Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR
- Thread starter Adelino
- Start date
tomscott
Photographer & Graphic Designer
SecureGSM said:
Whether you agree with me or not, amateurs pretending to be professionals undercutting by 50% makes life difficult. The last 5 years has seen such a huge influx of photographers.
Mikehit said:
Only if history is anything to go by. I paid £2599 for my 5DMKIII with 24-105 in Nov 2013. Body only I think it was around £2099. 19 months after release.
5DMKIV was released August 2016 year in now and its already seen between £5-750 price reduction from RRP. Looks like its probably on a similar trajectory. Especially with the range of cameras that are being released from the competition the innovation of the 5DMKIV is lacking in contrast.
IMO it is pretty much the perfect camera so the more competition the better I wont be switching, really enjoy shooting with my canon gear.
The benefits for me of the 5DMKIV are obviously the better AF, dual slots, better weather sealing and the af joystick.
Otherwise, seriously the 6DMKII has solved the only real gripe I had with the 5DMKIII, colour noise and muddy shadows. The DR seems similar but its so much cleaner and the noise is a lot nicer and easy to clean up.
It has been slated but honestly I challenge you to go and grab one and not be impressed with its handling, speed and performance for the price. It really is impressive for all of that to be 50% less than the MKIV.
Upvote
0
tomscott said:
I just moved from a 6D to a 5D IV two weeks ago, and I have to say that I was expecting to really use the joystick for af selection a lot, but the touch screen has been used much more by contrast. Selecting auto focus points using the touch screen while looking through the viewfinder just feels very intuitive.
Upvote
0
tomscott
Photographer & Graphic Designer
SecureGSM said:
Please dont misquote me.
Its an observation that it performs like a 70/80D in the AF department. Certainly doesn't mean it cant get the job done.
We will have to agree to disagree im afraid. I can tell your trying to wind me up but im perfectly happy with the camera.
Im trying to give people more information, good and bad about the camera. Instead of people getting on the bandwagon who haven't used the camera and have nothing productive to add.
Upvote
0
If your referring to Bill Claff then he does have credibility and his tests are consistently conducted in the same way. I have said on this forum the flaw I feel is a non-batch approach to testing, Lens Rentals tests batches of cameras and lenses and this makes sense.unfocused said:
My own tests using a set up with auto analysis (Arri system) showed my own 6D MKII to be better in DR than the version Bill Claff tested and almost identical to my 6D for DR. The noise floor is definitely better as is the resolution so overall the camera is better (colorimagery is also better). I would not publically show my test simply because it is only one camera and goes against my training and belief.
Upvote
0
That's what you said in the post on this page. Not trying to wind up anyone. I have better things to do in my life. It just appears to me that your logic is emotionally originated. I can get any job done with my Canon 6D using central AF point only .... with a little bit of luck. I am sure that any pro can produce great imagery with either camera these days. The rate of keepers in challenging situations is what makes a great camera body in my opinion. If you can afford 90% success rate - that's according to information you have provided in the post above, then fine. Good for you.
I certainly would be concerned.
6D II appears is an excellent camera if you can make it work.
I certainly would be concerned.
6D II appears is an excellent camera if you can make it work.
tomscott said:
Upvote
0
jeffa4444 said:
Just a quick point, Mr Claff doesn't do 'testing', generally he just running analysis on RAW file data captured by others.
The issues I have with almost all these test and analysis results and comparisons nowadays is relevance. The differences in camera outputs is so small and the 'consistent' application of any metric might skew any result to the point where all we do is argue about methodology of tests and unfair 'comparisons'.
For me the only relevant metric of any value is real world output IQ, that means optimal processing of optimally exposed images within the ISO ranges I generally use. Show me real world images, or consistent test exposures of known values (Stouffer wedges and color checkers) and show me the differences.
