Been with Canon for 12 years - wait or jump ship?

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,961
1,315
ahsanford said:
NancyP said:
I can't say that I feel the limitations seriously from my 6D and 7D2 combo, which together handle the situations in which I shoot. I could wish for more dynamic resolution.

This is why there isn't a good rebuttal to those that are butt hurt about the 6D2 sensor not getting the on-chip ADC hotness the 1DX2, 5D4 and 80D did (M5, M6 as well?). They have a fair beef there.

I say that because dynamic range is a place people run into limits all the time. In that sense, this is one specific area where someone's skill might actually be limited by the camera.

Now, we can surely debate the value of (say) 1-2 added stops of base ISO DR will do for most of us vs. the jarring [financial / lens quality / new ergonomics and controls / system reliability] reality of leaving the fold to get it. But why Canon left this tech out of the 6D2 remains a head-scratcher to me.

- A
I haven't though a lot because I got a 5D4. Maybe they wanted to differentiate. But I agree with you even more since Canon are supposed to use the best sensor technology available at the moment for every camera model. I believe eventually every model's sensor will get the on-chip ADC. The same way they start using the touch screen and the DP technology in all new models...
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,938
Canada
ahsanford said:
NancyP said:
I can't say that I feel the limitations seriously from my 6D and 7D2 combo, which together handle the situations in which I shoot. I could wish for more dynamic resolution.

This is why there isn't a good rebuttal to those that are butt hurt about the 6D2 sensor not getting the on-chip ADC hotness the 1DX2, 5D4 and 80D did (M5, M6 as well?). They have a fair beef there.

I say that because dynamic range is a place people run into limits all the time. In that sense, this is one specific area where someone's skill might actually be limited by the camera.

Now, we can surely debate the value of (say) 1-2 added stops of base ISO DR will do for most of us vs. the jarring [financial / lens quality / new ergonomics and controls / system reliability] reality of leaving the fold to get it. But why Canon left this tech out of the 6D2 remains a head-scratcher to me.

- A

Yes.... I am one of those butt-hurt people who wanted better low ISO performance out of the 6D2.... but I got one anyway because it works great at high ISO and the AF system is far superior to the 6D (I have one at work). On the plus side, the touch screen implementation is good and the WiFi interface is OK (could be better, could be worse).... and the camera REALLY!!! works well in poor light.

The 6D2 could really use more DR. Four more stops and I would be happy :) . I have had to do a fair number of images with 3 shots, one -3 stops, one 0 stops, and the other +3 stops, and process later.....
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,123
829
Davidson, NC
I'm not getting out and shooting very much in this cold (for us) weather. I did post some shots of cardinals in a snowy tree in the bird portrait thread, but I took them through a window rather than going out on the deck and having the birds fly away.

But when the weather gets nicer, I want to take my 6D2 out and try some things other than just shooting what I think are interesting pictures. In particular, since it seems such an obsession in these parts, I want to shoot some pictures at ISO 100 to see how awful they are. I don't think anything I have shot so far got below ISO 200.

So what sort of picture do you recommend I try to demonstrate the problem? I assume it would need to be outside, or at least inside with windows in view. For normal indoor pictures I don't feel the need to underexpose and then raise the level to see all the cobwebs in the corners. But is that the sort of thing folks have in mind?

In more extreme circumstances I will make some bracketed exposures. For example, in a dark cathedral I want architectural detail but not wash out the colors of stained glass windows. So I do a shot for the room and one for the windows. Are there really cameras with that much dynamic range? Just one more stop won't even come close.

But what is a real-life situation where one more stop of latitude would show a noticeable difference in highlight detail over just pulling the "highlights" slider a bit to the left, for example?

My question is a serious one, even if my tone is a bit snarky and conveys some of my skepticism. It might be of value for me to experience the limitations of my camera. My previous DSLR is a T3i, so the 6D2 seems like a great leap forward to me. I'm unlikely ever to consider something in the 5DIV range in terms of price. I'm much more likely to invest in a greater range of glass than get a new body over the next 5 years or so, if I live and am able to continue to shoot that long. So does anybody have a suggestion as to how I can demonstrate the problem to myself?
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Don Haines said:
The 6D2 could really use more DR. Four more stops and I would be happy :) . I have had to do a fair number of images with 3 shots, one -3 stops, one 0 stops, and the other +3 stops, and process later.....

Really ? If you have to bracket 3 stops either side I can see why you didn't bother with a camera that has a little more DR !
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,123
829
Davidson, NC
Sporgon said:
Don Haines said:
The 6D2 could really use more DR. Four more stops and I would be happy :) . I have had to do a fair number of images with 3 shots, one -3 stops, one 0 stops, and the other +3 stops, and process later.....

