Canon EOS 6D Mark II Talk & Updated Roadmap [CR2]

[FECHariot]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

Set center spot metering on subject, press AE lock, recompose, shoot.

Personally, I find AF-linked spot metering most useful when using iTR to track a bird in the sky as it moves through the frame.

Or airshow shooting planes in flight. Sure you can use AE lock in my example but wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to

 

[FECHariot]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out.

well, there's no way i'd take a portrait in this case without using some sort of flash or reflective light to start off with. it's the classic I don't know what I'm doing and I just took a picture with zombied dead eyes

secondly evaluative metering will put the emphasis on the focus point. or you AE lock on the face and compose.

Valid point so instead of portrait how about shooting soccer in the early morning or late evening and the subject is backlit and the sun is in the frame. And depending on the backlighting using evaluative still might not cut it.

 

[Luds34]

Looks like the 5Ds/r will have a very short lifespan, IMO it will be more difficult to sell once the 5D4 is available. An old sensor technology in a 5d3 body won't do any more.

Plus 24 Mpx only in the 5D4 will be disappointing for some (me included), one could have hoped for a slight increase, I still think that Sony or Nikon are right in making a stronger sensor differentiation within their range. In the end, once again, all Canon full frame will have the same resolution again (20-24mpx) except the 5DS/R and its old(er) sensor tech.

I am fearing that the 5D4 resolution looks very old school in 3-4 years, and am really hoping they go around 30Mpx.

I fail to see how a 24-30MP 5D4 is going to displace or grossly affect the 5DS models - their sensors are perfectly fine for their intended purposes.

Likewise you're splitting hairs worrying about a 5D4 having 24MP instead of 30MP - that's a tiny difference in practical terms, and either would likely seem "archaic" in four years time, if that's the perspective you take.

d.

What I meant is the 5D4, if it actually comes with a 24Mpx sensor, falls already in the "low res" for a full frame sensor in 2016, I am afraid it's not a very future proof choice. It's the perspective I take since considering Canon's refresh pace, the 5D5 shouldn't appear until 2019-20.

Personally, I would have preferred something in the 32-36Mpx range, leaving a place for a 5DS/R2 with 50-60Mpx.

My point of view is that I would have loved to replace my ageing 5D2s with something with more resolution AND a more modern sensor. Looks like I'll have to wait for the 5Ds/r2.

The 5Ds is fine considering Canon's offering now, but it is supposed to be the camera that offers the best image quality for Canon. Once the whole line up will have been refreshed with the newer tech sensors, it will become some kind of oddity.

Now that Canon finally uses the on chip ADC, best image quality doesn't mean more pixels only, it also means better DR and as little noise as possible on their top image quality camera.

What is going on with all the megapixel talk/love around here lately? I feel like I just time wharped to a number of years ago.

18, 24, 30, ehhhh it's all about the same, especially keeping in mind it's not a linear relationship in regards to resolution. I enjoy this forum, but sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone actually gets out and shoots anymore. I mean com'on, your 18mp sensor can't capture a good picture?

 

[jebrady03]

Seems just as easy to dial in some exposure compensation. I guess it's just a difference in working style.

I use full manual, including manual ISO because I don't trust the metering from my 6D. It generally underexposes by a full stop in most lighting conditions - more than likely because the metering isn't tied to the AF point. Sometimes it underexposes by as much as 2 stops. Exposure comp doesn't exist in full manual mode, hence why I'm stuck using manual ISO as well.

 

[Luds34]

I agree with most of what you said but for me, with a 6D, 30mpix 7-8fps better AF and a better sensor is a pretty huge jump. I crop liberally and want to be able to produce large prints. When I do upgrade ill probably go 5DSR not 5DIV.

Do you ever think about getting the composition right (or better) in the camera?

 

[unfocused]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out.

well, there's no way i'd take a portrait in this case without using some sort of flash or reflective light to start off with. it's the classic I don't know what I'm doing and I just took a picture with zombied dead eyes

secondly evaluative metering will put the emphasis on the focus point. or you AE lock on the face and compose.

Valid point so instead of portrait how about shooting soccer in the early morning or late evening and the subject is backlit and the sun is in the frame. And depending on the backlighting using evaluative still might not cut it.

