Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[bclaff]

...There are a lot of "what ifs," and one of them is whether on-chip or off-chip is even a factor. The people who are "analyzing" these files are making the assumption that because they don't look like on-chip files they can't be. But, that's not a given. It is only speculation. Only after someone disassembles the camera, will it be known for sure and even then, it's not really relevant...

I'm quite sure about it myself, but as you point out, it's simply a rationalization for what we are seeing.
The DR results themselves are what really "matters".

 

[unfocused]

To my mind, a lot of these numbers and comparisons ring thrown around do not make sense. I am waiting for dedicated testing from retail units before I make any decision on if to buy or not....

I think that ship is quickly sailing, Don, but who knows. Perhaps Bill at PtP was unknowingly sent a pre-production file. Perhaps the guys at The Camera Store TV were given a pre-production unit. But both claimed they received production output or a final/production body...

I shouldn't speak for Don, but I don't think that is his point. To my way of thinking, it is that all of this angst is over lab tests that may or may not have much relevance for real world shooting. I don't think the results from retail units are going to be magically different, I just think it is probably a good idea to wait until the camera has been out in the field for six months or so and see what the reaction is at that point.

I recall when the original 6D came out, there was much complaining about the autofocus system. Yet, in real world use, people found the camera performed well above its specs. Always good advice to sit tight and see how things shake out after six months or so.

 

[ahsanford]

All we really know is that Canon said the sensor on the 6D may not have as much dynamic range and resolution as the 5D IV. That appears to be the case. Why that is, is pure speculation at this point.

Right. We can argue that (a hypothetical) teardown of a $549 SL2 finding an on-chip ADC architecture + a great base ISO DR test -- which we're presuming is hand in hand, but not sure -- would still put us in a tough call position:

• Does that mean cost isn't the reason Canon didn't give the 6D2 the good stuff? Is it all market differentiation / nerfing / etc.?
  
  
• Or is the SL2 simply a recipient of a gift from the sensor gods that still hits their cost targets because Canon is now pumping them out by the hundreds of thousands for every 24 MP Canon crop body?

We'll be staring at those tea leaves all day, IMHO.

- A

 

[Khalai]

All we really know is that Canon said the sensor on the 6D may not have as much dynamic range and resolution as the 5D IV. That appears to be the case. Why that is, is pure speculation at this point.

Right. We can argue that (a hypothetical) teardown of a $549 SL2 finding an on-chip ADC architecture + a great base ISO DR test -- which we're presuming is hand in hand, but not sure -- would still put us in a tough call position:

• Does that mean cost isn't the reason Canon didn't give the 6D2 the good stuff? Is it all market differentiation / nerfing / etc.?
  
  
• Or is the SL2 simply a recipient of a gift from the sensor gods that still hits their cost targets because Canon is now pumping them out by the hundreds of thousands for every 24 MP Canon crop body?

We'll be staring at those tea leaves all day, IMHO.

- A

All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP

 

[Loswr]

Neuro it is not unreasonable to have thought that the 6D MKII would improve upon the DR provided by the 6D given the five year gap. In the context of just about everything else technically we buy were used to improvements and advancement in key features and the sensor is a key feature of any camera.

No, it's not unreasonable...but it's not a given. Consider the four year gap between the 5DII and the 5DIII. Have a look at Bill Claff's DR comparison and tell me how much improvement you see.

As I've stated, people (Aglet notwithstanding) were quite pleased with the 5DII's sensor IQ, but felt improvements were needed in several other areas. Canon delivered them with the 5DIII...and the market rewarded them.

 

[bclaff]

...
All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP

All I need is for someone with a 200D / SL2 to collaborate with me on gathering the appropriate raw files.

 

[ahsanford]

All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP

Honestly, if we're going to stare at tea leaves, how about this:

1) Canon decides (a couple years ago) that the 5D4 will have more resolution than the 6D2, but that the 6D2 should have more than 6D1 for a host of reasons (to entice 6D1 owners to upgrade, to keep up with a 24 MP 'entry FF' marketplace, etc.)

2) Those statements above lead to the conclusion that a new sensor must be made, and they land on 30 MP for the 5D4 and 26 MP for the 6D2.

3) For a single product line that won't share sensors with another line, Canon's manufacturing folks inform management that going with on-chip ADC will cost more (capital, unit cost, etc.) than with going the older off-chip ADC design. The 5D4's presumed-to-be-bulletproof premium price will underwrite the on-chip costs (and there are some 5D-level industry prestige considerations that it must be there for that product), but the business is less sure that's a must for the entry FF market, that the 6D2 will command a high price for a long enough time to recoup their investment, etc.

