Canon EOS 6D Mark II Has Begun Shipping

[hbr]

Well, I'm no expert but I played around and here is one of them converted with DPP. I brought the shadows up and cut the highlights a bit and stepped the contrast up one. There is no NR and the sharpening is at the typical default of 3. Seems it could be lower with little loss. So good, bad , indifferent here it is. Seems fine to me.

Jack

Hi Jack,
Here is another picture. It is of the hawk out back yesterday morning. This one is a little bit more challenging as it is at ISO 40,000. Noisy, but still usable I think. I recommend setting the white balance to white priority and the noise slider to 17.

This was shot using my 400 5.6 L with a Kenko 14x teleconverter. Outside was darker under the trees than the photo would make you believe.

Give it a go and let me know what you think. I don't think my original 6D could handle this high ISO as well.
Here is the link again:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing

Thanks, (So far I am pretty happy with the purchase).

Brian

 

[Don Haines]

Well, I'm no expert but I played around and here is one of them converted with DPP. I brought the shadows up and cut the highlights a bit and stepped the contrast up one. There is no NR and the sharpening is at the typical default of 3. Seems it could be lower with little loss. So good, bad , indifferent here it is. Seems fine to me.

Jack

Hi Jack,
Here is another picture. It is of the hawk out back yesterday morning. This one is a little bit more challenging as it is at ISO 40,000. Noisy, but still usable I think. I recommend setting the white balance to white priority and the noise slider to 17.

This was shot using my 400 5.6 L with a Kenko 14x teleconverter. Outside was darker under the trees than the photo would make you believe.

Give it a go and let me know what you think. I don't think my original 6D could handle this high ISO as well.
Here is the link again:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing

Thanks, (So far I am pretty happy with the purchase).

Brian

You shot that at ISO 40,000 and through a teleconverter? ? ?

Darn you! You may have just cost me $2000

 

[hbr]

Hi Don,

In the EXIF data the lens data will not show that the teleconverter is attached as it does on my other bodies. But The Focal length will show 560mm instead of 400mm and the aperture will show f/8. Interestingly also is that since the teleconverter is not reporting back to the camera as the Canon model would, I can use all 45 of the focus points available at f/8 with this combo.

Cheers,
Brian

 

[Quirkz]

Hi Jack,
Here is another picture. It is of the hawk out back yesterday morning. This one is a little bit more challenging as it is at ISO 40,000. Noisy, but still usable I think. I recommend setting the white balance to white priority and the noise slider to 17.

This was shot using my 400 5.6 L with a Kenko 14x teleconverter. Outside was darker under the trees than the photo would make you believe.

Give it a go and let me know what you think. I don't think my original 6D could handle this high ISO as well.
Here is the link again:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing

Thanks, (So far I am pretty happy with the purchase).

Brian

You shot that at ISO 40,000 and through a teleconverter? ? ?

Darn you! You may have just cost me $2000

That's.... actually really good 40k. Color is great, grain is nicely random. Problem with a lot of the number crunching and test chart crowds is that they don't characterize things like noise and color at higher ISO. This shot is what I consider an impressive result. I don't have my 6D any more to compare, anyone willing to do a high ISO shot to compare? Seems better to me from memory.

 

[hbr]

Here is the converted JPEG file that has not been edited, (the RAW file has been edited). I am posting this so everyone can view the EXIF data, (hopefully).
I've never posted an image on this site so here goes.

 

[SecureGSM]

this image looks what 6D/ 1 DX / 5D IV files do look like at ISO 4000 with good noise reduction applied. Not questioning the RAW EXIF data as it may well be was that dark.. and F9 , -0.7 EV exposure compensation and everything, but image does not looks falling apart or any signs of colour degradation. I am open to believe this new Canon sensor is that good... or may be not...

some 1DX II high res shots for comparison with some 1:1 crops towards the bottom of the page.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1dx-mk-ii.htm#highiso

Here is the converted JPEG file that has not been edited, (the RAW file has been edited). I am posting this so everyone can view the EXIF data, (hopefully).
I've never posted an image on this site so here goes.

 

[neuroanatomist]

this image looks what 6D/ 1 DX / 5D IV files do look like at ISO 4000 with good noise reduction applied. Not questioning the RAW EXIF data as it may well be was that dark.. and F9 , -0.7 EV exposure compensation and everything, but image does not looks falling apart or any signs of colour degradation. I am open to believe this new Canon sensor is that good... or may be not...

You missed a zero...it's ISO 40,000.

 

[SecureGSM]

I see that it is ISO 40000 file ( according to EXIF data), but it looks like ISO 4000 file to me. could be due to oversampling / down sampling. I am looking at the posted JPG file.

this image looks what 6D/ 1 DX / 5D IV files do look like at ISO 4000 with good noise reduction applied. Not questioning the RAW EXIF data as it may well be was that dark.. and F9 , -0.7 EV exposure compensation and everything, but image does not looks falling apart or any signs of colour degradation. I am open to believe this new Canon sensor is that good... or may be not...

You missed a zero...it's ISO 40,000.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I see that it is ISO 40000 file ( according to EXIF data), but it looks like ISO 4000 file to me. could be due to oversampling / down sampling. I am looking at the posted JPG file.

Or...it could just be a pretty good sensor.