Actually, I do shoot soccer (and other outdoor sports). As I said, I guess it's just a matter of your working style. With most sporting events, it's pretty easy to shoot a test shot (no action required) get an idea of what the lighting is like and adjust the exposure appropriately. The light is going to change as I go from one side of the field to the other, or one end zone to the other. And, yes, as the sun drops, there will be changes. But none of these are rocket science. Just adjust as you go.

My point is not that it isn't handy. It's that I personally don't see it as a make or break feature.

Contrast that with:

– Noise at higher ISOs. Every sensor breaks down sooner or later as the ISO climbs and there isn't anything you can do about it. So, I can see the value of a sensor that gives you good high ISO performance and I'm willing to pay for that.

– Dynamic range. If I'm shooting any sport where the players wear caps, visors or helmets it's difficult to balance the shadow detail in the face with the rest of the ambient light, so I can see the value of greater dynamic range. Same with a dark bird in flight against the sky.

– Autofocus. I can't control the speed of the subjects I'm shooting. So the better the autofocus, the better my changes of getting the shot. I'm willing to pay for that.

– Higher framerate. Most sports are played with balls and some of those balls move really fast. Increasing the odds I can capture the ball in the frame is worth it for me to pay for it.

So, as I say, for me personally, I've had very good success with the exposure system Canon has been using. Improvements might be handy, but they don't strike me as a make or break issue.

 

[zim]

...
What I meant is the 5D4, if it actually comes with a 24Mpx sensor, falls already in the "low res" for a full frame sensor in 2016, I am afraid it's not a very future proof choice. It's the perspective I take since considering Canon's refresh pace, the 5D5 shouldn't appear until 2019-20.

Personally, I would have preferred something in the 32-36Mpx range, leaving a place for a 5DS/R2 with 50-60Mpx.

My point of view is that I would have loved to replace my ageing 5D2s with something with more resolution AND a more modern sensor. Looks like I'll have to wait for the 5Ds/r2.

The 5Ds is fine considering Canon's offering now, but it is supposed to be the camera that offers the best image quality for Canon. Once the whole line up will have been refreshed with the newer tech sensors, it will become some kind of oddity.

Now that Canon finally uses the on chip ADC, best image quality doesn't mean more pixels only, it also means better DR and as little noise as possible on their top image quality camera.

You might want to do what the rest of us are doing and upgrade from the 5D2 or 5D3 to the Sony A7RII.

So your actually committing to buying a Sony or are we still at CR1 with that one ?

 

[Luds34]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

But even in that case you can still use default metering, assuming you are shooting with relatively fast glass, the camera is smart enough to know what you want in focus. I've often seen the camera let the background blow out if it detects it's out of focus, even with a primitive Rebel series from years ago.

Frankly I think people try to over think it sometimes. And they use advanced settings and "get it wrong". 99% of the time the camera will get it close enough to "right" that you can tweak it correctly in post.

 

[Luds34]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

Set center spot metering on subject, press AE lock, recompose, shoot.

Personally, I find AF-linked spot metering most useful when using iTR to track a bird in the sky as it moves through the frame.

Which is exactly what I do. One nice advantage of BBF is decoupling focus and exposure lock. One of my "dirty" tricks is to just point the camera downward (no backlit window/scene), lock exposure, then compose and take the shot!

 

[dak723]

Looks like the 5Ds/r will have a very short lifespan, IMO it will be more difficult to sell once the 5D4 is available. An old sensor technology in a 5d3 body won't do any more.

Plus 24 Mpx only in the 5D4 will be disappointing for some (me included), one could have hoped for a slight increase, I still think that Sony or Nikon are right in making a stronger sensor differentiation within their range. In the end, once again, all Canon full frame will have the same resolution again (20-24mpx) except the 5DS/R and its old(er) sensor tech.

I am fearing that the 5D4 resolution looks very old school in 3-4 years, and am really hoping they go around 30Mpx.

I fail to see how a 24-30MP 5D4 is going to displace or grossly affect the 5DS models - their sensors are perfectly fine for their intended purposes.

