Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[Luds34]

In my opinion, according to the histogram to the right of the image, my estimation is that mid greys are under exposed by -2EV. (note: I cannot see the histogram readings clearly due to the small size of the image). If so, I do not consider this being a minor mistake let alone being a norm or something that I would even consider "fixing" in post. if happened (flash misfired, bulb gone, full eclipse or black magic ), such an image would be culled immediately - no exceptions.

What is your opinion?

Mine always was that if you don't expose right then it is your fault, Aglet point was if he had used a different make of camera he would have been ok with his mistake.

But my point here was the 6D is a darn sight more 'malleable' than the 5D MkII anyway so his comment was just a cheap shot.

I'm sure at one point we've all been there. I use off camera, manual flashes once in a while. And I've underexposed them on a number of occasions (typically not off by 2 stops).

I can't speak for a 5D2, but the original 6D would not have any problem lifting a shot 2 stops. The picture example above would be no issue. The shadows/dark parts of a shot are the "hardest" to lift (think an underexposed night sky) and even then the 6D can do 2 stops with relative ease. That shot had plenty of initial exposure to be able to push it quite a bit if one were so inclined.

 

[neuroanatomist]

yes, it was a flash error and it is underexposed by about 2 stops but you can't cull the shot when the client wants THAT shot.
I could have told them, "Gee. I'm sorry you like that shot but you can't have it because an exposure error has rendered it kind of useless because, blah blah blah."
Good luck with that.

and OMG! 2 WHOLE STOPS UNDEREXPOSED!! Stop the planet!
Any decent camera, read anything other than that major steaming hot pile known as the 5d2, could easily recover from that.

An exposure mistake. Showing a client an unacceptable image, either due to unfamiliarity with the limitations of your equipment or an unprofessional decision.

Regardless... your fault. But you blame Canon for your screw up. Understood.

 

[SecureGSM]

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation

I just downloaded this image, backlit scene and edited it in Lightroom.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fd1i3ddjtaawqdm/IMG_3835%2035mm%20f6.3%20ISO%20200%20-%20Blown%20hilights%2C%20deep%20shadows%20%28LR%29.jpg?dl=0

Looks pretty good to me I would have no issue with this at all. Noise is nice, latitude is also pretty good.

No banding or colour noise issues, colour looks great and nice and sharp!

Makes my 5DMKIII IQ look pretty crap in comparison. Hate the colour noise at every ISO when doing any kind of recovery.

I think it will be a great little camera and people need to chill out, its not going to be the difference between getting an image and not. Even with 12 stops of DR you cant control everything in the scene so a 3 shot bracket will remove any issue and at 6.5 FPS you could hand hold a burst.

Looking forward to the reviews, apart from the lack of 4K I think the reviews will be overall positive. Its not a 5D MK IV killer and was never meant to be its nearly half the price, there has to be a trade off and these are the facts. For most serious photographers who earn money from their work 2K is a small price to pay. £13.80 per week over the 3 year life span of the investment.

In my mind the only reason to get a 5DMKIII over this is if it is super cheap which they aren't, but may come down in the next couple of months. 6D MKII Retail of £2k and second hand high mileage cameras sell for £1400 at places like MPB/LCE etc or you like the AF selection joystick and better weather sealing.

The problem with buying a pre owned 5 or 1 series is they are used hard and even tho the body may be in good condition you cant see if its been in incremental weather with circuitry damage that worsens over time etc etc So unless its from budding amateur that has wrapped the camera in bubblewrap its whole life I would rather have a new body with the warranty. All the newer additions really make the experience of shooting with these cameras. The viewfinder II for example. When I got a 7DMKII it made the 5DMKIII feel archaic because it had a few niceties that aren't in the 5 series and the speed and lack of colour noise was also so refreshing.

For me and the varied subjects I shoot I like the weather sealed bodies and the joystick is a god send and the 70D style multiway selection wheel is not sufficient for anything other than landscape or very slow subjects. Saying that if you set your C modes with specific AF zones and set your AF-ON button to AI Servo it could make the joystick less necessary if those settings suit subjects you shoot on a daily basis.

 

[amorse]

https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/

Hands on 'Review' starts at 31ish minutes.

I don't know if this is a production or a pre production or a 'sample' model.

I also apologize in advance if this has been posted before.

Well, that's disappointing news for me, but it is in line with what we've heard and seen from other discussions on DR. Not unexpected I guess (except for the part of the review where they note the T7i out performs the 6D for shadow recovery - that I did not expect). I'm sure it will still be a great camera for those that don't care about that extra dynamic range, and no doubt it will be used to create some incredible images.

