DXO: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Sensor Review: Great Color and ISO Performance

[Jack Douglas]

Just heading outdoors so I'll digest in due course, but thanks ever so much. Since DPP is fairly simple it's been my savior for now working only on half decent shots I want to send folk.

Jack

 

[Talys]

Talys, you didn't even mention the flip screen which is not a small item for many.

It's actually the deciding factor, for me. Even at the same price, I would choose 6DII over 5DIV over flip screen, because without it, for work, I would need an HDMI monitor or remote liveview screen. And in some cases, 3 of them... But I was actually making a list of subtractive, rather than differential features, as in "what would you take away". I don't think that flippy screen not being in 5DIV is a technological or cost reason; I think that they have to do with the buttons on the left, more than anything, and Canon not wanting to mess with that. Plus weather sealing, depending on whether or not you believe that.

Bluetooth is actually incredibly useful for me, too.

"So you get to turn some poor shots into mediocre keepers in post... "

You sound like a purist. In the real world we find ourselves at various places, possibly once in a lifetime and we need to be good at exactly what you describe. Avoiding taking a once in a lifetime shot because lighting is less than perfect simply doesn't cut it for me. Many of the worlds most noteworthy photos are far from technically perfect. I say, fire away, regardless.

Jack

In my original post (sorry, it's pages back now), I was taking the extreme situation where people are critical of the 6DMkII's low ISO dynamic range. My point is that a lot of the people who complain that 6DII's base ISO DR isn't good enough are trying to take bad shots and fiddle with them in post to make them... slightly less bad shots.

I'm not sure there are real-life situations where you could substitute a 6DMkII with a 5DMkIV or A7RII, where the picture on the 6DII would be terrible and the picture on one of the others would be great. Of course, if you want to spend more money, there are options with sensors that will give you a little more flexibility, and of course, there will be times when you won't get the shot again and why not get the most out of what you can shoot. I carry a camera around with me as often as I can, and there are a lot of subjects of opportunity like what you describe.

However, when I wrote what you quoted, I was responding to AlanF's reference to BIFs where the top of the bird is well-illuminated because the sun is above the bird; but the the bottom therefore becomes so poor that you need to turn charcoal into feathers. I understand why shadow recovery is useful here, but my point is that the photo will still be not as good as your 600 other photos of the same bird that were taken at a better time of day -- and not just because of the bird, but because you'll have other composition/lighting problems too (especially the shots are over water).

Rather than making it the camera's fault that there isn't 14 EVs of DR... just show up 4 hours earlier/later depending on the location, and you'll have much nicer BIF photos with just 9 EVs of DR

 

[Jack Douglas]

Talys, I won't ague that back lighting doesn't result in poorer photos. I'm not sure that any of us would purposely choose back lighting. Perhaps your premise is that the BIF are readily available whenever you would like them, like gulls at the ocean, but that's not my typical scenario. However, I do scheme as best I can to get the desired lighting

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Scott, do you have any suggested references where the various adjustments to curves etc. are explained? At the moment I don't have the required understanding to know how I should manipulate curves.

BTW what units are on the various sliders. Brightness slider in stops. Shadow slider in ?? or is this a dumb question?

Jack

 

[Talys]

Talys, I won't ague that back lighting doesn't result in poorer photos. I'm not sure that any of us would purposely choose back lighting. Perhaps your premise is that the BIF are readily available whenever you would like them, like gulls at the ocean, but that's not my typical scenario. However, I do scheme as best I can to get the desired lighting

Jack

Hey, we are not really disagreeing on anything.

I'm just saying that if you want to shoot a great picture of a (insert a bird) -- I mean, one that you can be really proud of or excited about -- it's not going to be from a badly illuminated photo with cranked shadows. To accomplish this, it will take planning the excursion based on likely location of your subject, available light and weather, studying the subject's behavior, and some luck. For birding, some prep gives you a much, much higher ratio of good photos, some of which might turn out to be amazing photos. And that might just be mean thinking things through, and coming back to the same spot another day.

