Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[Aglet]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

Wow, assuming the estimates are correct, the 6D II has the same dynamic range as the original 7D from eight years ago at ISO 100!

I had that original 7D.. and FWIW... it sucked as base ISO! Lots of fixed pattern noise!
I think that Canon has at least improved that FPN problem a little even if the average read noise is still higher than we'd like. That would make it suck less than the 7D.

 

[privatebydesign]

P.S. Mind you, I asked a purely camera related question the other day regarding settings people use every single day and not one single person had an answer.

Missed that topic. Found it, had a go at answering it.

Thanks Neuro, I'm not surprised most didn't know/have an opinion but was surprised nobody had a stab. I wonder how thoroughly many here actually use their cameras

 

[SecureGSM]

Nobody had a stab for a completely different reason, Private. Humans are mostly humble, uncertain and avoid speaking up publicly. your question was precise and structural. Many would hesitate to comment to avoid fingerpointing if were incorrect. simple, less structural questions would receive a better response as people would be more confident that their answer will be adequate. This is my understanding.

Thanks Neuro, I'm not surprised most didn't know/have an opinion but was surprised nobody had a stab. I wonder how thoroughly many here actually use their cameras

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
This includes the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that I created in 2007 (a year before DxOMark even existed).
In those past 10 years I have tested over 150 camera models.
I've been lurking here for a while but thought this might be an opportune time to chime in.

Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.

I don't claim to have the expertise to critique your tests, but I would assume the better comparison is with the 80D since the tech is the same generation. I would expect the sensor characteristics of the 6D Mark II to be roughly on par with the 80D.

 

[bclaff]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
This includes the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that I created in 2007 (a year before DxOMark even existed).
In those past 10 years I have tested over 150 camera models.
I've been lurking here for a while but thought this might be an opportune time to chime in.

Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.

I don't claim to have the expertise to critique your tests, but I would assume the better comparison is with the 80D since the tech is the same generation. I would expect the sensor characteristics of the 6D Mark II to be roughly on par with the 80D.

I chose to compare with the 6D because one might expect the Mark II to be the natural successor to the "Mark I".
You can do any comparison you like using the interactive PDR chart at PhotonsToPhotos.

I don't make assumptions about tech being the same generation.
I measure first and then seek reasonable explanations for what I observe.

FWIW, the PDR curve (below) does not look very 80D-like.
The shapes of these curves has mostly to do with how the Programmable Gain Amplifiers (PGAs) and Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs) are implemented in the signal chain.

 

[AlanF]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

FWIW, I don't find the results particularly surprising.
Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.

Bill
Thanks for chiming in - your site is very useful and informative. I have learned something from this paragraph: reading out noise from the 1DXII is fundamentally greater than that from the 5DIV because the fps increase is greater than the decrease in the number of pixels (2x0.7 greater transfer rate).

Do you know much noise the dual pixel technology contributes?

Contributions from a real expert are always welcome on this site, and I hope you will contribute further.

 

[Adelino]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

Wow, assuming the estimates are correct, the 6D II has the same dynamic range as the original 7D from eight years ago at ISO 100!

I had that original 7D.. and FWIW... it sucked as base ISO! Lots of fixed pattern noise!
I think that Canon has at least improved that FPN problem a little even if the average read noise is still higher than we'd like. That would make it suck less than the 7D.

This is turning my dream of my first FF into a nightmare. I would be moving up from the 7D. I've been waiting for this camera a very long time! I don't care about the 4K, dual card slots, or "narrow" focus point spread. I do care about IQ though. I may just save a bunch of money and get a refurbished 80D

 

[SecureGSM]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

honestly, I would consider a refurbished or second hand low shutter count 5D Mark III instead (If 45+ AF points is something that you need), otherwise refurbished or second hand 6D body is just fine ( If you mostly focus and recompose). unless you absolutely need that extra stop of DR...

Wow, assuming the estimates are correct, the 6D II has the same dynamic range as the original 7D from eight years ago at ISO 100!

I had that original 7D.. and FWIW... it sucked as base ISO! Lots of fixed pattern noise!
I think that Canon has at least improved that FPN problem a little even if the average read noise is still higher than we'd like. That would make it suck less than the 7D.

This is turning my dream of my first FF into a nightmare. I would be moving up from the 7D. I've been waiting for this camera a very long time! I don't care about the 4K, dual card slots, or "narrow" focus point spread. I do care about IQ though. I may just save a bunch of money and get a refurbished 80D

 

[Sporgon]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

honestly, I would consider a refurbished or second hand low shutter count 5D Mark III instead (If 45+ AF points is something that you need), otherwise refurbished or second hand 6D body is just fine ( If you mostly focus and recompose). unless you absolutely need that extra stop of DR...

Wow, assuming the estimates are correct, the 6D II has the same dynamic range as the original 7D from eight years ago at ISO 100!

