PetaPixel poops on the 6D2 sensor

[Khalai]

Dynamic Range turns into Dynamic RAGE

DR = dramatic ranting 8)

Ha ha ha ha. Good one.

Canon really messed up - I just bought a 5DIV instead of a 6DII.

*cha-ching* from Canon's bank account

 

[chrysoberyl]

DR = dramatic ranting 8)

Ha ha ha ha. Good one.

Canon really messed up - I just bought a 5DIV instead of a 6DII.
[/quote]

*cha-ching* from Canon's bank account
[/quote]

I really wanted the articulating screen, but when I saw the IQ bump the Sigma 135 Art gave my 6D and 80D, I decided 30 MP would be nice. I was firmly on the fence until the DR discussion. That was the slight nudge I needed to decide.

 

[kphoto99]

Dynamic Range turns into Dynamic RAGE

DR = dramatic ranting 8)

Ha ha ha ha. Good one.

Canon really messed up - I just bought a 5DIV instead of a 6DII.

You just proved Canon right, they want you to buy 5DIV instead of 6DII

 

[YuengLinger]

Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.

Complain all you want, that's perfectly valid. But if you're complaining about a camera that is meeting Canon's sales expectations, then yes, your complaints are futile and irrelevant to Canon. That's reality. It's unfortunate that having reality explained upsets you, but really, that's your own problem.

"Upset" is not the right word. Every time generally happy customers share a negative opinion about a feature or spec that compares poorly to the competition, we get exactly the same response from the same four or five CR members. As if it is your mission to stop the negative talk, to declare that your seasoned, worldly perspective trumps all, and that criticism must stop.

"Bewildered" better applies to how I feel about obviously intelligent people reacting robotically to criticism, trying to end critical threads, or steer conversations back to only the joys and miracles of life under Canon.

 

[Loswr]

Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.

Complain all you want, that's perfectly valid. But if you're complaining about a camera that is meeting Canon's sales expectations, then yes, your complaints are futile and irrelevant to Canon. That's reality. It's unfortunate that having reality explained upsets you, but really, that's your own problem.

"Upset" is not the right word. Every time generally happy customers share a negative opinion about a feature or spec that compares poorly to the competition, we get exactly the same response from the same four or five CR members. As if it is your mission to stop the negative talk, to declare that your seasoned, worldly perspective trumps all, and that criticism must stop.

"Bewildered" better applies to how I feel about obviously intelligent people reacting robotically to criticism, trying to end critical threads, or steer conversations back to only the joys and miracles of life under Canon.

I think you're missing the point, still.

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Agreed. Showing what could be done to salvage the image was a pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon.

 

[YuengLinger]

Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.

Complain all you want, that's perfectly valid. But if you're complaining about a camera that is meeting Canon's sales expectations, then yes, your complaints are futile and irrelevant to Canon. That's reality. It's unfortunate that having reality explained upsets you, but really, that's your own problem.

"Upset" is not the right word. Every time generally happy customers share a negative opinion about a feature or spec that compares poorly to the competition, we get exactly the same response from the same four or five CR members. As if it is your mission to stop the negative talk, to declare that your seasoned, worldly perspective trumps all, and that criticism must stop.

"Bewildered" better applies to how I feel about obviously intelligent people reacting robotically to criticism, trying to end critical threads, or steer conversations back to only the joys and miracles of life under Canon.

I think you're missing the point, still.

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Agreed. Showing what could be done to salvage the image was a pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon.

Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

And speaking of helpful, suggesting hot-headed critics wait for more reviews and RAW samples makes more sense to me. In fact, I can admit that I go off half-cocked based on a comparison thrown out by a website with a spotty record for accuracy. But when a valid criticism of a product is met with, "They are the market leaders. Resistance is futile," then I'm bewildered.

 

[Orangutan]

Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.

Complain all you want, that's perfectly valid. But if you're complaining about a camera that is meeting Canon's sales expectations, then yes, your complaints are futile and irrelevant to Canon. That's reality. It's unfortunate that having reality explained upsets you, but really, that's your own problem.

"Upset" is not the right word. Every time generally happy customers share a negative opinion about a feature or spec that compares poorly to the competition, we get exactly the same response from the same four or five CR members. As if it is your mission to stop the negative talk, to declare that your seasoned, worldly perspective trumps all, and that criticism must stop.

"Bewildered" better applies to how I feel about obviously intelligent people reacting robotically to criticism, trying to end critical threads, or steer conversations back to only the joys and miracles of life under Canon.

I believe you misunderstand, no one is trying to suppress legitimate criticism. If you assert that a certain feature doesn't meet your needs, or that you wished Canon had chosen to put a better sensor in the 6D2 because the 80D had it, that would be legitimate (whining excepted). Actually, I feel that way: if later tests show that APS-C-sized crops of the 6D2 don't match the 80D I'll be disappointed, and I may choose not to buy a 6D2 (I had started saving for it).

