Petapixel: 6D vs 6DII, high ISO

[snoke]

https://petapixel.com/2017/08/14/canon-6d-vs-6d-ii-heres-high-iso-noise-comparison/

Maybe this bias because earlier story?

Possible exposure wrong because histogram shape but that mean both photo wrong so why 6DII look worse?

Confused cameras? Other review agree?

Adobe need better camera profile?

 

[Don Haines]

https://petapixel.com/2017/08/14/canon-6d-vs-6d-ii-heres-high-iso-noise-comparison/

Maybe this bias because earlier story?

Possible exposure wrong because histogram shape but that mean both photo wrong so why 6DII look worse?

Confused cameras? Other review agree?

Adobe need better camera profile?

The first thing that they need to do is AFMA their lens..... all the 6D2 pictures are horribly out of focus..... They should be taking the pictures with live view....

 

[SecureGSM]

Key word: no noise reduction applied.
In reality though, the 6D II body high ISO advantage is in how well high ISO RAW files produced by the camera respond to the noise reduction in post . Better noise quality for sure. Despite raw files may look noisier the final jpegs come out much cleaner looking in post.

 

[Mikehit]

As far as noise is concerned the images are not being viewed at an equal size whihc puts the 6D2 at a disadvantage. And it hard to compare image detail when the 6D2 image is either OOF or suffering camera blur
The magenta cast is more of a concern, but it is at 25,600 when neither image is particularly usable.

These results go against examples I am seeing on other sites which calls into question Petapixel's methodology.

 

[SecureGSM]

Mike, I do not detect any magenta cast in ISO test images provided by ephotozine:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-expert-review-31095/performance

The tonality of Colour swatches look natural to me even at ISO 25,600. I would not trust Petapixel's files too much. Something is not right there.

...The magenta cast is more of a concern, but it is at 25,600 when neither image is particularly usable. ..
These results go against examples I am seeing on other sites which calls into question Petapixel's methodology.

 

[marcusdarmstrong]

Hi everybody, this is my first post and whatnot, been lurking for a while now, but hadn't really felt a need to add anything until now... as it happens this review is one that matters quite a bit to me as a somebody considering upgrading to the 6D Mark II (I'm a [very] amateur landscape and astro-landscape photographer).

But really, just wanted to add two notes...

1. It's very unlikely that the images being out of focus really means anything, as he almost assuredly would have been shooting in manual focus mode, as AF systems generally perform pretty horribly for astro stuff.

2. These aren't the work of petapixel, but rather a fairly respectable astrophotographer on his own blog: https://amazingsky.net/2017/08/09/testing-the-canon-6d-mark-ii-for-nightscapes/ (PetaPixel simply is syndicating his results a few days after he posted them).

 

[timmy_650]

The result of the 25,600 of the 6Dm2 looks a lot worse then all of other test I have seen. It looks closer to the picture taken at 100 iso and pushed 5 stopped.

 

[Cory]

I keep speaking of the damage done to IQ by a tilting screen yet no one listens.

 

[hbr]

I keep speaking of the damage done to IQ by a tilting screen yet no one listens.

Cory, I am not understanding this post. There is no IQ damage caused by the tilting screen and where have you mentioned this before?

Brian

 

[Cory]

I keep speaking of the damage done to IQ by a tilting screen yet no one listens.

Cory, I am not understanding this post. There is no IQ damage caused by the tilting screen and where have you mentioned this before?

Brian

Friends don't let friends tilt their screens.

 

[hbr]

I keep speaking of the damage done to IQ by a tilting screen yet no one listens.

Cory, I am not understanding this post. There is no IQ damage caused by the tilting screen and where have you mentioned this before?

Brian

Friends don't let friends tilt their screens.

Too funny!

 

[Ozarker]

I keep speaking of the damage done to IQ by a tilting screen yet no one listens.

Cory, I am not understanding this post. There is no IQ damage caused by the tilting screen and where have you mentioned this before?

Brian

Friends don't let friends tilt their screens.

You can't be serious.

 

[Don Haines]

I keep speaking of the damage done to IQ by a tilting screen yet no one listens.

Cory, I am not understanding this post. There is no IQ damage caused by the tilting screen and where have you mentioned this before?