I had that original 7D.. and FWIW... it sucked as base ISO! Lots of fixed pattern noise!
I think that Canon has at least improved that FPN problem a little even if the average read noise is still higher than we'd like. That would make it suck less than the 7D.

This is turning my dream of my first FF into a nightmare. I would be moving up from the 7D. I've been waiting for this camera a very long time! I don't care about the 4K, dual card slots, or "narrow" focus point spread. I do care about IQ though. I may just save a bunch of money and get a refurbished 80D

Outer points on the 6D actually aren't that bad if you have anything other than low light and can choose an appropriate target. Don't try and use a horizontal line point with a vertical line !

 

[SecureGSM]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

yeah, managable, unless you need to land an AF point on your model's iris whilst shooting with 135mm F1.8 Art lens wide open precisely or even tracking a fast moving subject with 300 F2.8 lens wide open. I mean you could, but 5D level body makes your life much easier in that regard

Outer points on the 6D actually aren't that bad if you have anything other than low light and can choose an appropriate target. Don't try and use a horizontal line point with a vertical line !

 

[LonelyBoy]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

yeah, managable, unless you need to land an AF point on your model's iris whilst shooting with 135mm F1.8 Art lens wide open precisely or even tracking a fast moving subject with 300 F2.8 lens wide open. I mean you could, but 5D level body makes your life much easier in that regard

Outer points on the 6D actually aren't that bad if you have anything other than low light and can choose an appropriate target. Don't try and use a horizontal line point with a vertical line !

Well sure, but while you can use it for whatever you want, that (clearly) wasn't the intended sort of use case for the 6D, no more than a Rebel.

 

[SecureGSM]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

Well, sure. But that's not what Sporgon was saying. He said that outer AF points of 6D are not that bad. I confirmed but also pointed out some limitations.

yeah, managable, unless you need to land an AF point on your model's iris whilst shooting with 135mm F1.8 Art lens wide open precisely or even tracking a fast moving subject with 300 F2.8 lens wide open. I mean you could, but 5D level body makes your life much easier in that regard

Outer points on the 6D actually aren't that bad if you have anything other than low light and can choose an appropriate target. Don't try and use a horizontal line point with a vertical line !

Well sure, but while you can use it for whatever you want, that (clearly) wasn't the intended sort of use case for the 6D, no more than a Rebel.

 

[bclaff]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

FWIW, I don't find the results particularly surprising.
Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.

Bill
Thanks for chiming in - your site is very useful and informative.

Thank you.

I have learned something from this paragraph: reading out noise from the 1DXII is fundamentally greater than that from the 5DIV because the fps increase is greater than the decrease in the number of pixels (2x0.7 greater transfer rate).

I suspect the read out rate is the big contributor.

Do you know much noise the dual pixel technology contributes?

Not much, just relative to a "normal" pixel. Look at the 5D Mark IV, it has DPAF.

Contributions from a real expert are always welcome on this site, and I hope you will contribute further.

I have limited bandwidth but will try to stay in touch.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

Well, sure. But that's not what Sporgon was saying. He said that outer AF points of 6D are not that bad. I confirmed but also pointed out some limitations.

yeah, managable, unless you need to land an AF point on your model's iris whilst shooting with 135mm F1.8 Art lens wide open precisely or even tracking a fast moving subject with 300 F2.8 lens wide open. I mean you could, but 5D level body makes your life much easier in that regard

Outer points on the 6D actually aren't that bad if you have anything other than low light and can choose an appropriate target. Don't try and use a horizontal line point with a vertical line !

Well sure, but while you can use it for whatever you want, that (clearly) wasn't the intended sort of use case for the 6D, no more than a Rebel.

Still, "not that bad" is not the same as "can do anything and be used for anything".

 

[C-A430]

I went through 9 pages of this topic and nobody talks about high-ISO. If Fred Miranda is right, 6DII should be the best low light camera in the world. As good as low resolution 1DX-II and D5. Still, everybody talks if dynamic range will be half-a-stop or full-stop better than 6DI.

It appears Canon did not discard their signature sensor technology. 7DII sensor in a full-frame body with dual-pixel autofocus, tilty-flippy screen and touch... interesting...

Than 7DIII might get one too. You know what is in common to wildlife and video shooters? Both groups care about noise at high ISO more than DR at low ISO. 7DII + 6DII sensor technology + 4K + touchscreen (no flippy) = a hit camera and great 7DII replacement.

 

[unfocused]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

FWIW, I don't find the results particularly surprising...

Bill

Thanks for chiming in - your site is very useful and informative. I have learned something from this paragraph: reading out noise from the 1DXII is fundamentally greater than that from the 5DIV because the fps increase is greater than the decrease in the number of pixels (2x0.7 greater transfer rate)...

...Contributions from a real expert are always welcome on this site, and I hope you will contribute further.

I would echo those thanks. For one thing, it is helpful to put findings into context. Unfortunately, what you get on the Internet is people who have an agenda posting and distributing information with no context or with misleading context.

