EOS M6 Mark II and 90D Show Excellent Sensor Performance

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
Apr 2, 2015
386
218
www.diossiphotography.com
I have downloaded nearly all the CR3 raw files for the 90D and M6 Mark II that I could find and I'm decidedly impressed. The sensor performance is truly excellent all the way up to 6400 ISO...and at that sensitivity, the raw files are really showing a lot of detail and controlled noise performance. What's most impressive with this new sensor is it's dynamic range - that is to say that is seems to have a LOT of it. I am really excited to get mine now because there really does appear to be at least a full stop or more of information. Skies in harsh mod day light are fully exposed and recoverable. Exposure can be manipulated with good results as well. Zero banding when absolutely crushing a raw file with boosted shadows.

I want to see how this camera performs when shooting underexposed by a few stops. When shot with proper exposure, there is a lot of information to play with and it gives me good hope that were seeing the gap truly closed with this new generation of sensor.
 

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
591
545
Hamburg, Germany
I want to see how this camera performs when shooting underexposed by a few stops. When shot with proper exposure, there is a lot of information to play with and it gives me good hope that were seeing the gap truly closed with this new generation of sensor.
So among the RAWs you looked at there were no such underexposed / low signal ones then?

The current generation of sensors already handles pushing of shadows very well until you get to the really extreme end. If all shots you compared were fairly decent exposed, I don't think that is enough to judge if Canon truly managed to fully catch up / surpass Sony sensor tech this time.

I do expect to see some improvement, too. But this is the camera aspect that could be the greatest source of disappointment for me.

Spot AF, improved speed and wheather sealing are really appealing already, but I won't play with the thought of replacing my 80D unless IQ made a good jump as well.
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,180
816
Turku, Finland
The current generation of sensors already handles pushing of shadows very well until you get to the really extreme end. If all shots you compared were fairly decent exposed, I don't think that is enough to judge if Canon truly managed to fully catch up / surpass Sony sensor tech this time.

I do expect to see some improvement, too. But this is the camera aspect that could be the greatest source of disappointment for me.
And why does it really matter what happens in extreme scenarios very unlikely to ever occur in the real world? Only spec sheet warriors worry about photos of a black cat in a coal cellar underexposed by five stops. Extreme pushing will always result in poor results, noise levels notwithstanding, simply because those lowest stops by very definition contain very little information. Anyway, I refer you too to my super scientific experiment in which I tested some of the deepest shadows that I could find among the publicized photos.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
So among the RAWs you looked at there were no such underexposed / low signal ones then?

The current generation of sensors already handles pushing of shadows very well until you get to the really extreme end. If all shots you compared were fairly decent exposed, I don't think that is enough to judge if Canon truly managed to fully catch up / surpass Sony sensor tech this time.

I do expect to see some improvement, too. But this is the camera aspect that could be the greatest source of disappointment for me.

Spot AF, improved speed and wheather sealing are really appealing already, but I won't play with the thought of replacing my 80D unless IQ made a good jump as well.
I didn’t see anything in the OP about fixing grossly missed shots, or comparing to Sony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
Apr 2, 2015
386
218
www.diossiphotography.com
So among the RAWs you looked at there were no such underexposed / low signal ones then?

The current generation of sensors already handles pushing of shadows very well until you get to the really extreme end. If all shots you compared were fairly decent exposed, I don't think that is enough to judge if Canon truly managed to fully catch up / surpass Sony sensor tech this time.

I do expect to see some improvement, too. But this is the camera aspect that could be the greatest source of disappointment for me.

Spot AF, improved speed and wheather sealing are really appealing already, but I won't play with the thought of replacing my 80D unless IQ made a good jump as well.
My second photographer shoots Nikon and I'm the one editing his images. I also shoot over 100,000 images a year and really know my way around the Canon/Nikon raw files. The information in these image files is substantial - quite a bit more than my M5 and M50. There are several images online that had some very dark areas in them and I was able to push exposure 5 stops or bring back highlights in images that were overexposed. The dynamic range is very strong and clipping in RAW files has been non-existent for ISO 100 shots. There was even an ISO 1600 shot of a chandelier where the bulbs weren't showing clipping even at ISO 1600.

I suggest finding the files online and judging for yourself.
 

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
591
545
Hamburg, Germany
I didn’t see anything in the OP about fixing grossly missed shots, or comparing to Sony.
Me neither.

I simply come away pretty impressed with the files from my 80D in a lot of scenarios. I would imagine that the pictures that show the difference between an 80D and 90D in terms of noise and DR would have to have some fairly extreme parameters.

I'm not saying that an improvement in IQ over the previous generation is necessary to take great pictures. It's just what I would need to see to lay down over 1000€ for a camera. That's simply a lot of money, and in exchange for that I would need to see some equivalent in perceived value. It's just about beeing a tech enthusiast at this point.

Apart from myself, nobody who gets to see my images could probably tell the difference between them and the pictures I got with my 600D (T3i) - which is mostly just how much fun I had taking them.
 

Joules

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
591
545
Hamburg, Germany
And why does it really matter what happens in extreme scenarios very unlikely to ever occur in the real world? Only spec sheet warriors worry about photos of a black cat in a coal cellar underexposed by five stops.
Why do we look at image quality at all, nowadays? Certainly not because it makes a difference in wheather or not the tools we look at are usable or take good pictures. With today's technology, it should be clear that it almost always will be the operator who's the Bottleneck in terms of overall quality of the results.

But Sony is the benchmark to beat, aren't they? Would be cool if Canon could manage it so we had some ammunition to fire back at all those Sony fanboys screaming how terrible Canon equipment is. Color science, ergonomics, support? They aren't measurable. DR and noise are. Sure, camera makers aren't sports teams. But I don't care about sports, I care about tech. So it would still be nice to see "my team" do well.

Is that productive in any matter? Hell no. So what? This is the internet. You have too many different people coming together to be able to agree with everything you come across, I think.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,256
1,887
Canada
In the real world we don’t need DR. none of us ever take images where we have both bright and dark objects, none of us have ever goofed at exposure.

Seriously though, DR is just one metric for how a camera system will perform. How much we need is up to debate, but none of us are going to complain if Canon (or anyone else) improves a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,698
523
Germany
... I could find and I'm decidedly impressed. The sensor performance is truly excellent all the way up to 6400 ISO...and at that sensitivity, the raw files are really showing a lot of detail and controlled noise performance. What's most impressive with this new sensor is it's dynamic range - that is to say that is seems to have a LOT of it. ...
Thanks for sharing your impressions with us.
Sounds like a really good new generation of sensors :)
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,180
816
Turku, Finland
But Sony is the benchmark to beat, aren't they? Would be cool if Canon could manage it so we had some ammunition to fire back at all those Sony fanboys screaming how terrible Canon equipment is. Color science, ergonomics, support? They aren't measurable. DR and noise are. Sure, camera makers aren't sports teams. But I don't care about sports, I care about tech. So it would still be nice to see "my team" do well.

Is that productive in any matter? Hell no. So what? This is the internet. You have too many different people coming together to be able to agree with everything you come across, I think.
Just ignoring the fanboys and trying to get rid of the "my team must be best in everything" mentality is good for your mental health in the long run. You don't want to stoop on their level. The internet is a cesspool and ignoring 99% of it is very much recommended. Bullies won't stop anyway no matter Canon does, they just find another excuse to bash Canon cameras, and they deserve zero attention. If you feel the need to compete, compete with your art, not your camera specs.
 
Last edited: