Tony Northrup: I Made a Mistake: The Canon EOS 6D Mark II is the BEST Vlogging Camera. Seriously.

[justaCanonuser]

This doesn't look like three stops to me. More like 1/3 stop compared to the original 6D or the 5D Mark III (which was good enough for a lot of people for a long time, and still is for many). About 1 1/2 stops at base ISO compared to the 5D Mark IV, but most of that is gone by ISO 1600. View attachment 179587View attachment 179588

There's essentially no difference with regard to S/N ratio, on the other hand...

View attachment 179589

I still have, and like much, an old 5D3 with nearly 150.000 actuations now. It still is capable of producing very good results, if you know about its limitations (no overwhelming DR, color banding in the shadows, if you push them too much). Never forget: most situations with a lot of contrast are simply no good for good photography.

 

[Deleted member 379512]

This doesn't look like three stops to me. More like 1/3 stop compared to the original 6D or the 5D Mark III (which was good enough for a lot of people for a long time, and still is for many). About 1 1/2 stops at base ISO compared to the 5D Mark IV, but most of that is gone by ISO 1600. View attachment 179587View attachment 179588

There's essentially no difference with regard to S/N ratio, on the other hand...

View attachment 179589

Ah, sorry - I was originally meaning between my 6d and sony, although I can see that it wasn't that clearly written on my part.

I was relating it back to the 6dmk2 as the hasn't been any improvement in the dynamic range there. Just checked the dxomark site and it looks like my guesstimates have been pretty close too - looks to be about 2.5 stops at base iso, and about 1 stop from iso 1600. Maybe the banding on the 6d makes it look closer to 3 stops to me?

And I agree, it's a useable amount of dynamic range for a lot of uses - I can still get some nice shots on the 6d after all. I just find I miss a lot more with it also

 

[Michael Clark]

Ah, sorry - I was originally meaning between my 6d and sony, although I can see that it wasn't that clearly written on my part.

I was relating it back to the 6dmk2 as the hasn't been any improvement in the dynamic range there. Just checked the dxomark site and it looks like my guesstimates have been pretty close too - looks to be about 2.5 stops at base iso, and about 1 stop from iso 1600. Maybe the banding on the 6d makes it look closer to 3 stops to me?

And I agree, it's a useable amount of dynamic range for a lot of uses - I can still get some nice shots on the 6d after all. I just find I miss a lot more with it also

And yet there is negligible to no difference between the 6D Mark II, The 5D Mark IV, and the Sony α7R III in terms of S/N ratio, color sensitivity, and tonal range. What good is the extra DR in such a case except for pulling the details off the bottom of a leaf in the shadows in the corner of a 5-stop underexposed image?

I just don't buy that the extra DR is worth that much in a usability sense for real world work when there's no difference in the other benchmarks. It seems more to me like a sensor/processing pipeline that has been gamed to do well on one test.

Then there's the whole ergonomic and ruggedness/dependability shortcomings of the Sony cameras. That's OK for even advanced hobbiasts/enthusiasts, but not so much for working pros who do the type of work where they don't get to set their own shooting schedule. Sometimes consistency and reliability (and battery life that lasts for days) are worth more than a couple of stops of DR when the user has a clue how to properly expose an image to start with.

 

[Mikehit]

It seems more to me like a sensor/processing pipeline that has been gamed to do well on one test.

.

I think it was the A7R3 where I interpreted the press releases as hinting strongly that the improvements in DR etc were as much (or more?) to do with the processing after the image had been taken - the now infamous Sony Star-eater only added to that impression.

 

[Deleted member 379512]

And yet there is negligible to no difference between the 6D Mark II, The 5D Mark IV, and the Sony α7R III in terms of S/N ratio, color sensitivity, and tonal range. What good is the extra DR in such a case except for pulling the details off the bottom of a leaf in the shadows in the corner of a 5-stop underexposed image?

I just don't buy that the extra DR is worth that much in a usability sense for real world work when there's no difference in the other benchmarks. It seems more to me like a sensor/processing pipeline that has been gamed to do well on one test.

Then there's the whole ergonomic and ruggedness/dependability shortcomings of the Sony cameras. That's OK for even advanced hobbiasts/enthusiasts, but not so much for working pros who do the type of work where they don't get to set their own shooting schedule. Sometimes consistency and reliability (and battery life that lasts for days) are worth more than a couple of stops of DR when the user has a clue how to properly expose an image to start with.

I'm of the opinion that as the s/n ratio seems to be on par with the 5dmk4 and the sony, then Canon may have left something out, or the data pipeline is adding noise where it shouldn't.

The extra dynamic range, in my cases, often means I can get photos without regular banding in timelapses; sometimes this will occur on the 6d just when setting the lens corrections on the 16-35 f4 l lens, as an example.

It really doesn't have to be only in situations where the photo has been underexposed greatly.

For your uses, you may find that it doesn't have any significant impact, and that's completely fine, but for others (and definitely for me), those 2.5 stops make a huge difference.

