Canon EOS 6D Mark II Talk [CR1]

[wunderpink]

The 6D line sucessively replaces the 5D line, while the 5D line will aim more and more for 1D customers.

When the 6D came out, it was already superior to the highly regarded 5D II. If the 6D gets the swivel screen and slightly improved autofocus, it will be as complete as an all-round full frame camera can be. I guess the 6D will become something like the D750 in the Nikon world.

 

[dufflover]

I find the comments on the "weaknesses" of a swivel screen are the same ones who complain about the "crap" plastic Canon have switched to, and the same ones who owned neither to even break it. "Oh I held it and it felt cheap" is the best they can come up with. Dropped my 60D onto concrete before; bit of a scuff but otherwise perfectly fine; hardly "weak" at any rate. I could even understand people being cynical it's a way to get things to "break faster" so they are forced to upgrade like say with a mobile phone , but that's not the reason or fear; it's put up as a factual assertion it will break on someone just like that ...

 

[romanr74]

I find the comments on the "weaknesses" of a swivel screen are the same ones who complain about the "crap" plastic Canon have switched to, and the same ones who owned neither to even break it. "Oh I held it and it felt cheap" is the best they can come up with. Dropped my 60D onto concrete before; bit of a scuff but otherwise perfectly fine; hardly "weak" at any rate. I could even understand people being cynical it's a way to get things to "break faster" so they are forced to upgrade like say with a mobile phone , but that's not the reason or fear; it's put up as a factual assertion it will break on someone just like that ...

Interesting theory. I find the latest plastic L-lens design totally fine. I own a few of them. I still don't like swivel screens. I never used them on the bridge cameras I own/owned (maybe I'm missing some perspectives), they make the camera bulkier, more difficult to keep clean, they are disturbing handling the camera in the bag and they just look totally aweful.

 

[romanr74]

Has Canon eliminated FPN (fixed pattern noise)?
Has Canon reduced shadow noise to the levels of Sony/Nikon?
If Canon can do the above, will the IQ at base ISO equal that of Sony/Nikon in both noise and DR?

Am I the only person tiring of the constant bitching and negativity from this anti-Canon person?
Admittedly I don't post often, but I read every other day, and I'd prefer positivity about what Canon is doing than constant negativity about what a bitter person perceives is wrong with Canon cameras.
If Canon products really are that bad why does he even bother?

Most probably a desperate Sony sales rep...

 

[rfdesigner]

1.5 stops better high ISO? In RAW? No way!

In cooked JPEG - quite possible with additional processing power in easy scenes.

I'm always in for surprises. But if I read the sound comments of our experts here in the forum, 1/3 to 1/2 a stop would be a huge step forward already, given the current tech. Sorry for comparing apples to oranges now: in comparison to an a7s we talk about 24 MP vs 12 MP, and a different sensor tech as well. Anyway, if a 24 MP 6DII would deliever an 1.5 stops improvement in RAW, this would be fantastic. 3200ish ISO 8000, 6400ish ISO 18000 and 12800ish ISO 31000. Bring it on, put the same sensor into the 5DIV and I am a happy camper...;-)

Well, current sensors have about 50% quantum efficiency and 3 electrons of read noise.

Imagine you could double the quantum efficiency to 100% (which is the limit), you would gain 1 stop. (1 stop = doubling of light collected).

Then at these very low numbers we're at poisson noise and I don't have the numbers at hand but 3 electrons is not much. You need 100 electrons to get a signal-to-noise ratio of 10 with a perfect sensor. With 3 electrons of read noise that would be a signal-to-noise ratio of 100/13 = 7.7. Not much less. Not much to gain here either. And that's the limit for a single sensor camera. A physical limit which no amount of research or marketing can break.

But image processing is an area where significant gains should be obtainable. Intelligent algorithms which guess what was photographed and "paint" it for you without noise. What you see after noise reduction is not the original image, but an image painted by an algorithm showing what that algorithm "thinks" is in the picture. Improve that algorithm a lot and you can fish out more details and improve the subjective image quality by some stops.

You could attack the problem from three fronts:
1) Reduce minimum Read Noise (What's the minimum possible? Maybe 0.4?)
2) Increase Full Well Capacity (What is the maximum for 6 micron pixels? Maybe 79,000?)
3) Increase Quantum Efficiency (What is the maximum? Maybe 87%)

Please feel free to challenge my assumptions above.

Current 6D:
RN = 1.6
FWC = 74,256
QE = 47%

(1.6/0.4) x (79,000/74,256) x (87/47) = 4 x 1.06 x 1.85
= 7.84

Converting to stops: log(7.84)/log(2) = 2.97 stops

FWC depends on pixel size and limits of materials. I think the biggest potential improvements would be from reducing read noise not increasing QE.

