Reviews Canon 6D MK II

[Sporgon]

ISO 50 is an artificially darkened setting and always results in a loss of quality.

Yeah, but I couldn't see any reference to iso 100. I was under the impression that iso 50 usually had the same/similar dr to iso 100 due to this darkening being taken from iso 100. At the very least, it doesn't seem to be consistent with other reviews, as far as I can tell

At least the D810 sensor has a "true" base ISO of 64 (as measured by full well capacity) so ISO 50 can actually have 2/3 stops more DR than ISO 100 (and this is reflected by the chart at photonstophotos). The D750 does seem to have the same DR at ISO 50 and ISO 100 however.

The 5DIV is also real iso 64 when set to 100 is it not ?

 

[Sharlin]

At least the D810 sensor has a "true" base ISO of 64 (as measured by full well capacity) so ISO 50 can actually have 2/3 stops more DR than ISO 100 (and this is reflected by the chart at photonstophotos). The D750 does seem to have the same DR at ISO 50 and ISO 100 however.

The 5DIV is also real iso 64 when set to 100 is it not ?

At least according to DXO measurements, yeah, but that's a different thing. The 5D4 sensor saturates at (nominal) ISO 100, whereas the D810 DR increases down to (nominal) ISO 64, indicating that the sensor doesn't use all of its well capacity at ISO 100. Witness the behavior in this chart.

 

[LSXPhotog]

A truly stupid review pulled out of the author's butt. hahaha It's as if they made everything up after shooting with the camera for an afternoon in a park.

 

[SecureGSM]

According to Bill Claff, it is 80, multiples of 80: 80, 160, 320, 640, ....

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

The 5DIV is also real iso 64 when set to 100 is it not ?

 

[Jack Douglas]

This is just a casual uninformed thought. Is it possible that with sensor development Canon might experiment with lower level cameras to see the +,- and public reaction with the particular trade-offs they have made, and we know there are always trade offs?

A recent observation by another member of the 1DX2's great high ISO capability made me think of the D5 and how Nikon was "forced" to trade off low ISO DR to compete with Canon.

Personally, when I hear field tests confirming the 6D2 has good high ISO, I'm thrilled since I have had the 6D practically glued to 1250 and would have loved higher ISO quality for my wildlife shooting. Canon knows we're not all dedicated landscapers.

Jack

 

[Isaacheus]

This is just a casual uninformed thought. Is it possible that with sensor development Canon might experiment with lower level cameras to see the +,- and public reaction with the particular trade-offs they have made, and we know there are always trade offs?

A recent observation by another member of the 1DX2's great high ISO capability made me think of the D5 and how Nikon was "forced" to trade off low ISO DR to compete with Canon.

Personally, when I hear field tests confirming the 6D2 has good high ISO, I'm thrilled since I have had the 6D practically glued to 1250 and would have loved higher ISO quality for my wildlife shooting. Canon knows we're not all dedicated landscapers.

Jack

Have the reports been for improvement in high iso or just got results at high iso. A number of the ones I've seen state that it is as good as the 6d, but I haven't seen thing suggesting better, and one or two have shown potentially worse performance (raws rather than out of camera jpeg, I believe the newer camera is better for the jpegs). If the results show an improvement of say a close to a stop around 1600 - 12800, that would make the lack of dr improvement at iso 100 far more understable

 

[Jack Douglas]

This is just a casual uninformed thought. Is it possible that with sensor development Canon might experiment with lower level cameras to see the +,- and public reaction with the particular trade-offs they have made, and we know there are always trade offs?

A recent observation by another member of the 1DX2's great high ISO capability made me think of the D5 and how Nikon was "forced" to trade off low ISO DR to compete with Canon.

Personally, when I hear field tests confirming the 6D2 has good high ISO, I'm thrilled since I have had the 6D practically glued to 1250 and would have loved higher ISO quality for my wildlife shooting. Canon knows we're not all dedicated landscapers.

Jack

Have the reports been for improvement in high iso or just got results at high iso. A number of the ones I've seen state that it is as good as the 6d, but I haven't seen thing suggesting better, and one or two have shown potentially worse performance (raws rather than out of camera jpeg, I believe the newer camera is better for the jpegs). If the results show an improvement of say a close to a stop around 1600 - 12800, that would make the lack of dr improvement at iso 100 far more understable

From comments, I understand the noise is more easily dealt with and that's aided by 6 more MPs, which isn't exactly trivial. I sold the 6D not because of any dissatisfaction with it's high ISO performance but because I appreciate all the great features added to an already very good camera. I don't see why the features aren't valued more but the whiners got the jump and rained on the party and spread discontent.

Jack