It is not, however, legitimate to claim your own needs as universal. Some here (I'm not saying this is you) will claim that a single "inadequate" feature makes the camera useless, or that it demonstrates Canon's fatal error or fatal arrogance. Many people will buy and use this camera very successfully. It looks like it'll be a pretty nice budget studio camera, among other things.

By all means, continue telling us how it fails to meet your needs, though we may not listen. If you go beyond your own needs you may be called-out for it.

 

[YuengLinger]

Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.

Complain all you want, that's perfectly valid. But if you're complaining about a camera that is meeting Canon's sales expectations, then yes, your complaints are futile and irrelevant to Canon. That's reality. It's unfortunate that having reality explained upsets you, but really, that's your own problem.

"Upset" is not the right word. Every time generally happy customers share a negative opinion about a feature or spec that compares poorly to the competition, we get exactly the same response from the same four or five CR members. As if it is your mission to stop the negative talk, to declare that your seasoned, worldly perspective trumps all, and that criticism must stop.

"Bewildered" better applies to how I feel about obviously intelligent people reacting robotically to criticism, trying to end critical threads, or steer conversations back to only the joys and miracles of life under Canon.

I believe you misunderstand, no one is trying to suppress legitimate criticism. If you assert that a certain feature doesn't meet your needs, or that you wished Canon had chosen to put a better sensor in the 6D2 because the 80D had it, that would be legitimate (whining excepted). Actually, I feel that way: if later tests show that APS-C-sized crops of the 6D2 don't match the 80D I'll be disappointed, and I may choose not to buy a 6D2 (I had started saving for it).

It is not, however, legitimate to claim your own needs as universal. Some here (I'm not saying this is you) will claim that a single "inadequate" feature makes the camera useless, or that it demonstrates Canon's fatal error or fatal arrogance. Many people will buy and use this camera very successfully. It looks like it'll be a pretty nice budget studio camera, among other things.

By all means, continue telling us how it fails to meet your needs, though we may not listen. If you go beyond your own needs you may be called-out for it.

Perhaps I've become too jaded to the hysterical rhetoric used so often on the Web that I confuse trolling rants with actual opinions? While I might read, "Canon's newest sensor is useless, the company is doomed, I "translate" it as, "This is really disappointing, the sensor is noisier than a cropped sensor from three years ago..."

 

[Orangutan]

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

 

[Orangutan]

Canon's customers have every right to complain about subpar products. Hearing over and over, reflexively, from self-appointed defenders of the faith, that, because Canon is the current market leader our concerns are irrelevant and futile doesn't make the criticism of disappointing products less valid.

Complain all you want, that's perfectly valid. But if you're complaining about a camera that is meeting Canon's sales expectations, then yes, your complaints are futile and irrelevant to Canon. That's reality. It's unfortunate that having reality explained upsets you, but really, that's your own problem.

"Upset" is not the right word. Every time generally happy customers share a negative opinion about a feature or spec that compares poorly to the competition, we get exactly the same response from the same four or five CR members. As if it is your mission to stop the negative talk, to declare that your seasoned, worldly perspective trumps all, and that criticism must stop.

"Bewildered" better applies to how I feel about obviously intelligent people reacting robotically to criticism, trying to end critical threads, or steer conversations back to only the joys and miracles of life under Canon.

I believe you misunderstand, no one is trying to suppress legitimate criticism. If you assert that a certain feature doesn't meet your needs, or that you wished Canon had chosen to put a better sensor in the 6D2 because the 80D had it, that would be legitimate (whining excepted). Actually, I feel that way: if later tests show that APS-C-sized crops of the 6D2 don't match the 80D I'll be disappointed, and I may choose not to buy a 6D2 (I had started saving for it).

It is not, however, legitimate to claim your own needs as universal. Some here (I'm not saying this is you) will claim that a single "inadequate" feature makes the camera useless, or that it demonstrates Canon's fatal error or fatal arrogance. Many people will buy and use this camera very successfully. It looks like it'll be a pretty nice budget studio camera, among other things.

By all means, continue telling us how it fails to meet your needs, though we may not listen. If you go beyond your own needs you may be called-out for it.

Perhaps I've become too jaded to the hysterical rhetoric used so often on the Web that I confuse trolling rants with actual opinions? While I might read, "Canon's newest sensor is useless, the company is doomed, I "translate" it as, "This is really disappointing, the sensor is noisier than a cropped sensor from three years ago..."

Then you're more charitable than I am.

 

[Loswr]

Perhaps I've become too jaded to the hysterical rhetoric used so often on the Web that I confuse trolling rants with actual opinions? While I might read, "Canon's newest sensor is useless, the company is doomed, I "translate" it as, "This is really disappointing, the sensor is noisier than a cropped sensor from three years ago..."

Then perhaps you could also read, "Canon is the market leader, shut up you wanker, resistance is futile," and translate it as, "Canon makes good cameras, have a nice day."

 

[YuengLinger]

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

Because the point of the comparison is to show a baseline. Demonstrating what can be done to salvage a botched exposure is another interesting topic.

 

[Loswr]

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

Do you really think any manufacturer would do that – make changes in a product designed to fool standardized testing processes? I highly doubt any manufacturer would even consider doing such a thing, either for camera sensors, or...say...diesel engine emissions.