How does FWC influence the low light performance when the wells are far from being full? Doesn't that only determine the minimum possible sensitivity/ISO for a given QE?
And I'm pretty sure you can not just multiply the ratios of RN and QE. In the signal to noise ratio the RN appears just as one summand in the denominator, while QE appears linearly in the numerator and as a square root in the sum in the denominator.

The elephant in the room is the bayer matrix.

Effectively a moderate CMOS sensor has approx. 50% QE, a really good front illuminated CCD can reach ~75% QE, the best back illuminated devices reach 90% QE.

However you place a bayer matrix over this and any one pixel will only see ~30% of the spectrum, so the effective overall QE, even on an A7RII can be no more than 30%, typically most DSLRs will be at around 15~20%

This is part of the attraction of a foveon type sensor.. photons of different energies (colours) generate electrons in silicon at different depths, place three wells above one another and you have a colour sensitive camera with much higher sensitivity.

You also get much better spacial resolution as you don't need an anti aliasing filter or debaying algorithm.

Additionally it becomes relatively trivial to "bin" pixels (pour all the electrons from several adjacent pixels into one readout amplifier), turning a 40MPix camera into a 10MPix with 4x the base sensitivity.

The downside of a foveon sensor is you can't do the "back illuminated" trick, that works by keeping all the gates and metalwork out of the way of the incoming light, as you have three layers you always need to get some photons past some gates.. so you're probably looking at ~60% QE max.

 

[NancyP]

The problems with Foveon sensors seem to be inherently lower sensitivity (Q.E.) and complex (or at least different) computational means of translating photon penetration to color, resulting in a dearth of user software. But, for well lit subjects, and with a bit of patience for the less-than-ideal software, the color subtlety and microcontrast seen with the Sigma Merrill series of cameras is hard to beat.

 

[9VIII]

Has Canon eliminated FPN (fixed pattern noise)?
Has Canon reduced shadow noise to the levels of Sony/Nikon?
If Canon can do the above, will the IQ at base ISO equal that of Sony/Nikon in both noise and DR?

Am I the only person tiring of the constant bitching and negativity from this anti-Canon person?
Admittedly I don't post often, but I read every other day, and I'd prefer positivity about what Canon is doing than constant negativity about what a bitter person perceives is wrong with Canon cameras.
If Canon products really are that bad why does he even bother?

Most probably a desperate Sony sales rep...

Except that he doesn't own any Sony gear, apparently he shoots Canon. It sounds more like some kind of self loathing.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

The problems with Foveon sensors seem to be inherently lower sensitivity (Q.E.) and complex (or at least different) computational means of translating photon penetration to color, resulting in a dearth of user software. But, for well lit subjects, and with a bit of patience for the less-than-ideal software, the color subtlety and microcontrast seen with the Sigma Merrill series of cameras is hard to beat.

Wow! Look at Nancy busting out the knowledge! Obviously, she's not just another pretty face hiking with her pack and camera in the woods!

 

[Sporgon]

Has Canon eliminated FPN (fixed pattern noise)?
Has Canon reduced shadow noise to the levels of Sony/Nikon?
If Canon can do the above, will the IQ at base ISO equal that of Sony/Nikon in both noise and DR?

Am I the only person tiring of the constant bitching and negativity from this anti-Canon person?
Admittedly I don't post often, but I read every other day, and I'd prefer positivity about what Canon is doing than constant negativity about what a bitter person perceives is wrong with Canon cameras.
If Canon products really are that bad why does he even bother?

Most probably a desperate Sony sales rep...

Except that he doesn't own any Sony gear, apparently he shoots Canon. It sounds more like some kind of self loathing.

But he's going to get a Sony

 

[TiredEngineer]

Every one here is acting like they will be putting the Google branded phone/tablet Android on a camera. Canon will use the open source Android and rip out everything they do not need. You will most likely not even know you are running Android.

I think you would be surprised how many electronics run a stripped down version of open source Android and you don't realize it.

 

[meywd]

Every one here is acting like they will be putting the Google branded phone/tablet Android on a camera. Canon will use the open source Android and rip out everything they do not need. You will most likely not even know you are running Android.

I think you would be surprised how many electronics run a stripped down version of open source Android and you don't realize it.

+1, I hate android, but that's the one running on smart phones, other hardware needs modifications which will be done on the source which is open, meaning anyone can use without returning to google, so no Google updates, and it will not be related to the android you know in anyway except for the kernel

 

[jeffa4444]

Has Canon eliminated FPN (fixed pattern noise)?
Has Canon reduced shadow noise to the levels of Sony/Nikon?
If Canon can do the above, will the IQ at base ISO equal that of Sony/Nikon in both noise and DR?

