Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[Jack Douglas]

I think my concerns with the 6DII are mainly my ability to lift shadows, since I do that frequently with my macro work to give the image a hint of an unnatural HDR effect, which I like to underline the alien apperance of most bugs. But I shoot macro mostly at ISO 400, rarely at 200 or 800. I guess with a 6DII I would be mostly at 800 or higher, to get more out of the ambient light. Am I mistaken in thinking that with these high-ish ISOs the ability to pull up shadows isn't affected by on vs off sensor ADC?

At ISO 400-800, playing field is effectively leveled across all FF cameras from various brands (there are few minor exceptions as usual, irrelevant in real scenarios), so it should not matter that much.

Also, shadow push means just how far you want to go. I've been succesfully lifting shadows from my 6D images without any trouble, if one is reasonable. +2-3 EVstops push with selective +50-75 Shadows slider (Lightroom) is doable with a little noise. Nobody cares about 5-6 EV stops pushes except for DRones and measurebators anyway

I might add that I have been rather careless about nailing exposure and whatever results I've gotten have almost always involved pretty significant adjustments either way. So far I only do that in DPP.

I've been totally thrilled with the 6D and when my friend bought his 1DX and we were regularly comparing the shots he got to mine in the same shooting circumstances, I was never lusting even though I could perceive better unadjusted results from the 1DX. After I made tweaks, I considered my results virtually the equal of his. However, I've shot few photos down in the ISO 200 range since I'm mostly into wildlife and longer lenses, higher shutter speeds and lower light.

Now when it came to fps, AF with 300 X2 etc. I was seriously disadvantaged, but I also wasn't packing that weight. Even the D5100 I previously had did 6.5 fps, which was nice. Now I'm thrilled with the 1DX2 but not sure how many years I'll be able to handle the weight. 99% sure I'll have the 6D2 before next spring as my lighter alternative and 100% sure I'll enjoy it.

Buy, enjoy, perfect your technique and forget the specs. That's the advice I give myself when the threads get rather negative.

Jack

 

[Khalai]

Buy, enjoy, perfect your technique and forget the specs. That's the advice I give myself when the threads get rather negative.

Jack

That's why I skip 6D II and bought two used Zeiss lenses for some haptic & MF enjoyment. Magic Lantern with Focus Assist helps a lot as well

 

[Jack Douglas]

Buy, enjoy, perfect your technique and forget the specs. That's the advice I give myself when the threads get rather negative.

Jack

That's why I skip 6D II and bought two used Zeiss lenses for some haptic & MF enjoyment. Magic Lantern with Focus Assist helps a lot as well

Smart move. We all perceive different needs and evaluate the best path to follow. Right now I don't have a second camera and my wife needs something to learn with so that's my rationale for the 6D-> 6D2 move with it's flip screen, 26 Mp etc. It's a nice step up. Happy shooting!

Jack

 

[stevelee]

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.

I'm in a similar position, and also shoot a T3i. It's still a good camera. I thought about going to an 80D last year, but decided that if I'm upgrading, I might as well go FF and decided to wait for the 6D II. Unlike you, I have some EF lenses: a mediocre (to put it charitably) 75-300mm that I got cheap with a previous Rebel, and the excellent 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2.8 non-L macro. Even without the lenses, I'd be loathe at my age to relearn which direction to turn things and what settings are called, etc., to switch brands, barring orders of magnitude advantages for the others.

I will still read reviews, of course, before I buy, but I'm waiting because I prefer to buy locally if I can, rather than pre-ordering. I have seen nothing in these discussions to discourage me from buying the 6D II. I have a rather strong ego, so I can endure the finger pointing and derision I will experience from those whose cameras have an extra stop of DR. I will be taking great pictures while those all around continue to mock me to scorn.

Now if I already had a 6D, or probably even an 80D, that would be a different story. If I were reading these threads at all, it would be mostly a matter of mild curiosity. So I am not intending to belittle the concern of those considering slight upgrades to look at minutiae of performance to help them decide.

