Review: Canon EOS 6D Mark II by DPReview

[bclaff]

...

Bigger sensor does not mean more DR at base ISO.

...

This depends on the context of what is meant by "DR".
If you're talking DR that has been normalized to a consistent print size and viewing distance, like Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos or Landscape Score like at DxOMark then yes a larger sensor area will produce a higher DR (in general).
If you're talking about at the pixel level, well, that's "apples to oranges" and all bets are

Right you are. But apples to oranges discussions are what keep the posts coming. At this point, DR means pretty much whatever the poster wants it to mean. Signal to noise ratio is independent of sensor size. Apparent noise in a print of a given size (viewed at a given distance) is related to sensor size, at least in most cases. How significant is all this? Don't even ask. It would spoil the fun, and might reduce the level of those all important clicks.

+1

I agree that a larger sensor will have less noise and therefore more DR, all else being equal. But when is all else equal? Outside comparing a cropped image to an uncropped image from the same sensor, pretty much never.

In choosing a camera for a purpose the apples to apples part (all things being equal) is the final print size and viewing distance.
This is why for a technical test you want results that are appropriately normalized such as Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos.
(I don't consider DxOMark properly normalized, but that's a different rat-hole )

 

[Hflm]

...

Bigger sensor does not mean more DR at base ISO.

...

This depends on the context of what is meant by "DR".
If you're talking DR that has been normalized to a consistent print size and viewing distance, like Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos or Landscape Score like at DxOMark then yes a larger sensor area will produce a higher DR (in general).
If you're talking about at the pixel level, well, that's "apples to oranges" and all bets are

Right you are. But apples to oranges discussions are what keep the posts coming. At this point, DR means pretty much whatever the poster wants it to mean. Signal to noise ratio is independent of sensor size. Apparent noise in a print of a given size (viewed at a given distance) is related to sensor size, at least in most cases. How significant is all this? Don't even ask. It would spoil the fun, and might reduce the level of those all important clicks.

+1

I agree that a larger sensor will have less noise and therefore more DR, all else being equal. But when is all else equal? Outside comparing a cropped image to an uncropped image from the same sensor, pretty much never.

Less "apparent" noise, in my opinion. The shot noise increases (same f-stop, shutter speed, ...).
"Thus, as the signal grows, the photon shot noise also grows, but more slowly; and the signal-to-noise ratio increases as the square root of the number of photons collected. The higher the illumination, the less apparent the shot noise; the lower the illumination, the more apparent it is."
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/#shotnoise

 

[Aglet]

...

Bigger sensor does not mean more DR at base ISO.

...

This depends on the context of what is meant by "DR".
If you're talking DR that has been normalized to a consistent print size and viewing distance, like Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos or Landscape Score like at DxOMark then yes a larger sensor area will produce a higher DR (in general).
If you're talking about at the pixel level, well, that's "apples to oranges" and all bets are

Right you are. But apples to oranges discussions are what keep the posts coming. At this point, DR means pretty much whatever the poster wants it to mean. Signal to noise ratio is independent of sensor size. Apparent noise in a print of a given size (viewed at a given distance) is related to sensor size, at least in most cases. How significant is all this? Don't even ask. It would spoil the fun, and might reduce the level of those all important clicks.

+1

I agree that a larger sensor will have less noise and therefore more DR, all else being equal. But when is all else equal? Outside comparing a cropped image to an uncropped image from the same sensor, pretty much never.

Less "apparent" noise, in my opinion. The shot noise increases (same f-stop, shutter speed, ...).
"Thus, as the signal grows, the photon shot noise also grows, but more slowly; and the signal-to-noise ratio increases as the square root of the number of photons collected. The higher the illumination, the less apparent the shot noise; the lower the illumination, the more apparent it is."
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/#shotnoise

yes,
and NR software has become very good are mitigating the appearance of that random noise so that even small sensors at hi iso can clean-up surprisingly well to produce an acceptable or at least usable image.

Pattern noise... not easy to improve the look of that w-o using post work to effect noise frame subtraction.

 

[jeffa4444]

Any other 6D MKII users out there that have now passed their results through LR / PS CC?

We need more practical in the field results not lab tests.

