Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[Khalai]

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

I'm really terrible at translating idioms, but where I live, there is a saying:

A bad advertising still counts as advertising

 

[Sporgon]

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

I'm really terrible at translating idioms, but where I live, there is a saying:

A bad advertising still counts as advertising

Exactly.

 

[x-vision]

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.

Here is one possible explanation:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg674745#msg674745

As already noted, current evidence points to the 6DII not having on-sensor ADCs.
Thus, production images will not show better DR that the pre-production images already analyzed.

When external ADCs are used, base-ISO DR is limited by the DR of the ADC, not the sensor.
That's why all Canon cameras with external ADCs show the exact same 12-stops DR at the pixel level.
Any differences come from 'normalizing' the images, in which case down-sampling effectively increases DR.

 

[LonelyBoy]

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

I'm really terrible at translating idioms, but where I live, there is a saying:

A bad advertising still counts as advertising

We have a very similar one: "All publicity is good publicity" or "there's no such thing as bad publicity". There's also a joke/ story about someone who, when asked about an unflattering story, asked one question: "Did they spell my name right?". Meaning, to be clear, that all he cared about was that the story was clearly about him when people read it.

 

[LonelyBoy]

As already noted, current evidence points to the 6DII not having on-sensor ADCs.

You and I have very different definitions of "evidence".

 

[Khalai]

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.

Here is one possible explanation:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg674745#msg674745

As already noted, current evidence points to the 6DII not having on-sensor ADCs.
Thus, production images will not show better DR that the pre-production images already analyzed.

When external ADCs are used, base-ISO DR is limited by the DR of the ADC, not the sensor.
That's why all Canon cameras with external ADCs show the exact same 12-stops DR at the pixel level.
Any differences come from 'normalizing' the images, in which case down-sampling effectively increases DR.

Circumstantial evidence and perhaps anectodal one. There hasn't been multiple images from multiple cameras tested using multiple software, which is not up-to-date even.

That being said, if Canon really used off-chip ADC in 6D II, I would consider that as an utterly bad decision, especially for Canon customers...

 

[Khalai]

As already noted, current evidence points to the 6DII not having on-sensor ADCs.

You and I have very different definitions of "evidence".

Here, let me help you

Types of evidence

 

[x-vision]

Circumstantial evidence and perhaps anectodal one. There hasn't been multiple images from multiple cameras tested using multiple software, which is not up-to-date even.

The current preliminary analysis is based on RAW files from two (pre-production) cameras: one from New Zealand and one from China.

Please understand the following:
There are probably 20+ Canon cameras at DxO right now with the exact same 12-stop pixel-level DR at base ISO.
None of these has on-sensor ADCs, which has been confirmed with camera teardowns and chip inspections.

So, the moment I saw the exact same 12-stop DR for the 6DII as well, it was immediately clear to me that the 6DII has external ADCs.

Yes, circumstantial evidence at best - but one that has been proven over and over for Canon cameras.

That being said, if Canon really used off-chip ADC in 6D II, I would consider that as an utterly bad decision, especially for Canon customers...

Totally unacceptable for me at least.

I was extremely excited about the 6DII at announcement.
My implicit assumption was that the 6DII sensor would have the DR improvements of the 5DIV et al.

And I was myself in disbelief when the first RAW analysis surfaced.

But trust me, Canon's signature 12-stop DR of cameras with external ADCs will not jump to 13.5+ stops when the 6DII goes officially on sale.

 

[BillB]

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...

I don't think that Canon started this 6DII DR hullabaloo, but I also doubt that Canon is very much bothered by it either. I do wonder, however, whether this mysterious file is an intentional fabrication, rather than a solitary leak of a file from a 6DII camera. It does look a lot like something produced by a 6D sensor.

 

[Khalai]

The current preliminary analysis is based on RAW files from two (pre-production) cameras: one from New Zealand and one from China.

Please understand the following:
There are probably 20+ Canon cameras at DxO right now with the exact same 12-stop pixel-level DR at base ISO.
None of these has on-sensor ADCs, which has been confirmed with camera teardowns and chip inspections.

So, the moment I saw the exact same 12-stop DR for the 6DII as well, it was immediately clear to me that the 6DII has external ADCs.

Yes, circumstantial evidence at best - but one that has been proven over and over for Canon cameras.

Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more. Thanks.

 

[unfocused]

I have just one question.

Do the people who are doing these "tests" actually have a camera in their possession?

 

[Jopa]

I have just one question.