Brian

This is a common misunderstanding.... a tilt screen has no effect on the IQ of an image, but it does cause the image to be tilted....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Personally, I've noted that the dual pixel technology does seem to result in a slightly poorer high ISO noise. Its difficult to asses because the pixel count keeps rising as well. However, I'm not one to compare images at a low resolution, if I wanted a lower MP camera, I'd get one and pay less.

However, the advantages of Dual Pixel in accurate live autofocus, and even autofocus at f/11 or f/16 in my tests of my 5D MK IV are worth the tiny high ISO difference. I think its amazing to see my 100-400mm L with solar filter attached to autofocus at f/16 and even f/22 when its pre-focused to be close.

 

[Jopa]

Personally, I've noted that the dual pixel technology does seem to result in a slightly poorer high ISO noise. Its difficult to asses because the pixel count keeps rising as well. However, I'm not one to compare images at a low resolution, if I wanted a lower MP camera, I'd get one and pay less.

However, the advantages of Dual Pixel in accurate live autofocus, and even autofocus at f/11 or f/16 in my tests of my 5D MK IV are worth the tiny high ISO difference. I think its amazing to see my 100-400mm L with solar filter attached to autofocus at f/16 and even f/22 when its pre-focused to be close.

I don't think it's fair to compare noise on the pixel level coming different resolution sensors. No question a file from the 5dsr will look like colorful mess, but it'll be comparable when downsampled.

 

[SecureGSM]

your observations are generally spot on, but let me add few nuggets of information to it:

1. 5D IV high ISO performance is slightly better than the same of the 6D II. A lot of 6D II high ISO marvel comments are by emotionally driven crowd upgraded to FF from crop sensor rigs.

2. 5D IV sensor exhibits 5-7% better pixel level sharpness than 6D II sensor. Meaning your lenses deliver sharper images at 1:1 on 5D IV and by substantial margin. you can print larger and with better IQ. To put this into prospective, difference in sharpness level between the best lens and good one is commonly less than 7%. Yes, pros will notice the difference. your clients will not but most of them have no idea anyway.

5D IV is an absolute treasure with top shelf sensor tech in it and I am looking to step up to 5D IV level as soon as practical.
I invested tens of thousands of dollars in lenses and would like to get the most out of my investment by coupling them with the best sensor tech available on Canon platform.

Personally, I've noted that the dual pixel technology does seem to result in a slightly poorer high ISO noise. Its difficult to asses because the pixel count keeps rising as well. However, I'm not one to compare images at a low resolution, if I wanted a lower MP camera, I'd get one and pay less.

However, the advantages of Dual Pixel in accurate live autofocus, and even autofocus at f/11 or f/16 in my tests of my 5D MK IV are worth the tiny high ISO difference. I think its amazing to see my 100-400mm L with solar filter attached to autofocus at f/16 and even f/22 when its pre-focused to be close.

 

[Don Haines]

5D IV high ISO performance is slightly better than the same of the 6D II. A lot of 6D II high ISO marvel comments are by emotionally driven crowd upgraded to FF from crop sensor rigs.

It is a comparison of 6D to 6D2. The relative performance of the 5D4 or various crop cameras does not matter here.

 

[SecureGSM]

correct on both count, what was incorrect is the following your statement:

Personally, I've noted that the dual pixel technology does seem to result in a slightly poorer high ISO noise.

no, it does not. that is why I brought forward 5D IV DPAF (and higher resolution) enabled sensor example.

It is a comparison of 6D to 6D2. The relative performance of the 5D4 or various crop cameras does not matter here.

 

[Don Haines]

correct on both count, what was incorrect is the following your statement:

Personally, I've noted that the dual pixel technology does seem to result in a slightly poorer high ISO noise.

no, it does not. that is why I brought forward 5D IV DPAF (and higher resolution) enabled sensor example.

It is a comparison of 6D to 6D2. The relative performance of the 5D4 or various crop cameras does not matter here.

I'm not saying that the 5D4 isn't better, but that it is a comparison of Canon's introductory FF camera from the original to version 2.

 

[SecureGSM]

Don, sorry. With all due respect, I took the liberty of pointing out that the following your statement is incorrect. DPAF tech does not results in slightly poorer high ISO performance. That's all.

Personally, I've noted that the dual pixel technology does seem to result in a slightly poorer high ISO noise.