I shoot RAW files and work with them in Adobe Camera RAW. I am pleased with how well the Highlights slider will recover detail in all but the most extreme situations. I use the Shadows slider to function sort of like fill-in flash, so subtly and not trying to pull up all the detail in the murky corners (which I think would often detract from the subject anyway). Much earlier in this thread I posted examples of extreme situations where I needed more DR than any cameras have anyway, using pictures I made with my pocketable G7X II that I use for travel.

 

[Khalai]

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.

I'm in a similar position, and also shoot a T3i. It's still a good camera. I thought about going to an 80D last year, but decided that if I'm upgrading, I might as well go FF and decided to wait for the 6D II. Unlike you, I have some EF lenses: a mediocre (to put it charitably) 75-300mm that I got cheap with a previous Rebel, and the excellent 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2.8 non-L macro. Even without the lenses, I'd be loathe at my age to relearn which direction to turn things and what settings are called, etc., to switch brands, barring orders of magnitude advantages for the others.

I will still read reviews, of course, before I buy, but I'm waiting because I prefer to buy locally if I can, rather than pre-ordering. I have seen nothing in these discussions to discourage me from buying the 6D II. I have a rather strong ego, so I can endure the finger pointing and derision I will experience from those whose cameras have an extra stop of DR. I will be taking great pictures while those all around continue to mock me to scorn.

Now if I already had a 6D, or probably even an 80D, that would be a different story. If I were reading these threads at all, it would be mostly a matter of mild curiosity. So I am not intending to belittle the concern of those considering slight upgrades to look at minutiae of performance to help them decide.

I shoot RAW files and work with them in Adobe Camera RAW. I am pleased with how well the Highlights slider will recover detail in all but the most extreme situations. I use the Shadows slider to function sort of like fill-in flash, so subtly and not trying to pull up all the detail in the murky corners (which I think would often detract from the subject anyway). Much earlier in this thread I posted examples of extreme situations where I needed more DR than any cameras have anyway, using pictures I made with my pocketable G7X II that I use for travel.

T3i > 6D II is a huge step up anyway. Be sure to buy it with e.g. 24-70/4L IS lens to give you nice, rather small sized general zoom for the start. Or perhaps buy some used 24-105/4L IS, they come at reasonable price and apart from some barrel distortion at 24mm and some CA, that lens is a solid starter for FF.

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

no offense, but even a 6D is a step up.

I find posts like this a bit odd. any camera, including a M5/6, 80D, 5D Mark III, IV, 6D, 77D, T7i, 5D Mark II shall i go on? is a huge step up from a T3i for landscapes.

 

[rrcphoto]

I think my concerns with the 6DII are mainly my ability to lift shadows, since I do that frequently with my macro work to give the image a hint of an unnatural HDR effect, which I like to underline the alien apperance of most bugs. But I shoot macro mostly at ISO 400, rarely at 200 or 800. I guess with a 6DII I would be mostly at 800 or higher, to get more out of the ambient light. Am I mistaken in thinking that with these high-ish ISOs the ability to pull up shadows isn't affected by on vs off sensor ADC?

At ISO 400-800, playing field is effectively leveled across all FF cameras from various brands (there are few minor exceptions as usual, irrelevant in real scenarios), so it should not matter that much.

Also, shadow push means just how far you want to go. I've been succesfully lifting shadows from my 6D images without any trouble, if one is reasonable. +2-3 EVstops push with selective +50-75 Shadows slider (Lightroom) is doable with a little noise. Nobody cares about 5-6 EV stops pushes except for DRones and measurebators anyway

the funny thing is that the D810, the holy grail for the DR measurabators has extreme banding at it's higher pushes - however hardly anyone ever comments on that. not even the masters of DR reporting, dpreview for some reason - just like they never reported on the other holy grail .. the D7100 has having extreme color casting on heavy pushes.

 

[Joules]

no offense, but even a 6D is a step up.

I find posts like this a bit odd. any camera, including a M5/6, 80D, 5D Mark III, IV, 6D, 77D, T7i, 5D Mark II shall i go on? is a huge step up from a T3i for landscapes.

I don't think that was the point.