Definitely, there are photos that you just take because you just take 'em; they don't have that element of planning or purpose, and of course, it's helpful to adjust them in post and try to make them better. Sure, more DR is better than less DR (duh).

However, the complaint that the 6DII is a flawed camera because its ISO 100 DR is lower than *** camera doesn't hold a lot of water to me, because in a lot of cases the difference that you can get out of *** camera vs a 6DII is likely to be small. Both will have enough DR to make your marginal photo into a more satisfactory one; sure, with the 5DIV (for example) you might make it a little better and you can be a little happier with the outcome. On my photos that are good enough to keep, but not good enough to share, I don't think using a 5DIV or A7RII would change that. If someone thinks I'm wrong... I'm willing to listen.

Either way, this doesn't make the 6DII a terrible option, because it has a different featureset and a lower price -- and in my opinion, my marginal photos will still turn into a little more satisfactory ones, and virtually all of my photos that I'm really excited about used fewer EVs of DR than a 6DII offers anyways.

 

[Aglet]

..Oh, DR, the sacred cow. How did it get such status?

it's a popular beef

 

[Talys]

..Oh, DR, the sacred cow. How did it get such status?

it's a popular beef

Good one

 

[AlanF]

"So you get to turn some poor shots into mediocre keepers in post... "

You sound like a purist. In the real world we find ourselves at various places, possibly once in a lifetime and we need to be good at exactly what you describe. Avoiding taking a once in a lifetime shot because lighting is less than perfect simply doesn't cut it for me. Many of the worlds most noteworthy photos are far from technically perfect. I say, fire away, regardless.

Jack

However, when I wrote what you quoted, I was responding to AlanF's reference to BIFs where the top of the bird is well-illuminated because the sun is above the bird; but the the bottom therefore becomes so poor that you need to turn charcoal into feathers. I understand why shadow recovery is useful here, but my point is that the photo will still be not as good as your 600 other photos of the same bird that were taken at a better time of day -- and not just because of the bird, but because you'll have other composition/lighting problems too (especially the shots are over water).

Rather than making it the camera's fault that there isn't 14 EVs of DR... just show up 4 hours earlier/later depending on the location, and you'll have much nicer BIF photos with just 9 EVs of DR

We don't turn "charcoal into feathers", we are not talking about extreme underexposure, we just lift shadows and lower highlights etc from regions that are still within DR. As Jack writes, we come across once-in-a-lifetime shots that cannot be planned, are not in ideal conditions but with skill we can use post-processing to produce a stunning photo (or accept it as it is). If you visit the local park or go and stay in a fixed location for a few days you can go back over and over again and take thousands of shots. If you go on a day trip, a safari, or are an opportunistic photographer you don't have that luxury.

I don't shoot at base iso, I tend to use the 640-2000 region where the DR is limited not by the sensor but by photon noise and so it makes very little difference of whether I would use a 6DII a 5DIV or even a 5DSR. What matters to me is not DR but the speed and accuracy of AF because out-of-focus or motion blur can't be corrected.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Generally none of us are disagreeing with the accepted premise that more is good but we already have, for the most part, what we need for decent photos.

I had to chuckle because, with my focus on wildlife and birds more specifically, my 6D practically sat at ISO 1250 for 3 years. Then I read all the dumping on the 6D2 and became concerned until I reminded myself that DR is more or less the same for all decent cameras at ISO 1250, as Alan suggests. Of course that's just me and my particular focus but there have been folk trying brow beat me into accepting that my camera can't deliver the goods. Thankfully, I didn't know much about anything when I bought the 6D or I might have gotten ulcers! The salesman said, yep it's a good camera, and I bought it.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

Generally none of us are disagreeing with the accepted premise that more is good but we already have, for the most part, what we need for decent photos.

