Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[CanonCams]

https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/

Hands on 'Review' starts at 31ish minutes.

Hasn't. At least not on this thread -- 6D2 starts at 38:00 or so. Listening now.

Chris and Jordan in general do a decent job and provide a broad stills guy / video guy perspective. They love to lift shadows, though, so I'm bracing for impact.

- A

Finally got around to watching this. It's not a final review, but their take is fairly scathing sensor-wise:

• This was not their final review -- just an early look. I am presuming but did not hear the words that this was indeed a production copy (someone please correct me if I missed that). They work at a large camera store, so it's plausible this was the right out of the box.
  
  
• Frequently they went back to the 80D as the camera Canon got right DR-wise; they would not upgrade from an 80D to a 6D2.
  
  
• They did the eye-rolling 'one shot HDR test' of a blown-out backlit shot in which they did the highlight slider min pull / shadow slider max push -- the 5D4 was clearly better and even a T7i looked a little cleaner than the 6D2 shot. They were surprised to see that. (I'm presuming this was at base ISO, tripod, etc, but that was not stated.)
  
  
• Landscapers were warned that the sensor lacked latitude, and that HDR techniques, multi-shot, etc. would be more necessary with the 6D2.
  
  
• Many good things were also said: AF dramatically improved, build/sealing quality is improved, high ISO performance was on the level of the 5D4, etc.
  
  
• They were clearly disappointed overall -- base ISO DR is a big deal to them, so the 80D remains a far better value in their minds -- they argued that some of crop's limitations to FF could be managed with some of the f/1.8 Sigma zooms. (They are bullish on crop from many other videos, Chris as the stills guy does not live very high on the ISO dial, shoots a fair amount of macro/landscapes in his reviews.)

- A

They alluded to quite a bit about their feelings on the camera. Especially towards the end.

 

[Jack Douglas]

No reason to move from an 80D? How about 11-24 wide angle? There are other reasons too. In many posts I detect a pretty narrow focus in this realm of bashing. The 6D2 is going to be a lot more fun for me than the 6D and I chose the 6D over the 5D3 because of size and weight and never regretted it. My 1DX2 is more than enough weight if I feel a need for muscle building. So for my needs I like what I see.

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

Yes, I can. Extreme shadow lifting/pushing business aside (not going to discuss this circus), properly exposed RAW images that came out of 6D and 6D II @iso 3200. will have similar if not identical noise levels and characteristics. Please refer to the chart in the post I linked above. That magenta high ISO cast of 6D I keep hearing about is only noticeable when shadows lifted by more than a stop at ISO 3200 and beyond. With my style of shooting ,I do not run into this issue much. Neither do anyone that cares to expose their images correctly.

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.

Sorry - can you explain how you come to that conclusion.

All that from a chart that not everyone agrees relates to the final product. I am not saying you are wrong but you state it with such certainty despite doubts voiced by quite a few.

 

[Mikehit]

They alluded to quite a bit about their feelings on the camera. Especially towards the end.

People wanted an 80D with a FF sensor. That is what they have got (image wise) but because that is all it was, it is not worth upgrading. Odd, really.

 

[amorse]

amorse, the ISO advantage of the higher DR T7i body is gone by the time you crossed into ISO 400 territory. Now, let's compare an image shot with T7 at ISO 3200 to the one shot with 6D original at the same ISO. That is why I shoot with FF body.

Absolutely no doubt of that! That's why I chose the 6D over a new crop body in the first place! I'm very happy with the original 6D's high-ISO performance, and my biggest desire for upgrading from the original 6D was an increase in base DR. Without an improvement there I'd rather keep my original 6D and eventually move to a 5D IV.

No doubt the 6D II is a far superior camera to the T7i when looking at all metrics, but as someone who was hoping for an improvement at base ISO for the 6D II, seeing the T7i perform better in my key upgrade wish for less than half the money is disappointing for me.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the T7i was superior to the 6D II, it isn't. The 6D II is going to be a great camera for a lot of people, it just isn't the tool I was hoping for and that's ok.

 

[CanonCams]

They alluded to quite a bit about their feelings on the camera. Especially towards the end.

People wanted an 80D with a FF sensor. That is what they have got (image wise) but because that is all it was, it is not worth upgrading. Odd, really.

