Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[unfocused]

I have a strong suspicion that when the 6DII finally hits the streets, there are going to be a whole lot of folks looking very foolish. Wild speculation based on evaluations done by people who have never even touched the camera, coupled with much hand-wringing over results that overstate the real world impact of minuscule theoretical differences.

I'm old fashioned. I prefer my reviewers to actually use the camera.

 

[hbr]

I have a strong suspicion that when the 6DII finally hits the streets, there are going to be a whole lot of folks looking very foolish. Wild speculation based on evaluations done by people who have never even touched the camera, coupled with much hand-wringing over results that overstate the real world impact of minuscule theoretical differences.

I'm old fashioned. I prefer my reviewers to actually use the camera.

Don't know about the DR but here is what Steves Digicams said after reviewing a pre-production 6D II in Yellowstone National Park,

"As far as I'm concerned, this section is the whole reason for whether or not you want to consider a new Full Frame DSLR. Is the EOS 6D Mark II worth it? Does it take bold, vibrant pictures?

In a word, yes.

Results will obviously be glass and photographer-dependent (duh), but I was very pleased with the quality of the images captured on our pre-production tester models. In fact, while I didn't love the sensor as much as, say, the Sony A9, which costs more than double this camera, I would venture to say any still-focused photographer who is pondering the 5D Mark IV, and who doesn't need 4K video and the faster AF, might consider saving a few bucks and looking at a 6Dii instead.

It's that good."

 

[arbitrage]

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

Cue the same people saying they won't believe it till DXO provides the results.......whatever......wait all you want but if DR is important to you (it isn't to me) then I'd cancel those 6D2 preorders. Otherwise enjoy the camera when it arrives at your doorstep in 2 weeks.

 

[Otara]

'Probably'.

Im not sure why its so unreasonable to want to wait until theres info from a source that involves less uncertainty than having to guess about things like this. I dont think anyone is saying its impossible this has happened, just that it seems odd enough that more information from other sources is warranted.

You seem a bit invested in the outcome. Given its completely out of our control either way, seems a bit silly to me.

 

[bclaff]

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

...

Yes, I have a complete set of appropriate files courtesy of dpreview.
As I expected the low ISO numbers rose slightly from the estimates.
Naturally, anyone can play with the interactive chart if the screen shot isn't what there's after.

 

[cpsico]

Probably still a great camera, but I am waiting patiently to see real production cameras before I buy. I still love my 6d and of course the 5d IV is in another league and not really a fair comparison. The better battery life seems promising.

 

[james75]

I'm still waiting for production cameras to be released to make a decision as well. I was already on the fence about upgrading, but if the DR has taken a slight step back, as in shown in the graph, then it'll be an easy decision for me. I'll just keep shooting with the original 6d and wait for what's coming down the road from canon or another manufacturer.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Probably still a great camera, but I am waiting patiently to see real production cameras before I buy. I still love my 6d and of course the 5d IV is in another league and not really a fair comparison. The better battery life seems promising.

No doubt, depending on what/how you shoot. I seldom would drop below ISO 800 and usually found myself with the big whites at 1250 and if I could I'd gladly push up to 2500. So ... I think it'll be fine paired with my 1DX2, serving as a smaller very handy camera.

Jack

 

[cpsico]

Probably still a great camera, but I am waiting patiently to see real production cameras before I buy. I still love my 6d and of course the 5d IV is in another league and not really a fair comparison. The better battery life seems promising.

No doubt, depending on what/how you shoot. I seldom would drop below ISO 800 and usually found myself with the big whites at 1250 and if I could I'd gladly push up to 2500. So ... I think it'll be fine paired with my 1DX2, serving as a smaller very handy camera.

Jack

If the dynamic range is more or less unchanged at low ISO but better at high ISO then it's still a better camera. I shoot at ISO 1600 to 6400 a lot. Significant improvements in this range would be something I would be interested to have in a camera.

 

[CanonCams]

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

...

Yes, I have a complete set of appropriate files courtesy of dpreview.
As I expected the low ISO numbers rose slightly from the estimates.
Naturally, anyone can play with the interactive chart if the screen shot isn't what there's after.

Courtesy of DPreview?

Is it from production models?

 

[bclaff]

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

...

Yes, I have a complete set of appropriate files courtesy of dpreview.
As I expected the low ISO numbers rose slightly from the estimates.
Naturally, anyone can play with the interactive chart if the screen shot isn't what there's after.

Courtesy of DPreview?

Isn't that what I said?

Is it from production models?

As far as I know yes; but either way this has never been an issue in any past testing of this sort that I have done.

 

[CanonCams]

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

...

Yes, I have a complete set of appropriate files courtesy of dpreview.
As I expected the low ISO numbers rose slightly from the estimates.
Naturally, anyone can play with the interactive chart if the screen shot isn't what there's after.

Courtesy of DPreview?

Isn't that what I said?

Is it from production models?

As far as I know yes; but either way this has never been an issue in any past testing of thise sort that I have done.

