Review: Canon EOS 6D Mark II by DPReview

[Loswr]

Image noise (let's just concentrate on photon shot noise) _increases_ with more light gathered (signal S), due to the random nature of photons collected (Poisson distribution), it scales with sqrt(S). But S/N ratio = S/sqrt(S) = sqrt(S) increases, too. I think, however, that you meant that.
For DR read noise is extremely important and moving the ADC on sensor in the 5div, 1dxii, 80D or newer Rebels has decreased it. It is not as low as in the Sony sensor or Toshiba sensor models, but it is something I personally don't want to miss.

I probably should have stated I was referring to 'image noise' as noise perceived in a captured image, as amplified by the chosen ISO setting.

For me DR is important, as we often have contrasty scenes and I need to underexpose at weddings and push in post to protect highlights. If you don't do that, a 6dii certainly is a good entry level camera. But what will many people do? People now compare a 6dii to its peers. They have Dxo, Bill Claff, Dpreview, You tube "reviewers" (see quotes) etc. The Pentax, Sony and Nikon models (e.g. D750) in a similar price region compare favourably. Personally, I would always chose a D750 (two slots, incredible sensor, excellent AF system) over the 6dii.
With the 5div it is different. We use two at weddings and we are really happy with them. Really great cameras. However, owing a Sony A9, too, we see what is possible now with mirrorless technology. Hope Canon will counter accordingly.

People compared the 6D to its peers. People compared the 5DIII to its peers. There were DPR, DxO, Bill Claff, and YouTube then, too, and the competition had better low ISO DR. Despite that, the Canon bodies seem to have substantially outsold their peers.

 

[Loswr]

I evade the biggest bs there is, if I can. That's true.
Perhaps you simply open canonrumors main site and just look at the topics presented there instead of the forums, which have next to no exposure in comparison. The main page is where its at.

I see. In that case, perhaps you should simply restrict your participation in this site to viewing the main page. You won't be missed here on the forums.

 

[reef58]

It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment. The 6d was released as a low frills high image quality package.

What streak? It seems you've forgotten the 5DIII, which delivered merely one additional MP and sensor performance that was essentially identical to the 5DII. Of course, it had substantial improvements in AF, metering, frame rate, etc. Gee whiz, that kinda sounds like the 6DII compared to the 6D (except the 6DII got a much bigger MP boost).

Complainers gonna complain, whiners gonna whine, DRoners gonna DRone, and measurebaters gonna measurebate. Meanwhile, photographers gonna go out and take pictures.

I am not complaining, but merely pointing out many were expecting a bump in image quality since Canon has been putting out better sensors with their latest cameras, 1dx2, 80d, 5d4 as examples. Canon did not provide it, so be it. I was empathizing with the poster who had been waiting for the camera and had high hopes. Again Canon doesn't owe the poster nor myself anything. I get that. I am not sure why pointing out the IQ of the 6d2 is a disappointment needs to be mocked. I don't think Canon is doomed, and I am not selling all my gear. I am just considering an alternative since the 6d2 is a capable camera, but not exactly what "I" was hoping to get. Can we not discuss this?

I agree the updates to the focusing and frame rate are nice, but there is not a whole lot of difference between the 6d2 and the 5d3. Take out the articulating screen (actually my favorite upgrade) and you would be hard pressed to pick between the two.

I will be as equally disappointed if the 7d3 shows a similar level of image quality increase over the 7d2. I think many are expecting quite a bit less noise. Remains to be seen. Canon does not owe me a sensor with less noise, but why bother really is that weak link is not addressed.

That is all.

 

[reef58]

What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.

Probably because the better technology would cost more to implement. So, like every company, they cut corners to save production cost.

Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?

Yes, but since the R&D is already done on the 5d4 sensor and the production is in place. The 6d2 is a new sensor with separate costs, but maybe the design allows decreased production costs to make up for the additional development costs.

 

[Mikehit]

Yes, but since the R&D is already done on the 5d4 sensor and the production is in place. The 6d2 is a new sensor with separate costs, but maybe the design allows decreased production costs to make up for the additional development costs.

Since the 5DIV was released, Canon has not magically created a sensor of the 6D2 in the last 9months. The 6D2 sensor and 5DIV sensor will have been in development and production in parallel -if they used the 5DIV sensor in the 6D2 all that development for the 6D2 would have been binned and the price of the 6D2 will have had to cover those costs - plus the costs of redesigning the internals of the 6D2 for the change in direction.

 

[BillB]

It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment. The 6d was released as a low frills high image quality package.

What streak? It seems you've forgotten the 5DIII, which delivered merely one additional MP and sensor performance that was essentially identical to the 5DII. Of course, it had substantial improvements in AF, metering, frame rate, etc. Gee whiz, that kinda sounds like the 6DII compared to the 6D (except the 6DII got a much bigger MP boost).

Complainers gonna complain, whiners gonna whine, DRoners gonna DRone, and measurebaters gonna measurebate. Meanwhile, photographers gonna go out and take pictures.