The DR is worse on the MK II than the 80D.

 

[tomscott]

I am confused. Where do you get the notion that 6D II is much better at @shadow lifting" or high ISO performance than 6D original or 5D III???
Have you overlooked this chart :

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg675894#msg675894

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.

Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.

Is it just complaining for complaining sake?

So what if it is older tech they have obviously done something to remove the above factors and that is the main IQ issue with the 6D and 5DMKIII they both perform so similarly. The 6D was not better than the 5D in any real world situation when it came to IQ.

The quality of the extreme lifts weren't brilliant but the new one isn't showing any of these issues so it makes the camera a much better performer and a decent upgrade. You have to consider the resolution increase by over 25% and it's creating better images.

Spec sheets don't tell all I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the camera.

No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fd1i3ddjtaawqdm/IMG_3835%2035mm%20f6.3%20ISO%20200%20-%20Blown%20hilights%2C%20deep%20shadows%20%28LR%29.jpg?dl=0

Thats the whole point of the DR argument, the muddy purple casts with poor colour noise is the issue. As you say from one stop lift which is nothing in a high contrast scene.

Im sorry but you cant 'expose properly' in every scene. For example I shoot a lot of wildlife in rainforrests, you get high contrast shards of light and deep shadows under the canopy. I dont care who you are you cant expose the whole scene you have to try and protect the highlights or the shadows and on the older bodies it was hard work.

The fact you can push these new 6DMKII files more than 3 stops with no banding, muddy purple casts with no colour noise makes it obvious to me there has been huge improvement. Night and day compared to the 5DMKIII just for laughs 100 shadow and +3 on the exposure completely reveals detail with barely any penalty, not that I would do that but the fact if you now can.

 

[SecureGSM]

Mike, that is a recent chart from completely different source. Production units were used to produce that chart. Honestly, I am a bit tiered of these DR battles. I am happy with my 6D bodies high ISO performance, but need to move up to 5D system due to other reasons I explained quite a few times before.

Yes, I can. Extreme shadow lifting/pushing business aside (not going to discuss this circus), properly exposed RAW images that came out of 6D and 6D II @iso 3200. will have similar if not identical noise levels and characteristics. Please refer to the chart in the post I linked above. That magenta high ISO cast of 6D I keep hearing about is only noticeable when shadows lifted by more than a stop at ISO 3200 and beyond. With my style of shooting ,I do not run into this issue much. Neither do anyone that cares to expose their images correctly.

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.

Sorry - can you explain how you come to that conclusion.

All that from a chart that not everyone agrees relates to the final product. I am not saying you are wrong but you state it with such certainty despite doubts voiced by quite a few.

 

[SecureGSM]

Neither do I but I have already and looked at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 RAW file and had a go at it. It comes out pretty clean But so do my 6D files at ISO 3200)

I am confused. Where do you get the notion that 6D II is much better at @shadow lifting" or high ISO performance than 6D original or 5D III???
Have you overlooked this chart :

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg675894#msg675894

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.

Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.

Is it just complaining for complaining sake?

So what if it is older tech they have obviously done something to remove the above factors and that is the main IQ issue with the 6D and 5DMKIII they both perform so similarly. The 6D was not better than the 5D in any real world situation when it came to IQ.

The quality of the extreme lifts weren't brilliant but the new one isn't showing any of these issues so it makes the camera a much better performer and a decent upgrade. You have to consider the resolution increase by over 25% and it's creating better images.

Spec sheets don't tell all I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the camera.

No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fd1i3ddjtaawqdm/IMG_3835%2035mm%20f6.3%20ISO%20200%20-%20Blown%20hilights%2C%20deep%20shadows%20%28LR%29.jpg?dl=0

 

[Loswr]

In many posts I detect a pretty narrow focus in this realm of bashing.

I see the 6DII as a great opportunity.....for a specific handful of folks who've been getting bored with Canon lately. The DR improvements with on-sensor ADC in some recent Canon cameras had apparently left a void in their lives. Take Aglet for example...he's made 75 posts in just the 3 weeks since the 6DII was announced. The 75 posts he made before that spanned a period of 16 months. So, for that particular DRone, the 6DII has resulted in over a 1200% increase in posting frequency. 8)

 

[Jack Douglas]

The facts are the facts, good, bad, indifferent. Now, how those facts impact you is personal and you (meaning anyone) simply do what you need to do, no need to apologize or to attempt to force others into your way of thinking. If someone is asking or unsure then the various opinions will be helpful and that's where the focus of this thread should be.