Regardless, I think the camera is still going to sell like crazy. And hey, if it doesn't sell maybe Canon will offer to upgrade the sensor after purchase for a fee /s

 

[Talys]

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation

Maybe the way to look at it is like this: 6D2 is a way for users to have a Canon FF camera that's more like an 80D than a 5D. There are people who just like the 80D ergonomics better than 5D ergonomics, for a variety of personal preference and use case reasons.

tomscott's point is valid also, that 5D3 isn't cheap, nor will it become cheap overnight, and copies that are used by professionals are going to have wear. For some people, a used 5D3 just isn't going to win against a new 6D2. On the other hand, if you're a happy 5D3 user, Canon would much rather you upgrade to a 5D4, than a 6D2 anyways

 

[Khalai]

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation

Maybe the way to look at it is like this: 6D2 is a way for users to have a Canon FF camera that's more like an 80D than a 5D. There are people who just like the 80D ergonomics better than 5D ergonomics, for a variety of personal preference and use case reasons.

Sad thing is, if 6D II is truly below 80D in DR deparment. For me for example, I have no reason to upgrade from original 6D...

 

[privatebydesign]

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation

Maybe the way to look at it is like this: 6D2 is a way for users to have a Canon FF camera that's more like an 80D than a 5D. There are people who just like the 80D ergonomics better than 5D ergonomics, for a variety of personal preference and use case reasons.

Sad thing is, if 6D II is truly below 80D in DR deparment. For me for example, I have no reason to upgrade from original 6D...

I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.

 

[amorse]

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation

Maybe the way to look at it is like this: 6D2 is a way for users to have a Canon FF camera that's more like an 80D than a 5D. There are people who just like the 80D ergonomics better than 5D ergonomics, for a variety of personal preference and use case reasons.

Sad thing is, if 6D II is truly below 80D in DR deparment. For me for example, I have no reason to upgrade from original 6D...

This is why I'm patiently waiting to see if the 5D IV comes down in price (and how much). Although I feel like the recent offer to upgrade to C-Log may push back any price cuts...

I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.

I think you're right, and I think it will work. I do want Canon glass/weatherproofing/ergonomics more than I want additional DR, and I definitely want additional DR. I have a 6D and I would have been in the 6D II market with a DR bump, but now I'm really leaning toward the 5D IV.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I said I would say it, so I will: this is a crippling. Even if it's cleaner and has stonking high-ISO, using the old technology is just sad and unacceptable.

On the plus-side, it makes it an easy choice for me that if I get a new FF body it'll be the 5D4. That may be "what they want", but it's not exactly unreasonable that a new, cheaper body is a lateral from an older, nicer one.

 

[SecureGSM]

Precisely my point! Yes, yes and yes!
After 5 years of shooting with 6D level bodies I have reached an infliction point at which I need to make a transition to 5D level system. I am arguing that the statement " there is no point of choosing 5D III over 6D II" is invalid. I have explained what features of 5D III wins over 6D II for me personally.
I would like to reiterate that I do not see any substantial high ISO advantages of 6D over 5D III up until ISO 3200 at least in properly processed RAW files.

I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.

 

[tomscott]

Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.

Is it just complaining for complaining sake?

So what if it is older tech they have obviously done something to remove the above factors and that is the main IQ issue with the 6D and 5DMKIII they both perform so similarly. The 6D was not better than the 5D in any real world situation when it came to IQ.

The quality of the extreme lifts weren't brilliant but the new one isn't showing any of these issues so it makes the camera a much better performer and a decent upgrade. You have to consider the resolution increase by over 25% and it's creating better images.

Spec sheets don't tell all I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the camera.

 

[CanonCams]

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation

Maybe the way to look at it is like this: 6D2 is a way for users to have a Canon FF camera that's more like an 80D than a 5D. There are people who just like the 80D ergonomics better than 5D ergonomics, for a variety of personal preference and use case reasons.

Sad thing is, if 6D II is truly below 80D in DR deparment. For me for example, I have no reason to upgrade from original 6D...

I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.

As a current 80D owner, the 6D MK II doesn't make much sense to upgrade.

Even the guys in the video stated as much.

 

[CanonCams]

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0227421206/should-i-buy-a-canon-eos-6d-mark-ii

 

[Mikehit]

up until ISO 3200 there is no discernable difference in properly processed RAW files coming out of the 6d or 5D III ... I have seen your photos and they are pretty clean for high ISO images. as to getting 5D III over 6D II: I am doing just this and there are 4 major reason:
1. Pro body ergonomics
2. much better AF system - AF joystick, rapid AF point selection, wider AF points spread.
3. second card slot
4. much higher level of customisation

Maybe the way to look at it is like this: 6D2 is a way for users to have a Canon FF camera that's more like an 80D than a 5D. There are people who just like the 80D ergonomics better than 5D ergonomics, for a variety of personal preference and use case reasons.

Sad thing is, if 6D II is truly below 80D in DR deparment. For me for example, I have no reason to upgrade from original 6D...

I expect Canon expect that which means you are not the target market, they would rather you feel you 'need' a 5 series. The 6 series is their entry level ff camera, I'd think in general they expect current 6D owners to move up not stay with multiple iterations of the entry level.

As a current 80D owner, the 6D MK II doesn't make much sense to upgrade.

Even the guys in the video stated as much.

What I was not clear was if that was use dependent.
As far as I could tell they took the same picture from the same position with the same lens so had different framing. If you took it from the same position with the same framing (landscape from a set position, 18mm lens on the APS-C and 28mm lens on the 6D2) would the files be the same blown to 30" print?