4) Canon marketing folks pull out the market research they did at the beginning of the project and state that of their earlier customer segmentation effort, of the 5 customer segments they've identified, only the 'gearhead + internet forum heavy' userbase -- (let's say) a mere 9% of the total 6D2 prospective market -- identifies base ISO DR as a top 3 issue for the purchasing decision.

5) Marketing updates its financial model assumptions and factors in a small negative sales units delta for the older sensor setup but also factors in the cost savings of going with the cheaper sensor fab. Marketing renders a verdict: "We've run the numbers both ways, and we'll make more profit over time with the off-chip setup. The sensor news will sting a smaller percentage of our prospective customers, but DPAF + tilty-flippy + touch + 6 more MP + the new AF system are the prime movers here. No on-chip ADC with the 6D2."

6) Canon then does what it does. It's executes and sticks to plan.

Sound plausible?

- A

 

[Khalai]

All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP

Honestly, if we're going to stare at tea leaves, how about this:

1) Canon decides (a couple years ago) that the 5D4 will have more resolution than the 6D2, but that the 6D2 should have more than 6D1 for a host of reasons (to entice 6D1 owners to upgrade, to keep up with a 24 MP 'entry FF' marketplace, etc.)

2) Those statements above lead to the conclusion that a new sensor must be made, and they land on 30 MP for the 5D4 and 26 MP for the 6D2.

3) For a single product line that won't share sensors with another line, Canon's manufacturing folks inform management that going with on-chip ADC will cost more (capital, unit cost, etc.) than with going the older off-chip ADC design. The 5D4's presumed-to-be-bulletproof premium price will underwrite the on-chip costs (and there are some 5D-level industry prestige considerations that it must be there for that product), but the business is less sure that's a must for the entry FF market, that the 6D2 will command a high price for a long enough time to recoup their investment, etc.

4) Canon marketing folks pull out the market research they did at the beginning of the project and state that of their earlier customer segmentation effort, of the 5 customer segments they've identified, only the 'gearhead + internet forum heavy' userbase -- (let's say) a mere 9% of the total 6D2 prospective market -- identifies base ISO DR as a top 3 issue for the purchasing decision.

5) Marketing updates its financial model assumptions and factors in a small negative sales units delta for the older sensor setup but also factors in the cost savings of going with the cheaper sensor fab. Marketing renders a verdict: "We've run the numbers both ways, and we'll make more profit over time with the off-chip setup. The sensor news will sting a smaller percentage of our prospective customers, but DPAF + tilty-flippy + touch + 6 more MP + the new AF system are the prime movers here. No on-chip ADC with the 6D2."

6) Canon then does what it does. It's executes and sticks to plan.

Sound plausible?

- A

I've just found an older article about hidden DR in Canon sensors. Interesting read.

 

[Aglet]

Neuro it is not unreasonable to have thought that the 6D MKII would improve upon the DR provided by the 6D given the five year gap. In the context of just about everything else technically we buy were used to improvements and advancement in key features and the sensor is a key feature of any camera.

No, it's not unreasonable...but it's not a given. Consider the four year gap between the 5DII and the 5DIII. Have a look at Bill Claff's DR comparison and tell me how much improvement you see.

As I've stated, people (Aglet notwithstanding) were quite pleased with the 5DII's sensor IQ, but felt improvements were needed in several other areas. Canon delivered them with the 5DIII...and the market rewarded them.

I'd use a 5d4 if someone gave me one.
Be hard-pressed to pay for one tho... 8-\

 

[Loswr]

All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP

Honestly, if we're going to stare at tea leaves, how about this:

1) Canon decides (a couple years ago) that the 5D4 will have more resolution than the 6D2, but that the 6D2 should have more than 6D1 for a host of reasons (to entice 6D1 owners to upgrade, to keep up with a 24 MP 'entry FF' marketplace, etc.)

2) Those statements above lead to the conclusion that a new sensor must be made, and they land on 30 MP for the 5D4 and 26 MP for the 6D2.

3) For a single product line that won't share sensors with another line, Canon's manufacturing folks inform management that going with on-chip ADC will cost more (capital, unit cost, etc.) than with going the older off-chip ADC design. The 5D4's presumed-to-be-bulletproof premium price will underwrite the on-chip costs (and there are some 5D-level industry prestige considerations that it must be there for that product), but the business is less sure that's a must for the entry FF market, that the 6D2 will command a high price for a long enough time to recoup their investment, etc.