I had to chuckle because, with my focus on wildlife and birds more specifically, my 6D practically sat at ISO 1250 for 3 years. Then I read all the dumping on the 6D2 and became concerned until I reminded myself that DR is more or less the same for all decent cameras at ISO 1250, as Alan suggests. Of course that's just me and my particular focus but there have been folk trying brow beat me into accepting that my camera can't deliver the goods. Thankfully, I didn't know much about anything when I bought the 6D or I might have gotten ulcers! The salesman said, yep it's a good camera, and I bought it.

Jack

Realistically, in descending order of importance, what gets you a good picture is photographer, lens choice, and finally, camera.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think I need to replace the first one!

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

I think I need to replace the first one!

Jack

Same here.... Mine needs a knee upgrade....

As for gear, If I had to pick the one piece of gear that has had the biggest effect on my photography, it would be my canoe(s)...They still work well, but they are getting old and every know and then, they freeze up

 

[Jack Douglas]

Life is just fine if you have a sense of humour! Even with a crummy 6DII.

Jack

 

[cpsico]

The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens

 

[Jack Douglas]

The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens

As a 3 year owner who loved the 6D and sold it recently, I don't agree at all. Even just the transition to 26 MP would be a blessing for me cropping my tele shots not to mention the other niceties, including F8 AF. It all depends on usage. At the moment I don't really need the camera and so I'm waiting for a lower price.

Based on price alone I might concur that the person who bought my 6D for $1100 is getting a better deal than buying the 6D2 at this moment.

Jack

 

[cpsico]

The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens

As a 3 year owner who loved the 6D and sold it recently, I don't agree at all. Even just the transition to 26 MP would be a blessing for me cropping my tele shots not to mention the other niceties, including F8 AF. It all depends on usage. At the moment I don't really need the camera and so I'm waiting for a lower price.

Based on price alone I might concur that the person who bought my 6D for $1100 is getting a better deal than buying the 6D2 at this moment.

Jack

I still have mine. It's light, versatile and perfect in low light. The 5dIV is a huge step up and I was very much looking forward to the 6d II but Canon took of in a different direction than I hoped. I was hoping for little to no bump in resolution but a huge bump in low light performance a few more was placed focus points, not a jumbled mess in the center. I like the flip out screen, the dual pixel auto focus, would love to be able to use a camera like this with a nice fast prime like the 35 1.4 II but would like a fast shutter speed of 8000 instead of 4000. I guess to many wedding photographers where willing to work with the limits of the original 6d over the 5d III and Canon didn't want a repeat. It's a good camera I am sure, but it's just not making me want to run out and buy it over what I already own.

 

[Talys]

If you're into trial by numbers, looking at the High ISO performance ("sports"), the 6D Mark II is DXOMark's third highest ranking camera manufactured by Canon, and not far behind 5DMark IV. Only the 1DX Mark II is significantly better. In High ISO performance, 6DMkII is a small leap ahead of 5DS, 5DSR, 5D Mark III, and flattens APSCs like the 80D, or, for that matter APSCs and MFTs from any make.

1DX Mk II - 3207
5D MkIV - 2995
6D MkII - 2862
1DX - 2786
5DS - 2381
6D - 2340
5DSR 2308
5DMark III - 2293

And for reference, Canon's APSC sensors fall off a cliff, scoring below the original 5D:
5D - 1368
M6 -1317
80D - 1135
7D Mark II - 1082

If you want to throw in other brands, high ISO performance of the 6DII is between the A7II and A7RII, and is around the same performance as the Nikon D810/750:

Sony A7RII - 3434
Sony A9 - 3517
Sony A7II - 2449

Nikon D750 - 2956
Nikon D810 - 2853

Olympus OMD E-M1 Mk II - 1312

Big caveat: I'm not really a believer in the trial by numbers game, especially when those numbers come close. I would never choose a camera that scored 3,300 over one that scored 3,000 on the basis of DXOMark. But it is useful to see patterns of large breaks and generations of camera.

