Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[RobDickinson]

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briefly been a Sony A7 II owner, I, too was convinced by the DRMorons on this and other sites that my Canon 6D was so outdated and inferior to the Sony or Nikon Exmor alternatives, that I needed to switch.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.

This is the most intelligent post I've read in this whole discussion.

It's missing a "don't like / cons" list therefore.... probably fanboy.

To repeat the big point, again, The 6d2 may be a good camera but it could have been a great camera with the better sensor tech that's available.
And while those blog photos are nice, they are like this big.... they could have been shot with an iPhone and you'd have a hard time telling at that size.

Thanks for the compliments. But yes they are web sized and frankly no one else other than me knows the 'story' of them. Its very hard to make objective analysis of a cameras capabilities from web sized processed images where you dont know how it was shot or what was done in post.

For those I was shooting with grad filters ( nisi .9 reverse and a soft lee). The shadows pushed remarkably like a 6D would. So much so I contacted my canon person to ask questions because I personally was expecting 5d4 like DR and files.

So.... Can the 6d2 take great photos? Sure.

But with high DR scenes you may end up with poorer files than the competition ( D750, A7mk2 etc). You are likely to have to work harder, using bracketing or filters more often - both of which have their own downsides. This introduces its own issues and also slows down shooting when peak light might be limited.

Its not impossible to take great photos with the 6d2, the improvements in terms of usability are great, I'm just surprised that we are offered a sensor from the 'old school'. AFIK this is a first from canon not offering their best IQ (at the time) on every camera that comes out.

thx from
'some random guy on the internet'

 

[squarepants]

ie they did not promise anything about technology

Except maybe when the Senior Managing Director and Chief Executive of Canon Inc's Image Communication Products Operations, Mr. Masaya Maeda - when quizzed directly on the matter during an interview back in September 2015 - stated that “Right now, we use both on-chip and off-chip, but recently I made the decision going forward to concentrate on the on-chip”.

Maybe it’s just me but I can kinda see an implied technology based “promise” there... what do you reckon?

Even if this camera turns out to have on chip ADC it has apparently failed to deliver the most often touted benefit of such a design... but who cares anyway right? After all improved DR is only for DRones... and people who can’t use cameras properly... or don’t understand exposure... and trolls... yes... definitely the trolls...
Nasty trolls... they’re the worst.

 

[RobDickinson]

A lot of the marketing talk mentions dynamic range, improved image quality and 5d mk4 like sensor technology.

We had certain levels of expectation Canon had fed directly.

 

[squarepants]

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.

This is the most intelligent post I've read in this whole discussion.

It's missing a "don't like / cons" list therefore.... probably fanboy.

To repeat the big point, again, The 6d2 may be a good camera but it could have been a great camera with the better sensor tech that's available.
And while those blog photos are nice, they are like this big.... they could have been shot with an iPhone and you'd have a hard time telling at that size.

Thanks for the compliments. But yes they are web sized and frankly no one else other than me knows the 'story' of them. Its very hard to make objective analysis of a cameras capabilities from web sized processed images where you dont know how it was shot or what was done in post.

For those I was shooting with grad filters ( nisi .9 reverse and a soft lee). The shadows pushed remarkably like a 6D would. So much so I contacted my canon person to ask questions because I personally was expecting 5d4 like DR and files.

So.... Can the 6d2 take great photos? Sure.

But with high DR scenes you may end up with poorer files than the competition ( D750, A7mk2 etc). You are likely to have to work harder, using bracketing or filters more often - both of which have their own downsides. This introduces its own issues and also slows down shooting when peak light might be limited.

Its not impossible to take great photos with the 6d2, the improvements in terms of usability are great, I'm just surprised that we are offered a sensor from the 'old school'. AFIK this is a first from canon not offering their best IQ (at the time) on every camera that comes out.

thx from
'some random guy on the internet'

Kia Ora Rob a.k.a some random guy on the internet

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your (apparently already controversial) contribution to this discussion!!

You've been (rightly) praised for the artistic merits of your photography... but mind you don't speak too positively of increased dynamic range around these parts... folks don't seem to like them newfangled ideas around here ;D

 

[RobDickinson]

Thanks!

Controversial perhaps.... But realistically just early. Had production cameras been built to a different spec then it could well have been misleading. But they are not.

