Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[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.

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.

Nope, you are correct in terms of noticing a difference between the 6D and 6D MK II in DR.

But still... an upgrade should be an upgrade. You shouldn't sacrifice one for another option.

 

[David_B]

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.

Personally, I am hoping to see a flurry of posts with links to youtube showing people eating a piece of paper with their words on it (because they thought the retail version would be significantly better.) Is that the same list of "folks looking very foolish" that you were expecting?

 

[David_B]

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.
...

Based on the data that you have at your disposal already, are you able to provide confidence intervals for the 6D Mark II measurements?

I'm rather curious to know if the difference between "6D Mark II (e)" and "6D Mark II" is small enough to be "copy variation" or at least within one sigma of the value now plotted. Of course only if you have enough data points to do that with...

 

[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.
...

Based on the data that you have at your disposal already, are you able to provide confidence intervals for the 6D Mark II measurements?

I'm rather curious to know if the difference between "6D Mark II (e)" and "6D Mark II" is small enough to be "copy variation" or at least within one sigma of the value now plotted. Of course only if you have enough data points to do that with...

The differences were pretty much as expected.
With the proper test target the final measurement low ISO values were slightly higher.
This is often what I see with "estimated" measurements.

 

[Jopa]

Well, at least it's not worse than the MK1! Good news everyone?

 

[SecureGSM]

nuh, just perfect. It feels great. Exactly the same feeling as 5 years ago when I purchased my first 6D body... ;D priceless! Here is the hope that sales of this camera will be strongly affected by this sensor DR drama and I will pick up 2 of these lowly camera bodies at the Christmas / Black Friday / Cyber Monday / whatever sale at $1,000.00 each. (free delivery and extended warranty support included please). Thank you.

Well, at least it's not worse than the MK1! Good news everyone?

 

[LonelyBoy]

Well, if true, I no longer need to wonder if a 6D2 might be a good upgrade from my 5D3 for my purposes.

 

[tevscale]

Interesting. So it looks like Canon is redefining the "niche" for the 6D. The Mark I was in kind of an odd place, less expensive than the 5D III and vastly inferior in some ways (e.g. AF) but with a slightly better sensor. Now with the Mark II, the 6D clearly slots in as the 5D IV's little brother, being (somewhat, but not vastly) inferior in essentially every important specification (except perhaps in mobility of the LCD screen, if that's a positive for your shooting).

Logically, this makes some sense, but I wonder how the market will react given that there was a widespread expectation that the 6D II would get the latest Canon sensor tech, or at least have measurably better DR than the 6D I. Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:

- I'll keep using the 6D I for quite a while
- if I do decide to upgrade, it will be to the 5D IV rather than 6D II

If I follow option 1, Canon loses, but if I follow option 2 Canon wins. It will be interesting to track the rate at which the 6D II price is discounted to see whether or not Canon has made a mistake here.

 

[ahsanford]

Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:

- I'll keep using the 6D I for quite a while
- if I do decide to upgrade, it will be to the 5D IV rather than 6D II

If I follow option 1, Canon loses, but if I follow option 2 Canon wins. It will be interesting to track the rate at which the 6D II price is discounted to see whether or not Canon has made a mistake here.

I hear you, and I certainly shake my fist at certain features left out of lower price points that really don't drive cost. But I'm not convinced Canon nerfed the 6D2 sensor here:

1) The onboard native ISO limit was raised 40,000 (5D4 is 32k) -- Canon is fairly consistent & ethical on setting these limits, while Nikon unlocks ISO modes above 1M that are laughably unusable (surely just a marketing boast and not a useful feature). So I have reason to believe we've got a solid high ISO performer here.

2) We do not know the camera that produced these RAW files and what state of 'production-readiness' it represents. This is vital.

3) The 6D2 was long rumored to 'move upmarket' and climb up from D6xx-level parity and jump up to D750 parity. Keep the car in neutral on base ISO DR just doesn't make sense for such a product.

I'll await the data, but I'm not drinking the nerf 'protect the 5D4 Kool-aid' at this point. If they did this, as much a small percentage of forum enthusiasts and pros might swap brands over this, much more likely it will just have folks hang onto their money and sit this cycle out. Canon does not win from that.

- A

 

[CanonCams]

Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:

- I'll keep using the 6D I for quite a while
- if I do decide to upgrade, it will be to the 5D IV rather than 6D II

If I follow option 1, Canon loses, but if I follow option 2 Canon wins. It will be interesting to track the rate at which the 6D II price is discounted to see whether or not Canon has made a mistake here.