Really ? If you have to bracket 3 stops either side I can see why you didn't bother with a camera that has a little more DR !

Wow! You use cameras with over 15 stops of DR?
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,938
Canada
stevelee said:
I'm not getting out and shooting very much in this cold (for us) weather. I did post some shots of cardinals in a snowy tree in the bird portrait thread, but I took them through a window rather than going out on the deck and having the birds fly away.

But when the weather gets nicer, I want to take my 6D2 out and try some things other than just shooting what I think are interesting pictures. In particular, since it seems such an obsession in these parts, I want to shoot some pictures at ISO 100 to see how awful they are. I don't think anything I have shot so far got below ISO 200.

So what sort of picture do you recommend I try to demonstrate the problem? I assume it would need to be outside, or at least inside with windows in view. For normal indoor pictures I don't feel the need to underexpose and then raise the level to see all the cobwebs in the corners. But is that the sort of thing folks have in mind?

In more extreme circumstances I will make some bracketed exposures. For example, in a dark cathedral I want architectural detail but not wash out the colors of stained glass windows. So I do a shot for the room and one for the windows. Are there really cameras with that much dynamic range? Just one more stop won't even come close.

But what is a real-life situation where one more stop of latitude would show a noticeable difference in highlight detail over just pulling the "highlights" slider a bit to the left, for example?

My question is a serious one, even if my tone is a bit snarky and conveys some of my skepticism. It might be of value for me to experience the limitations of my camera. My previous DSLR is a T3i, so the 6D2 seems like a great leap forward to me. I'm unlikely ever to consider something in the 5DIV range in terms of price. I'm much more likely to invest in a greater range of glass than get a new body over the next 5 years or so, if I live and am able to continue to shoot that long. So does anybody have a suggestion as to how I can demonstrate the problem to myself?
Here is a classic example.... you want to get detail in the clouds, but at the same time you want to get detail in the shadows... You need more DR than the camera is capable of so its off to play with HDR. A better sensor would help, but it still wouldn't be the answer to the problem.

3 shots, at 1/30, 1/125, and 1/500..... and a lightroom HDR merge.
 

Attachments

  • Cove1.jpg
    Cove1.jpg
    432.7 KB · Views: 105
  • Cove2.jpg
    Cove2.jpg
    479.4 KB · Views: 110
  • Cove3.jpg
    Cove3.jpg
    367.6 KB · Views: 122
  • CoveHDR.jpg
    CoveHDR.jpg
    502.6 KB · Views: 114

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
I'd disagree, a three shot bracket with two stop spread can be covered very often with an optimally exposed single RAW file, heck even your tiny middle exposure jpeg has enough detail to nearly equal the HDR.

I am not saying there is no point to more DR, or HDR techniques, I am saying very often the camera is not as limiting as we have been led to believe.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-01-20 at 3.14.51 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-01-20 at 3.14.51 PM.png
    3.2 MB · Views: 115

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
stevelee said:
I'm not getting out and shooting very much in this cold (for us) weather. I did post some shots of cardinals in a snowy tree in the bird portrait thread, but I took them through a window rather than going out on the deck and having the birds fly away.

But when the weather gets nicer, I want to take my 6D2 out and try some things other than just shooting what I think are interesting pictures. In particular, since it seems such an obsession in these parts, I want to shoot some pictures at ISO 100 to see how awful they are. I don't think anything I have shot so far got below ISO 200.

So what sort of picture do you recommend I try to demonstrate the problem? I assume it would need to be outside, or at least inside with windows in view. For normal indoor pictures I don't feel the need to underexpose and then raise the level to see all the cobwebs in the corners. But is that the sort of thing folks have in mind?

In more extreme circumstances I will make some bracketed exposures. For example, in a dark cathedral I want architectural detail but not wash out the colors of stained glass windows. So I do a shot for the room and one for the windows. Are there really cameras with that much dynamic range? Just one more stop won't even come close.

But what is a real-life situation where one more stop of latitude would show a noticeable difference in highlight detail over just pulling the "highlights" slider a bit to the left, for example?

My question is a serious one, even if my tone is a bit snarky and conveys some of my skepticism. It might be of value for me to experience the limitations of my camera. My previous DSLR is a T3i, so the 6D2 seems like a great leap forward to me. I'm unlikely ever to consider something in the 5DIV range in terms of price. I'm much more likely to invest in a greater range of glass than get a new body over the next 5 years or so, if I live and am able to continue to shoot that long. So does anybody have a suggestion as to how I can demonstrate the problem to myself?

Here is the simple truth (as I see it). Don't waste your time looking for the "problems" that the camera has. The camera has no problems. The problem is that many folks on internet forums have no idea what photography is all about and believe that test shots, internet review sites and under or over exposing shots by 3 to 5 stops tells you something about the camera. They do not. I have been doing photography for almost 40 years and I can be quite sure that I have never underexposed a real shot by 3 or more stops.