4) Canon marketing folks pull out the market research they did at the beginning of the project and state that of their earlier customer segmentation effort, of the 5 customer segments they've identified, only the 'gearhead + internet forum heavy' userbase -- (let's say) a mere 9% of the total 6D2 prospective market -- identifies base ISO DR as a top 3 issue for the purchasing decision.

5) Marketing updates its financial model assumptions and factors in a small negative sales units delta for the older sensor setup but also factors in the cost savings of going with the cheaper sensor fab. Marketing renders a verdict: "We've run the numbers both ways, and we'll make more profit over time with the off-chip setup. The sensor news will sting a smaller percentage of our prospective customers, but DPAF + tilty-flippy + touch + 6 more MP + the new AF system are the prime movers here. No on-chip ADC with the 6D2."

6) Canon then does what it does. It's executes and sticks to plan.

Sound plausible?

Canon CEO:
How can we screw over our entry-level full frame dSLR customers?

Canon Marketing Department:
Give the 6DII the same low ISO DR as the 6D.

Canon CEO:

Sound plausible?

 

[Aglet]

Sound plausible?

- A

totally.. That's what they do, make money; not everyone happy.

 

[Don Haines]

To my mind, a lot of these numbers and comparisons ring thrown around do not make sense. I am waiting for dedicated testing from retail units before I make any decision on if to buy or not....

I think that ship is quickly sailing, Don, but who knows. Perhaps Bill at PtP was unknowingly sent a pre-production file. Perhaps the guys at The Camera Store TV were given a pre-production unit. But both claimed they received production output or a final/production body...

I shouldn't speak for Don, but I don't think that is his point. To my way of thinking, it is that all of this angst is over lab tests that may or may not have much relevance for real world shooting. I don't think the results from retail units are going to be magically different, I just think it is probably a good idea to wait until the camera has been out in the field for six months or so and see what the reaction is at that point.

I recall when the original 6D came out, there was much complaining about the autofocus system. Yet, in real world use, people found the camera performed well above its specs. Always good advice to sit tight and see how things shake out after six months or so.

To my mind, what really matters is what happens when the owner of a retail camera uses either the included software, or Adobe, to process the RAW files and what they get as a result..... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. I doubt that any of us are going to die a horrible death while we wait for the official release and it would be nice to see what happens in the real world.

 

[bclaff]

... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. ...

If you're alluding to a technical analysis, such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR), this is a non-issue.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Even if its the same as the 6D at least it's still superior to the 5D-III...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d500&attr144_2=canon_eos5dmkiii&attr144_3=nikon_d5&attr146_0=100_4&attr146_1=100_4&attr146_2=100_4&attr146_3=100_4&normalization=print&widget=542&x=0.012536560811854582&y=-1.0386402343798111

 

[Don Haines]

... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. ...

If you're alluding to a technical analysis, such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR), this is a non-issue.

Is the RAW file being properly decoded? Until you are using the final release software, you don't really know.... as the release date gets closer and more of the variables get answered, the odds of the results being correct get better and better, but until you have images taken independently from multiple sources, using retail cameras, and decoded by final release software, you do not know for sure.

As a scientist, one can observe that the ship is filling up with water.... you can state that the probability of the ship sinking is increasing, but you have to wait until it has gone under to declare that it has sunk.

 

[Mikehit]

Bill understood me correctly
Mike did not
and ur completely off-target and heading for trolldom

Well if what Bill said is what you meant, then you should have said it.
No excuses, no complaining about people not being able to mind read. You should have said it and you can't whine when people read what you actually wrote.

So why not act like an adult rather than complain when people call you out.

 

[bclaff]

... if it is a pre-production camera, or pre-release software, the results may or may not be accurate. ...

If you're alluding to a technical analysis, such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR), this is a non-issue.

Is the RAW file being properly decoded?

Yes, properly decoded with 100% certainty. CR2 files are well understood and the cross-checks are obvious.

 

[squarepants]

Okay. A little rant, or vent, call it whatever you wish.

I'm not pissed about Canon's lack of low ISO DR in 6D II for technical reasons. I'm just disappointed that they have the means of producing FF sensor, that perfoms almost as good as competition (we've seen that in 80D, 5D IV or 1DX II), but choose not to in 6D II.

I'm sure that 6D II will be popular camera, it will take amazing pictures (just like 6D is capable of) and it will sell in good numbers. But I feel that something has been intentionally left out and it's a pity. So in the end, it's not about that they cannot do something. It's about that they can, but they won't. And that just bothers me. Okay. End of rant, but I just needed to say it out loud.