Am I the only person tiring of the constant bitching and negativity from this anti-Canon person?
Admittedly I don't post often, but I read every other day, and I'd prefer positivity about what Canon is doing than constant negativity about what a bitter person perceives is wrong with Canon cameras.
If Canon products really are that bad why does he even bother?

Most probably a desperate Sony sales rep...

Except that he doesn't own any Sony gear, apparently he shoots Canon. It sounds more like some kind of self loathing.

But he's going to get a Sony

Regardless he did make valid points about sensor weaknesses with the 6D in certain shooting environments overall however the camera more than compensates with its features, build quality and Canon colour imagery plus the lens portfolio.

 

[cerealito]

Every one here is acting like they will be putting the Google branded phone/tablet Android on a camera. Canon will use the open source Android and rip out everything they do not need. You will most likely not even know you are running Android.

I think you would be surprised how many electronics run a stripped down version of open source Android and you don't realize it.

Maybe not google branded, but google certified/controlled. You can not use the name Android without waving A LOT of control to Google. The open source components of the system are just a small part of from what people usually call 'Android'.

If you are suggesting that those open source components could be used by Canon as they are many electronic products, then sure, that's possible (i'm almost sure that's already the case), but those components existed long before the Android project, and are not tied to it in any way, they exist independently of Android. That's the case of the Linux kernel for example.

What I'm saying is that a sufficiently striped-down version of Android stops being Android when google loses control over it.

 

[cerealito]

Every one here is acting like they will be putting the Google branded phone/tablet Android on a camera. Canon will use the open source Android and rip out everything they do not need. You will most likely not even know you are running Android.

I think you would be surprised how many electronics run a stripped down version of open source Android and you don't realize it.

+1, I hate android, but that's the one running on smart phones, other hardware needs modifications which will be done on the source which is open, meaning anyone can use without returning to google, so no Google updates, and it will not be related to the android you know in anyway except for the kernel

That's a misconception right there, the kernel used by most Android devices is the Linux kernel and it exists independently of Android. That's also the case of may other components used by (meaning integrated in) Android. Many other devices use the Linux kernel (and the other open source components) as well but that does not make them Android devices in any way.

I know that this is just a rumor but i would like people to understand the implications of Canon actually making an Android camera. One of these implications would definitely be waving some control to google.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

But he's going to get a Sony

I've even offered to buy him one if it'd get rid of him...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

You're forgetting that all of those commenting as such are experts on anything and everything to do with photography, don't you know?

Well they won't be spending as much time out there mastering their talents as you spend on here whining about Canon, that's for sure...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Canon has some areas where they are not as good as they should be (sensors).

But Canon's sensors are absolutely as good as 99% of us will ever need them to be.

The only people who need Sony sensors are people who don't know how to expose their images properly, or process them effectively.

People who would benefit more from lessons than from a new sensor...

 

[Crosswind]

I still don't like swivel screens. I never used them on the bridge cameras I own/owned (maybe I'm missing some perspectives), they make the camera bulkier, more difficult to keep clean, they are disturbing handling the camera in the bag and they just look totally aweful.

None of this is true imo.

I really miss the swivel screen of the EOS 600D I came from. Now I own the 6D and it's almost perfect. It just could be a bit smaller, have at least an up-tilting screen and feature ISO102400 LiveView (I'd like to see the milky way in real-time like I could with the Sony A7S, would make things like composition much easier).

Improving the S/N ratio is out of the question; these sort of things always get a little bit better. For me, the small details are much more important.

I could have bought a 1DX or 5Dmk3, but didn't do so, as I don't want to waste money for (in my case of photography) useless better AF systems or frame rates etc... Of course these are great cameras for those who are in need of such features. For me, the 6D is still the best value-body when it comes to nightsky photography.

Edit; The 6D has WiFi so I can have a "swivel screen" if I really need to. In that case I'd connect my smartphone to the camera. Now, that's a good thing for low-angle shots (especially in the dark), but it makes the camera much more complex, slower and bulky - so that's the reason why I'd like to see a swivel screen built into the 6D2.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

I can't wait for the new box.

 

[Don Haines]

...
The only people who need Sony sensors are people who don't know how to expose their images properly, or process them effectively.
...

That is absolute horse manure. It has been very well demonstrated by others here that there is a lot to gain from the extra versatility provided by clean shadows and more DR.

Anyone who has shot a bird against a bright sky will agree with you on that... including Sony owners... 14 stops of DR is just not enough!