Unfortunately for my contacts at canon I should have been wrapped in an NDA and told it was a preprod model etc and they are in trouble now. Had I known I wouldnt have released any raws.

But all that would have accomplished is a weeks delay on the findings ( if that).

The real 'culprit' here is whoever at Canon Japan decided this sensor was right for the market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The real 'culprit' here is whoever at Canon Japan decided this sensor was right for the market.

It's only wrong for the market if the market doesn't buy the 6DII, i.e. if sales are poor / fail to meet expectations. With respect, don't you think it's a bit premature to make such a conclusion?

Conversely, if the 6DII does sell well (and I'd lay good odds that it will), and if there was a sound business reason to use the sensor they did (again, rather likely), then the 'culprit' will be a 'hero' to Canon.

 

[squarepants]

That’s too bad for the local Canon guys.

As you say though – early, but only delaying the inevitable.

And I couldn’t agree more... I honestly can’t believe Canon would think that in 2017 it was ok to release a camera – the previous iteration of which was widely used by landscape photographers as a lighter weight full frame alternative and ironically probably also because it offered the best base ISO DR of that gen of Canon bodies - with 2008 style base ISO dynamic range.

 

[RobDickinson]

The real 'culprit' here is whoever at Canon Japan decided this sensor was right for the market.

It's only wrong for the market if the market doesn't buy the 6DII, i.e. if sales are poor / fail to meet expectations. With respect, don't you think it's a bit premature to make such a conclusion?

Conversely, if the 6DII does sell well (and I'd lay good odds that it will), and if there was a sound business reason to use the sensor they did (again, rather likely), then the 'culprit' will be a 'hero' to Canon.

It certainly might work out financially for them in the short term at least.

I have to question the long term prospects with shrinking market and new models coming out, if they have to engineer a 6dmk3 earlier than expected those slim extra profits will be eaten.

IMO this is not likely to be a financial decision? I cant see an on sensor ACD version costing more than what they have used. More likely a business decision or limit on production capacity of the new type sensors.

 

[SecureGSM]

Hi Luds34,
Correct. but not without a surprise there! I was expecting the 5D IV pixel level sharpness results to be the weakest out of the bunch due to folks complaining about very strong AA filter in the camera affecting overal sharpness of the images coming out of the camera. you have heard that as well, right? well, it turned out that this not being true with 5D IV images being the sharpest out of the bunch instead.
I will follow up with the 5DSR (canceled AA filter, apparently) shortly. that would be interesting!

here are 5DsR pixel sharpness test results. All I can say is : hmmmm

Canon 5DsR: 1699.8 <<< comes as a unexpected surprise to the downside
absolutely worst out of the bunch with 8% worse pixle level sharpness than 5D IV.

as F5.6 is not diffraction limited aperture for FF 50Mpix sensor of 5DsR, i have 3 reason that I can think of:

1. impossible to maintain top quality pixel level sharpness at such a high pixel density ( 50 Mp sensor, high density, small pixel size).
2. sensor out resolved the lens being 85mm F1.8 USM on the pixel level. I believe they should really use a sharper lens. Zeiss Otus / Milvus / Sigma 85 Art lenses come to mind.
3. lens was not focused perfectly.

Canon 5DsR:

QoF=1699.8
Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature 5200K
Camera Temperature 43C
Quality Measure 1699.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 34/33/34
Red Quality 1586.8
Green Quality 1794.0
Blue Quality 1721.9
HVR -2.3%

Canon 80D:

note: EF 50 F1.4 USM lens was used so results cannot be compared directly.

Lens EF50mm f/1.4 USM
Focal Length 50.0mm
Test Aperture f/5.6
Test ISO 100


QoF=1906.8 <<Wow, just wow.. who would expect this result. canon 80D is sharper than 5D IV at pixel level.


Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/5s
EV 7.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 38C
Quality Measure 1906.8
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 38/31/31
Red Quality 1818.6
Green Quality 1988.9
Blue Quality 1953.5
HVR 5.6%

Luds34,

I have ran quick sharpness (QoF) Focal test analysis over individual RAW files I have downloaded on dpreview website. Test was conducted at the pixel level (1:1). here are the results (updated with 5D IV data on request):

Canon 6D II: 1808.4
Canon 5D III: 1806.6
Canon 6D: 1829.7 <<<<< better by 1%
Canon 5D IV: 1850.3 <<<<< approx. 3% better than 6DII, 5D III, or 2% better than 6D Original.

there is NO sharpness advantage for 6D II at the pixel level, images appear sharper due to 6D II files are 30% larger than 6D files. (down sampling improves perceived screen image sharpness).