Ergonomics, that's another discussion. I do agree that Sony still have more improvements to make here. I find the ergos work well for me, but I'm usually on a tripod. A bit less of a factor in my case

 

[wanako]

In my scenario, I really find all this arguing of the 6DII's Dynamic Range being terrible, absolutely hilarious. Unlike people who buy a new body every year or two, I came from a 30D that I had from 2007-2017, so for me the DR of this camera is absolutely mind-blowing. I found it incredible the things I can recover from shadows and highlights, so I had a hard time understanding what people were bitching about.

 

[Durf]

In my scenario, I really find all this arguing of the 6DII's Dynamic Range being terrible, absolutely hilarious. Unlike people who buy a new body every year or two, I came from a 30D that I had from 2007-2017, so for me the DR of this camera is absolutely mind-blowing. I found it incredible the things I can recover from shadows and highlights, so I had a hard time understanding what people were bitching about.

It's really quite simple; take a shot with your 6D2 about 7 to 10 stops under exposed and make a youtube video trying to recover the shadows.......then you'll understand all the bitching! lol

I've literally shot several thousand images with my 6D2 for about the last year now and very seldom have I ever had an issue with its dynamic range except for only in extreme conditions that likely just about every other camera on the planet would of had issues with too.
It's an awesome camera in my opinion and I get some outstanding results with it every time I use it regardless of the conditions 99.9% of the time. (I know how to use it!)

 

[LSXPhotog]

Still waiting on a Magic Lantern build for the 6D2 so I can get C-Log

I hate to break this to you, but there hasn't been any progress with Magic Lantern on a camera released SINCE the 6D. They don't even have a full build for that camera yet, and they don't even have a "Nightly Build" for the 70D or 7D Mark II.

I recall reading something about the new Digic processors making it extremely difficult to downright near impossible to crack.

In other words: don't hold your breath. Just download the EOSHD C-Log. It's like $20-40.

 

[LSXPhotog]

All of you defending the dynamic range are missing the point of the complaints. While I rest firmly in the camp that feels dynamic range isn't a necessity, but a welcome luxury. I built my entire career using cameras with extremely poor shadow recovery and bad dynamic range by today's standards. It is not something that makes you a better photographer. But, it's 2018. There have been very small advances in low-light performance, but giant leaps in dynamic range in regards to shadow retention and recovery of highlights. To release a camera in 2017 that did not take advantage of newer sensor design with on-chip analog to digital conversion is absolutely unacceptable in the current market place.

I had every intention of buying this camera for travel, but have been spoiled by the dynamic range of my newer sensors, I could not justify spending money on a camera with a sensor design from 4+ years ago. I'd much rather buy an original 6D again. Canon managed to improve nearly all functions of the camera, to which I praise. The new autofocus system, while clustered mostly in the middle as it borrowed its sensor from the 80D, is still a big improvement over the original 6D. Dual pixel autofocus? Awesome. Tilt touch screen? Amazing. Even the single card slot didn't bother me much. But, the fact that it's imaging capability is mostly unchanged from its predecessor is just silly.

So the camera is absolutely capable of taking incredible images and is not a real limitation. It's just that if someone is spending their money in 2017 there are too many options that do a better job for around the same money or less. It's the principle and nothing personal.

 

[Durf]

All of you defending the dynamic range are missing the point of the complaints. While I rest firmly in the camp that feels dynamic range isn't a necessity, but a welcome luxury. I built my entire career using cameras with extremely poor shadow recovery and bad dynamic range by today's standards. It is not something that makes you a better photographer. But, it's 2018. There have been very small advances in low-light performance, but giant leaps in dynamic range in regards to shadow retention and recovery of highlights. To release a camera in 2017 that did not take advantage of newer sensor design with on-chip analog to digital conversion is absolutely unacceptable in the current market place.

I had every intention of buying this camera for travel, but have been spoiled by the dynamic range of my newer sensors, I could not justify spending money on a camera with a sensor design from 4+ years ago. I'd much rather buy an original 6D again. Canon managed to improve nearly all functions of the camera, to which I praise. The new autofocus system, while clustered mostly in the middle as it borrowed its sensor from the 80D, is still a big improvement over the original 6D. Dual pixel autofocus? Awesome. Tilt touch screen? Amazing. Even the single card slot didn't bother me much. But, the fact that it's imaging capability is mostly unchanged from its predecessor is just silly.

So the camera is absolutely capable of taking incredible images and is not a real limitation. It's just that if someone is spending their money in 2017 there are too many options that do a better job for around the same money or less. It's the principle and nothing personal.

Actually for me there wasn't another or better option in the Canon line up for a full frame camera in early 2017 other than the 6D2. I do a lot of low and on the ground shooting and for the previous two years or so I was using a T6i and 80D. I wanted a full frame camera and with my bad knees a flip screen was mandatory so to speak. I almost jumped and dumped 3500.00 + bucks on the 5D4 but when the 6D2 came out it was pretty much a no brainer for me regardless of all the smoke being blown about it. The 80D's image quality was satisfactory for what I was and am doing so I knew the 6D2 could not be worse but most likely better. (I was right).

If the 5D4 would of had a flip screen that's what I'd be shooting with right now, not the 6D2. Regardless, I have absolutely no regrets about buying the 6D2, it's an amazing camera. I was concerned when I bought it with all the bad press about it but after using it a while I realized most of those bitching about it actually never had experience using it; many were just parroting other nay-sayers.