I hear you, and I certainly shake my fist at certain features left out of lower price points that really don't drive cost. But I'm not convinced Canon nerfed the 6D2 sensor here:

1) The onboard native ISO limit was raised 40,000 (5D4 is 32k) -- Canon is fairly consistent & ethical on setting these limits, while Nikon unlocks ISO modes above 1M that are laughably unusable (surely just a marketing boast and not a useful feature). So I have reason to believe we've got a solid high ISO performer here.

2) We do not know the camera that produced these RAW files and what state of 'production-readiness' it represents. This is vital.

3) The 6D2 was long rumored to 'move upmarket' and climb up from D6xx-level parity and jump up to D750 parity. Keep the car in neutral on base ISO DR just doesn't make sense for such a product.

I'll await the data, but I'm not drinking the nerf 'protect the 5D4 Kool-aid' at this point. If they did this, as much a small percentage of forum enthusiasts and pros might swap brands over this, much more likely it will just have folks hang onto their money and sit this cycle out. Canon does not win from that.

- A

According to the gentlemen who did the test, around the 20th of this month the RAW files will be released. Possibly a review as well?

I think DPreview is working on one right now. Guess we will know within the week.

 

[ahsanford]

Just thinking out loud for the sake of argument, I'm wondering how this sensor news will affect certain camps of shooters if the early tests turn out to reflect what we'll see in the production version.

Just a guess:

• Birders/Wildlifers/Sports: Zero impact. Better in high ISO + much better AF + all those f/8 points = they are 100% in.
  
  
• Videographers: Zero impact. Having DPAF + Tilty-flippy + touch dwarfs the downside of 'losing' 1.5 stops of base ISO DR. (Those that have accepted the lack of 4K, that is. That's unrelated to this DR possibility.)
  
  
• Landscapers: Potentially significant impact. If you are a regular-to-dedicated tripod jockey, AF / DPAF / tilty-flippy takes a backseat to the pure ISO 100 quality of the sensor.
  
  
• All-around shooters that dabble in many fields (i.e. the non-specialized enthusiast, the general professional, etc.): the $64,000 question. Folks want to make investments into gear that is demonstrably better across the board.
  
  
  
• Astro: Next.
  
  
• Product / Studio folks: It could matter here -- these folks generally live at lower ISO, right?
  
  
• Wedding: Presuming they are fine. They run all over the ISO dial, so I can't see them throwing a fit over base ISO DR.

- A

 

[dak723]

Just thinking out loud for the sake of argument, I'm wondering how this sensor news will affect certain camps of shooters if the early tests turn out to reflect what we'll see in the production version.

Just a guess:

• Birders/Wildlifers/Sports: Zero impact. Better in high ISO + much better AF + all those f/8 points = they are 100% in.
  
  
• Videographers: Zero impact. Having DPAF + Tilty-flippy + touch dwarfs the downside of 'losing' 1.5 stops of base ISO DR. (Those that have accepted the lack of 4K, that is. That's unrelated to this DR possibility.)
  
  
• Landscapers: Potentially significant impact. If you are a regular-to-dedicated tripod jockey, AF / DPAF / tilty-flippy takes a backseat to the pure ISO 100 quality of the sensor.
  
  
• All-around shooters that dabble in many fields (i.e. the non-specialized enthusiast, the general professional, etc.): the $64,000 question. Folks want to make investments into gear that is demonstrably better across the board.
  
  
  
• Astro: Next.
  
  
• Product / Studio folks: It could matter here -- these folks generally live at lower ISO, right?
  
  
• Wedding: Presuming they are fine. They run all over the ISO dial, so I can't see them throwing a fit over base ISO DR.

- A

As primarily a landscape shooter, I don't agree with your assessment - but, of course, it is just one photographer's opinion. I used to own the 6D and never had any problems taking landscape shots - including many sunset/post-sunset shots. I never had trouble lightening the shadows a satisfactory amount, and in cases where extreme contrast might indicate the need for more DR, far more DR is needed than any camera has. In post processing, I need to adjust to create more contrast in almost all my shots to ensure they don't look too flat or bland.

Who knows what the final verdict will be, but I wonder if Canon's market research for potential 6D customers made it clear that DR was not an issue that needed to be addressed - that photographers were more than happy with the current DR and did want to sacrifice contrast.

Again, we all shoot different subjects and have different opinions of what makes a good shot. But more DR is not on my list of what makes a good photograph.

