Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[ahsanford]

Yes, the d610 is in the category of the 6d. The d750 in the category of 5d and the d810 in the category of the 5ds. Of course, the prices are not in the same category, but canon is the leader of the market, and for the moment they can put the price they want.
Be aware the people who use nikon, maybe in the future they have to change the name of nikonrumors to fujirumors...

I don't know much about the d610, where I am, the d750 is the same price as the 6d, and much cheaper than the 5d mk3. The new 6d is more expensive than the d750 also. What price did the d750 start at though?

Those comparisons above are a little muddied because Nikon stratified/positioned their rigs differently than Canon, they didn't release everything at the same times as Canon, Nikon had financial problems and started slashing D610/D750 prices, etc. There is no A+ apples to apples matchup, but here's how I saw it:

Nikon was simple: they offered good (D610) / better (D750) / best (D810) at three price points. (Sure the D750 looks like it lines up with a 5D3, but really only on FPS X MP, not on a host of other professional features. The D750 was the 'porridge is just right' blend of D610 and D810 features, whereas the 5D3 was an all-around 'yes I can' sort of pro rig.)

Canon was a little more specialized: good (6D1-->6D2) / all-purpose(5D3-->5D4) / high-res (5DS) at effectively a low price for the 6D1 and a high price for the top two. The aging 5D3 fell into a 'middle' bucket after the 5D4 release.

But for *sensors* at base ISO DR, Nikon famously went with Sony EXMOR sensors and the above simplified to:

Nikon: Best / Best / Best
Canon: Okay / Good / Okay

In this one metric in particular, EXMOR just stomped everything on the planet. Despite all of Canon's firsts and slick tech, this. one. metric. was the first arrow in the quiver for Sony & Nikon folks to bash Canon for a number of years now.

- A

 

[Luds34]

So why did they do it? One possibility is that it was cost driven, and there is no question that the 6DII was designed to hit the $2000 price point, but who knows how the cost numbers on the sensor work out.

That's exactly what I'm thinking too.

No just that. I feel that Canon chose this design as they are prepared to discount the 6DII just as they've been discounting the original 6D.
So, I wouldn't surprised one bit if the 6DII sells for $1600 by Christmas 2018.

Then there is the old "they nerfed it to protect the 5DIV" line of thought, for what that is worth.

Nah. If it costs them more money to use external ADCs, they surely wouldn't do it.
It's all money/business for them.

The whole "external ADC" to save money doesn't generally hold up from a pure manufacturing standpoint. These are additional chips that add to the full BOM (build of materials) cost. Anything in the silicon (assuming same chip size) is essentially free (again from a manufacturing perspective). Now, it doesn't mean the overall reason isn't to save money. Maybe they have an old line that hasn't been tooled to the new process and using it for the 6D2 saves them money in that regard. But saying not using the existing silicon and adding external chips "saves money" is almost always not true. That's the whole drive towards "system on a chip" as it greatly reduces costs by lowering chip count and all the complexities to interconnect them, more buses, larger boards, etc. etc.

 

[bclaff]

...Does dynamic range pair with iso invariant, or are these different?
...

Strictly speaking they are different ... but ISO Invariance shows up as a dynamic range curve that is more straight than curved.
So, often an ISO Invariant camera will also have a higher Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) range at low ISO settings.
Note that in the corresponding Shadow Improvement chart more horizontal is more ISO Invariant.

 

[SecureGSM]

Tom,
appreciate the response. I think I understand now. you are refering to shadow lifting / highlight recovery improvement in relatively low ISO 6D II file (ISO 200), according to the link you have provided. 6D II performs better in that regard due to less to no fixed patern noise, noticeable at low ISO settings. I was looking at HIGH ISO RAW files only. I would imaging that your "wildlife in rain forrest" shots will be in the high ISO range rather than low? this is my understanding of situation.
Ok. If so, then the "clean shadow lifting" of the 6D II would be of a lesser consequenses to the outcomes. and here is a very sharp explanation:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg676107#msg676107

"... And in case it's not obvious FPN is generally only an issue (when present) at the lowest ISO settings because once noise rises a bit it "drowns out" the FPN...."

