privatebydesign said:
Yes and the reason I reposted the subject of one of your old diatribes was to put your opinion in perspective.
except it's completey out of context, rendering it rather useless to your purpose
I used about 80 DSLR and ML camera bodies + many fixed-lens types in the last 15+ years, about half of them Canon.
I shot with all of them, and the only ones I've ever complained about were the 5d2 and 7d for their excessive pattern noise.
You are incapable of exposing optimally so your opinion on matters relating to exposure and shadow lifting are irrelevant to pretty much anybody.
HAHA! OK, We're back to the
annoying part.
How can you possibly be taken seriously here with this kind of exaggeration?
I presented that particular example of an underexposed image to demonstrate the 5d2's file quality was too low to even be able to recover from a mere 2 stop push.
And you try to extrapolate that to me being {i}incapable[/i] of exposing correctly?!?
And you further try to extend that to my opinion then not being valid.
Jeez that's a stretch!
Seriously! Dude! If there's anything you're exposing here it's not my competence with a camera.... :
Very few people are "limited" by the IQ from the 6D, so why would anybody worry about the IQ from the MkII?
That's good.. Because Canon finally addressed the horrendous problem they had with Fixed Pattern Noise in the 5d2 and original 7d and others.
Dynamic range was not the issue then so much as the gross FPN problem which could even show up in midtones, which is where I first found it on the 5d2.
The 6D has a smidgen more DR but it has a useful reduction in FPN. Not eliminated, but improved considerably. That gives its files greater DR and more malleability w-o falling apart with serious visible noise as quickly.
If the 6d2 continues with low FPN that's OK but because it appears to have lower PDR compared to the 6D it takes a bit of a setback again when people go to play with a raw file. You start to run into the good old Canon shadow noise problem which then requires some extra work in post to correct.
Not everyone wants to be fixing technical problems in post.
It's better to start with a better file unless you're happy with OOC jpg or its near equivalent rendering.
Sure some people would have liked 'more', however Canon thinks people are more interested in flippy screens and AF, and history has shown them to be right more often than not.
They probably are gonna sell a shipload of them and make a pile of profit doing it.
Doesn't mean they should not be taken to task by a little bit of a boycott for hobbling a product at that price level.
Don't buy it til they drop to price to about $1500... maybe they'll learn a lesson as that's about all it's really worth. (in Cnd $ yet! LOL)
I am sure the camera will get roasted by testers and reviewers..equally sure the people who buy one will love it and get great results from it.
both of those are likely true.
But anyone buying it and hoping to push it beyond the built in jpeg engine should be prepared for a little disappointment considering pretty much every other shipping camera with MFT or larger sensor is likely going to outperform it for IQ
and editability.
I'm not even saying it's a BAD camera.
I'm merely saying it's looking like it's not nearly as good as it could have been and that prospective buyers who intend to do more with the output than accept it as-is should seriously consider the alternatives. In fact Canon
has the alternatives for those want to shoot better raw files and stay in the company camp... You either pay more for the 5d4 or pay LESS and use the 80D and skip this FF farkle trap until they step up the sensor tech across the whole lineup.
But I will say that the internet has definitely slowed down this last few days given the heated debate the 6D2 has caused ;D I never knew that the 6D was such a HOT camera, guess Canon knew :-*
;D 