I for one am very aware of the limitations of my T3i, beyond ergonomics and image quality. For example, my Canon EF 85 1.8 has a hint of backfocus that makes it hard to use wide open with AF. But there's nothing I can do about that with this camera.

About 4 years ago, I went to a weekend-long workshop for students who were interested in journalism and photography. One of the instructors had a 6D, 7D and some 1-Series Body, along with a few lenses. He would let me and the other students use all of those but the 1D. I did some macro stuff with the 7D and a Sigma 105mm 2.8 lens, aswell as wildlife (Rabbits and birds) with one of the Canon 70-200 lenses, and handled the 6D for some portraits for about an hour. That was when I thought to myself "One day, I want one of those".

But now, that I could afford to save up the money and feel like my skill at least pushes the boundaries of the T3i ... Don't know. With moves like the exclusion of On-chip ADC, when going the next step in terms of gear, it just feels harder than I'd like to justify sticking with Canon, since there defintively are other great options to consider. The question isn't "Is the 6DII better than the T3i?" but "Is it 2000€ better? And is it better than the other options in that price range?". And for me personally, the answer to that would have been 100% yes if it truly was a full frame 80D. As it is now, I'll probably still get it sometime next year, but not as long as it is twice as expensive as the 80D. Glad to hear though that there are things that keep other cameras from being the ultimate Canon killers that they are according to so many folks. That way it's at least less of a Canon vs ABC inner debate and more a 80D (Or 90D if that truly comes out before Q3 2018) vs 6DII.

 

[Jschmitt]

I don't think that was the point.

I for one am very aware of the limitations of my T3i, beyond ergonomics and image quality. For example, my Canon EF 85 1.8 has a hint of backfocus that makes it hard to use wide open with AF. But there's nothing I can do about that with this camera.

About 4 years ago, I went to a weekend-long workshop for students who were interested in journalism and photography. One of the instructors had a 6D, 7D and some 1-Series Body, along with a few lenses. He would let me and the other students use all of those but the 1D. I did some macro stuff with the 7D and a Sigma 105mm 2.8 lens, aswell as wildlife (Rabbits and birds) with one of the Canon 70-200 lenses, and handled the 6D for some portraits for about an hour. That was when I thought to myself "One day, I want one of those".

But now, that I could afford to save up the money and feel like my skill at least pushes the boundaries of the T3i ... Don't know. With moves like the exclusion of On-chip ADC, when going the next step in terms of gear, it just feels harder than I'd like to justify sticking with Canon, since there defintively are other great options to consider. The question isn't "Is the 6DII better than the T3i?" but "Is it 2000€ better? And is it better than the other options in that price range?". And for me personally, the answer to that would have been 100% yes if it truly was a full frame 80D. As it is now, I'll probably still get it sometime next year, but not as long as it is twice as expensive as the 80D. Glad to hear though that there are things that keep other cameras from being the ultimate Canon killers that they are according to so many folks. That way it's at least less of a Canon vs ABC inner debate and more a 80D (Or 90D if that truly comes out before Q3 2018) vs 6DII.

Agree completely. I know that any FF is going to be a huge step up. Even the 80D or the Nikon D500 (having given it a test drive from a friend) would be a large step up from my T3i. For someone without an investment in EF lenses, though, the question remains if this is the camera I should invest in compared to what else is out there in the same price range. I'm unlikely to upgrade each cycle, so I'm going to have whatever camera I get for a long time.

 

[Mikehit]

no offense, but even a 6D is a step up.

I find posts like this a bit odd. any camera, including a M5/6, 80D, 5D Mark III, IV, 6D, 77D, T7i, 5D Mark II shall i go on? is a huge step up from a T3i for landscapes.

I don't think that was the point.

I for one am very aware of the limitations of my T3i, beyond ergonomics and image quality. For example, my Canon EF 85 1.8 has a hint of backfocus that makes it hard to use wide open with AF. But there's nothing I can do about that with this camera.