Likewise you're splitting hairs worrying about a 5D4 having 24MP instead of 30MP - that's a tiny difference in practical terms, and either would likely seem "archaic" in four years time, if that's the perspective you take.

d.

What I meant is the 5D4, if it actually comes with a 24Mpx sensor, falls already in the "low res" for a full frame sensor in 2016, I am afraid it's not a very future proof choice. It's the perspective I take since considering Canon's refresh pace, the 5D5 shouldn't appear until 2019-20.

Personally, I would have preferred something in the 32-36Mpx range, leaving a place for a 5DS/R2 with 50-60Mpx.

My point of view is that I would have loved to replace my ageing 5D2s with something with more resolution AND a more modern sensor. Looks like I'll have to wait for the 5Ds/r2.

The 5Ds is fine considering Canon's offering now, but it is supposed to be the camera that offers the best image quality for Canon. Once the whole line up will have been refreshed with the newer tech sensors, it will become some kind of oddity.

Now that Canon finally uses the on chip ADC, best image quality doesn't mean more pixels only, it also means better DR and as little noise as possible on their top image quality camera.

What is going on with all the megapixel talk/love around here lately? I feel like I just time wharped to a number of years ago.

18, 24, 30, ehhhh it's all about the same, especially keeping in mind it's not a linear relationship in regards to resolution. I enjoy this forum, but sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone actually gets out and shoots anymore. I mean com'on, your 18mp sensor can't capture a good picture?

You forget. This is a gear-head forum. A higher number MUST be better. So, even though I can get a nice print well over 24" with my 20 MP camera, I really need to see Canon "compete" with Sony and go higher with the MPs. Even though there have probably been hundreds of posts explaining how more MPs are a NEGATIVE for photographers who don't need the extreme resolution, since lower MPs means lower noise, the gear heads will never get it. After all, how can you brag to your gear-head friends when your camera only has 24 MP?

 

[rrcphoto]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

But even in that case you can still use default metering, assuming you are shooting with relatively fast glass, the camera is smart enough to know what you want in focus. I've often seen the camera let the background blow out if it detects it's out of focus, even with a primitive Rebel series from years ago.

Frankly I think people try to over think it sometimes. And they use advanced settings and "get it wrong". 99% of the time the camera will get it close enough to "right" that you can tweak it correctly in post.

evaluative metering does that.
it will use the focus point as the metering priority.

 

[FECHariot]

So, as I say, for me personally, I've had very good success with the exposure system Canon has been using. Improvements might be handy, but they don't strike me as a make or break issue.

Of course it's not make or break. Heck I got away with only manual focus in the 80s. That doesn't mean I I want to go back. I welcome new features and linked spot exposure to AF point would be a nice addition.

 

[Loswr]

You might want to do what the rest of us are doing and upgrade from the 5D2 or 5D3 to the Sony A7RII.

:

 

[scyrene]

Looks like the 5Ds/r will have a very short lifespan, IMO it will be more difficult to sell once the 5D4 is available. An old sensor technology in a 5d3 body won't do any more.

Plus 24 Mpx only in the 5D4 will be disappointing for some (me included), one could have hoped for a slight increase, I still think that Sony or Nikon are right in making a stronger sensor differentiation within their range. In the end, once again, all Canon full frame will have the same resolution again (20-24mpx) except the 5DS/R and its old(er) sensor tech.

I am fearing that the 5D4 resolution looks very old school in 3-4 years, and am really hoping they go around 30Mpx.

I fail to see how a 24-30MP 5D4 is going to displace or grossly affect the 5DS models - their sensors are perfectly fine for their intended purposes.

Likewise you're splitting hairs worrying about a 5D4 having 24MP instead of 30MP - that's a tiny difference in practical terms, and either would likely seem "archaic" in four years time, if that's the perspective you take.

d.

What I meant is the 5D4, if it actually comes with a 24Mpx sensor, falls already in the "low res" for a full frame sensor in 2016, I am afraid it's not a very future proof choice. It's the perspective I take since considering Canon's refresh pace, the 5D5 shouldn't appear until 2019-20.

Personally, I would have preferred something in the 32-36Mpx range, leaving a place for a 5DS/R2 with 50-60Mpx.

