Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

[KeithBreazeal]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I have a 5d4; the dynamic range in terms of lack of shadow noise and banding at low ISO's is actually very much improved over the 5D3. It gives one a lot more room in post and leads to less exposure blending etc. In short, it doesn't always matter, but sometimes it helps a lot.

The M5 is also very good BTW in this regard.

The M5 is surprisingly good. I left the 5DS & 5D IV behind the other night and just carried the M5 with a Samyang 8mm.
This is a unprocessed jpg(I shoot raw & jpg) with all camera settings on factory default.

ISO 5000, 25 seconds, f2.8

Canon EOS M5 mirrorless with the Rokinon 8mm f2.8 fisheye lens unprocessed jpg © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[unfocused]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

But this, coupled with last year's release of the abysmal ef 24-105mm f/4 IS II, doesn't seem the move of a company that plans to keep winning.

You have an odd definition of "abysmal," since the 24-105 II equals or exceeds the performance of every other comparable lens made by other manufacturers and far exceeds the performance of Nikon's comparable lens. You would have a point if Sigma, for example, had a better lens. But they don't. The 24-105 II tells us more about the limits of lens design in a wide-angle to telephoto zoom than it does about Canon.

 

[unfocused]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Wow, the histrionics on this thread are pretty impressive.

The 6D is a bargain full-frame camera. All of the reviews are declaring it to be a very good camera, with maybe a slight disadvantage in low ISO dynamic range. But, even a cursory look at the published charts show that the differences are tiny. Time and time again, the market has proven that only a handful of people find this a deal breaker.

Let's stop imputing motives to this. Canon made the camera they made and we are unlikely to ever know for sure what choices they were faced with and what the associated costs were. It seems like a lot of people on this forum have elected to spend the extra money on a 5DIV. How does that qualify as a mistake on Canon's part?

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Well, you have to admit: It is a bit sad that you have to resort to this. This camera is alot more expensive and probably everybody would have been happy with a sensor like the 80D. Also I don't understand your arguement about the lenses: Can't you put EF lenses on canon crop bodys?

1) It's sad I have to resort to clarifying the spectacular simplification that 'IQ = Base ISO DR'? Okay. I'd find it much more sad that a world would accept that statement rather than correct it.

2) I honestly think the mount matters if you don't have the glass to maximize the potential of that sensor. Yes, you can use EF glass on crop bodies, but if you want EF quality on the UWA end of the focal length range, the crop factor is your enemy. You're stuck with putting on a FF UWA lens like a 14 prime, 11-24L (ha!) or perhaps a Sigma 12-24 -- none of which have front-filter threads and none of which are cheap.

3) The high ISO difference between the 6D2 and 80D will be non-trivial, like 1.5 stops or so. If one ever leaves the base ISO ivory tower this ruckus has been all about and say, cover events, shoot in available light handheld, take some astro, etc. the 6D2 is a far better call.

So if you don't leave the tripod/studio/ISO 100 and don't mind a plasticky / non-sealed EF-S 10-18 to take your landscape shots with, sure, perhaps the 80D is what you need. But harpooning the 6D2 over base ISO DR seems a shade over-the-top given all the other things it can do.

- A

 

[Hflm]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Of course, still probably the best sensor overall for FF cameras.

What sensor do you mean here?

The A9 fares worse than the A7rii and the 5div is clearly on par according to Bill Claffs data: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Sony%20ILCE-9(ES) , better at low ISOs and minimally worse at high ISOs (not relevant in real life in my opinion).

This is a better graph:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Sony%20ILCE-9(ES

Don't know what Nikon were thinking with the D5.

A PDR of 8 (256 levels of red or green or blue) is JPEG quality but some monitors and TVs will not do full 8 bits per channel (RGB). Once the PDR is under 6 (64 levels), your quality starts to become seriously compromised. Personally, I prefer to keep my ISO at levels where (using that graph), PDR is >= 7.

A7rii. Very good at base and higher ISOs as well.
Agree to your reasoning regarding PDR.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Those other lenses you've listed are winners. But, again, the 24-105, in my opinion, shapes more photographers' impressions of Canon glass than this forum acknowledges.