As a person who uses a camera to help earn my living, but who has no background or interest in testing sensors or any other component of cameras, I generally look for some very broad takeaways when reading reviews and going to testing sites: is the aspect being tested relevant to my use and if so, do the results demonstrate differences that I am likely to notice in my shooting?

About 99% of the time, the answer to one or both questions is "no."

I appreciate people like Bill (along with Lens Rentals, DPR, DXO, The Digital Picture, etc.) who take their roles seriously and really do care about these things. They provide information that I can factor in when making a purchase decision. But, I think it is ultimately the responsibility of the consumer to keep everything in perspective.

My initial take on this "controversy" was that people were taking an anthill (it doesn't even qualify as a molehill) and transforming it into a mountain. Nothing that has been written changes that opinion. If I were in the market for the 6DII (I'm not and never have been) and desired it strongly enough to consider a pre-order, I find nothing in this discussion that should dissuade anyone from completing that pre-order. Indeed, to be blunt about it, the only rationale I can see for people to be upset would be if one's own personal sense of worth were tied too closely to the idea that one must have the newest and shiniest toy on the block.

 

[Luds34]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
This includes the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that I created in 2007 (a year before DxOMark even existed).
In those past 10 years I have tested over 150 camera models.
I've been lurking here for a while but thought this might be an opportune time to chime in.

Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.

I don't claim to have the expertise to critique your tests, but I would assume the better comparison is with the 80D since the tech is the same generation. I would expect the sensor characteristics of the 6D Mark II to be roughly on par with the 80D.

I chose to compare with the 6D because one might expect the Mark II to be the natural successor to the "Mark I".

Thanks for the insight, much appreciated!

However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO? 30 MP x 7 fps requires an even faster readout than the 6D2. Also a large jump from the 22 MP x 6 fps of the 5D3 and we all know the huge DR jump we saw there. I still find it odd that the 6D2 would not see a similar benefit and I can't imagine Canon would intentionally hold back their latest sensor tech.

Can anyone explain that to me?

 

[bclaff]

I went through 9 pages of this topic and nobody talks about high-ISO. If Fred Miranda is right, 6DII should be the best low light camera in the world. ...

That's a good point but a bit of hyperbole there.
Below the PDR chart at PhotonsToPhotos there is a sortable table.
My Low Light ISO is analygous to but on a different scale than DxOMark Sports.
It looks like the 6D Mark II low light performance is just a bit better than the 6D.
Remember to look at the stops rather than just the ISO value.

 

[Khalai]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

My name is Bill Claff and I'm the guy who does the sensor measurements at PhotonsToPhotos.net
This includes the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) that I created in 2007 (a year before DxOMark even existed).
In those past 10 years I have tested over 150 camera models.
I've been lurking here for a while but thought this might be an opportune time to chime in.

Compared to the 6D the Mark II has 25% more pixels, about 44% higher Frames Per Second (FPS); that's about an 80% higher readout rate and reading out faster is noisier.
Furthermore, the Mark II has Dual Pixel technology which is noisier than single pixel of the same area.

I don't claim to have the expertise to critique your tests, but I would assume the better comparison is with the 80D since the tech is the same generation. I would expect the sensor characteristics of the 6D Mark II to be roughly on par with the 80D.

I chose to compare with the 6D because one might expect the Mark II to be the natural successor to the "Mark I".

Thanks for the insight, much appreciated!

However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO? 30 MP x 7 fps requires an even faster readout than the 6D2. Also a large jump from the 22 MP x 6 fps of the 5D3 and we all know the huge DR jump we saw there. I still find it odd that the 6D2 would not see a similar benefit and I can't imagine Canon would intentionally hold back their latest sensor tech.

Can anyone explain that to me?

It doesn't make sense to me either. 5D IV has a faster readout as you pointed out. Even 80D surpasses 6D in terms of DR. And Canon itself admitted that 6D II is made with the same tech as its latest sensors. So unless there are some shenanigans going on, either market preserving of fault in measuring, this is simply mind boggling. I'm patiently waiting for more reviews with retail cameras and more importantly, using updated and various software.

 

[bclaff]

Re: Bill Claff Chimes In

...
Thanks for the insight, much appreciated!

However running with this faster readout rate causing the noise difference, and just playing devil's advocate here, how do we explain the 5D4 killing it in DR at base ISO? 30 MP x 7 fps requires an even faster readout than the 6D2. Also a large jump from the 22 MP x 6 fps of the 5D3 and we all know the huge DR jump we saw there. I still find it odd that the 6D2 would not see a similar benefit and I can't imagine Canon would intentionally hold back their latest sensor tech.

Can anyone explain that to me?

The readout rate comment is a conjecture based on past experience.
Most sensors are actually readout using a parallel multi-channel technique.
The number of channels would affect how fast each individual channel has to be.
Naturally the circuitry for the channels competes with other features and limits many channels you can design in.