As many noticed, with the 6D original lifting shadows by up to +2EV was never an issue ( low ISO). Yes, with 6D II one can, seems to, lift shadows by +3EV without apparent colour cast or excessive Fixed Pattern Noise showing up in the output image. If that is what you are saying, then I do agree with you. Does this make 6D II a HIGH ISO killer? obviously not. And I was arguing the point that I do not detect any meanigful IQ improvement in HIGH ISO 6D II files. And I am particularly interested in ISO 3200 - ISO 6400 RAW file improvement.
Not too worry though. Thank you for your time and have a great day!

p.s. https://www.dpreview.com/samples/5865039367/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-sample-photos

images: 2/118 and 5/118 if that is your use case, then noise levels in shadow lifted areas are not too bad.
my use case: images 22/118 and 23/118

p.s.2. : https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

I took the liberty of comparing noise levels at ISO levels 800-6400 between 5D III, 6D, 5D IV and 6D II. images are attached.

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.

No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

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

Thats the whole point of the DR argument, the muddy purple casts with poor colour noise is the issue. As you say from one stop lift which is nothing in a high contrast scene.

Im sorry but you cant 'expose properly' in every scene. For example I shoot a lot of wildlife in rainforrests, you get high contrast shards of light and deep shadows under the canopy. I dont care who you are you cant expose the whole scene you have to try and protect the highlights or the shadows and on the older bodies it was hard work.

The fact you can push these new 6DMKII files more than 3 stops with no banding, muddy purple casts with no colour noise makes it obvious to me there has been huge improvement. Night and day compared to the 5DMKIII just for laughs 100 shadow and +3 on the exposure completely reveals detail with barely any penalty, not that I would do that but the fact if you now can.

 

[martinslade]

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr144_1=canon_eos6d&attr144_2=nikon_d750&attr144_3=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&normalization=full&widget=231&x=0.48443890216920504&y=0.5941514388119011

 

[xps]

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range
Not from Mr. Rishi, but nevertheless not the news we´d like to read. Disappointing.


So, Canon offers us now an "entry-level-FF-SLR". Nothing more. Some gadgets, a lot of improvements. But an clear demarcation to their higher priced products. Maybe, Canon´s market analysts see the implementation of an movable screen and "more pointed" AF system more imporatant than an better image quality. They have an limited budget for this camera, so image quality is not as important for them anymore - or they are not able/willed to produce better sensors at lower costs. We will see, if the 6DII will be an as well sold product as the 6D.

 

[Aglet]

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range
Not from Mr. Rishi, but nevertheless not the news we´d like to read. Disappointing.


So, Canon offers us now an "entry-level-FF-SLR". Nothing more. Some gadgets, a lot of improvements. But an clear demarcation to their higher priced products. Maybe, Canon´s market analysts see the implementation of an movable screen and "more pointed" AF system more imporatant than an better image quality. They have an limited budget for this camera, so image quality is not as important for them anymore - or they are not able/willed to produce better sensors at lower costs. We will see, if the 6DII will be an as well sold product as the 6D.

OK, have a look at that DPR link, above in the quote, and, in the gallery, image 67; +1.65 push + shadow lift, etc.... zoom to 100% and that is NOT a nice result from a 200 iso raw file!
Lots of chroma noise and still looks like vertical banding FPN on the green railing.
Their processed jpg is here:
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS3865x5153~sample_galleries/8212334571/0376770862.jpg

gallery image #28... chroma noise and vertical banding visible on the person's neck in shadow of iso100 shot.

#26, same again in the low midtones near the edges of the image, really shows up in the blurred tonal transistions

#24, more of the same in dark lifted areas and all over the sky

#22, iso 4000 shot, lifted... lots of FPN in the blue areas altho this could be NR'd out... shouldn't have to deal with FPN these days!

ooc jpgs are still typical Canon.. crushed black to hide the noise.

