Analysis of RAW samples at Fred Miranda show weak DR

[MayaTlab]

But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?

So far there is no evidence that there exist a trade-off between low ISO DR and high ISO performances in general.
It's better to wait for DPreview's full test scene results, as they are the only ones to control a number of variables such as shutter speed and provide files under two types of lighting, but if we take the 6D and 6DII's ISO-invariance ISO 6400 files, so far the conclusion is that at best the 6DII is a tiny bit worse than the 6D at higher ISOs under daylight lighting. Personally I'm expecting the difference to increase in the 6D's favour under tungsten light, but that's speculation on my part.

So what's the explanation for the D5, then?

You'll have to ask Nikon for that. But the D500 and D7500 have the best performing APSC sensor at high ISOs, and are among the very, very best APSC sensors at low ISOs. So there you go.

 

[LonelyBoy]

But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?

So far there is no evidence that there exist a trade-off between low ISO DR and high ISO performances in general.
It's better to wait for DPreview's full test scene results, as they are the only ones to control a number of variables such as shutter speed and provide files under two types of lighting, but if we take the 6D and 6DII's ISO-invariance ISO 6400 files, so far the conclusion is that at best the 6DII is a tiny bit worse than the 6D at higher ISOs under daylight lighting. Personally I'm expecting the difference to increase in the 6D's favour under tungsten light, but that's speculation on my part.

So what's the explanation for the D5, then?

You'll have to ask Nikon for that. But the D500 and D7500 have the best performing APSC sensor at high ISOs, and are among the very, very best APSC sensors at low ISOs. So there you go.

My point is, high-ISO improvement is the excuse cited for the D5's sensor by those inclined to find excuses for Nikon. Somehow it is taken to not apply here.

 

[MayaTlab]

But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?

So far there is no evidence that there exist a trade-off between low ISO DR and high ISO performances in general.
It's better to wait for DPreview's full test scene results, as they are the only ones to control a number of variables such as shutter speed and provide files under two types of lighting, but if we take the 6D and 6DII's ISO-invariance ISO 6400 files, so far the conclusion is that at best the 6DII is a tiny bit worse than the 6D at higher ISOs under daylight lighting. Personally I'm expecting the difference to increase in the 6D's favour under tungsten light, but that's speculation on my part.

So what's the explanation for the D5, then?

You'll have to ask Nikon for that. But the D500 and D7500 have the best performing APSC sensor at high ISOs, and are among the very, very best APSC sensors at low ISOs. So there you go.

My point is, high-ISO improvement is the excuse cited for the D5's sensor by those inclined to find excuses for Nikon. Somehow it is taken to not apply here.

I probably won't be able to find the source again, but I believe that I read an interview some time around the D5 release where it was said that the main cause for improvements at higher ISOs with the D5 and D500 were the colour filters.

 

[Mikehit]

I probably won't be able to find the source again, but I believe that I read an interview some time around the D5 release where it was said that the main cause for improvements at higher ISOs with the D5 and D500 were the colour filters.

Ha! bet they can't beat the rose-coloured filter on the 6D2 ;D

 

[LonelyBoy]

But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?

So far there is no evidence that there exist a trade-off between low ISO DR and high ISO performances in general.
It's better to wait for DPreview's full test scene results, as they are the only ones to control a number of variables such as shutter speed and provide files under two types of lighting, but if we take the 6D and 6DII's ISO-invariance ISO 6400 files, so far the conclusion is that at best the 6DII is a tiny bit worse than the 6D at higher ISOs under daylight lighting. Personally I'm expecting the difference to increase in the 6D's favour under tungsten light, but that's speculation on my part.

So what's the explanation for the D5, then?

You'll have to ask Nikon for that. But the D500 and D7500 have the best performing APSC sensor at high ISOs, and are among the very, very best APSC sensors at low ISOs. So there you go.

My point is, high-ISO improvement is the excuse cited for the D5's sensor by those inclined to find excuses for Nikon. Somehow it is taken to not apply here.

I probably won't be able to find the source again, but I believe that I read an interview some time around the D5 release where it was said that the main cause for improvements at higher ISOs with the D5 and D500 were the colour filters.

Which still leaves open the question of why Nikon crippled it with such a bad sensor.

 

[Cthulhu]

But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?

So far there is no evidence that there exist a trade-off between low ISO DR and high ISO performances in general.
It's better to wait for DPreview's full test scene results, as they are the only ones to control a number of variables such as shutter speed and provide files under two types of lighting, but if we take the 6D and 6DII's ISO-invariance ISO 6400 files, so far the conclusion is that at best the 6DII is a tiny bit worse than the 6D at higher ISOs under daylight lighting. Personally I'm expecting the difference to increase in the 6D's favour under tungsten light, but that's speculation on my part.