A little late to the party, but thanks for posting your update.

So in short there is no pixel level difference. However the greater resolution of the sensor as whole leads to better sharpness.

Of course the pixel level sharpness being equal at ISO 100 I suppose isn't all that surprising. It's why crop sensors, even phones look good in great light.

Thanks again.

 

[dlee13]

So if the 6DII appears to have a sharper image due to the higher MP, why does it still appear sharper than the 5D4?

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=nikon_d750&attr144_2=nikon_d5&attr144_3=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr146_0=100_2&attr146_1=100_2&attr146_2=100_2&attr146_3=100_2&normalization=compare&widget=542&x=-0.11530572648151236&y=1.0427498555748123

 

[neuroanatomist]

That’s too bad for the local Canon guys.

As you say though – early, but only delaying the inevitable.

And I couldn’t agree more... I honestly can’t believe Canon would think that in 2017 it was ok to release a camera – the previous iteration of which was widely used by landscape photographers as a lighter weight full frame alternative and ironically probably also because it offered the best base ISO DR of that gen of Canon bodies - with 2008 style base ISO dynamic range.

Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data. Yet they didn't increase the DR of the 6DII at all, relative to its predecessor. Interesting....could be an example of the difference between informed business decisions and wild guesses based on personal anecdotal impressions.

 

[snoke]

Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data.

How Canon get this data on how many have 6D for landscape?

 

[Luds34]

Hi Luds34,
Correct. but not without a surprise there! I was expecting the 5D IV pixel level sharpness results to be the weakest out of the bunch due to folks complaining about very strong AA filter in the camera affecting overal sharpness of the images coming out of the camera. you have heard that as well, right? well, it turned out that this not being true with 5D IV images being the sharpest out of the bunch instead.
I will follow up with the 5DSR (canceled AA filter, apparently) shortly. that would be interesting!

here are 5DsR pixel sharpness test results. All I can say is : hmmmm

Canon 5DsR: 1699.8 <<< comes as a unexpected surprise to the downside
absolutely worst out of the bunch with 8% worse pixle level sharpness than 5D IV.

It's funny, the AA filter crossed my mind as well. When all your pixel level measurements came back the same, I did think "did Canon just proportionally apply the AA filter per resolution to all these cameras?"

Because my comment about ISO 100 and enough light makes sense, more then enough light to fill the pixels (even if some of them are half the size of others) that the signal is maxed out. However, just as you were thinking, I would have thought that the AA filter would then have been the limiting factor of these sensors.

I'm glad you updated with the 5DSr. I was wondering if that small of pixel would finally show a limit. Totally shooting from the hip here, but I wonder if the loss is less to do with the increased density (in my mind I still think there is a lot of light per pixel at ISO 100) and possibly the overhead in electronics/sensor at the pixel level.

Either way, I just anxiously wait for this 6D2 to ship. I've been without a DSLR for a couple months now. I didn't realize how much I'd miss the camera.

 

[Jschmitt]

I have to question the long term prospects with shrinking market and new models coming out, if they have to engineer a 6dmk3 earlier than expected those slim extra profits will be eaten.

IMO this is not likely to be a financial decision? I cant see an on sensor ACD version costing more than what they have used. More likely a business decision or limit on production capacity of the new type sensors.

In trying to figure out the decision to (evidently) not include on-chip ADC, I've begun to wonder if there will be a quicker update cycle to the 6D3 than the almost five years between the 6D and 6D2. This gives them a much easier update path in two and a half years if they chose to do so - just put the sensor with on-chip ADC in there. Would people be upset and say that this is what the 6D2 should have been? Probably, but that would probably be offset by the fact that the camera would perform better. I have yet to see any evidence that Canon is too concerned with people being upset with the 6D2 (even in my own communications with their sales team), so I'm not sure that people being upset is an issue for them.