 

[SecureGSM]

better than the one in 1DX II? right!

I see that it is ISO 40000 file ( according to EXIF data), but it looks like ISO 4000 file to me. could be due to oversampling / down sampling. I am looking at the posted JPG file.

Or...it could just be a pretty good sensor.

 

[hbr]

this image looks what 6D/ 1 DX / 5D IV files do look like at ISO 4000 with good noise reduction applied. Not questioning the RAW EXIF data as it may well be was that dark.. and F9 , -0.7 EV exposure compensation and everything, but image does not looks falling apart or any signs of colour degradation. I am open to believe this new Canon sensor is that good... or may be not...

You missed a zero...it's ISO 40,000.

Hi Neuro,
I think he was saying that the picture looked as good as these other cameras at the lower, (4,000) ISO. I know that the noise reduction is much better than my 7DII.
It was not dark outside but the sky was overcast and I have never been able to take decent photos with any light under these trees without the noise level killing the detail. When editing the picture, you do lose some detail. The file on the link is the RAW file directly from the camera, (no editing except the values I set up in the camera).
Anyway, I have not been able to test the camera enough to recommend someone go buy it, but so far I am very happy with it.

Brian

 

[hbr]

better than the one in 1DX II? right!

I see that it is ISO 40000 file ( according to EXIF data), but it looks like ISO 4000 file to me. could be due to oversampling / down sampling. I am looking at the posted JPG file.

Or...it could just be a pretty good sensor.

Hi, SecureGSM,
The RAW file that the JPEG was taken from is highly edited, the RAW file on the link is not. You should be able to copy or download the RAW file on the link and view the EXIF data in your RAW processing software.

Thanks,

Brian

 

[SecureGSM]

No worries, Brian. I will have a go. Thank you.

Hi, SecureGSM,
The RAW file that the JPEG was taken from is highly edited, the RAW file on the link is not. You should be able to copy or download the RAW file on the link and view the EXIF data in your RAW processing software.

Thanks,

Brian

 

[hbr]

Same setup but different photo that I just added to the link at ISO 32,000.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing

 

[hbr]

Since this camera has been poo pooed s much, all I am trying to do here is to put up some RAW files straight out of the camera for the forum members so that they can download them and edit them for themselves to determine if this camera is really as bad as everyone is saying.
These photos have nothing to do with my photography or editing skills. Until there are plenty of files and reviews for everyone to decide if they want to purchase one or not, I will be adding photos from time to time. I am not making any comments abut how good or how bad the camera is - now you can check it out for yourselves, other than to say That so far am very pleased with the camera.
Thanks,

Brian

 

[LesC]

I'm far from an expert at noise reduction and this is just a quick effort processed in Photoshop CC - ACR. If it can do this at iso 40,000 I'm happy it will be an improvement on my original 6d and way better than my 80D!

 

[SecureGSM]

here is a very quick one. please see attached. from what i can see, 6D II files are much easier to clean due to better quality of noise. its randomicity is more random Hence easier for the RAW editor to differentiate noise from the data. I would say, it looks about 1/2 stop better than similar 6D files do.

p.s. actually, seems at least 2/3 of stop better than 6D original in the high ISO noise reduction department.
p.s.2. no sharpening or contrast adjustment were applied. I could clean up the file even more if that need be but it looks good to me as it is. I would not for a second hesitate shooting at ISO 6400 with this cam.

(

I'm far from an expert at noise reduction and this is just a quick effort processed in Photoshop CC - ACR. If it can do this at iso 40,000 I'm happy it will be an improvement on my original 6d and way better than my 80D!

 

[hbr]

Here is my cleaned up file from the 32,000 ISO RAW File..

 

[Luds34]

For those who now have their 6D MKII - is the GPS function the same as the original 6D ie when you turn the camera off does the GPS still drain the battery unless of course you remove it?

I haven't bought or ordered the 6D2 yet, but I have been reading the manual as well as online stuff. I seem to recall that if the camera times out and turns itself off, the GPS is still at work and draining battery. If you switch the camera off manually, the GPS turns off, too. I am only reasonably certain that I saw that somewhere, but it seems like it was a caution in the manual.

I just got back into town last night and my 6D2 was waiting for me. I haven't had much time to play with it but I did see two modes for the GPS. One mode works just like the 6D, where it is on all the time. The 2nd mode, is that the GPS turns "off" when the camera is off. I say "off" as it apparently will occasionally check it's location and try to maintain things and that if one is not going to use the camera for a long time it is recommended to turn the GPS completely off. That's at least my understanding.

 

[Luds34]

One thing that's pretty obvious but still seems to be overlooked by some is this. Telephoto users like reach and so APSC gets acknowledged in that department. Well, wide angle users like wide angles and APSC doesn't fill that bill too well. Two cameras of course does the trick but I for one prefer only hiking with one; that's heavy enough and less clumsy.

Jack

Which brings up a good point, Canon have the refurbished 6d and 80D at a price that one can get BOTH for less money. That's a pretty compelling setup.

I once thought like that (owned a 70D and a 6D). The 70D was my action camera, and the 6D my landscape, portrait style camera. Problem I ran into is that when I'd go somewhere I didn't always know what I wanted to do and I didn't like carrying two cameras. Sometimes one has to pay a premium to get "a little bit of everything" in one body.