 

[ahsanford]

As primarily a landscape shooter, I don't agree with your assessment - but, of course, it is just one photographer's opinion. I used to own the 6D and never had any problems taking landscape shots - including many sunset/post-sunset shots. I never had trouble lightening the shadows a satisfactory amount, and in cases where extreme contrast might indicate the need for more DR, far more DR is needed than any camera has.

Agree, of course. Can a 6D1 take great landscapes? Of course it can!

The question is, will the 6D2 demonstrably take better landscapes than the 6D1 to the point that you'd pony up $2k for it? I recognize the target market of the 6D2 is not remotely just 6D1 owners and this rig will sell well to crop folks stepping up, but if you shoot landscapes and nothing but landscapes -- and if the early DR test turns out to be what we see in production units -- the 'killer app' to buy a 6D2 is...

FF sensor / nice build quality / etc.
+6 MP
Easier to swap files off with NFC
Tilty flippy might be nice on lower tripod camera positions

...and ...Bueller?

I wonder if Canon's market research for potential 6D customers made it clear that DR was not an issue that needed to be addressed - that photographers were more than happy with the current DR and did want to sacrifice contrast.

This is an interesting theory on why Canon might leave on-chip off the camera. We haven't really mined this avenue yet.

- A

 

[BillB]

As primarily a landscape shooter, I don't agree with your assessment - but, of course, it is just one photographer's opinion. I used to own the 6D and never had any problems taking landscape shots - including many sunset/post-sunset shots. I never had trouble lightening the shadows a satisfactory amount, and in cases where extreme contrast might indicate the need for more DR, far more DR is needed than any camera has.

Agree, of course. Can a 6D1 take great landscapes? Of course it can!

The question is, will the 6D2 demonstrably take better landscapes than the 6D1 to the point that you'd pony up $2k for it? I recognize the target market of the 6D2 is not remotely just 6D1 owners and this rig will sell well to crop folks stepping up, but if you shoot landscapes and nothing but landscapes -- and if the early DR test turns out to be what we see in production units -- the 'killer app' to buy a 6D2 is...

FF sensor / nice build quality / etc.
+6 MP
Easier to swap files off with NFC
Tilty flippy might be nice on lower tripod camera positions

...and ...Bueller?

I wonder if Canon's market research for potential 6D customers made it clear that DR was not an issue that needed to be addressed - that photographers were more than happy with the current DR and did want to sacrifice contrast.

This is an interesting theory on why Canon might leave on-chip off the camera. We haven't really mined this avenue yet.

- A

It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for a 6DII with off sensor ADC: (1) save money or (2) increase performance in some way. Saving money seems much more likely, but is it really that much cheaper to go with an off sensor ADC design for the 6DII when you are using on sensor ADC for everything else, including cheaper crop sensor cameras? Very strange.

 

[MintChocs]

You can't have the 6Dmkii have better DR than the 5Dmkiv. Now landscape photogs will have to shell out more bucks.

 

[dlee13]

Speaking for myself as a 6D shooter who had been anticipating the mark II and thinking about upgrading to it sometime in the next year, this news makes the following two outcomes more likely than they were before:

- I'll keep using the 6D I for quite a while
- if I do decide to upgrade, it will be to the 5D IV rather than 6D II

If I follow option 1, Canon loses, but if I follow option 2 Canon wins. It will be interesting to track the rate at which the 6D II price is discounted to see whether or not Canon has made a mistake here.

I hear you, and I certainly shake my fist at certain features left out of lower price points that really don't drive cost. But I'm not convinced Canon nerfed the 6D2 sensor here:

1) The onboard native ISO limit was raised 40,000 (5D4 is 32k) -- Canon is fairly consistent & ethical on setting these limits, while Nikon unlocks ISO modes above 1M that are laughably unusable (surely just a marketing boast and not a useful feature). So I have reason to believe we've got a solid high ISO performer here.

2) We do not know the camera that produced these RAW files and what state of 'production-readiness' it represents. This is vital.

3) The 6D2 was long rumored to 'move upmarket' and climb up from D6xx-level parity and jump up to D750 parity. Keep the car in neutral on base ISO DR just doesn't make sense for such a product.

I'll await the data, but I'm not drinking the nerf 'protect the 5D4 Kool-aid' at this point. If they did this, as much a small percentage of forum enthusiasts and pros might swap brands over this, much more likely it will just have folks hang onto their money and sit this cycle out. Canon does not win from that.