 

[SecureGSM]

updated now with 80D data. now, totally confusing! as 80D pixel density is very close to the one of 5DsR

there is also a chance that in 5DsR test, the sensor outresolved the lens or focus in the test image file was not at the perfect level. EXIF data points to Phase Detection focusing method used. so there is a chance that image is not the sharpest due to the focus error.
in regards, to 80D results, they used 50 mm lens so results cannot be compared directly, but if 80D performance is a sign of what pixel level sharpness we can expect from 5DsR II, then I am very happy.
sounds idiotic, but 80D with EF 50 1.4 USM attached produced much sharper at pixel level image than 5DsR / 85 F1.8 USM combo. framing will be similar, oversampling of the much larger 5DsR file to 80D file resolution level may equalise things out. but as it stands, it almost makes sense shooting portraiture with 80D instead of 5DsR at ISO 100 for better resolution and details level.

there is also a hope that if this sensor was used in 7D III, wildlife photogs will be very happy with the pixel level sharpness delivered by their cam.

Hi Luds34,
Correct. but not without a surprise there! I was expecting the 5D IV pixel level sharpness results to be the weakest out of the bunch due to folks complaining about very strong AA filter in the camera affecting overal sharpness of the images coming out of the camera. you have heard that as well, right? well, it turned out that this not being true with 5D IV images being the sharpest out of the bunch instead.
I will follow up with the 5DSR (canceled AA filter, apparently) shortly. that would be interesting!

here are 5DsR pixel sharpness test results. All I can say is : hmmmm

Canon 5DsR: 1699.8 <<< comes as a unexpected surprise to the downside
absolutely worst out of the bunch with 8% worse pixle level sharpness than 5D IV.

It's funny, the AA filter crossed my mind as well. When all your pixel level measurements came back the same, I did think "did Canon just proportionally apply the AA filter per resolution to all these cameras?"

Because my comment about ISO 100 and enough light makes sense, more then enough light to fill the pixels (even if some of them are half the size of others) that the signal is maxed out. However, just as you were thinking, I would have thought that the AA filter would then have been the limiting factor of these sensors.

I'm glad you updated with the 5DSr. I was wondering if that small of pixel would finally show a limit. Totally shooting from the hip here, but I wonder if the loss is less to do with the increased density (in my mind I still think there is a lot of light per pixel at ISO 100) and possibly the overhead in electronics/sensor at the pixel level.

Either way, I just anxiously wait for this 6D2 to ship. I've been without a DSLR for a couple months now. I didn't realize how much I'd miss the camera.

 

[Jopa]

updated now with 80D data. now, totally confusing! as 80D pixel density is very close to the one of 5DsR

there is also a chance that in 5DsR test, the sensor outresolved the lens or focus in the test image file was not at the perfect level. EXIF data points to Phase Detection focusing method used. so there is a chance that image is not the sharpest due to the focus error.
in regards, to 80D results, they used 50 mm lens so results cannot be compared directly, but if 80D performance is a sign of what pixel level sharpness we can expect from 5DsR II, then I am very happy.

Hi Luds34,
Correct. but not without a surprise there! I was expecting the 5D IV pixel level sharpness results to be the weakest out of the bunch due to folks complaining about very strong AA filter in the camera affecting overal sharpness of the images coming out of the camera. you have heard that as well, right? well, it turned out that this not being true with 5D IV images being the sharpest out of the bunch instead.
I will follow up with the 5DSR (canceled AA filter, apparently) shortly. that would be interesting!

here are 5DsR pixel sharpness test results. All I can say is : hmmmm

Canon 5DsR: 1699.8 <<< comes as a unexpected surprise to the downside
absolutely worst out of the bunch with 8% worse pixle level sharpness than 5D IV.

It's funny, the AA filter crossed my mind as well. When all your pixel level measurements came back the same, I did think "did Canon just proportionally apply the AA filter per resolution to all these cameras?"

Because my comment about ISO 100 and enough light makes sense, more then enough light to fill the pixels (even if some of them are half the size of others) that the signal is maxed out. However, just as you were thinking, I would have thought that the AA filter would then have been the limiting factor of these sensors.

I'm glad you updated with the 5DSr. I was wondering if that small of pixel would finally show a limit. Totally shooting from the hip here, but I wonder if the loss is less to do with the increased density (in my mind I still think there is a lot of light per pixel at ISO 100) and possibly the overhead in electronics/sensor at the pixel level.

Either way, I just anxiously wait for this 6D2 to ship. I've been without a DSLR for a couple months now. I didn't realize how much I'd miss the camera.