I'm sad for all of you who were hoping for a better camera.
I'm disappointed myself, was hoping to see Canon raise the bar on this model but... they obviously did not.

I shall continue to heap scorn on this particular product. It's looking deserved.

 

[Khalai]

I shall continue to heap scorn on this particular product. It's looking deserved.

Trying to achieve what exactly? Deserved it may be, your rants will only alienate people without any significance for the future of 6D II. While I agree with your point that 6D II is rather underwhelming in sensor department, I strongly resent your way of you communicating such fact. You seem to quite enjoy the ranting, flaming or general hate towards Canon. And there is a difference between impartial opinion and emotionally biased one, such as yours.

<sarcasm>
Best of luck though, I'm sure you'll enlighten some poor aspiring photographer of the horrors and disappointment with a camera such as 6D II and thus deeply cut its sales, resulting in utter market failure.
</sarcasm>

 

[Mikehit]

The thing is, Aglet, you are complaining about what you want to see. Canon's objective is to give the market what the market needs. Not you.

If the 6DII is a commercial success (as even you seem to say it will) then surely that vindicates Canon's position and shows your view is is one of narrow self interest?

 

[JohanCruyff]

When I decided to buy my first DSLR, I looked for advice in the forums.
I saw that Canon users or potential users were always disappointed: Nikon's D90 and D700 had less high-ISO noise than 50D and 5D2, for instance (less megapixel, BTW, but that was not relevant).
Then the 60D came: no AF Microadjustment, "plastic" body: the Nikon D7000 was better.
On paper the 6D was much worse than the Nikon D600.
Finally, the Dynamic Range (and 4k) drama exploded in the forums.

Nevertheless, Canon apparently had a good success, in spite of the disappointment read in the forums.

The 6D, for instance, after its defeat "on paper", sold much better than the Nikon D600 (also due to the reliability problems of the latter) and than the Nikon D610.


And now?
Maybe Canon's Marketing experts think that the next Nikon models ((D6x0, D7x0) will be considered not reliable, that Pentax will not increase its market share in spite of a good product at a reasonable price.
But maybe Canon's Marketing did not consider that the potential 6DII buyers have two more options (even if the forecasts about Nikon and Pentax were correct), two options dangerous for Canon:
1) switch to Sony
2) don't adopt the 6DII, and choose an used 5D3 or a 6D classic instead, thus saving money.




... Or it will be just as usual: the Canon 6D II will prove to be, in the field, much better than it looks now, and even the people who are blaming it today will buy and appreciate it (esp. when its price will drop by 20-30% in the next months/quarters).


Time will tell.

 

[tomscott]

Tom,
appreciate the response. I think I understand now. you are refering to shadow lifting / highlight recovery improvement in relatively low ISO 6D II file (ISO 200), according to the link you have provided. 6D II performs better in that regard due to less to no fixed patern noise, noticeable at low ISO settings. I was looking at HIGH ISO RAW files only. I would imaging that your "wildlife in rain forrest" shots will be in the high ISO range rather than low? this is my understanding of situation.
Ok. If so, then the "clean shadow lifting" of the 6D II would be of a lesser consequenses to the outcomes. and here is a very sharp explanation:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33003.msg676107#msg676107

"... And in case it's not obvious FPN is generally only an issue (when present) at the lowest ISO settings because once noise rises a bit it "drowns out" the FPN...."

As many noticed, with the 6D original lifting shadows by up to +2EV was never an issue ( low ISO). Yes, with 6D II one can, seems to, lift shadows by +3EV without apparent colour cast or excessive Fixed Pattern Noise showing up in the output image. If that is what you are saying, then I do agree with you. Does this make 6D II a HIGH ISO killer? obviously not. And I was arguing the point that I do not detect any meanigful IQ improvement in HIGH ISO 6D II files. And I am particularly interested in ISO 3200 - ISO 6400 RAW file improvement.
Not too worry though. Thank you for your time and have a great day!

p.s. https://www.dpreview.com/samples/5865039367/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-sample-photos

images: 2/118 and 5/118 if that is your use case, then noise levels in shadow lifted areas are not too bad.
my use case: images 22/118 and 23/118

p.s.2. : https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

I took the liberty of comparing noise levels at ISO levels 800-6400 between 5D III, 6D, 5D IV and 6D II. images are attached.