Fair point, they laid an egg on an important lens there (in that it did not make great strides forward over the predecessor). I agree.

Makes you wonder if it was less about protecting f/2.8 zoom sales than it was killing off the cut-rate 24-105L Mk I 2nd-hand / grey box market to increase margins. Because other than a zoom lock and slightly better IS, what is better about this lens?

- A

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I have the 6D and I have been frustrated by the relatively poor AF away from the centre (mainly with regards the point distribution than the left-to-right spread). A vast majority of my shooting is ISO 400 and above.

This camera is a significant development for me and it will be the AF performance that decides whether I buy this or save for a 5DIV. The tilty-flippy, AF at f8 and what seems like easier-to-handle noise are other big pluses.

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

But this, coupled with last year's release of the abysmal ef 24-105mm f/4 IS II, doesn't seem the move of a company that plans to keep winning.

You have an odd definition of "abysmal," since the 24-105 II equals or exceeds the performance of every other comparable lens made by other manufacturers and far exceeds the performance of Nikon's comparable lens. You would have a point if Sigma, for example, had a better lens. But they don't. The 24-105 II tells us more about the limits of lens design in a wide-angle to telephoto zoom than it does about Canon.

After owning the version 1, and trying, for 3 months to obtain a new version that was reasonably sharp and had an IS motor without problems, I've given up. Four out of four were fatally flawed in one way or another. The one sharp copy of the lot had, according to CPS, "a bad IS motor."

My fourth copy, btw, came straight from Canon Store. First three came from a major authorized retailer.

Add in that at least one production run resulted in an advisory, lukewarm reviews, and, I stand by my personal assessment of the lens as ABYSMAL. Maybe I'm just feeling the burn at the moment because I sent back the last of the four today, and threw up my hands (before putting them back down to type).

Have you tried it for yourself?

I'm not predicting doom and gloom for Canon, based on a 2017 release's DR or one sub-par L series lens, but when friends ask for recommendations, it would be nice to give them without mounting reservations.

 

[LukasS]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

It seems like a lot of people on this forum have elected to spend the extra money on a 5DIV. How does that qualify as a mistake on Canon's part?

I just did that 2 weeks ago, based on initial specs and suggested price it was clear to me that it was worth to own mkIV.

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

It seems like a lot of people on this forum have elected to spend the extra money on a 5DIV. How does that qualify as a mistake on Canon's part?

I just did that 2 weeks ago, based on initial specs and suggested price it was clear to me that it was worth to own mkIV.

In my case, I bought it before the 6DII had even rumored specs and release date. And I had a learning curve with it, first accepting that ETTR wasn't beneficial, then seeing IQ problems that, fortunately, disappeared after the last firmware update, though my issue was not hinted at in the firmware release notes.

From day one with the 5DIV, I've loved the amazing AF, how it has added new life to my fastest lenses, including the 85 1.2 II, and works so well with the 100-400mm II + 1.4. And after the last firmware release, nothing but praise for the IQ.

 

[Talys]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I have the 6D and I have been frustrated by the relatively poor AF away from the centre (mainly with regards the point distribution than the left-to-right spread). A vast majority of my shooting is ISO 400 and above.

This camera is a significant development for me and it will be the AF performance that decides whether I buy this or save for a 5DIV. The tilty-flippy, AF at f8 and what seems like easier-to-handle noise are other big pluses.

For me, there aren't enough DR steps to make up for tilty-flippy. After T3i, I would not ever purchase a camera without some kind of articulating screen. Every time I have used a 5D4, I have ended up attaching it to a field monitor with an HDMI cable, because I hate ladders, and I am not 8 feet tall It works great, except that you then have to run power to the field monitor, or have a whole bunch of batteries to run a full-day shoot. And plus, no touch screen on the field monitor sucks.

I am disappointed that DR at low ISO (where I mostly shoot) isn't as good as 6D, but I'll live with it -- I'm still in, as what I want more than anything is a FF with tilty-flippy and EF mount.

