

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

Maybe I didnt understand this well. Rumor is that 6DII will not use the 5DIV/1DxII generation technology, nor 7DII techonology, not even 5Ds generation technology, but something that FULL-FRAME version of 750D/T6i would leave in the dust. That is the rumor, right?

That's not even "rumor". That's conjecture, based on a leaked image of unknown provenance. It doesn't deserve a tenth of the attention it's gotten (let alone how much is still coming before release), but because it gave the DRones more to drone on about after they thought they'd lost, it's been blown completely out of proportion.

If (if) Canon releases the 6D2 with an old-tech sensor, I'll be throwing the words "nerfed" and "crippled" around here mercilessly. It would be utterly inexcusable.

 

[Khalai]

Maybe I didnt understand this well. Rumor is that 6DII will not use the 5DIV/1DxII generation technology, nor 7DII techonology, not even 5Ds generation technology, but something that FULL-FRAME version of 750D/T6i would leave in the dust. That is the rumor, right?

That's not even "rumor". That's conjecture, based on a leaked image of unknown provenance. It doesn't deserve a tenth of the attention it's gotten (let alone how much is still coming before release), but because it gave the DRones more to drone on about after they thought they'd lost, it's been blown completely out of proportion.

If (if) Canon releases the 6D2 with an old-tech sensor, I'll be throwing the words "nerfed" and "crippled" around here mercilessly. It would be utterly inexcusable.

So will I. Until then, I'll remain impartial, unless many who jump to premature conclusions based on dubious entry data...

 

[bclaff]

According to DXo, 80D outperforms 6D in DR.

Under what real-world circumstances?

Do you offer other source that says 80D does not have that DR, or are just trolling?

[/quote]
Perhaps there's some confusion to what is being meant by "dynamic range".
The 80D has higher "Landscape" (PDR) but lower "Sports" (Low Light ISO).
As for another source, see this from PhotonsToPhotos:

 

[C-A430]

Trying to help C-A430 here to make their point (and hopefully allow us to get back OT) -- he/she has left out a few critical clarifiers that would make his statements seem less nutty. If I heard them and interpreted them correctly:

• An 80D and its on-chip ADC setup offers more base ISO DR than a 6D1. For a non-astro landscaper (which I'll just call a landscaper) who doesn't need high ISO or thin DOF work -- throwing all considerations of crop vs. FF lenses out -- you could argue an 80D is better for landscape work as a result of that fact.
  
  
• 
  He/she expects -- as I believe many of us do -- that the 6D2 will be afforded the same on-chip ADC Canon seems to be giving everything these days. If Canon withholds an on-chip ADC setup from the 6D2 and the DR does not improve over the 6D1, why on earth would a landscaper who never leaves base ISO buy such a camera? You might as well just get an 80D in that case.
  
  
• 
  Re: C-A430's noise comments -- they are on their own there. : I'm not getting into a FF/crop equivalence discussion wormhole on that.
  
  

I'm not agreeing with this position, but it appears that if all you care about is base ISO DR, you should not get a camera that delivers less on that metric. Their point may be as simple as that.

- A

Thank you for that.

You missed a few of my points, but I will repeat only the important one - even if Canon did not use on-sensor-chip technology, 6DII will still have more DR than 6DI.

Bringing DOF equivalence and ISO in the same sentence was a huge mistake (particularly on a forum). It wasn't even the main point, but I had to respond to the idiot calling (or equivalent ) I got for it right away.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If (if) Canon releases the 6D2 with an old-tech sensor, I'll be throwing the words "nerfed" and "crippled" around here mercilessly.

I won't. I'll staunchly defend Canon's sound business decision to reuse old technology, spare resources, decrease costs, and thus increase ROI for shareholders. After all, that's why they pay me.



No, that's probably insufficient. Let's try...

 

[ahsanford]

So will I. Until then, I'll remain impartial, unless many who jump to premature conclusions based on dubious entry data...

Still not buying this as production output, I'm sorry. I just can't fathom how Canon would withhold the new architecture from the 6D2. It would be a Vizzini 'inconceivable'-level moment, IMHO.

If the DR isn't on 80D-ish levels (i.e. north of 13 EV), the more dedicated landscaping types that might not give a damn about a fancy new AF system, DPAF, etc. will go Category 5 nerfstorm over this. Forget the typical fanboyish DRone types prattling on -- I'm saying long-term faithful Canon-only landscapers will throw a proper fit that the company is forcing them to buy a $3k+ rig to get access to a level of DR we already see in crop.

I am not one of those people as I am not buying a 6D2 and I value so many more things than base ISO DR. But I'd understand some folks would be angry if the 6D2 was left behind here.

That said, so much circumstantial evidence...

• Higher published ISO limit than the 5D4
  
  
• Every 'major' release of late has gotten on-chip ADC, including ~$1000 crop rigs (did M5/M6 get that same sensor?)
  
  
• I've heard zero cost-related explanations about how Canon would save money by using older tech here (i.e. 26 MP = new for Canon, this sensor needs a new fab setup anyway, etc.)

...still has me believing that we're looking at pre-production output here.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

• An 80D and its on-chip ADC setup offers more base ISO DR than a 6D1. For a non-astro landscaper (which I'll just call a landscaper) who doesn't need high ISO or thin DOF work -- throwing all considerations of crop vs. FF lenses out -- you could argue an 80D is better for landscape work as a result of that fact.