 

[SecureGSM]

I am confused. Where do you get the notion that 6D II is much better at @shadow lifting" or high ISO performance than 6D original or 5D III???
Have you overlooked this chart :

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg675894#msg675894

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.

Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.

Is it just complaining for complaining sake?

So what if it is older tech they have obviously done something to remove the above factors and that is the main IQ issue with the 6D and 5DMKIII they both perform so similarly. The 6D was not better than the 5D in any real world situation when it came to IQ.

The quality of the extreme lifts weren't brilliant but the new one isn't showing any of these issues so it makes the camera a much better performer and a decent upgrade. You have to consider the resolution increase by over 25% and it's creating better images.

Spec sheets don't tell all I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the camera.

 

[amorse]

Tell tale signs of the old sensor technology are banding and the difficult to remove colour noise and muddy purple casts in those lifted areas. I don't see this on any of the raw photos from the 6DMKII.

Is it just complaining for complaining sake?

So what if it is older tech they have obviously done something to remove the above factors and that is the main IQ issue with the 6D and 5DMKIII they both perform so similarly. The 6D was not better than the 5D in any real world situation when it came to IQ.

The quality of the extreme lifts weren't brilliant but the new one isn't showing any of these issues so it makes the camera a much better performer and a decent upgrade. You have to consider the resolution increase by over 25% and it's creating better images.

Spec sheets don't tell all I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the camera.

I think that's a fair point. My current 6D's "muddy purple" lifts have been a challenge for wide angle astrophotography for me, adding a fair bit of work in processing. The 6D II's under-exposed lifts didn't seem to showcase that problem in the review posted. So there is some IQ improvement over the 6D in all fairness.

The challenge presented by that the camera store video review for me (linked below) is that the T7i was better for lifting shadows than the 6D - two cameras separated by a significant amount of money, with similar resolution (24mp/26mp). Of course the 6D II offers a LOT more than the T7i, but for anyone that was hoping for improvements in DR, this comparison really makes the cost of the 6D II difficult to justify the upgrade.
https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/

I agree though, we need to see more reviews and more images.

 

[Mikehit]

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.

Sorry - can you explain how you come to that conclusion.

 

[SecureGSM]

amorse, the ISO advantage of the higher DR T7i body is gone by the time you crossed into ISO 400 territory. Now, let's compare an image shot with T7 at ISO 3200 to the one shot with 6D original at the same ISO. That is why I shoot with FF body.

 

[ahsanford]

https://www.facebook.com/TheCameraStore/videos/10154977822526359/

Hands on 'Review' starts at 31ish minutes.

Hasn't. At least not on this thread -- 6D2 starts at 38:00 or so. Listening now.

Chris and Jordan in general do a decent job and provide a broad stills guy / video guy perspective. They love to lift shadows, though, so I'm bracing for impact.

- A

Finally got around to watching this. It's not a final review, but their take is fairly scathing sensor-wise:

• This was not their final review -- just an early look. I am presuming but did not hear the words that this was indeed a production copy (someone please correct me if I missed that). They work at a large camera store, so it's plausible this was the right out of the box.
  
  
• Frequently they went back to the 80D as the camera Canon got right DR-wise; they would not upgrade from an 80D to a 6D2.
  
  
• They did the eye-rolling 'one shot HDR test' of a blown-out backlit shot in which they did the highlight slider min pull / shadow slider max push -- the 5D4 was clearly better and even a T7i looked a little cleaner than the 6D2 shot. They were surprised to see that. (I'm presuming this was at base ISO, tripod, etc, but that was not stated.)
  
  
• Landscapers were warned that the sensor lacked latitude, and that HDR techniques, multi-shot, etc. would be more necessary with the 6D2.
  
  
• Many good things were also said: AF dramatically improved, build/sealing quality is improved, high ISO performance was on the level of the 5D4, etc.
  
  
• They were clearly disappointed overall -- base ISO DR is a big deal to them, so the 80D remains a far better value in their minds -- they argued that some of crop's limitations to FF could be managed with some of the f/1.8 Sigma zooms. (They are bullish on crop from many other videos, Chris as the stills guy does not live very high on the ISO dial, shoots a fair amount of macro/landscapes in his reviews.)

- A

 

[SecureGSM]

Yes, I can. Extreme shadow lifting/pushing business aside (not going to discuss this circus), properly exposed RAW images that came out of 6D and 6D II @iso 3200. will have similar if not identical noise levels and characteristics. Please refer to the chart in the post I linked above. That magenta high ISO cast of 6D I keep hearing about is only noticeable when shadows lifted by more than a stop at ISO 3200 and beyond. With my style of shooting ,I do not run into this issue much. Neither do anyone that cares to expose their images correctly.

I am sure that you have heard about the Placebo Effect before. I do not want to elaborate te point but in in a few words: there is no meaningful difference between _properly_ processed 6D II and 6D original RAW files.
Sadly, It is a wishful thinking and nothing else.

Sorry - can you explain how you come to that conclusion.