About 4 years ago, I went to a weekend-long workshop for students who were interested in journalism and photography. One of the instructors had a 6D, 7D and some 1-Series Body, along with a few lenses. He would let me and the other students use all of those but the 1D. I did some macro stuff with the 7D and a Sigma 105mm 2.8 lens, aswell as wildlife (Rabbits and birds) with one of the Canon 70-200 lenses, and handled the 6D for some portraits for about an hour. That was when I thought to myself "One day, I want one of those".

But now, that I could afford to save up the money and feel like my skill at least pushes the boundaries of the T3i ... Don't know. With moves like the exclusion of On-chip ADC, when going the next step in terms of gear, it just feels harder than I'd like to justify sticking with Canon, since there defintively are other great options to consider. The question isn't "Is the 6DII better than the T3i?" but "Is it 2000€ better? And is it better than the other options in that price range?". And for me personally, the answer to that would have been 100% yes if it truly was a full frame 80D. As it is now, I'll probably still get it sometime next year, but not as long as it is twice as expensive as the 80D. Glad to hear though that there are things that keep other cameras from being the ultimate Canon killers that they are according to so many folks. That way it's at least less of a Canon vs ABC inner debate and more a 80D (Or 90D if that truly comes out before Q3 2018) vs 6DII.

The 6Dii was never going to be a massive improvement over the 6D. If you were happy with the images form the 6D who gives a flying crap about what technology is in the 6D2 along as image quality is at least as good as the 6D or the 80D. The 6D2 has superior handling and capabilities over the 6D, and it has a FF sensor with those advantages over the 80D.
It looks like you have never used a camrea iwth on-chap DAC so hoe wold you know if the 6D2 is a downward, sideways or upward change? You are making your decision to date on two reviews whose relevance you have no idea about regards your type of photography.

Cameras have now reached the position they were in the days of film. In those days you used the film you needed to do the job, and with the camera you bought into the functionality and the style of control. Digital, for a vast majority of users, has reached the same stage. If you have specialist reasons for using the supposed advantages of the D810 or the Sony A7R then go for it.

On thing that a lot of people (including myself) like about Canon is that they seem to not care about specs-sheet mania. When the 5D3, the 6D, the 7Dii and a host of others were introduced they were all panned by the armchair measurebators who looked at the spreadsheet and looked at DPR claims about sensor etc. Yet every one of them became very successful cameras because they delivered what the customer needed - they improved the usability and the real world performance. The small things that make you want to take the camera with you instead of leaving it at home.

So don;t even talk about the relevance of on-chip DAC to your style of photography - you liked the 6D for what it was as a camera that you had to use not for the DAC inside it. Remember that and make your decision based on what you want it to do.

 

[Mikehit]

Agree completely. I know that any FF is going to be a huge step up. Even the 80D or the Nikon D500 (having given it a test drive from a friend) would be a large step up from my T3i. For someone without an investment in EF lenses, though, the question remains if this is the camera I should invest in compared to what else is out there in the same price range. I'm unlikely to upgrade each cycle, so I'm going to have whatever camera I get for a long time.

There are pros out there still using the original 5D or 5Dii. I defy you to look at a 20" print in isolation and tell me what camera was used. Hell, I defy any DRone to tell me.
Pick the camera for its functionality first, then on price and use the rest to buy the best glass you can.

 

[Joules]

There are pros out there still using the original 5D or 5Dii. I defy you to look at a 20" print in isolation and tell me what camera was used. Hell, I defy any DRone to tell me.

I don't disagree with you from a rational perspective. But if your point is that nobody can be disappointed in the lack of ADC, I don't feel the same. It feels like compromising the reason to upgrade to FF: Image Quality. For me the 6DII competes most strongly with the 80D, since I am invested in Canon Equipment. If "You pay more you get more" would apply here, there wouldn't be any bad aftertaste there. But it seems like it doesn't.

For me, it is less about the outcome than the way to get there. Photography is still just a hobby for me and to be honest, the quality of my images will probably always be limited by me and my own skills. What I'm really looking for is having fun with my hobby. And that involves being flexibel to try out all the stuff that I might want to try now and in the future. For flexibility, having more than you might typically need is quite nice, I think. At least I'd much rather have too much than too little, be it money, time or dynamic range. Maybe that mindset excludes me from the group of people that Canon determined to be their target market.