My point of view is that I would have loved to replace my ageing 5D2s with something with more resolution AND a more modern sensor. Looks like I'll have to wait for the 5Ds/r2.

The 5Ds is fine considering Canon's offering now, but it is supposed to be the camera that offers the best image quality for Canon. Once the whole line up will have been refreshed with the newer tech sensors, it will become some kind of oddity.

Now that Canon finally uses the on chip ADC, best image quality doesn't mean more pixels only, it also means better DR and as little noise as possible on their top image quality camera.

What is going on with all the megapixel talk/love around here lately? I feel like I just time wharped to a number of years ago.

18, 24, 30, ehhhh it's all about the same, especially keeping in mind it's not a linear relationship in regards to resolution. I enjoy this forum, but sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone actually gets out and shoots anymore. I mean com'on, your 18mp sensor can't capture a good picture?

You forget. This is a gear-head forum. A higher number MUST be better. So, even though I can get a nice print well over 24" with my 20 MP camera, I really need to see Canon "compete" with Sony and go higher with the MPs. Even though there have probably been hundreds of posts explaining how more MPs are a NEGATIVE for photographers who don't need the extreme resolution, since lower MPs means lower noise, the gear heads will never get it. After all, how can you brag to your gear-head friends when your camera only has 24 MP?

There is a lot of that. But not everyone asking for more MP is doing so because they think more of everything is better. Print size is not the only metric - there is also cropping. I'd actually bet that for most people, cropping is more important than being able to print large - I mean, how many people (amateurs especially) produce prints at A2 or larger, and how often if they do? But cropping is a common part of producing the best image possible for many of us (sure, I'm not presenting any evidence of that, it's just an intuition plus anecdotal experience).

And the old 'more MP will harm image quality' - can we lay that one to rest once and for all? If you are viewing at the same size, whether on screen or in print, increasing MP will not harm image quality. Noise per pixel might go up, but image noise does not. Sharpness is not harmed, and may be helped. Diffraction and camera shake are again only affected viewed at 100%. The only objective downsides are lower frame rates (compared to a camera of lower resolution from the same era) and higher file sizes. They are not insignificant, but they don't affect image quality.

[Disclaimer: I'm not a technical expert, this has been garnered from reading interminable discussions online, and articles on these things etc. If I've made any errors, please let me know.]

 

[ksgal]

I don't know why I'm going to even bother but I have a real world example in my living room, hanging on the wall, and it goes to events with me.

Horse in a field, full body + some pasture in the original shot- raw file.

I cropped it to only a head shot, maybe 20% of the frame with LR. exported to 300dpi for a 20x30inch print.

Off my 15 megapixel 50D .

Everyone, horse lover or not , complements me on that picture.

The lure of more pixels from the 5Ds line is awesome, and may be necessary for some applications. But I know others have experimented, and printed comparisons, 5D3 vs 5Dsr and found that the general public, and even most photographers flat don't see the difference.

So, 24mp camera is just DANDY for me. Will be plenty for most people buying in that segment. If you need 50mpx, then get the appropriate camera. JMHO. YMMV.

 

[j-nord]

I agree with most of what you said but for me, with a 6D, 30mpix 7-8fps better AF and a better sensor is a pretty huge jump. I crop liberally and want to be able to produce large prints. When I do upgrade ill probably go 5DSR not 5DIV.

Do you ever think about getting the composition right (or better) in the camera?

Wow, I've never thought of this before... :

Wildlife only lets you get so close and my 24-70 often doesn't have enough reach for the landscapes I want to compose. I don't drive around and shoot, I mostly shoot while hiking or biking so I have different priorities/requirements. I'm constantly debating gear I want vs. gear I can practically carry

 

[Luds34]

So, 24mp camera is just DANDY for me. Will be plenty for most people buying in that segment. If you need 50mpx, then get the appropriate camera. JMHO. YMMV.

+1

I realize this is just my selfish problem, but I shoot RAW exclusively. And all these files take up space, need to be backed up to the cloud, and Lightroom is slow enough as it is. The larger the file, the slower my workflow goes. Since I'm completely happy with 16mp, 18mp, 20mp (resolutions of current cameras I own), I see higher pixels as a detriment. So again, just my own selfish reasons, but those of you asking for 36mp on the next 6D please go buy a 5Ds and let us lower res folks be.