You know Khalai – this just about perfectly sums up why I’m so disappointed too.

It’s not that they couldn’t they just wouldn’t. And it’s just not good enough for one of your high end models to drop the ball on this and to be outclassed in (what has become) an important performance parameter by your entry level products.

Whether this camera sells by the truckload or not is – to me anyway – a moot issue. It should have been better than it is in this regard. Canon should have made sure of this.

I don’t attribute any of that emotive “evil, vindictive corporate” nonsense to it… Canon’s a company in business to produce products for profit just like any other and I know they have the market lead...etc, etc… But I personally do hope that sales of this model suffer and they get the message that “just good enough” isn’t good enough.

 

[dak723]

All eyes on 6D II, but somebody should test SL2 ASAP

Honestly, if we're going to stare at tea leaves, how about this:

1) Canon decides (a couple years ago) that the 5D4 will have more resolution than the 6D2, but that the 6D2 should have more than 6D1 for a host of reasons (to entice 6D1 owners to upgrade, to keep up with a 24 MP 'entry FF' marketplace, etc.)

2) Those statements above lead to the conclusion that a new sensor must be made, and they land on 30 MP for the 5D4 and 26 MP for the 6D2.

3) For a single product line that won't share sensors with another line, Canon's manufacturing folks inform management that going with on-chip ADC will cost more (capital, unit cost, etc.) than with going the older off-chip ADC design. The 5D4's presumed-to-be-bulletproof premium price will underwrite the on-chip costs (and there are some 5D-level industry prestige considerations that it must be there for that product), but the business is less sure that's a must for the entry FF market, that the 6D2 will command a high price for a long enough time to recoup their investment, etc.

4) Canon marketing folks pull out the market research they did at the beginning of the project and state that of their earlier customer segmentation effort, of the 5 customer segments they've identified, only the 'gearhead + internet forum heavy' userbase -- (let's say) a mere 9% of the total 6D2 prospective market -- identifies base ISO DR as a top 3 issue for the purchasing decision.

5) Marketing updates its financial model assumptions and factors in a small negative sales units delta for the older sensor setup but also factors in the cost savings of going with the cheaper sensor fab. Marketing renders a verdict: "We've run the numbers both ways, and we'll make more profit over time with the off-chip setup. The sensor news will sting a smaller percentage of our prospective customers, but DPAF + tilty-flippy + touch + 6 more MP + the new AF system are the prime movers here. No on-chip ADC with the 6D2."

6) Canon then does what it does. It's executes and sticks to plan.

Sound plausible?

- A

Yes, of course. And as others have said, the main goal may have been to keep the price under $2000, which may not have been possible with whatever would be needed to improve the low ISO DR.

What I find most amusing (or very sad, actually) is that the original photos taken by Rob Dickinson that were posted on the Fred Miranda site that started this entire DR mania are fantastic! Anyone going to his blog post....

http://www.heroworkshops.com/blog/6d2

and thinks the 6D II is inadequate or can't take a good or even great photo, knows nothing about photography and is clueless about what a good camera is. Take a look at the photos people - it is all about the photos isn't it? Having briefly been a Sony A7 II owner, I, too was convinced by the DRMorons on this and other sites that my Canon 6D was so outdated and inferior to the Sony or Nikon Exmor alternatives, that I needed to switch. Then I took photos with both cameras and much to my confusion, the Sony photos were not better in any way. And in many ways, the Canon 6D was better, which is why I kept the Canon and returned the Sony.

 

[snoke]

But stating that DR=IQ without any context or qualifications is silly.

But DR is related to IQ. If you only have 1 stop of DR, the IQ is going to be pretty awful. Kind of like ISO 1024000 on some other cameras. Only once the DR has passed a certain threshold do other factors come into play.

What limits the usefulness of high ISO images? Noise. And especially FPN.

What is noise related to? It is directly related to DR.

Two aspects of IQ that isn't related to IQ is color accuracy and image sharpness. Almost nobody cares about these. Sorry, that's a lie. DPR does look at both of these in their reviews. They just never get discussed here.

That means that you should be able to see poorer image quality in a low ISO shot from a lower DR camera where everything is sitting where it should be on the response 'curve' of the sensor. And you can't, format for format, mp for mp, output for output.

Why do you need to be able to see poorer IQ? Or is your argument that if the difference in IQ between cameras is not observable to human eyes then it is not important?