For example, I've been saying that the 6DII has a massive, observable improvement over 80D in low light ISO noise; even giving a wide berth for testing variance and methodologies, 2862 vs 1135 is such a big difference that unless the test is totally worthless, it should be indicative of a meaningful difference.

For what it's worth, there is no MFT camera with competitive low light performance to FF. The OM-D E-M1 Mark II is the best performing MFT at 1317, and the low light performance is in the range of modern APSCs, the best performing of which is the Nikon D7500 at 1483. So if you believe in these sorts of measurements, and you want a high ISO camera, don't bother with MFT or APSC.

Again, assuming that you give some credence to these test methodologies, if you want a high ISO camera, the 6DII should be a candidate to consider given its price.

I think something that people have also not mentioned much is the other part of DXOMark's headline. The 6DII has very good color depth. I don't know why nobody talks about this, because in my opinion, color sensitivity that you will use is more important than Dynamic Range that you won't use. Here, it is Canon's fourth best offering, with numbers similar to 5DSR and slightly behind 5DMark IV and 5DS.

The ONLY thing score that the 6DII is weak on is base ISO dynamic range. 12 EVs of DR is still a lot of dynamic range, and more DR than most people shoot on the vast majority of their photographs. Would I like 14 EVs of DR for ISO100? Sure, of course. Would I pay another $1,000 for it? No.

Yes, I would like to have it all, but if I take DXO's trifecta of color sensitivity, dynamic range, and high ISO performance, and had to sacrifice one of them to reduce the price by a third, to the level where I'd actually buy the camera -- dynamic range would be the one I'd pick.

Last thing -- I would have liked 1/8000, too. But it's a compromise I'm willing to accept, considering the price, mostly because I rarely have enough light to make use of 1/8000 anyways. I just don't foresee my budget including the telephotos over 200mm where I could take advantage of 1/8000.

 

[Jack Douglas]

@ cpsico, that's perfectly valid. Our needs are quite different.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Give it some time and the 6D2 will again come out faring much like the 6D did. Canon knows what they are doing. And they don't seem to be concerned too much about the fact that all of us have something about the camera we really hoped would be better.

I got a blender. It had 5 speeds. Then I saw one with 10 speeds and then later, one with 20 speeds and I had a nervous breakdown because mine obviously was totally useless and I quit processing food and then I starved to death. It's just not fair! How could they treat me like this.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

If you're into trial by numbers, looking at the High ISO performance ("sports"), the 6D Mark II is DXOMark's third highest ranking camera manufactured by Canon, and not far behind 5DMark IV. Only the 1DX Mark II is significantly better. In High ISO performance, 6DMkII is a small leap ahead of 5DS, 5DSR, 5D Mark III, and flattens APSCs like the 80D, or, for that matter APSCs and MFTs from any make.

1DX Mk II - 3207
5D MkIV - 2995
6D MkII - 2862
1DX - 2786
5DS - 2381
6D - 2340
5DSR 2308
5DMark III - 2293

And for reference, Canon's APSC sensors fall off a cliff, scoring below the original 5D:
5D - 1368
M6 -1317
80D - 1135
7D Mark II - 1082

That is an over-simplistic take on the DxO numbers.
Firstly, for the 5DSR and 5DS vs the low resolution FFs, if you downresolve the 5DS to give the same number of pixels as the lower ones, you regain high iso performance. For example, reducing the 50 mpx of the 5DS to the 26 mpx of the 7DII reduces the noise by a factor of sqrt(50/26), ie 1.39, increasing the effective iso performance to ~3,300 (minus a small factor). The S/N on the 5DIV is actually better than that on the 1DXII when you downsize the the pixel count.

Secondly, the APS-C do not "fall off a cliff" with iso. It all depends on what lens you put on them and whether or not you crop. If you have to crop the FF and APS-C to the same size for say a small bird in the middle of the image, then the relative DxO numbers you quote become to approximately the same for both. Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).