So what's the explanation for the D5, then?

You'll have to ask Nikon for that. But the D500 and D7500 have the best performing APSC sensor at high ISOs, and are among the very, very best APSC sensors at low ISOs. So there you go.

My point is, high-ISO improvement is the excuse cited for the D5's sensor by those inclined to find excuses for Nikon. Somehow it is taken to not apply here.

I probably won't be able to find the source again, but I believe that I read an interview some time around the D5 release where it was said that the main cause for improvements at higher ISOs with the D5 and D500 were the colour filters.

Which still leaves open the question of why Nikon crippled it with such a bad sensor.

Are you insane?

 

[LonelyBoy]

Which still leaves open the question of why Nikon crippled it with such a bad sensor.

Are you insane?
[/quote]

Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?

 

[Don Haines]

Are you insane?

This is a public forum on the web, where rather than go out and use our cameras, we engage in endless discussion about minutiae that nobody in the rest of the world cares about......

Most likely, we are all insane.....

 

[Loswr]

Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?

Well, according to DPR, the D5's sensor is perfectly fine for the camera's target audience. In case you are wondering, DPR defines Canon's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is not as good at', and Nikon/Sony's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is best at'. Not that DPR is biased or anything. :

 

[bdunbar79]

But as far as image quality goes, is the 6d mk.ii any better than the original 6d at all? From reports, people are saying the dynamic range is lacking, but I've also heard that that's because the tradeoff is that it performs better in low light. Is that true?

So far there is no evidence that there exist a trade-off between low ISO DR and high ISO performances in general.
It's better to wait for DPreview's full test scene results, as they are the only ones to control a number of variables such as shutter speed and provide files under two types of lighting, but if we take the 6D and 6DII's ISO-invariance ISO 6400 files, so far the conclusion is that at best the 6DII is a tiny bit worse than the 6D at higher ISOs under daylight lighting. Personally I'm expecting the difference to increase in the 6D's favour under tungsten light, but that's speculation on my part.

So what's the explanation for the D5, then?

You'll have to ask Nikon for that. But the D500 and D7500 have the best performing APSC sensor at high ISOs, and are among the very, very best APSC sensors at low ISOs. So there you go.

My point is, high-ISO improvement is the excuse cited for the D5's sensor by those inclined to find excuses for Nikon. Somehow it is taken to not apply here.

I probably won't be able to find the source again, but I believe that I read an interview some time around the D5 release where it was said that the main cause for improvements at higher ISOs with the D5 and D500 were the colour filters.

Which still leaves open the question of why Nikon crippled it with such a bad sensor.

Are you insane?

Short bus is coming!

 

[Cthulhu]

Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?

Well, according to DPR, the D5's sensor is perfectly fine for the camera's target audience. In case you are wondering, DPR defines Canon's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is not as good at', and Nikon/Sony's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is best at'. Not that DPR is biased or anything. :

DPR is a ridiculous publication, there's a ton to find wrong with their findings - chiefly of all in my eyes is that for the most part they aren't very skilled photographers or photo editors - but they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.

 

[Loswr]

...they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.

The two generations preceding the D5 had a full stop better low ISO DR. The Canon 80D has better low ISO DR than the D5.

Enjoy your ride on the short bus.

 

[Cthulhu]

...they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.

The two generations preceding the D5 had a full stop better low ISO DR. The Canon 80D has better low ISO DR than the D5.

Enjoy your ride on the short bus.

Yes, they also have 5 fewer MP and worse high iso performance, among other features. Why would you bring up the 80d? Sure it beats the d5 at 1 measurement at iso 100 - while being wiped out at everything else and being bested by 1.5 stops of dr by iso 1000. The d7200 also has more DR than any sports camera ever made and any camera Canon ever made... but you're not buying an 80d or a d7200 to cover sports events and you're not buying a d5 to shoot at iso 100. I'd definitely buy one if it came in EF mount, I'd rather have a d5 backing up my 1dxmk2 than my old 1dx.

 

[Loswr]

...they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.

The two generations preceding the D5 had a full stop better low ISO DR. The Canon 80D has better low ISO DR than the D5.

Enjoy your ride on the short bus.