 

[tomscott]

Any other 6D MKII users out there that have now passed their results through LR / PS CC?

We need more practical in the field results not lab tests.

I shot a wedding on Friday il post some images later tonight.

 

[Don Haines]

Any other 6D MKII users out there that have now passed their results through LR / PS CC?

We need more practical in the field results not lab tests.

I could help, but I don't want to let the cat out of the bag

First shot is at ISO1250.....

Second shot is at ISO102400, and the lightsouce is moonlight through the trees!

 

[Ryananthony]

Don, What were the shutter speeds/ apertures of those two shots?

 

[Don Haines]

Don, What were the shutter speeds/ apertures of those two shots?

Both shots were with a 6D2 and a 70-200F4 IS. I have not done AFMA on the lens yet, and I am now fairly sure that I should.

The first shot is 1/50th of a second at F5.6, lens at 180mm
The second shot is 1/60th of a second at F4.0, lens at 185mm

 

[Aglet]

I don't think your approach is viable for many from a financial and practical standpoint,

True. it certainly isn't!
not many can have 5 fairly well equipped major systems to choose from so when I'm comparing them and presenting information it's coming from a source few individuals can match.

so I doubt its good advice for anyone except most extreme cases needing low iso latitude. However, those people tend to know their stuff and shoot film

I only shoot film for fun these days.
And frankly, it's not that much fun any more. LOL

For what it is worth, my 5DIV has more shadow detail than what I need at virtually any ISO. I even go so far to say that if low ISO DR is regularly a problem, a good photo workshop on lighting is a better investment than a new body.

That's just not practical for most of the outdoor world tho. That's why better image capture tech is used in those conditions.

 

[Aglet]

Whether you are a reasonable source depends whether your can take pictures.
I (we) surely don't need advice about a next car purchase from a guy with Ferrari that cant drive and has the need to brag in an Internet forum about it.
Frankly, statements like "film is little fun" (u kidding?) and "5D4 is impractical for the outdoor world" (seriously?) don't gain street credits nor suggest any skills.

HAHA!
I've shot film since the 70s.. I've had enough. I'm not that patient any more and, frankly, have you seen what you can do with digital?!? It's amazing!

I did not say the 5d4 was impractical for the outdoor world. It's the most practical camera I think Canon's ever made. FWIW.
LIGHTING is impractical for the outdoor world. LOL

 

[Aglet]

LIGHTING is impractical for the outdoor world.

And this hardly makes your case any better.

you must be thinkin' small or you have a huge lighting budget

let's see you light the shadow-side of a mountain range so it looks natural across 3 miles of view

 

[Talys]

LIGHTING is impractical for the outdoor world.

And this hardly makes your case any better.

you must be thinkin' small or you have a huge lighting budget

let's see you light the shadow-side of a mountain range so it looks natural across 3 miles of view

There is a way to light up a mountain range, by the way; wait for the sun to move There are a lot of shots where you just have to take it at a different time of day, under different conditions, or in a different season to get the desired shot.

But jest aside, there are lots of outdoor shots that aren't landscapes or vista where lighting can be the difference between something that looks like professional photography, and something that looks like a cell phone pic. Strobes, softboxes, beauty dishes are all key to overpowering natural lighting and getting the shot you need when you need it. It's a lot of experience, and if I'm honest, something that I'm not very good at -- because I rarely do those shots. But whether it's a person, hummingbird, or flower, lighting can definitely help a lot of shots.

I remember my wife thinking I that I had lost it when I dragged out softboxes, light stands, strobes and power into the back yard, just to get some photos of cherry blossoms the first year we moved into our home

 

[Aglet]

LIGHTING is impractical for the outdoor world.

And this hardly makes your case any better.

you must be thinkin' small or you have a huge lighting budget

let's see you light the shadow-side of a mountain range so it looks natural across 3 miles of view

Wait for the right light (or make it)?

well, "making it" would likely require an airburst from a small nuke with a suitably robust set of barn doors. LOL
sadly, no "modelling-mode" for setting up.

If you can't, you don't get the same IQ. There are a series of techniques available but a 1/2 stop (or even more) base DR difference hardly saves the day. ..or just show us that we are wrong and back up your words with images!

HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4.
Yes, there's not a big difference between that camera and the ABCs I use for landscape but what about your lesser brethren shooting things like 5d2/3 or 6d2/3 or older crop?...
There are definite advantages to having every bit of noise-free DR possible in tough situations. more is always better here.

 

[Mikehit]

HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4.
Yes, there's not a big difference between that camera and the ABCs I use for landscape but what about your lesser brethren shooting things like 5d2/3 or 6d2/3 or older crop?...
There are definite advantages to having every bit of noise-free DR possible in tough situations. more is always better here.

And at the time they bought their 5D2/3, what FT alternatives were available? Oh, yeah those same predecessors to the E-M1 mkII that you way were so bad. So instead of switching systems to the model you claim is superior it would make sense to get the 5D4.

 

[Aglet]

I remember my wife thinking I that I had lost it when I dragged out softboxes, light stands, strobes and power into the back yard, just to get some photos of cherry blossoms the first year we moved into our home

Yes, those unfamiliar often think we're nuts when we pull out lighting gear on a sunny day... until they see the difference.
I actually carry a small reflector with me in my daily backpack! It's just a piece of white coroplast I cut out which doubles as a stiffener for one of the compartments but also gets plenty of use directing ambient light to fill shadows when I'm taking close-ups or macro shots of stuff as part of my day-job. It's also used as a shade to block unwanted reflections in similar situations.

 

[Aglet]

HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4.
Yes, there's not a big difference between that camera and the ABCs I use for landscape but what about your lesser brethren shooting things like 5d2/3 or 6d2/3 or older crop?...
There are definite advantages to having every bit of noise-free DR possible in tough situations. more is always better here.

And at the time they bought their 5D2/3, what FT alternatives were available? Oh, yeah those same predecessors to the E-M1 mkII that you way were so bad. So instead of switching systems to the model you claim is superior it would make sense to get the 5D4.

I had then, still have now, a pile of high end Nikon and Pentax gear.
I only added MFT in the last few yrs as an alternative to Fuji and fixed-lens compacts I sometimes carry when traveling light.
MFT became good when the EM5 came out.

- compare them here... any surprises?

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M5

edit:
I'm done playing with Canon for now; overpriced for performance. Can't really see going back to buying them unless they make something seriously compelling but I doubt they ever would. They don't lead any more, their innovations are all baby-steps.
I like the variety of features other mfrs include. They're fun and useful and they're on cameras that can deliver great IQ.

 

[Mikehit]

HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4.
Yes, there's not a big difference between that camera and the ABCs I use for landscape but what about your lesser brethren shooting things like 5d2/3 or 6d2/3 or older crop?...
There are definite advantages to having every bit of noise-free DR possible in tough situations. more is always better here.

And at the time they bought their 5D2/3, what FT alternatives were available? Oh, yeah those same predecessors to the E-M1 mkII that you way were so bad. So instead of switching systems to the model you claim is superior it would make sense to get the 5D4.

I had then, still have now, a pile of high end Nikon and Pentax gear.
I only added MFT in the last few yrs as an alternative to Fuji and fixed-lens compacts I sometimes carry when traveling light.
MFT became good when the EM5 came out.

- compare them here... any surprises?

Oh look, the E-M5 doesn't go down below 200. How can you possibly consider it to be a 'good' camera?

 

[Aglet]

..you are bashing a system on a single feature...

no, not at all. You haven't been reading my posts thoroughly enough.
I recommend you do.

DR is great to have, the more the merrier, especially in daylight landscape and other harshly lit scenes.
I bash Canon for just making generally noisy images, especially when it's pattern noise.
I also bash them for being kind of pricey considering the performance level they provide.
And for being less innovative than the competition.
Hmmm.. let's see... what else?.... Boring?..

However, extreme situations require extremely skilled and experienced photographers to even get reasonably good pictures (have you tried 11mm, f1.0, or ISO 51,000+ ?).

nope, no need for such a lens.
But if you lent me one, preferably in Nikon or Pentax mount, I'll show you how to use it.
I'm pretty good at keepin my feet out of the picture.