 

[Orangutan]

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

Do you really think any manufacturer would do that – make changes in a product designed to fool standardized testing processes? I highly doubt any manufacturer would even consider doing such a thing, either for camera sensors, or...say...diesel engine emissions.

I see the , but will answer more seriously. I know that Sony was accused of this, but I don't have the technical knowledge to address it. I do know, however, that the end-result is what matters.

 

[Antono Refa]

On the other hand, I want to argue that your whole point boils down to a very generic, general statement that could really be applied to any company, probably in any industry where tech advancements manner. Like this, "If company ABC didn't continue to release next generation products as technology allowed, customers may have moved on to a competitor."

From the products' technical specs point of view, this is a red queen's race.

From the customers' point of view, this is trolling. Products on the shelves are so good, photographers who need (in contrast to will benefit from) a better camera are a negligible minority.

 

[Orangutan]

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

Because the point of the comparison is to show a baseline. Demonstrating what can be done to salvage a botched exposure is another interesting topic.

If one manufacturer pre-processes its raw files, then there is no possible way to achieve such a baseline. It's true that a baseline would be ideal; however, since the handling of raw files (between photon capture and raw encoding) is completely hidden from us, then it's impossible to achieve that objective baseline. The only option left to us is to compare using optimal capture and optimal processing on each, then compare those end-results. We could then infer the inherent capabilities of the sensors.

 

[privatebydesign]

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

Because the point of the comparison is to show a baseline.

How is applying the same post process to files storing information a different way a "comparison" and where is the "baseline"?

Another car analogy, acceleration test, two cars, one in reverse, what do we learn? How good one car is going forwards and by 'comparison' how badly one performs with an artificial limitation. You have to point both cars the same way, if that means you have to turn one around because it was on the transporter the opposite way how is that fudging anything?

I'll leave the personal stuff aside for now but I am not apologizing for Canon, they are big boys and can live or die by their own hand, I am pointing out that in this "comparison" one 'car' is backwards and I am an apologist? You are an idiot. I apologize, you are not an idiot, you are so derisory of any post I make you can't read the actual words I write and you just jump to a conclusion that fits your preconceived notion of what you think my point might be.

 

[YuengLinger]

Perhaps I've become too jaded to the hysterical rhetoric used so often on the Web that I confuse trolling rants with actual opinions? While I might read, "Canon's newest sensor is useless, the company is doomed, I "translate" it as, "This is really disappointing, the sensor is noisier than a cropped sensor from three years ago..."

Then perhaps you could also read, "Canon is the market leader, shut up you wanker, resistance is futile," and translate it as, "Canon makes good cameras, have a nice day."

We don't have a laughing emoji, so, "Ha ha." And, "Touché!"

 

[YuengLinger]

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

Because the point of the comparison is to show a baseline.

How is applying the same post process to files storing information a different way a "comparison" and where is the "baseline"?

Another car analogy, acceleration test, two cars, one in reverse, what do we learn? How good one car is going forwards and by 'comparison' how badly one performs with an artificial limitation. You have to point both cars the same way, if that means you have to turn one around because it was on the transporter the opposite way how is that fudging anything?

I'll leave the personal stuff aside for now but I am not apologizing for Canon, they are big boys and can live or die by their own hand, I am pointing out that in this "comparison" one 'car' is backwards and I am an apologist? You are an idiot.

Explain to this idiot how showing, side by side, images from two sensors at the same ISO raised by the same amount, +5 EV, is analogous to having one car going forward and one in reverse. Educate me!

 

[privatebydesign]

Meanwhile, I'm bewildered by an obviously intelligent person viewing a demonstration of good post-processing skills as a, "...pretty desperate attempt to apologize for Canon."

Because the skills are irrelevant to the comparison, which itself may not be very helpful.

How so? Not all raw files are handled equally in-camera, so the most important question is the end result. If you take raw files from different cameras (same scene, histogram, etc), and one looks better SOOC, but the other cleans-up better, what does that say? It might say that the first one was pre-processed; i.e. "cooked," to make it appear better SOOC.

Because the point of the comparison is to show a baseline.

How is applying the same post process to files storing information a different way a "comparison" and where is the "baseline"?

Another car analogy, acceleration test, two cars, one in reverse, what do we learn? How good one car is going forwards and by 'comparison' how badly one performs with an artificial limitation. You have to point both cars the same way, if that means you have to turn one around because it was on the transporter the opposite way how is that fudging anything?

I'll leave the personal stuff aside for now but I am not apologizing for Canon, they are big boys and can live or die by their own hand, I am pointing out that in this "comparison" one 'car' is backwards and I am an apologist? You are an idiot.

Explain to this idiot how showing, side by side, images from two sensors at the same ISO raised by the same amount, +5 EV, is equivalent to having one car going forward and one in reverse. Educate me!

BECAUSE ONE USES A FLOATING BLACK POINT AND ONE DOESN'T!

At least two posters, including me, have pointed that out so far in this very thread.