But this, coupled with last year's release of the abysmal ef 24-105mm f/4 IS II, doesn't seem the move of a company that plans to keep winning.

You have an odd definition of "abysmal," since the 24-105 II equals or exceeds the performance of every other comparable lens made by other manufacturers and far exceeds the performance of Nikon's comparable lens. You would have a point if Sigma, for example, had a better lens. But they don't. The 24-105 II tells us more about the limits of lens design in a wide-angle to telephoto zoom than it does about Canon.

After owning the version 1, and trying, for 3 months to obtain a new version that was reasonably sharp and had an IS motor without problems, I've given up. Four out of four were fatally flawed in one way or another. The one sharp copy of the lot had, according to CPS, "a bad IS motor."

My fourth copy, btw, came straight from Canon Store. First three came from a major authorized retailer.

Add in the that at least one production run resulted in an advisory, and, I stand by my personal assessment of the lens as ABYSMAL.

Have you tried it for yourself?

I'm not predicting doom and gloom for Canon, based on a 2017 release's DR or one sub-par L series lens, but when friends ask for recommendations, it would be nice to give them without mounting reservations.

I had a 24-105 Mk 1 for quite a while, and I wouldn't have characterize it abysmal, though certainly inferior to 24-70f/4 especially close to 24mm, and especially when it's wide open. The main reason I got rid of it isn't that the pictures weren't good enough; it's just that the 24-70 is an exceptional lens, and almost all the times where I'd want 100mm, I'd love to be able to have more than 100mm too, so the better solution was to just carry 2 bodies.

But, I mean, it's a kit lens designed as an entry level L, and the Mk1 you can get now for cheap. I think it's fine there. It's definitely a step up from most of Canon's consumer grade lenses.

Those other lenses you've listed are winners. But, again, the 24-105, in my opinion, shapes more photographers' impressions of Canon glass than this forum acknowledges.

Fair point, they laid an egg on an important lens there (in that it did not make great strides forward over the predecessor). I agree.

Makes you wonder if it was less about protecting f/2.8 zoom sales than it was killing off the cut-rate 24-105L Mk I 2nd-hand / grey box market to increase margins. Because other than a zoom lock and slightly better IS, what is better about this lens?

- A

I don't think there's any reason at all to buy 24-105L Mk2 when you consider the price difference versus Mk1. Frankly, I just see it as a minor refresh. Eventually, when all the Mk1 sell out, they'll bundle it (with a discount) and it will drop to the current Mk1 prices. I mean, when it's $600 or so, it will become a "why not?" decision with a new camera body.

 

[YuengLinger]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

I had a 24-105 Mk 1 for quite a while, and I wouldn't have characterize it abysmal, though certainly inferior to 24-70f/4 especially close to 24mm, and especially when it's wide open. The main reason I got rid of it isn't that the pictures weren't good enough; it's just that the 24-70 is an exceptional lens, and almost all the times where I'd want 100mm, I'd love to be able to have more than 100mm too, so the better solution was to just carry 2 bodies.

But, I mean, it's a kit lens designed as an entry level L, and the Mk1 you can get now for cheap. I think it's fine there. It's definitely a step up from most of Canon's consumer grade lenses.

My version 1 was very good. It was part of a 5DIII kit, which I sold to finance the 5DIV body-only.

Unless you try version II, you can't understand the disappointment.

And I agree with your solution--anything over 70mm, use another lens!

 

[Jopa]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

The "First world problems" meme comes to mind...

 

[CanonCams]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

It seems like a lot of people on this forum have elected to spend the extra money on a 5DIV. How does that qualify as a mistake on Canon's part?

I just did that 2 weeks ago, based on initial specs and suggested price it was clear to me that it was worth to own mkIV.

In my case, I bought it before the 6DII had even rumored specs and release date. And I had a learning curve with it, first accepting that ETTR wasn't beneficial, then seeing IQ problems that, fortunately, disappeared after the last firmware update, though my issue was not hinted at in the firmware release notes.