Still. It's about fun, and it is always fun to try out new things without having to worry that it's the gear stopping you from doing it. I also enjoy pixel peeping with a lot of my images, and just thinking "Dang, that's sharp!" when shooting with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. I have no doubt that I can get more fun and better pictures out of the 6DII than out of the T3i and that it wouldn't be different with any other body. Sadly, there is simply more to the emotional side of justifying such a price tag than that reasonable approach. Does being unreasonable really make it unimportant?

Just to clarify: I don't think Canon is doomed and I don't think that the 6DII will be a bad camera or truly worse than the competition. It just doesn't feel 2000€ good at the moment to me, so I will wait for the price to come down a good bit before actually making any purchases. I'm still looking forward to that, I'd just do that with even more excitement if Canon hadn't added such a compromise between the 1000€ 80D and 2000€ 6DII.

 

[stevelee]

T3i > 6D II is a huge step up anyway. Be sure to buy it with e.g. 24-70/4L IS lens to give you nice, rather small sized general zoom for the start. Or perhaps buy some used 24-105/4L IS, they come at reasonable price and apart from some barrel distortion at 24mm and some CA, that lens is a solid starter for FF.

Thanks for the advice. I have looked at the kit options a bit to consider how they might fit in with my other gear and thus how and when I might use them. Offhand the non-L version of the 24-105 seems like a good choice for me as a walkabout lens. Size and weight seem more important criteria than others for that purpose. If it's raining, I'm not going to be out taking pictures, so weather sealing is not a priority. Barrel distortion and CA are tamed by the profile for my G7X II, so I'm not so worried by them.

The kit list prices seem not to offer any price advantage over just buying the body and lens separately. I know bargains are not likely in the open months of availably, but perhaps I'll find some kind of break with the kit, and that could help me decide.

For more serious purposes, I'll be using primes, the ones I already have, and the ones I will likely accumulate over the next few years. At first I can see the 100mm macro used more and more as a general purpose lens. It's a great length for portraits, and at f/2.8 should have the same narrow depth of field as the 50mm f/1.4 I use now on the T3i as an 80mm equivalent. I don't need super-wideangle much any more, so I can still use the 10-22mm on the T3i for those rare occasions.

Any further advice will be welcome, though I realize risking objections from those not liking the stretch from the Fred Miranda topic.

 

[stevelee]

Also, the G7X II has the equivalent zoom of 24-100mm, so a walkabout lens at 24-105mm would feel right at home.

 

[unfocused]

...I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this 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...

...When the specifications were released, I was about 95% sure that I was going to buy this camera...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...

...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...

...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.

I understand your concerns, but frankly, this is one of the things I hate about this forum.

The 6DII has not even been released, but self-appointed experts are already "testing" the camera that they don't even have in their physical possession.

These people mean well, but unfortunately, it's difficult for people like you to keep these pronouncements in perspective because others are all too eager to jump on these preliminary "findings" and exploit them to confirm and reinforce their personal biases.

The dynamic range debate has been around for years. Everyone needs to draw their own conclusion. I fall somewhere in the middle. I can see advantages to greater dynamic range in some of the work I do (For example, sports in harsh daylight with the players in white uniforms whose faces are often buried deep inside the shadows of a cap). But, we all got along okay for years/decades with film and sensors that had far less range than those generally available today.

Massive assumptions are being made about the technology of the 6DII sensor (on-chip analog to digital conversions). At this point it is all rumor and speculation.

By all means, when the camera comes out, read every review you can find. I'm not a DPR hater. I find their reviews are thorough and, I think, fair. No camera is perfect and while I realize that the price of the 6DII represents a substantial investment, it's not realistic to expect it to be perfect, or even up to the standards of the 5DIV or the 1DX II. By reading reviews from DPR, The Digital Picture and others, you will get a much better and more realistic perspective on the pros and cons of the camera.