- A

Everything you say makes sense to me! Canon rarely even mention DR so I feel like if they send out a non final version for testing it wouldn't bother them if people to on about DR.

 

[rrcphoto]

• Landscapers: Potentially significant impact. If you are a regular-to-dedicated tripod jockey, AF / DPAF / tilty-flippy takes a backseat to the pure ISO 100 quality of the sensor.

• 
  
  this is overused and extremely tiring to keep on seeing. landscapes do not require normally more than 9EV and dont' require between 9 and 11 that often at all.
  
  for the few that feel that landscapes involve adding a second or third sun into the sky to illuminate the scene, that's a small portion of those that shoot landscape and a small portion of landscape shots.
  
  and tripods / don't make up for the lack of shutter speed which *IS* far more of a criteria for landscape than base ISO.
  
  if you can't shoot landscape on any modern camera, look 6 inches behind the camera for the answer to the problem.

 

[Jschmitt]

Long time lurker on this forum.

Just to give some perspective, I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this camera. I've been shooting with a T3i since it came out and bought my wife a 70D when she was using my T3i a lot more than the other point and shoot we had. Unlike a lot of people on this forum, I'm obviously not a pro but I'm certainly an advanced amateur. I spend a lot of time trying to get the most out of the pictures that my camera body produces (using Lightroom and exposure blending in Raya Pro) but I've been looking towards getting a FF for a few years now. I shoot probably 75% landscapes and 25% wildlife.

Given the limitations that I've encountered when using my current camera, I've been saving up for a FF for multiple years and have been waiting specifically for this camera. I've spent way too many hours on this site and forum trying to glean what the specs of this camera would be and when it would finally be released. Unlike many of you, I don't have an investment in EF lenses that would prevent me from switching to another brand, but I have liked my shooting experience with the camera I have.

When the specifications were released, I was about 95% sure that I was going to buy this camera. The resolution was in a sweet spot for me in terms of printing out large images (i.e. 20 x 30, which I have done in the past), it had a tilty-flippy screen (don't knock it until you've tried it - it is especially nice for those of us who are tall and don't want the potential vibration that comes with extending the center column of our tripod), and it had sufficient FPS for what I'm likely to shoot regarding wildlife. Maybe I was just being naive, but it didn't even occur to me as a possibility that the DR wouldn't have some improvement from the 6D. Truly, I'm not asking for pro body performance at an intro body price; I'm willing to accept some deficiencies that act as a differentiator between this and the 5D MIV. Base ISO DR seems like a strange place to make such a large gap, especially when they have the technology to make it better (but still sufficiently below the 5D MIV).

As this is a big purchase for someone like me, I was obviously going to wait for the reviews but the reviews were likely just a formality. Given all of the "little things" that have come out (lack of improvement of DR, somewhat compressed AF points, etc.) I've gone from 95% to probably 50% in terms of whether or not I'll get this camera. The reviews have gone from a formality to a necessity - and I'll probably spend a lot of time on DP playing with their DR and ISO studio scenes. If I don't get this camera, I'm not going to get the 5D MIV as I don't have that kind of money to invest in a hobby, even if it is one of my primary ones. I'll either look a lot more seriously at other brands (which I've only been doing a bit up until this point) or I'll settle for another crop frame camera that will still be a lot better than what I have. Either way, Canon would lose out on all of the EF lenses that I would be buying in the future.

There are obviously a lot of good things about this camera and I'm still weighing things like low-light performance versus this base ISO DR issue and other potential limitations. I'm sure that DP will not be as generous with this base ISO DR issue with this camera as they were with the D5 (really, you should go read their review on that particular issue), so I'll being looking at reviews from a lot of different sites to come to a conclusion. That being said, Canon has not made this the "easy buy" that it could have or should have been for someone like me.

 

[Loswr]

Logically, this makes some sense, but I wonder how the market will react given that there was a widespread expectation that the 6D II would get the latest Canon sensor tech, or at least have measurably better DR than the 6D.

The market won't care. With respect, I doubt that particular expectation was widespread. Those who discuss photo gear on Internet forums are a minuscule fraction of the ILC-buying market, even the FF ILC buying market.

 

[bdunbar79]

I hope everyone realizes that more DR at low ISO is only beneficial in real terms when you either push shadows or pull highlights, right? What studio photographer is going to do that? How many landscape photogs are doing that? Probably close to zero. There are special cases like BIF but who shoots that is going to buy a 6D2??

This whole thing is really, really stupid.