From day one with the 5DIV, I've loved the amazing AF, how it has added new life to my fastest lenses, including the 85 1.2 II, and works so well with the 100-400mm II + 1.4. And after the last firmware release, nothing but praise for the IQ.

What isn't beneficial about ETTR with the IV? (I actually just ordered one yesterday..)

 

[Tangent]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

This is most disappointing. It's like Subaru coming out with a new CrossTrek and giving it a 108hp engine.

Because I'm invested in Canon lenses I'm reluctant to change systems. I'll take another look at Sony, though not likely to switch. I'm thinking at this point of waiting for a web special of some kind. In many respects the mkII does offer significant advance over the mkI, but fails to improve in the one area I wanted most.

 

[ken]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

So much discussion about the DR... but what do people think about the sample images? This is the latest batch of samples that I'm not warming up to. Is it just me??? Maybe it is since no one else seems to notice anything past the DR graph.

The one with the black dog seemed pretty good. But many of the unprocessed RAW images seemed way underexposed. And nothing jumped out at me as "oh yes..."

 

[AdamBotond]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Truly dissappointing regardless what the high iso will be! I'm not too much into this anymore, but I used to shoot with the 6D for years. Its DR was considered one of the best in the Canon line up back then. My wildlife interest shipped me to 1DX (, which has even worse DR), but I was hoping a 6D successor with better DR, especially after Canon has introduced on-chip ADC on most of their recent cameras. The original 6D was very well handycapped in many ways to not hurt 5D III sales (Ancient AF, 1/4000, 1/180 flash sync, etc.). Now Canon just took it to the next level. Now, if you after DR, you are pushed towards 5Ds(R) or 5D IV, which have average DR on the market at best.
That is BLASPHEMOUS!

 

[shutterlag]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

You realize that you are comparing with a7rii which is 2 year old right? Why support a company who's still playing catch up game after 2 years?

I agree: Sony is still playing catch-up on build-quality, reliability, AF, ergonomics, support, resale value, lens selection, accessory selection, etc. Why would you support a company like that?

Actually, if you watch the lensrentals.com of any of the G series lenses, they are on par with Canon these days, ditto for reliability, and the AF on the A9 sits between the 5D and the 1D series. The ergonomics are still inferior, but certainly usable. Accessory selection is lacking, granted. Resale value? You obviously haven't looked lately, because they're holding value quite well now. Lens selection - well, they've got pro grade lenses covering everything from FF 10mm (Voigtlander Heliar) all the way through 400mm. Yes, they have gaps in the sports prime lineup, but they just started shipping their 1st sports body a matter of weeks ago. Don't forget that the A9's silent shutter is a game changer. Nikon and Canon have no answer for it. Press core, pro sports (golf), etc. etc. Sony is now the only game in town.

I guess my point is, if you think they're not competing, you're SORELY mistaken. The old arguments you used before are mostly dead.

 

[LesC]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

The DPR headline states "6D Mark II dynamic range falls behind modern APS-C cameras"

Unless the 6D MKII is worse than the original 6D, I'm confused. I have both the original 6D and an 80D & when processing RAW files, the 80D images have way more noise under any circumstances than the 6D. If I want the best quality I'll always reach for my 6D over the 80D.

So for me the MKII will be a worthwhile upgrade over the original...

 

[Sporgon]

Re: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Talk & Sample Images

Very well done Canon. Very well done! It's amazing that you can't even match a feature that other cameras had 3/4 years ago. Very well done indeed.

Canon took 4 years to produce this?! Recycling af and dpaf systems from old bodies and call it a day? Simply wow!

I skipped getting 5D4 as it's just a meh upgrade for me (I don't shoot video and don't care about the video hum dums on 5D4). Now seems like I'll have to skip 6D2 too! I'll probably hold onto my current 5d3 and 6d bodies one more year and slowly transition into something that has a great sensor.

;D ;D

Oh the irony ! Thank you Canon for giving us this low DR 6DII. Canon rumours is going to be fun again with posts like this. Just love it !