You will no doubt take great shots with your 6D II (I owned the 6D and almost traded it in for the Sony A7 II because I, too was swayed by internet forum opinion. After taking shots side-by-side, the Sony was returned as it did nothing better - and a few things worse (such as color) than the supposedly awful 6D). Any shots that would need more DR would almost certainly need more DR with every camera ever made.
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
privatebydesign said:
I am not saying there is no point to more DR, or HDR techniques, I am saying very often the camera is not as limiting as we have been led to believe.

Absolutely correct in my experience.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,938
Canada
privatebydesign said:
I'd disagree, a three shot bracket with two stop spread can be covered very often with an optimally exposed single RAW file, heck even your tiny middle exposure jpeg has enough detail to nearly equal the HDR.

I am not saying there is no point to more DR, or HDR techniques, I am saying very often the camera is not as limiting as we have been led to believe.

The skies and clouds are much nicer in the HDR version, but this does show that the differences in having one or two stops more DR are subtle, not the OMG! differences that some would have us believe.... And yes, proper editing can eat up a lot of that difference.

I keep hearing “weblogic” as to how the 6D2 is vastly inferior to the 6D.... I have the 6D at work and the 6D2 at home. The Af system of the 6D2 is far superior, plus it works better in poor light and high ISO. The 6D is marginally better at very low ISO. Then we have WiFi, touchscreen, and although I can’t prove it, it just seems faster....

And this is the worst FF camera in the Canon lineup! It is a fine camera, and a save bet that everything coming will be even better! And yes, I agree with the above comments, if you can’t get decent results from this camera ( actually ANY modern DSLR), then the problem is the camera holder.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
Don Haines said:
privatebydesign said:
I'd disagree, a three shot bracket with two stop spread can be covered very often with an optimally exposed single RAW file, heck even your tiny middle exposure jpeg has enough detail to nearly equal the HDR.

I am not saying there is no point to more DR, or HDR techniques, I am saying very often the camera is not as limiting as we have been led to believe.

The skies and clouds are much nicer in the HDR version, but this does show that the differences in having one or two stops more DR are subtle, not the OMG! differences that some would have us believe.... And yes, proper editing can eat up a lot of that difference.

I keep hearing “weblogic” as to how the 6D2 is vastly inferior to the 6D.... I have the 6D at work and the 6D2 at home. The Af system of the 6D2 is far superior, plus it works better in poor light and high ISO. The 6D is marginally better at very low ISO. Then we have WiFi, touchscreen, and although I can’t prove it, it just seems faster....

And this is the worst FF camera in the Canon lineup! It is a fine camera, and a save bet that everything coming will be even better! And yes, I agree with the above comments, if you can’t get decent results from this camera ( actually ANY modern DSLR), then the problem is the camera holder.

I agree my reworked jpeg is not as nice as the native HDR, but my example was just from that tiny jpeg. With the original middle exposure RAW file the result would be much better.

There is nothing wrong with the gradation of highlights in this 2 stop pull comparison when the RAW file is used (below).

Now when I do have real DR limitations that can't be dragged from a single image I am typically bracketing 7 shots 1 1/3 apart to cover interior and exterior scenes at the same time.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-01-20 at 5.42.56 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-01-20 at 5.42.56 PM.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 108

eoren1

EOS M50
Here is the shot I referenced earlier. Shot with the a7rIII and 100-400 lens. Exposed for the fire to not blow out the detail in the flames. Pushed by 1 stop for exposure and 50 on Shadows while holding highlights down a bit. There is no color noise in the final image - the snow is reflecting the color of the fire.

ISO 400 - f/5.6 - 1/160 at 181mm
epiphany-M.jpg


RAW:
epiphany-2-M.jpg
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,123
829
Davidson, NC
Don Haines said:
The skies and clouds are much nicer in the HDR version, but this does show that the differences in having one or two stops more DR are subtle, not the OMG! differences that some would have us believe.... And yes, proper editing can eat up a lot of that difference.

I keep hearing “weblogic” as to how the 6D2 is vastly inferior to the 6D.... I have the 6D at work and the 6D2 at home. The Af system of the 6D2 is far superior, plus it works better in poor light and high ISO. The 6D is marginally better at very low ISO. Then we have WiFi, touchscreen, and although I can’t prove it, it just seems faster....

And this is the worst FF camera in the Canon lineup! It is a fine camera, and a safe bet that everything coming will be even better! And yes, I agree with the above comments, if you can’t get decent results from this camera (actually ANY modern DSLR), then the problem is the camera holder.