Jack

 

[ahsanford]

Confirmed from TCSTV's Facebook folks (couldn't confirm this was actually Chris or Jordan, it was over FB Messenger to the store's FB page):

First response: "It was a production unit out of the box."

Second response, slightly correcting themselves: "It was sent from Canon. But, they confirmed that it was a production model."

This is hardly a validation of the original FM post (that still could have been a pre-production camera's RAW file), but this TCSTV take is loosely in line with it. I know TCSTV's 'test' was a cringeworthy display of what not to do with your photography, it is one way to look at file latitude.

- A

 

[tomscott]

I can seeing similar files to that of the 5DMKIV.

No banding, no casts, no colour noise when pushing files. I think its really impressive for a body of this caliber.

I loved my 5DMKIII but those were the issues I faced every once and a while. Making the image a keeper would mean a lot of PP, in this instance files that would be binned with the previous gen would be keepers now. The fact they arent appearing is impressive and feel in line with the rest of the current canon models.

As I said this camera isnt for me but a fine camera for the majority of people in the Canon system.

 

[Jopa]

Neither do I but I have already and looked at ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 RAW file and had a go at it. It comes out pretty clean But so do my 6D files at ISO 3200)

That's an AWESOME picture. The girl looks so excited!!!

 

[dak723]

No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

Thanks Tom for taking the time to actually see for yourself. This is useful information, as opposed to the theorizing, chart evaluating, BS that everyone else seems to love!

Goodness, actually looking with your own eyes, what a concept!!

 

[Jack Douglas]

No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

Thanks Tom for taking the time to actually see for yourself. This is useful information, as opposed to the theorizing, chart evaluating, BS that everyone else seems to love!

Goodness, actually looking with your own eyes, what a concept!!

;D ;D Yes what a concept. Similar to displaying creativity in one's photography even when the camera is so restricted in its dynamic range. Have to remember this is a gear-head forum.

 

[SecureGSM]

I actually did read above. Much the same, unless you push your ISO 6400 image by 2 stops. Charts are there to provide a base line. Above I posted a real ISO 3200 image taken with 6D original. Do you detect a lot of noise, banding or color cast. Goodness, look with your own eyes ;D

No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

Thanks Tom for taking the time to actually see for yourself. This is useful information, as opposed to the theorizing, chart evaluating, BS that everyone else seems to love!

Goodness, actually looking with your own eyes, what a concept!!

 

[ahsanford]

Bill Claff, care to comment? I can't help but notice the (e) for estimated has disappeared from your site, but it says it hasn't been updated in 8 days.

Is this your actual test data from a production camera? If final/official -- this would be a nail in the coffin on no on-chip ADC in the 6D2, would it not?

- A

 

[Loswr]

Bill Claff, care to comment? I can't help but notice the (e) for estimated has disappeared from your site, but it says it hasn't been updated in 8 days.

Is this your actual test data from a production camera? If final/official -- this would be a nail in the coffin on no on-chip ADC in the 6D2, would it not?

Bill bases his analyses on RAW files captured by others, but taken according to his specifications. His estimated (e) curve for the 6DII was based on the random file(s) posted on the internet. He stated that DPR then provided him with RAW files to his specifications, which he analyzed, so the (e) is gone. DPR indicated they were provided with a preproduction camera, so it seems likely that Claff's 'final' analysis is based on RAW files from that preproduction unit. Perhaps Bill will comment.

 

[SPKoko]

So, we have a serious confirmation from dpreview now:

Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II?

The areas where the D750 outperforms the 6D Mark II are far greater Raw dynamic range (by around 3 EV more), and a better viewfinder autofocus system. If you're intending to shoot sports or action, the D750 offers both state-of-the-art '3D-Tracking' AF and low light AF capability. The D750 also offers a more sophisticated metering system. It includes modes such as highlight-weighted and spot-metering that's linked to the AF point, and also feeds scene information to the AF system to support with face detection and subject tracking.