I didn't realize that places had production models already.

 

[arbitrage]

Probably still a great camera, but I am waiting patiently to see real production cameras before I buy. I still love my 6d and of course the 5d IV is in another league and not really a fair comparison. The better battery life seems promising.

No doubt, depending on what/how you shoot. I seldom would drop below ISO 800 and usually found myself with the big whites at 1250 and if I could I'd gladly push up to 2500. So ... I think it'll be fine paired with my 1DX2, serving as a smaller very handy camera.

Jack

If the dynamic range is more or less unchanged at low ISO but better at high ISO then it's still a better camera. I shoot at ISO 1600 to 6400 a lot. Significant improvements in this range would be something I would be interested to have in a camera.

If you have a play with the interactive charts at Bill's site you will see that most cameras and all Canon cameras for sure have almost identical DR at higher ISOs.

The two cameras that do show a noticeable DR advantage at higher ISO are the D5 and A7R2. The amazing low ISO DR D810 is no better or even slightly worse at high-ISO DR compared to the 6D and 6D2 (and all other Canons).

 

[arbitrage]

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

...

Yes, I have a complete set of appropriate files courtesy of dpreview.
As I expected the low ISO numbers rose slightly from the estimates.
Naturally, anyone can play with the interactive chart if the screen shot isn't what there's after.

Courtesy of DPreview?

Isn't that what I said?

Is it from production models?

As far as I know yes; but either way this has never been an issue in any past testing of thise sort that I have done.

I didn't realize that places had production models already.

Big sites like DPReview would have them now to do their full on reviews that they will publish as soon as Canon lets them. Even the earlier RAW files that started all the drama came from a camera in full retail packaging that just had a Sample sticker on the box, basically saying you get to send it back to Canon and not keep it.

From the beginning I just couldn't see there being a way Canon would let people have 6D2s to review that didn't have the true sensor in it. Sure some FW updates might occur from these first samples and the ones shipped out in 2 weeks to customers. But FW doesn't change DR of a sensor. Any 6D2 cameras that had different sensors back in prototype stage would never be allowed out for review.

 

[CanonCams]

Looks like over at photonstophotos that Bill has now provided final 6D2 results with no disclaimer anymore. Probably means he received files from his usual sources? Anyways, as any reasonable person could have deduced weeks ago the final results are the same as the results off of the earlier shared files from FM.

Attached is the updated graph showing it is basically identical to 6D and no where near the 5D4 or other recent cameras (M5, 80D, 1DX2).

...

Yes, I have a complete set of appropriate files courtesy of dpreview.
As I expected the low ISO numbers rose slightly from the estimates.
Naturally, anyone can play with the interactive chart if the screen shot isn't what there's after.

Courtesy of DPreview?

Isn't that what I said?

Is it from production models?

As far as I know yes; but either way this has never been an issue in any past testing of thise sort that I have done.

I didn't realize that places had production models already.

Big sites like DPReview would have them now to do their full on reviews that they will publish as soon as Canon lets them. Even the earlier RAW files that started all the drama came from a camera in full retail packaging that just had a Sample sticker on the box, basically saying you get to send it back to Canon and not keep it.

From the beginning I just couldn't see there being a way Canon would let people have 6D2s to review that didn't have the true sensor in it. Sure some FW updates might occur from these first samples and the ones shipped out in 2 weeks to customers. But FW doesn't change DR of a sensor. Any 6D2 cameras that had different sensors back in prototype stage would never be allowed out for review.

Wouldn't any place that releases the RAW files be violating their NDA.. ?

 

[bclaff]

...
Wouldn't any place that releases the RAW files be violating their NDA.. ?

As I understand it the files provided to me cannot be shared publicly until the 20th.
But I was assured it's OK to present any analysis that I made of those files.

 

[CanonCams]

...
Wouldn't any place that releases the RAW files be violating their NDA.. ?

As I understand it the files provided to me cannot be shared publicly until the 20th.
But I was assured it's OK to present any analysis that I made of those files.

Thanks.

 

[sebasan]

I have to say, I don't understand some decisions....

 

[CanonCams]

I have to say, I don't understand some decisions....

Even though the tilty swivel screen / more AF points would be nice, the step backwards for the DR is a slap in the face to Canon owners.

I wasn't expecting 5D IV quality, but somewhere in between the 6D and MK IV would have been smart.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have to say, I don't understand some decisions....

Even though the tilty swivel screen / more AF points would be nice, the step backwards for the DR is a slap in the face to Canon owners.

I wasn't expecting 5D IV quality, but somewhere in between the 6D and MK IV would have been smart.

Whilst I agree it seems like a strange decision especially considering Canon obviously felt pressure to increase DR on other models, I doubt if anybody is ever going to see the differences between the 0.24 stops of DR at the most shown by the test results between the two cameras.

That doesn't think I mean it was a good decision, but Canon have been shown in the past to know what to deliver in a camera better than us.