For my tastes, too much detail in the clouds comes off as looking ominous. Sometimes I want ominous, but usually not. I always shoot RAW except with my iPhone. (I've even tried software that lets you get RAW iPhone files, but have found that not worth the trouble.) If I want more detail in the sky, I find moving the highlights slider a little to the left does the trick almost all the time. For fun I will sometimes hit the Auto button in ACR (Lightroom the same?) and the see the often cartoonish effect: whites way to the right and highlights way to the left plus more saturation and a lot of vibrance. Even with a single exposure it is often possible to get a bad HDR effect. I will use HDR for more extreme situations, usually with just ±1 1/3 stop bracketing, such as with a lovely sky at sunset and backlit scenery. I did this with the outdoors and indoors of the Air Force Academy chapel, and in retrospect, I think it looks too phony even though it does what I was aiming for:

chapel1.jpg


The 6D2 is the first FF DSLR I've used, so I am awed by the speed and accuracy of its autofocus. The 24-105mm STM lens works especially well with it, as I guess it should. I have not regretted getting it instead of the L version, so far at least, and have used the lens much more than I thought I would. I don't have a prime wider than 50mm, and my only other option in the 75-105mm range is the much inferior 75-300mm. The latter lens does seem to work well with the autofocus, too. So far I have not had the need to focus on something in the extreme corner of the picture, so even the size of the focus point area has not been a problem. I suspect this may be an area that is griped about far more than it is needed in real use. For manual focusing, I've not got used to the feel of not being connected mechanically with the lens elements, but the results are not a problem.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,341
544
eoren1 said:
Here is the shot I referenced earlier. Shot with the a7rIII and 100-400 lens. Exposed for the fire to not blow out the detail in the flames. Pushed by 1 stop for exposure and 50 on Shadows while holding highlights down a bit. There is no color noise in the final image - the snow is reflecting the color of the fire.

ISO 400 - f/5.6 - 1/160 at 181mm
epiphany-M.jpg


RAW:
epiphany-2-M.jpg

m'eh
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
I am not running into DR issues even in extremely contrasty light in 'regular' scenes, see below. This is the kind of scene where previous generations of camera might have had the subject too dark.

The only time I run into DR limitations is when I have a scene with different elements illuminated by very different levels of light, inside a building and I want to show the scene outside, stage lighting of the performer and the dimmed orchestra pit, for scenes without these dramatic contrasts I find the latest models of camera easily able to deliver.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    274.2 KB · Views: 124

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
468
453
If I read your Original Posting:
Why don't you go for the 5d IV? Its the perfect fit for the things you miss in the 5d III? (higher DR, higher Resolution, faster AF...)
The only thing I don't like about the 5d IV is the crop in 4k. But thats it.

I was in the same situation like you, I REALY felt somehow let down from canon with the 1dx II. It got so many shortcomings that I just don't understand, and that are totaly unecessary for videographers. The 5d IV is pretty much perfect (only the crop in 4k). Especialy the DPAF of the 1dxii and 5dIV is nothing but great.
The Sony a7r3 REALY looks perfect on paper. It probably is a great camera and made me realy think "I want this".

But why exactly? What exactly do I think I can achieve (or can achieve faster or easier) with this camera?
I did not found anything.
Also I will absolutely NOT adapt lenses. So I would have to sell everything. For my work I need 2 bodies and at least 4 lenses - so I would have to sell and invest 15.000+... thats to much to test out a new system, only to find out, that my photography and videography does not change after that.

The grass is always greener on the other side.
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
peters said:
If I read your Original Posting:
Why don't you go for the 5d IV? Its the perfect fit for the things you miss in the 5d III? (higher DR, higher Resolution, faster AF...)


For those joining the thread late - the OP has aready bought the Sony....The OP has already bought the Sony...
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,439
5,658
dak723 said:
peters said:
If I read your Original Posting:
Why don't you go for the 5d IV? Its the perfect fit for the things you miss in the 5d III? (higher DR, higher Resolution, faster AF...)


For those joining the thread late - the OP has aready bought the Sony....The OP has already bought the Sony...

So what?
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
privatebydesign said:
dak723 said:
peters said:
If I read your Original Posting:
Why don't you go for the 5d IV? Its the perfect fit for the things you miss in the 5d III? (higher DR, higher Resolution, faster AF...)


For those joining the thread late - the OP has aready bought the Sony....The OP has already bought the Sony...

So what?

i bought a Sony and then sold it. Could not figure out how to make the body work for me
 

sama

EOS RP
Feb 23, 2012
257
1
Photographer David Burnett Switches to Sony After 40 Years of Canon.

https://petapixel.com/2018/01/23/photographer-david-burnett-switches-sony-40-years-shooting-canon/