 

[privatebydesign]

I don't know why I'm going to even bother but I have a real world example in my living room, hanging on the wall, and it goes to events with me.

Horse in a field, full body + some pasture in the original shot- raw file.

I cropped it to only a head shot, maybe 20% of the frame with LR. exported to 300dpi for a 20x30inch print.

Off my 15 megapixel 50D .

Everyone, horse lover or not , complements me on that picture.

The lure of more pixels from the 5Ds line is awesome, and may be necessary for some applications. But I know others have experimented, and printed comparisons, 5D3 vs 5Dsr and found that the general public, and even most photographers flat don't see the difference.

So, 24mp camera is just DANDY for me. Will be plenty for most people buying in that segment. If you need 50mpx, then get the appropriate camera. JMHO. YMMV.

Whilst I can't argue the aesthetic of your image, I will state quite categorically that a 20"x30" print made from 3mp does not exhibit the kind of detail I want and need. Being a pretty picture has no bearing on the particular image's technical qualities, and whilst the end goal is a compelling image, few images printed to that size wouldn't benefit from more MP.

Not that I care one iota how many MP the 6D MkII has either, though it does seem a curious 'want' from the Canon FF budget option. From a sales point of view I can't see any logic to the 6D MkII having a MP advantage over the 5D MkIV, does the 6D have one over the 5D MkIII? No.

 

[symmar22]

What is going on with all the megapixel talk/love around here lately? I feel like I just time wharped to a number of years ago.

18, 24, 30, ehhhh it's all about the same, especially keeping in mind it's not a linear relationship in regards to resolution. I enjoy this forum, but sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone actually gets out and shoots anymore. I mean com'on, your 18mp sensor can't capture a good picture?

You forget. This is a gear-head forum. A higher number MUST be better. So, even though I can get a nice print well over 24" with my 20 MP camera, I really need to see Canon "compete" with Sony and go higher with the MPs. Even though there have probably been hundreds of posts explaining how more MPs are a NEGATIVE for photographers who don't need the extreme resolution, since lower MPs means lower noise, the gear heads will never get it. After all, how can you brag to your gear-head friends when your camera only has 24 MP?

Yes it's a gear head forum, and every one has their wishes. Technical specs increase seems a natural process for high tech gear doesn't it ? What is going on with all that high ISO / higher FPS / lower noise / weather sealing talk/love around lately ?

You could as well make excellent pictures with a film Canon AE-1. I think it's perfectly normal to expect the overall technical specs of a newer camera get updated, and yes that includes more and better pixels, better AF, higher frame rate, higher ISO, among other features. Can't you make a good picture with 4 or 5 FPS only ? Or with 1600 ISO only ? Or with a non TTL flash system ? Or with a 6D AF system ?

Well I guess it depends on what kind of pictures you make. Everyone is crying for a top class AF and 8 FPS, I think that's what the 1DX(2) is designed for. That debate around more pixel will always be here, like the one around a better AF, more FPS, more DR, a better flash system, better light metering and so on.

It's not to confuse the capabilities of a camera and what you do with it. I do architecture and interiors photography for a living, and for me a bit more detail is always good to take. I don't even use the AF, or more than 400 ISO, I work mainly with studio strobes, I have absolutely no use in high frame rate and I never did a single video in my whole life.

But I don't complain when these features are included in my camera and they are useful for other people. I perfectly understand my needs are not necessarily other people needs, but I think its not unreasonable to ask Canon to push the envelope a bit in every direction with the 5D4, especially after 4 years of development. Or we could decide the 5D3 is perfectly fine for the 10 next years, and there is no need for newer cameras (or for a forum to discuss it).

 

[j-nord]

I don't know if this tech is out yet but I'm sure we will see it soon (unless I'm missing some fundamental issue with it): FF 50mpix sensor with the option to 'skip' pixels and generate a 25mpix FF image. We've seen higher speed crop modes so this is essentially the same idea. The issue probably comes down to pixel density being high enough where skipping pixels won't destroy the IQ.