A 5D4 can raise them but the picture is (almost certainly) still rubbish.

really?... then maybe it's not as good as I thot it was.
Glad I didn't buy one.

You are simply buying into the manufacturers' talk that you need the latest and greatest to get a good picture.

Well, the general camera-buying populace is likely to fit that claim...

Many choose Canon because they have a track record of, arguably conservative, innovation that makes our lives easier.

Having used most major systems I think that is subjective. But they are comfortable and easy to use as I've often stated.
Some of their shortcomings, however, made my life miserable until I found a solution(s).

...please stop making misleading claims that Canon systems aren't up to snuff in particular lining them up vs. everybody else.

So you'd like me to not compare your favorite marquee against the competition?...
Well, you asked nicely. But, alas, I cannot abide.

Not-comparing is something you do to maintain marital harmony by not fostering insecurities in your partner.
Cameras are tools and they're gonna get compared! ;D
And there's nothing misleading about my claims. They're backed up with sound data and perspective.

Canon systems will continue to produce tons of award winning pictures.

Or, many award winning photos will be made by people (despite) using Canon cameras.

..its a given that Canon will continue to provide us with better cameras, lenses, and accessories in the time to come.

I've learned that I'd rather use the best tool I can get my hands on NOW.
If it stops working then I'll get the best one available at that time.


Oh my, did you bond with Canon products in some sort of ceremony? ???


OK, so that was fodder for some humor, IMO.

You have the 5d4. You made a good choice. You're better equipped to capture more challenging images than most people and if you have the knowledge and experience to push it to its limits it's not holding you back in any meaningful way from the competitor's tools.
I'm glad Canon has finally produced at least a few very good IQ bodies that those faithful to the system can choose if they like and can afford them.
I hope they extend that improved IQ capability across their entire line so more people can experience the difference a (n ALL-around) great imaging tool makes over one that's just good or mediocre. But as we've seen with the 6d2, they're not going to do so just yet.

But that won't stop me or others from comparing these photographic tools every time a new one comes out.
Cuz that's how people learn stuff.

 

[Mikehit]

And there's nothing misleading about my claims. They're backed up with sound data and perspective.

You mean like the pattern noise in the 5D vs EM1 that you showed a couple of days ago where your 'sound data' was that it was no better but 'it will probably cleanup better'?

Like how you claimed the MFT produced superior images to any Canon model up to 5DIV/1Dx then when challenged you backed off and made the more reasonable statement that the functionality of the MFT overrode any shortcomings in mage quality?

I have no problems with you comparing the models, but I think you overstate your claims to get attention.

 

[BillB]

LIGHTING is impractical for the outdoor world.

And this hardly makes your case any better.

you must be thinkin' small or you have a huge lighting budget

let's see you light the shadow-side of a mountain range so it looks natural across 3 miles of view

Wait for the right light (or make it)?

well, "making it" would likely require an airburst from a small nuke with a suitably robust set of barn doors. LOL
sadly, no "modelling-mode" for setting up.

If you can't, you don't get the same IQ. There are a series of techniques available but a 1/2 stop (or even more) base DR difference hardly saves the day. ..or just show us that we are wrong and back up your words with images!

HAHA! Tough talk from the guy with a 5d4.
Yes, there's not a big difference between that camera and the ABCs I use for landscape but what about your lesser brethren shooting things like 5d2/3 or 6d2/3 or older crop?...
There are definite advantages to having every bit of noise-free DR possible in tough situations. more is always better here.

For quite a while now, you have been bashing the Canon 5D2, 5D3 and 6D, and ridiculing the people who continue to use them. During this period, you have spent a fair amount of money buying new cameras, and recently got the new MFT Olympus, which you say has IQ almost as good as, or perhaps comparable to, the Canon's you have continually bashed. At the same time, Canon buyers that you ridicule, without needing to spend any money on new cameras, have continued to use the cameras that you bash, cameras with IQ comparable to, or perhaps slightly better than your new Olympus MFT. If the IQ is acceptable when you shoot with your Olympus, why wasn't it acceptable when they shot with their Canons?

You say that you are enjoying your photographic journey, and I wish you well in that journey. I also hope that you can see the humor in the current situation. All of us camera geeks are at least a little ridiculous.