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.

No offence I dont shoot from charts I make an assessment from what I can see.

Download the 6DMKII raw files and have a go yourself there are no signs of the issues from the 6DMKII.

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

Thats the whole point of the DR argument, the muddy purple casts with poor colour noise is the issue. As you say from one stop lift which is nothing in a high contrast scene.

Im sorry but you cant 'expose properly' in every scene. For example I shoot a lot of wildlife in rainforrests, you get high contrast shards of light and deep shadows under the canopy. I dont care who you are you cant expose the whole scene you have to try and protect the highlights or the shadows and on the older bodies it was hard work.

The fact you can push these new 6DMKII files more than 3 stops with no banding, muddy purple casts with no colour noise makes it obvious to me there has been huge improvement. Night and day compared to the 5DMKIII just for laughs 100 shadow and +3 on the exposure completely reveals detail with barely any penalty, not that I would do that but the fact if you now can.

I appreciate your efforts again.

These were shot on the 14th of July which is a week ago. Are these still the pre production unit or are they the real thing?

Are these places again, like the 5DSr posting images that arent showing the true results just to get some data out.

I dont know why im arguing because I wont buy this camera, just fed up of the CR negativism of every single product.

There seems to be a bandwagon all these companies jump on wanting these canon cameras to be rubbish. Dont be a sheep get the real images.

I will wait for more real samples before I make a final judgment. IMO most of these early reviews are not worth the pixels they are written on.

 

[tomscott]

When I decided to buy my first DSLR, I looked for advice in the forums.
I saw that Canon users or potential users were always disappointed: Nikon's D90 and D700 had less high-ISO noise than 50D and 5D2, for instance (less megapixel, BTW, but that was not relevant).
Then the 60D came: no AF Microadjustment, "plastic" body: the Nikon D7000 was better.
On paper the 6D was much worse than the Nikon D600.
Finally, the Dynamic Range (and 4k) drama exploded in the forums.

Nevertheless, Canon apparently had a good success, in spite of the disappointment read in the forums.

The 6D, for instance, after its defeat "on paper", sold much better than the Nikon D600 (also due to the reliability problems of the latter) and than the Nikon D610.


And now?
Maybe Canon's Marketing experts think that the next Nikon models ((D6x0, D7x0) will be considered not reliable, that Pentax will not increase its market share in spite of a good product at a reasonable price.
But maybe Canon's Marketing did not consider that the potential 6DII buyers have two more options (even if the forecasts about Nikon and Pentax were correct), two options dangerous for Canon:
1) switch to Sony
2) don't adopt the 6DII, and choose an used 5D3 or a 6D classic instead, thus saving money.




... Or it will be just as usual: the Canon 6D II will prove to be, in the field, much better than it looks now, and even the people who are blaming it today will buy and appreciate it (esp. when its price will drop by 20-30% in the next months/quarters).


Time will tell.

This forum is not the target audience, this is the home of the complainers, trolls and its generally a pretty bad place for anyone looking to buy a canon product.

People who have the money for a new camera will buy a new camera regardless, their lenses work and its a new product with a 2 year warranty.

Most 'normal' people are not system switchers. Its like cars, if you like BMWs you buy BMWs. The new M3 and M4 got absolutely slated yet here in Manchester they are two a penny despite costing £65k.

 

[SPKoko]

It's very surprising that the 6D mark II seems to perform even worse than the original 6D!

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

 

[SecureGSM]

I beg your pardon...

... Dont be a sheep get the real images...

 

[SecureGSM]

1. +5EV is not a practical use case. I mean you can but you usually don't.... well, you should not
+3EV is a more reasonable use case to look at. I have posted the comparison image above but here it is again.

2. It seems strange that no one have noticed that 6D II image sharpness is better than the one of 6D, 5D III or 5D IV. look at the word " green" with little arrow undeneath (actually, right above), lines. it could be just due to image to image variation, but also could be due to reduced AA filter strength. Interesting...