• 
  
  No you couldn't because it's one small difference within one metric. These are, after all, all 14 bit Bayer Array cameras.
  
  In landscape you are working with detail that is normally well away from the camera, so magnification or size of the captured image has a greater influence on "IQ". The 80D is simply a smaller capture, and whilst you can overcome this by doing a three portrait orientated stitch, there are many more options for overcoming that tiny difference in DR with the 6D.
  
  I'll be controversial and say I'd rather use a 5D (mark 1) for Landscape than an 80D.
  
  I'm just so looking forward to all the posts demonstrating "poor" DR from the 6DII. ;D

 

[Khalai]

So will I. Until then, I'll remain impartial, unless many who jump to premature conclusions based on dubious entry data...

Still not buying this as production output, I'm sorry. I just can't fathom how Canon would withhold the new architecture from the 6D2. It would be a Vizzini 'inconceivable'-level moment, IMHO.

If the DR isn't on 80D-ish levels (i.e. north of 13 EV), the more dedicated landscaping types that might not give a damn about a fancy new AF system, DPAF, etc. will go Category 5 nerfstorm over this. Forget the typical fanboyish DRone types prattling on -- I'm saying long-term faithful Canon-only landscapers will throw a proper fit that the company is forcing them to buy a $3k+ rig to get access to a level of DR we already see in crop.

I am not one of those people as I am not buying a 6D2 and I value so many more things than base ISO DR. But I'd understand some folks would be angry if the 6D2 was left behind here.

That said, so much circumstantial evidence...

• Higher published ISO limit than the 5D4
  
  
• Every 'major' release of late has gotten on-chip ADC, including ~$1000 crop rigs (did M5/M6 get that same sensor?)
  
  
• I've heard zero cost-related explanations about how Canon would save money by using older tech here (i.e. 26 MP = new for Canon, this sensor needs a new fab setup anyway, etc.)

...still has me believing that we're looking at pre-production output here.

- A

Well, I'm not in the market for 6D II, as my trusty old beaten 6D still outperforms my abilites. And I've been a Canonite for over a decade, even after trying different systems (Sony a Fuji lately) I'm still loyal to Canon DSLRs. But if Canon for some uknown reason manufactured a current DSLR body with less DR than its predecessor (which is already behind competition in terms of DR), then I will vigorously call this a "pissing on us without even courtesy of calling it rain" simply because Canon itself stated that they always use latest and greatest sensor technology in upcoming cameras.

But more and more I think of this, it strikes me as a clever viral campaign to promote awareness about 6D II. After all, if 6D II was (or rather is I hope) a "boring" camera with no controversy, it would be awfully quiet, right? Just look all over the web about proliferating discussion all over 6D II.

I'm still skeptical about there so-called preliminary tests. It just doesn't make sense at all, unless there are some underlying shenanigans going on...

 

[Sporgon]

So will I. Until then, I'll remain impartial, unless many who jump to premature conclusions based on dubious entry data...

Still not buying this as production output, I'm sorry. I just can't fathom how Canon would withhold the new architecture from the 6D2. It would be a Vizzini 'inconceivable'-level moment, IMHO.

If the DR isn't on 80D-ish levels (i.e. north of 13 EV), the more dedicated landscaping types that might not give a damn about a fancy new AF system, DPAF, etc. will go Category 5 nerfstorm over this. Forget the typical fanboyish DRone types prattling on -- I'm saying long-term faithful Canon-only landscapers will throw a proper fit that the company is forcing them to buy a $3k+ rig to get access to a level of DR we already see in crop.

I am not one of those people as I am not buying a 6D2 and I value so many more things than base ISO DR. But I'd understand some folks would be angry if the 6D2 was left behind here.

That said, so much circumstantial evidence...

• Higher published ISO limit than the 5D4
  
  
• Every 'major' release of late has gotten on-chip ADC, including ~$1000 crop rigs (did M5/M6 get that same sensor?)
  
  
• I've heard zero cost-related explanations about how Canon would save money by using older tech here (i.e. 26 MP = new for Canon, this sensor needs a new fab setup anyway, etc.)

...still has me believing that we're looking at pre-production output here.

- A

Well, I'm not in the market for 6D II, as my trusty old beaten 6D still outperforms my abilites. And I've been a Canonite for over a decade, even after trying different systems (Sony a Fuji lately) I'm still loyal to Canon DSLRs. But if Canon for some uknown reason manufactured a current DSLR body with less DR than its predecessor (which is already behind competition in terms of DR), then I will vigorously call this a "pissing on us without even courtesy of calling it rain" simply because Canon itself stated that they always use latest and greatest sensor technology in upcoming cameras.

But more and more I think of this, it strikes me as a clever viral campaign to promote awareness about 6D II. After all, if 6D II was (or rather is I hope) a "boring" camera with no controversy, it would be awfully quiet, right? Just look all over the web about proliferating discussion all over 6D II.

I'm still skeptical about there so-called preliminary tests. It just doesn't make sense at all, unless there are some underlying shenanigans going on...

That's right, there's no such thing as bad publicity ! ;D

 

[ahsanford]

That's right, there's no such thing as bad publicity ! ;D

But a forum is only so much buzz. Highly trafficked sites like DPR and Petapixel have not picked this up as a story yet, because it's too easy a story to pick apart -- we don't know the status of the camera that the RAW file came from.

But expect the DXOs of the world to frantically unpack their first production unit and publish their findings.

- A