Alex, are you sure those numbers correct? It could be the lens. Please take a look:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=pentax_645z&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.005392698864732366&y=0.2853721348094403

 

[SecureGSM]

you are looking at downsampled images to equalise sensor size variations note how framing is very similar.


I am redownloading RAW files of 5DsR, 5D IV, 80D and 6D as we speak and re run test with these files again.

Alex, are you sure those numbers correct? It could be the lens. Please take a look:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=pentax_645z&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.005392698864732366&y=0.2853721348094403

 

[Jopa]

you are looking at downsampled images to equalise sensor size variations note how framing is very similar.


I am redownloading RAW files of 5DsR, 5D IV, 80D and 6D as we speak and re run test with these files again.

Alex, are you sure those numbers correct? It could be the lens. Please take a look:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=pentax_645z&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.005392698864732366&y=0.2853721348094403

To me they look normal (not downsampled), but I can't tell for sure. You can probably download straight from DPR?

 

[SecureGSM]

yup, that is what I do: download RAW files and feed into Focal for analysis.

thanks for the link, btw as the RAW files on this page are different to the ones on other page I have downloaded my first set or test RAW files from:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

unfortunately, there is no second 6D II test file available at this stage, but the result achieved was in line with expectations.

well, 5DsR continued to disappoint and 80D second file is an outlier - tell tale sign is massive astigmatism detected. I would say that second 80D test file can be safely discarded. I certainly would. here are the results:

Canon 5DsR (first file) : QoF=1699.8
Canon 5DsR ( second file): QoF=1690.1


Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature 6854K
Camera Temperature 33C
Quality Measure 1690.1
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1538.2
Green Quality 1830.4
Blue Quality 1703.4
HVR -1.7%


Canon 80D (second file): QoF=1714.3 << focus error, Astigmatism level detected was way too high as well??
Canon 80D (first file) : QoF=1906.8

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 38C
Quality Measure 1714.3
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 37/31/32
Red Quality 1617.0
Green Quality 1801.2
Blue Quality 1745.3
HVR 8.5% << way too high!

Canon 6D (second file): QoF=1839.5
Canon 6D (first file): QoF=1829.7



Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature 6381K
Camera Temperature 32C
Quality Measure 1839.5
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1786.2
Green Quality 1888.3
Blue Quality 1844.5
HVR -1.3%

Canon 5D IV (second file): QoF=1864.2
Canon 5D IV (first file): QoF=1850.3


Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature Unknown
Camera Temperature 34C
Quality Measure 1864.2
Optimised No
Ignored No
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 36/31/34
Red Quality 1827.5
Green Quality 1897.8
Blue Quality 1872.7
HVR -2.8%

Canon 6D II (first file): QoF=1808.4

Canon 5D III (first file): QoF=1806.6
Canon 5D III (second file): QoF=1810.1

Aperture f/5.6
Shutter Speed 1/40s
EV 10.2
Colour Temperature 6490K
Camera Temperature 28C
Quality Measure 1810.1
Spectral Power (R/G/B) 33/33/34
Red Quality 1756.4
Green Quality 1848.0
Blue Quality 1825.3
HVR -1.5%

you are looking at downsampled images to equalise sensor size variations note how framing is very similar.


I am redownloading RAW files of 5DsR, 5D IV, 80D and 6D as we speak and re run test with these files again.

Alex, are you sure those numbers correct? It could be the lens. Please take a look:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=canon_eos80d&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=pentax_645z&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr171_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.005392698864732366&y=0.2853721348094403

To me they look normal (not downsampled), but I can't tell for sure. You can probably download straight from DPR?

 

[squarepants]

Do you believe 'landscape photographers' comprise a significant fraction of the 6D / 6DII market? If so, do you have any data to back up that claim? It's ok if you don't, I'm sure that Canon does have exactly that sort of data. Yet they didn't increase the DR of the 6DII at all, relative to its predecessor. Interesting....could be an example of the difference between informed business decisions and wild guesses based on personal anecdotal impressions.

Do you believe they don’t?

Or have you actually had eyes on the content of Canon’s market research specifically regarding the usefulness of improved base ISO DR to its 6D Mark II target user group? And are you able to provide any data on how large a user sample was polled and exactly how representative it was of the wider user group? It’s ok if you can’t... but you’re right it is interesting... it could be another example of a wild guess based on personal anecdotal impressions.