If you are still undecided, rent one from Lens Rentals for a week and judge for yourself.

I am willing to bet, though, that once you have the camera in hand, you will find your worries dissolve.

The differences being debated on these pages are tiny and have very little impact on real world use. Bear in mind that it is in the best interests of those who are conducting these "tests" to amplify the significance of insignificant differences.

Good luck and don't let these silly internet debates keep you from enjoying your hobby.

 

[Hector1970]

Fairly reasonable comments there from unfocused. I look forward to the extensive reviews (that are not rehashes of the press blurb or focussed on one aspect. I'd reckon this camera will be ideally suited to upgrading ASP-C users. The existing 6D was a fine camera and never stopped anyone taking a fine photo. I think the floppy screen and frame rates are welcome additions.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"The differences being debated on these pages are tiny and have very little impact on real world use. Bear in mind that it is in the best interests of those who are conducting these "tests" to amplify the significance of insignificant differences."

Exactly. While forums are useful they also increase anxiety levels.

Jack

 

[stevelee]

Fairly reasonable comments there from unfocused. I look forward to the extensive reviews (that are not rehashes of the press blurb or focussed on one aspect. I'd reckon this camera will be ideally suited to upgrading ASP-C users. The existing 6D was a fine camera and never stopped anyone taking a fine photo. I think the floppy screen and frame rates are welcome additions.

Exactly, and I speak as someone upgrading from a T3i.

As for the flippy screen, I haven't used it a lot with that camera, but it does come in handy when shooting at the moon, etc. The G7X II has just an angling screen. Back in the spring I was traveling with it in Britain, and I found I took a lot more shots up into domes and towers than I might have otherwise, and did that more successfully and steadily than I could have while looking up. Here's an example from Canterbury:

 

[CanonCams]

Fairly reasonable comments there from unfocused. I look forward to the extensive reviews (that are not rehashes of the press blurb or focussed on one aspect. I'd reckon this camera will be ideally suited to upgrading ASP-C users. The existing 6D was a fine camera and never stopped anyone taking a fine photo. I think the floppy screen and frame rates are welcome additions.

How long after the NDA is lifted are the reviews published?

 

[Jschmitt]

...I feel like I'm in one of Canon's target markets for this 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...

...When the specifications were released, I was about 95% sure that I was going to buy this camera...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...

...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...

...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.

I understand your concerns, but frankly, this is one of the things I hate about this forum.

The 6DII has not even been released, but self-appointed experts are already "testing" the camera that they don't even have in their physical possession.

These people mean well, but unfortunately, it's difficult for people like you to keep these pronouncements in perspective because others are all too eager to jump on these preliminary "findings" and exploit them to confirm and reinforce their personal biases.

The dynamic range debate has been around for years. Everyone needs to draw their own conclusion. I fall somewhere in the middle. I can see advantages to greater dynamic range in some of the work I do (For example, sports in harsh daylight with the players in white uniforms whose faces are often buried deep inside the shadows of a cap). But, we all got along okay for years/decades with film and sensors that had far less range than those generally available today.

Massive assumptions are being made about the technology of the 6DII sensor (on-chip analog to digital conversions). At this point it is all rumor and speculation.

By all means, when the camera comes out, read every review you can find. I'm not a DPR hater. I find their reviews are thorough and, I think, fair. No camera is perfect and while I realize that the price of the 6DII represents a substantial investment, it's not realistic to expect it to be perfect, or even up to the standards of the 5DIV or the 1DX II. By reading reviews from DPR, The Digital Picture and others, you will get a much better and more realistic perspective on the pros and cons of the camera.

If you are still undecided, rent one from Lens Rentals for a week and judge for yourself.

I am willing to bet, though, that once you have the camera in hand, you will find your worries dissolve.

The differences being debated on these pages are tiny and have very little impact on real world use. Bear in mind that it is in the best interests of those who are conducting these "tests" to amplify the significance of insignificant differences.

Good luck and don't let these silly internet debates keep you from enjoying your hobby.

Thanks. You're likely correct; it is easy to get too caught up in the details and lose the forest for the trees.