I am not complaining, but merely pointing out many were expecting a bump in image quality since Canon has been putting out better sensors with their latest cameras, 1dx2, 80d, 5d4 as examples. Canon did not provide it, so be it. I was empathizing with the poster who had been waiting for the camera and had high hopes. Again Canon doesn't owe the poster nor myself anything. I get that. I am not sure why pointing out the IQ of the 6d2 is a disappointment needs to be mocked. I don't think Canon is doomed, and I am not selling all my gear. I am just considering an alternative since the 6d2 is a capable camera, but not exactly what "I" was hoping to get. Can we not discuss this?

I agree the updates to the focusing and frame rate are nice, but there is not a whole lot of difference between the 6d2 and the 5d3. Take out the articulating screen (actually my favorite upgrade) and you would be hard pressed to pick between the two.

I will be as equally disappointed if the 7d3 shows a similar level of image quality increase over the 7d2. I think many are expecting quite a bit less noise. Remains to be seen. Canon does not owe me a sensor with less noise, but why bother really is that weak link is not addressed.

That is all.

I agree with you about the articulated screen being a useful feature, and I also think that the touchscreen focussing associated with the new dual pixel technology is useful as well, both for Liveview and video. The inclusion of a sensor with ADC on board would have led to lower noise levels when lifting shadows at low ISOs, and I was surprised and disappointed when this did not happen. Whether this rises to the level of quite a bit less noise is I think a discussable point on which opinions can vary. Certainly, under most circumstances, the better sensor wouldn't produce any changes in noise levels at all. On the other hand, if raising shadows after shooting at bases ISO's is a big deal for you, it could be pretty important for you, especially if you like to make large prints

 

[reef58]

Yes, but since the R&D is already done on the 5d4 sensor and the production is in place. The 6d2 is a new sensor with separate costs, but maybe the design allows decreased production costs to make up for the additional development costs.

Since the 5DIV was released, Canon has not magically created a sensor of the 6D2 in the last 9months. The 6D2 sensor and 5DIV sensor will have been in development and production in parallel -if they used the 5DIV sensor in the 6D2 all that development for the 6D2 would have been binned and the price of the 6D2 will have had to cover those costs - plus the costs of redesigning the internals of the 6D2 for the change in direction.

I didn't say they did. They obviously had a reason to develop the sensors concurrently instead of just one sensor for both cameras. My point was directed to a possible manufacturing cost benefit.

 

[reef58]

What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.

Probably because the better technology would cost more to implement. So, like every company, they cut corners to save production cost.

Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?

Final point I am not a cheapskate I would literally pay $5000 for a 5d4 with an articulating screen and 10fps.

 

[x-vision]

For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.

Actually, theoretical dynamic range scales the exact same way too.
Did you skip physics classes by any chance? LOL

Anyway, my expectations are not based on physics.

We are in 2017 and Canon themselves make crop sensors that perform well in terms of dynamic range.
Their premium FF models should perform better or at least equally well; certainly not worse.

That's not some personal wish but quite expected - the same way you expect premium service in a premium restaurant.

Well, you should go and compare the Nikon D5 with the D7200, and after seeing that the older and much cheaper camera with the smaller sensor has >2 stops more DR at base ISO, you may want to consider what implications that has on how realistic your personal expectations really are.

The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.

 

[Mikehit]

The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.

Or it could be your expectations for the 6D2 do mot match the design plans for the 6D2. In other words, Canon did not get it wrong - you did.

 

[Talys]

Actually, theoretical dynamic range scales the exact same way too.
Did you skip physics classes by any chance? LOL

That's ridiculous. The primary benefit of a larger sensor to dynamic range is that you get less noise, and less noise means higher potential dynamic range. That should be all you "expect" out of going Full Frame.

To increase the theoretical dynamic range of a camera's ability to record, you need to mess with the analog to digital converter and that isn't a trivial exercise. There are other considerations too -- just because you can technically record more dynamic range doesn't necessarily mean that the conversion to color tones are more pleasing to the human eye. You certainly don't want an image that looks posterized.

Anyways, my point being, DR is not directly a function of sensor size, except that noise inhibits maximum DR. There are plenty of small sensors with high dynamic range at base ISO. There are no small sensors with low noise at high ISO.

Anyway, my expectations are not based on physics.

That's a good way to set yourself up for disappointment. Ignoring physics, I would expect Trek-like tech -- we should have sensors that don't require line of sight, and that can record and reconstruct perfect 3D holographic imagery. Will trade camera for tricorder.

 

[Loswr]

For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.

Actually, theoretical dynamic range scales the exact same way too.
Did you skip physics classes by any chance? LOL

Noise is only one half of the equation. But hey, if you want to consider only the floor and neglect the ceiling, you go right ahead. Don't let the fact that a range has defined values for two ends (by definition) bother you in the least. You clearly have better things to do than comprehend physics.

The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.

Nice job of parroting DPR. : I mean, it's not like you need high DR for sports. It never happens that one team wears black and another wears white, in a stadium that's half in full sun and half in shadow.