I download the RAW files from DPReview and do my own processing to them for any comparison I am interested in.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I do this too in order to get a feeling of the raw output from different cameras, but the problem I find is that virtually all the images, whether they be from DPR or others, are either exposed for an unedited ooc jpeg, or under exposed. Often the two go together. So it is difficult for me to establish from these on-line downloadable files what the results would be if the exposures were optimal for the kind of output I had in mind. This brings us back to the point you were making about being able to compare optimally exposed and processed files for a specific camera, rather than an across the range standard that often disadvantages Canon.
Upvote
0
The tests we do are in a controlled environment using a sphere with an evenly lit aperture that can be consistently checked so we know its the same from one test to another. This has a grate that has an equivalent of a 20 stop DR change and shots taken with this using a base ISO of 100 (for instance) are then analysed automatically i.e. no human interpretation. The process we use is identical to manufacturers.Sporgon said:
The same light sphere can also be used to shoot resolution tests with the CIPA High resolution chart which we also do however these are not automatically referenced and do rely on human "knowledge" the same as using a projector to test lenses for a number of aberrations but again nothing different to how the majors lens manufacturers work because we have visited them and had their training as well as our own.
Finally we shoot LOTS of footage / images in varying light conditions and know the ones that will really test equipment.
I stand by the Bill Claff comment my point was his methods are consistent.
Upvote
0
jeffa4444 said:
Yes I agree his methods are consistent, what I am questioning is the relevance of the results.
What real world value do esoteric numbers have from an undemosaiced RAW file? My point is if every file has to run through an algorithm to be able to see the image then what is happening is we are seeing people applying the same post processing to different files or showing differences in unseeable data, neither of those has much relevance to people interested in actual output image quality. Yes that information can give pointers to performance, but neither illustrates what we can actually expect from the files if we bought the camera.
Further, to Sporgon's point, even consistent test images are regularly found wanting, have you seen the illumination difference between the right side (brighter) and left side (darker) of the test images DPReview puts out?
I am not saying jeffa can't be more consistent, or take better quality test images, what I am saying is how you present those comparisons is critical for that comparison to have meaning and relevance. Personally the only relevant comparison I am interested in is an optimally processed image that was optimally exposed because that is what I will be working with if I buy the camera.
Optimally processed invariably, and in my experience, means different processing for each camera.
Upvote
0
tomscott said:
Anyone who is seriously interested in purchasing a 6DII should check out the link. Tom's photos have a good mix of real-world uses, and then it's pretty easy to judge for yourself whether 6DII is good enough for you.
Plus, lovely photos.
Upvote
0
Talys said:
To be fair, the key thing is not the quality of pictures from a skilled practitioner because I think the 6D/5D3 may well have got pretty close. Rather, it is how it measures up against the other options, and I put a lot of store in Tom's comments when he says he got images with the 6D2 that he would not have got with the 5D3. Next to the old trope of 'the best camera is the one in your hand' is 'do you know how to use the damned thing' and sometimes if the haptics of a camera make it more likely to get the shot then it is a better camera.
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
Indeed -- I couldn't agree more that he would have gotten great shots out of 6D/5D3 (for that matter, a 5DII), too, and his comments are very helpful.
There's enough variety that it's a good indication that for a professional purpose (a) the 6DII isn't deficient and (b) the low light performance is pretty great. Whether the latter is attributed to less actual noise, or noise that AI then processes in a more pleasing way is kind of immaterial to me. I think that a reasonable person would conclude that this is a viable $2,000 option for taking those sorts of photos.
What do most people who buy a $2,000 6DII for want out of their camera? Frankly, I have no idea how that breaks down. I bought my 70-200 L 2.8 II for 70% of retail from a guy who had it for 8 months that couldn't have been in more pristine condition, because, and it had, in his words, seen the light of day just once -- at the camera store. And he would have died owning it, probably never having taken it out of the zippered pouch, had he not been moving overseas and wanted to get rid of easy-to-sell stuff. So, go figure. I'm sure there are people on the far opposite side of that spectrum too, and all sorts of skill levels.
But I think, for the vast majority of people who would consider the 6DII, the quality of the output and the usability are pretty good.
Upvote
0
jeffa4444 said:
And what's the value of consistent testing of inconsistent subject matter, exactly?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