Yes, they also have 5 fewer MP and worse high iso performance, among other features. Why would you bring up the 80d? Sure it beats the d5 at 1 measurement at iso 100 - while being wiped out at everything else and being bested by 1.5 stops of dr by iso 1000. The d7200 also has more DR than any sports camera ever made and any camera Canon ever made... but you're not buying an 80d or a d7200 to cover sports events and you're not buying a d5 to shoot at iso 100. I'd definitely buy one if it came in EF mount, I'd rather have a d5 backing up my 1dxmk2 than my old 1dx.

Sorry, that was my fault. I forgot your complete lack of ability to comprehend the main point. The D5's sensor is fine, that was never the issue. But feel free to argue the point further anyway, if you like.

 

[Cthulhu]

...they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.

The two generations preceding the D5 had a full stop better low ISO DR. The Canon 80D has better low ISO DR than the D5.

Enjoy your ride on the short bus.

Yes, they also have 5 fewer MP and worse high iso performance, among other features. Why would you bring up the 80d? Sure it beats the d5 at 1 measurement at iso 100 - while being wiped out at everything else and being bested by 1.5 stops of dr by iso 1000. The d7200 also has more DR than any sports camera ever made and any camera Canon ever made... but you're not buying an 80d or a d7200 to cover sports events and you're not buying a d5 to shoot at iso 100. I'd definitely buy one if it came in EF mount, I'd rather have a d5 backing up my 1dxmk2 than my old 1dx.

Sorry, that was my fault. I forgot your complete lack of ability to comprehend the main point. The D5's sensor is fine, that was never the issue. But feel free to argue the point further anyway, if you like.

I had high hopes you had taken my recommendation on daily walks...

 

[LonelyBoy]

Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?

Well, according to DPR, the D5's sensor is perfectly fine for the camera's target audience. In case you are wondering, DPR defines Canon's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is not as good at', and Nikon/Sony's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is best at'. Not that DPR is biased or anything. :

DPR is a ridiculous publication, there's a ton to find wrong with their findings - chiefly of all in my eyes is that for the most part they aren't very skilled photographers or photo editors - but they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.

So the D5, with its mediocre low-ISO DR, should be evaluated on the sum total of its features for its intended audience. The 6D2, with its mediocre low-ISO DR, should be evaluated on that one metric. Is that correct?

 

[Cthulhu]

Isn't that the agreed-upon term for a sensor with barely over 12eV of DR?

Well, according to DPR, the D5's sensor is perfectly fine for the camera's target audience. In case you are wondering, DPR defines Canon's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is not as good at', and Nikon/Sony's 'target audience' as 'people who value what the sensor is best at'. Not that DPR is biased or anything. :

DPR is a ridiculous publication, there's a ton to find wrong with their findings - chiefly of all in my eyes is that for the most part they aren't very skilled photographers or photo editors - but they are spot on with this assessment of the D5's sensor. It's pretty fantastic a high ISO. IF the 6d2 shot 12 fps with stellar AF and unlimited buffer I don't think anyone would be complaining.

So the D5, with its mediocre low-ISO DR, should be evaluated on the sum total of its features for its intended audience. The 6D2, with its mediocre low-ISO DR, should be evaluated on that one metric. Is that correct?

Not really. I look at all cameras as the sum. If I wanted a small / average sized FF camera I find it easy to get a better performing camera than the 6dmk2, not so easy with the d5 if I was looking for a pro body for sports / action.
Plus if I was a Nikon shooter and 13 stops of dr in a sports camera was a deciding factor for me I could just get a d4s instead.

In other words I think base iso dr is more important for a camera that won't be used for action / sports than it is for a camera primarily used for that purpose and that'll rarely be shot at iso 100. Low iso dr never bothered me on my 1dx, but it sure did on my 5dmk3.

 

[Mikehit]

In other words I think base iso dr is more important for a camera that won't be used for action / sports than it is for a camera primarily used for that purpose and that'll rarely be shot at iso 100.

Assuming of course that you are the target population for the 6D2....and it sounds like you are not.
That is what you seem unable to comprehend.

 

[Cthulhu]

Assuming of course that you are the target population for the 6D2....and it sounds like you are not.
That is what you seem unable to comprehend.

You mean the people who are in the market for a FF with an articulating touch screen? Who don't want to carry their "pro" camera everywhere? SMH

 

[Orangutan]

Assuming of course that you are the target population for the 6D2....and it sounds like you are not.
That is what you seem unable to comprehend.

You mean the people who are in the market for a FF with an articulating touch screen? Who don't want to carry their "pro" camera everywhere? SMH

That's a very broad characterization, it's basically "almost everyone," and this ain't the camera for "almost everyone."

Looking at my own photos, I rarely shoot at base ISO (or near it) unless it's on a tripod. Do you carry a tripod everywhere?