Do the people who are doing these "tests" actually have a camera in their possession?

Nah, cameras are for the old timers who live offline and take pictures Tests are for the cool crowd, true keyboard warriors!

 

[ahsanford]

Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more. Thanks.

Really crudely, I presume they are referring to the seemingly snail-paced increases in DR before moving to on-chip ADC like the competitors use.

See attached -- this is DXO-reported DR for all APS-C and FF Canon sensors. It's not exactly 12.0 across the board, but you get the idea from this. In short, the move to on-chip gave three recent refreshes a 1.5-1.7 EV bump, which is pretty dramatic given the prior tiny bumps we've seen over the last 15 years. This is just base ISO, so some folks (studio, landscape) were probably more demanding/pumped about this than others (most general shooters).

Apologies on such a crude crude 'era' bucketing -- last I checked, my 5D3 didn't come off the same fab as a 2003 1Ds Mk I :, but I'm just bucketing for the sake of simplicity here.

- A

 

[Khalai]

Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more. Thanks.

Really crudely, I presume they are referring to the seemingly snail-paced increases in DR before moving to on-chip ADC like the competitors use.

See attached -- this is DXO-reported DR for all APS-C and FF Canon sensors. It's not exactly 12.0 across the board, but you get the idea from this. In short, the move to on-chip gave three recent refreshes a 1.5-1.7 EV bump, which is pretty dramatic given the prior tiny bumps we've seen over the last 15 years. This is just base ISO, so some folks (studio, landscape) were probably more demanding/pumped about this than others (most general shooters).

Apologies on such a crude crude 'era' bucketing -- last I checked, my 5D3 didn't come off the same fab as a 2003 1Ds Mk I :, but I'm just bucketing for the sake of simplicity here.

- A

I misunderstood x-vision's answer. I read it as if DxO had already over 20 bodies of 6D II camera, stripped them down and found off-chip ADC. I didn't get that he was in fact speaking in general and not particularly of 6D II itself. Sorry about that.

 

[x-vision]

Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more.

DxO allows you to compare up to three cameras at a time.

Here is a link that compares the pixel-level dynamic range (DR) of the 20D, 5DII and 5DIII.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-20D___795_483_281

Here is the summary:

• 20D, a 1.6x crop camera from 2005: 10.95 EV of DR
• 5DII, a FF camera from 2008: 10.95 EV of DR
• 5DIII, a FF camera from 2012: 11.16 EV of DR

That is, a 2005 crop camera (the 20D) has essentially the same DR as a 2012 FF camera (at the pixel level).

Btw, let me correct my initial statement:
It's the same signature 11-stop pixel-level DR, not 12-stop.

As a Canon fanboy, I was subconsciously giving Canon too much credit 8).

 

[x-vision]

See attached ...

Very nice graph. Thank you.

 

[Khalai]

Can you please provide a link for that? This is the first time I've read such information and I'd like to know more.

DxO allows you to compare up to three cameras at a time.

Here is a link that compares the pixel-level dynamic range (DR) of the 20D, 5DII and 5DIII.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-20D___795_483_281

Here is the summary:

• 20D, a 1.6x crop camera from 2005: 10.95 EV of DR
• 5DII, a FF camera from 2008: 10.95 EV of DR
• 5DIII, a FF camera from 2012: 11.16 EV of DR

That is, a 2005 crop camera (the 20D) has essentially the same DR as a 2012 FF camera (at the pixel level).

Btw, let me correct my initial statement:
It's the same signature 11-stop pixel-level DR, not 12-stop.

As a Canon fanboy, I was subconsciously giving Canon too much credit 8).

See above. I misunderstood your previous reply and was thinking you were speaking of multiple 6D II cameras already tested by DxO and tore down as well. Sorry about confusion.

 

[x-vision]

See above.

Aah, OK.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I misunderstood x-vision's answer. I read it as if DxO had already over 20 bodies of 6D II camera, stripped them down and found off-chip ADC. I didn't get that he was in fact speaking in general and not particularly of 6D II itself. Sorry about that.

No, they have a shot that Some Guy On The Internet pinky-swears is a 6D2 image.

 

[Khalai]

In case somebody was considering Nikon D750 as an alternative:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5252259585/nikon-expands-d750-shutter-recall-yet-again-more-cameras-affected

I feel honestly sorry for Nikon. They need to get up on their feet again, I don't want them consumed by e.g. Sony Imaging. The more brands, the better competition...