It's very surprising that the 6D mark II seems to perform even worse than the original 6D!

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

 

[Aglet]

The thing is, Aglet, you are complaining about what you want to see. Canon's objective is to give the market what the market needs. Not you.

If the 6DII is a commercial success (as even you seem to say it will) then surely that vindicates Canon's position and shows your view is is one of narrow self interest?

What i wanted to see was an improvement in IQ from this product.

Canon is providing the market with something that will sell and make profit. Not exactly what was wanted, and nothing it needed.
Kind of an expectation-bait-and-switch. They're good at it. Lots of practice.

Yup, 6d2 likely will be a commercial success, despite it limitations.
Anything I say after that would be a lot more inflammatory...

I'm not buying one. Not even at an 80D price.

 

[Aglet]

I shall continue to heap scorn on this particular product. It's looking deserved.

Trying to achieve what exactly? Deserved it may be, your rants will only alienate people without any significance for the future of 6D II. While I agree with your point that 6D II is rather underwhelming in sensor department, I strongly resent your way of you communicating such fact. You seem to quite enjoy the ranting, flaming or general hate towards Canon. And there is a difference between impartial opinion and emotionally biased one, such as yours.

<sarcasm>
Best of luck though, I'm sure you'll enlighten some poor aspiring photographer of the horrors and disappointment with a camera such as 6D II and thus deeply cut its sales, resulting in utter market failure.
</sarcasm>

it's what I said I'd do in an earlier post if the shipping product and real images showed Canon's age-old IQ FPN and noise issues.
Guess what?.. 8)

I like most things about Canon's cameras, remember, I used a lot of them and even still have a few.
But I will not say, "Oh well, it's OK if this camera doesn't perform to expectations, I'm sure someone/many will be happy with it."
Nope, that's not me. I am rockin' that boatload and Canon should hear it from their disappointed potential customers loud and clear and not just by voting with their wallet. Call their toll free number and provide some feedback.

Soothing words I do not have for this camera or those who figured it was a good decision to put out hobbled compared to their own lineup, let alone the competition.

<reality>The facts are impartial enough.
It might take some emotive force to change things. </reality>

as for the "rant" I'm pretty much done... The 6D2 images now speak for themselves.
I hope sales fall well below projections, prices drop and those who still want this zebra-brick can pick it up for cheap what it's really worth.

 

[Khalai]

Nope, that's not me. I am rockin' that boatload and Canon should hear it from their disappointed potential customers loud and clear and not just by voting with their wallet. Call their toll free number and provide some feedback.

They won't listen to your angry posts, they won't listen to my aggravated phonecall. They will only listen to money, or not enough sales in this example. Voting with wallet is the only sane thing one can do. Ranting about it on forums will achieve exactly nothing. Your rocking may be felt here, but Canon's CEO office remains steady as rock, thinking otherwise is pure naivety.

6D II is not worth the upgrade/purchase for me. I won't buy it. End of story. No need to spout fire and ash about it. Reviews and sales will speak for themselves.

 

[Sporgon]

What i wanted to see was an improvement in IQ from this product.

You mean IQ = DR ? Or to be more precise, overall IQ = extreme shadow lifting in RAW at low ISO ?

Your comment about those of us who consider the 5DII to have good IQ are delusional is, well, delusional

Your comment about seeing FPN in mid tones from a 5DII was...., well I think you can guess it.

Also if you have a Pentax K1 and a Nikon D800 why on earth would you consider a 6DII anyway ?

 

[DaLiu]

Hello,

This is my first post here, I am following the forum for about 1 year, waiting to upgrade my Canon 700D to some FF camera, I was so inpatient with the release of Canon 6D2 hoping that this will be my first FF camera but after some preliminary testing looks like is not big of an upgrade to 6D. In the meantime I invested my money in some glass, 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8, the question is, let's say I can afford 5D Mark IV, should I go for it instead of 6D2, usually I shoot cityscape, landscape, travel.