It's too bad that the 6DII doesn't meet your expectations (or is that 'wishes'?). I'm sure Canon knows their target market, and designed the camera to meet the needs/wants of that market. It's also too bad that some people feel the camera should have been designed just for them and wasn't. But that's their (and your) problem, not Canon's.

 

[x-vision]

Or it could be your expectations for the 6D2 do mot match the design plans for the 6D2. In other words, Canon did not get it wrong - you did.

As I said many times, I expect premium performance for the premium price.

If Canon is expecting me to pay the FF premium without getting a premium performance in return, that's their problem, not mine.

 

[x-vision]

Actually, theoretical dynamic range scales the exact same way too.
Did you skip physics classes by any chance? LOL

That's ridiculous. The primary benefit of a larger sensor to dynamic range is that you get less noise, and less noise means higher potential dynamic range. That should be all you "expect" out of going Full Frame.

Hmm, I don't get it. You to fully agree with me ... after you've slammed my statement as ridiculous ??

To increase the theoretical dynamic range of a camera's ability to record, you need to mess with the analog to digital converter and that isn't a trivial exercise.

That's not theoretical DR. What you are saying is implementation-specific.
Let's not confuse theory with implementation.

Neuro's original argument was that DR doesn't scale with sensor size - when in fact it does.
That's the theory and it's correct.

In practice, Canon's off-chip ADC implementation makes the theory look wrong.
But if you look at Sony sensors, FF sensors generally have better DR than crop sensors - in line with the theory.

But Canon apologists live in alternate reality, where DR is not correlated to sensor size.
Keep the faith, guys. LOL

 

[Loswr]

If Canon is expecting me to pay the FF premium without getting a premium performance in return, that's their problem, not mine.

Lol. So you think Canon gives a damn whether or not you personally buy a 6DII? Talk about living in an alternate reality. LOL. LOL. LOL.

 

[jeffa4444]

If Canon is expecting me to pay the FF premium without getting a premium performance in return, that's their problem, not mine.

Lol. So you think Canon gives a damn whether or not you personally buy a 6DII? Talk about living in an alternate reality. LOL. LOL. LOL.

Cut the guy some slack. I bought the 6D MKII overall its a big step-up from the 6D (which was hugely underrated) but I'm also human. Improved DR enabling shadow recovery with minimal noise would have been possible for Canon to do and STILL separate the performance of the 5D MKIV and I doubt anyone who has bought the 6D MKII would disagree. Yes Canon knows its market, has budgets to live within and margins it wants to make but given the advances in sensor design and the pace of that change not moving the performance on from the 6D is odd and regardless of what we think will inhibit some potential customers from buying it.

All that said 95% of the time it will not matter at all but equally I know times when it will

 

[bedford]

Since the 5DIV was released, Canon has not magically created a sensor of the 6D2 in the last 9months. The 6D2 sensor and 5DIV sensor will have been in development and production in parallel -if they used the 5DIV sensor in the 6D2 all that development for the 6D2 would have been binned and the price of the 6D2 will have had to cover those costs - plus the costs of redesigning the internals of the 6D2 for the change in direction.

Interesting point. Perhaps the 6D development process was even finished before the process for the 5D IV. Lower goals --> shorter project time --> lower costs. Then the reason for the lower DR would more have to do with controlling/accounting at Canon than production cost or technology.

Oliver

 

[ritholtz]

For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.

Actually, theoretical dynamic range scales the exact same way too.
Did you skip physics classes by any chance? LOL

Anyway, my expectations are not based on physics.

We are in 2017 and Canon themselves make crop sensors that perform well in terms of dynamic range.
Their premium FF models should perform better or at least equally well; certainly not worse.

That's not some personal wish but quite expected - the same way you expect premium service in a premium restaurant.

Well, you should go and compare the Nikon D5 with the D7200, and after seeing that the older and much cheaper camera with the smaller sensor has >2 stops more DR at base ISO, you may want to consider what implications that has on how realistic your personal expectations really are.

The D5 is a highly-specialized sports camera. There are different expectations for that camera.

This is the narrative DPR was spreading during their D5 review days. Same time they were very hard on 7d2. D5 is a $6000 camera. So, it is ok for $6000 camera to be worse than crop counter part even though 1dx2 does exceptionally well at both ends. Basically specialized camera with worse DR than canon crop and worse live view implementation than few years old rebel.

 

[Aglet]

But Canon apologists live in alternate reality, where DR is not correlated to sensor size.
Keep the faith, guys. LOL

Yes, they sure do have a lot of convoluted reasoning for favoring continued mediocrity.
It's quite amusing. ;D

 

[privatebydesign]

But Canon apologists live in alternate reality, where DR is not correlated to sensor size.
Keep the faith, guys. LOL

Yes, they sure do have a lot of convoluted reasoning for favoring continued mediocrity.
It's quite amusing. ;D

My 1DX MkII's have better DR than either the Nikon D5 or Sony A9, remind me again how, exactly, I am in denial?