It was never about the dynamic range for me, it was about ergonomics, usefulness and ease of handling for my type of shooting, and having decent image quality.

 

[3kramd5]

While I rest firmly in the camp that feels dynamic range isn't a necessity...

I hope you really mean: ... [a marginal increase in] dynamic range isn’t a necessity.

 

[AlanF]

Here are Bill Clafff's measurements from
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark III,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS 5DS R,Canon EOS 6D,Canon EOS 6D Mark II

Not much difference in DR 5DIII - 6D - 6DII. 5DSR slightly better, 5DIV more so below iso 600.

 

[masterpix]

The "problem" of the 6D is that is it a "low end FF camera" where people expected it to be "high end cheapest FF camera". I is not the X, nor the 5, and therefore, people can't complain it is not one of the above when it was never intended to be one. It is a good camera for what it is made to do. One can't ask a rebel level camera to be a professional as the 7D is.

 

[Deleted member 379512]

The "problem" of the 6D is that is it a "low end FF camera" where people expected it to be "high end cheapest FF camera". I is not the X, nor the 5, and therefore, people can't complain it is not one of the above when it was never intended to be one. It is a good camera for what it is made to do. One can't ask a rebel level camera to be a professional as the 7D is.

I think part of the issue there was the price (and still is where I am); for $2000 it really left a bit much out/didn't get expected improvements, even compared to something like the 80d. I've seen posts where the US can get it for about $1100 - 1300, which sounds like a good buy.

 

[Don Haines]

It was never about the dynamic range for me, it was about ergonomics, usefulness and ease of handling for my type of shooting, and having decent image quality.

BINGO!

If you are looking for a "vlog" camera, you want something with easy controls that does good AF in live view while you are shooting video clips..... like the 6D2....

He is not saying that it is the best camera, or that it has the best sensor or the best DR, he is saying that it works as the best VLOG camera......

 

[Mikehit]

I think part of the issue there was the price (and still is where I am); for $2000 it really left a bit much out/didn't get expected improvements, even compared to something like the 80d. I've seen posts where the US can get it for about $1100 - 1300, which sounds like a good buy.

Why do people keep comparing it to the 80D? The 6D2 has distinct advantages being FF - if you don't need those advantages buy the 80D and why do you care about the 6D2? If you need FF the 80D won't do what you need. The DR may be the same on the test bench but when you print at a given size the 6D2 will always be better.
At the moment in B&H, the 80D is 999 and the 6D2 is 1599 which seems a reasonable difference. I will bet anything that the prices of 1100-1300 are grey market imports and while that is indeed a great price it comes with caveats on the level of cover you will get.

 

[Durf]

BINGO!

If you are looking for a "vlog" camera, you want something with easy controls that does good AF in live view while you are shooting video clips..... like the 6D2....

He is not saying that it is the best camera, or that it has the best sensor or the best DR, he is saying that it works as the best VLOG camera......

Actually Don, I use the 6D2 for stills only. I've only used it a couple of times for video since I bought it.
My 80D does my video stuff out in the field and I use my T6i for all my youtube videos at home.

 

[Don Haines]

Actually Don, I use the 6D2 for stills only. I've only used it a couple of times for video since I bought it.
My 80D does my video stuff out in the field and I use my T6i for all my youtube videos at home.

I use mine mostly for stills too.... I have a 7D2 and find the AF system there to be better for action shots, with the exception of small birds in flight where for some strange reason the 6D2 seems to work better when I have trouble keeping the AF zone on target....

For video, it seems to work better than the 7D2, but then again, I am told by others that the 80D is better than it for video, so what you say makes sense to me.....

 

[Deleted member 379512]

Why do people keep comparing it to the 80D? The 6D2 has distinct advantages being FF - if you don't need those advantages buy the 80D and why do you care about the 6D2? If you need FF the 80D won't do what you need. The DR may be the same on the test bench but when you print at a given size the 6D2 will always be better.
At the moment in B&H, the 80D is 999 and the 6D2 is 1599 which seems a reasonable difference. I will bet anything that the prices of 1100-1300 are grey market imports and while that is indeed a great price it comes with caveats on the level of cover you will get.

I just compared it to the 80d as is seems to be the closest crop sensor variant in the canon lineup as it seems to be the most logical - they seem to match the most (like the 7d and 5d series seem to match closely in the pro line up). I could be wrong with both of those comparisons but they share the bodies from looks. For the cost, I would have though the 6dmk2 would have had the same features as the 80d, predominately the headphone jack and all-i video options in the case as a vlogging camera.

 

[Don Haines]

I just compared it to the 80d as is seems to be the closest crop sensor variant in the canon lineup as it seems to be the most logical - they seem to match the most (like the 7d and 5d series seem to match closely in the pro line up). I could be wrong with both of those comparisons but they share the bodies from looks. For the cost, I would have though the 6dmk2 would have had the same features as the 80d, predominately the headphone jack and all-i video options in the case as a vlogging camera.

I still don't understand why Bluetooth headphones are not supported