5DmkIII? That was also a crippled piece of shoot...Reminds me of another Canon camera that came out about 5 years ago. Surprise, surprise!
Upvote
0
5DmkIII? That was also a crippled piece of shoot...Reminds me of another Canon camera that came out about 5 years ago. Surprise, surprise!
I ordered 6d II few days ago. It was nice to read all the positive comments here. I was initially planned to upgrade to 6d II. My glass and flash were ready to make the jump for FF photography. DR reviews postponed my jump. I finally made it with great discount. Shallow DOF, better IQ and better AF than my all loved 600d here I come
I will still be interested about mirrorless FF camera from Canon. I am sure Canon will have good solution for the new mount. Hope the mount will be compatible EF glass and new glass if there will be any.
I ordered 6d II few days ago. It was nice to read all the positive comments here. I was initially planned to upgrade to 6d II. My glass and flash were ready to make the jump for FF photography. DR reviews postponed my jump. I finally made it with great discount. Shallow DOF, better IQ and better AF than my all loved 600d here I come
I will still be interested about mirrorless FF camera from Canon. I am sure Canon will have good solution for the new mount. Hope the mount will be compatible EF glass and new glass if there will be any.
The 6d mark II specification sheet was very good. Maybe for video the lack of 4k was a step back, but in others specifications, it was excellent.
The problem started when the first files were analyzed, and they showed that the sensor was not better than the 6d sensor. That was why it was so much noise about the 6d mark II.
Tony was just another poor soul that succumbed to all the trolls negativity about this camera (and he also spent the last year going through camera after camera having constant focusing issues due to not having DPAF)......
Live and learn!
It was a mixed bag in the lab. The 6D has slightly better DR, the 6D Mark II has slightly better S/N ratio and color sensitivity.
For most competent photographers, the S/N ratio and color sensitivity gains are worth the slight loss in DR.
So what if you can "only" underexpose by four stops instead of five stops and still be able to pull out the detail on the underside of that leaf in the shadows in the corner of the frame?
Not to mention all of the other improvements: PDAF accuracy/consistency, flicker reduction (very useful for what I do), DPAF, etc.
If it were a 3-stop difference, wouldn't that be enough for me to be able to observe it? Over the ten months I've been shooting with the 6D2, I haven't seen any pictures that seemed to have problems with dynamic range. Admittedly, I don't shoot at ISO 100 all that often, and I never set the camera to underexpose by four stops.
Canon's DPAF is still the best for Vlogging- as soon if they update their next round of DSLRs and new MILCs with serious 4K video specs and proper codecs, they'll have the potential to again have the cache with video makers that Sony and Panasonic currently enjoy with their lineup. But we already knew that
Most Vloggers don't need 4K, but more advanced low-budget filmmakers / social media / content creators / influencers want the best specced cameras and that word of mouth spreads down to the Vlogging masses and guides opinion, creating buzz and excitement.
I'm not really comparing it with anything else, and certainly not running tests, just taking pictures. I have yet to make a picture with the 6D2 that I felt need for more dynamic range. Everything so far has worked fine with a bit of tweaking the Highlights (recovery) and Shadows sliders, certainly nothing like three stops either way. I don't think I've ever shot a JPEG with it, so I can't speak for that.Out of interest, what camera are you comparing the 6dmk2 against? I've seen a number of comments that people enjoy using it, so it sounds like it's a fun camera to use.
I'm not really comparing it with anything else, and certainly not running tests, just taking pictures. I have yet to make a picture with the 6D2 that I felt need for more dynamic range. Everything so far has worked fine with a bit of tweaking the Highlights (recovery) and Shadows sliders, certainly nothing like three stops either way. I don't think I've ever shot a JPEG with it, so I can't speak for that.
My first outing with the camera I went with a neighbor and her family to a garden that was having a Chinese lantern display. I used auto exposure and auto focus with default parameters for both stills and video. I started in daylight, went through twilight, and into the dark. I could be wrong, but it seemed to be just about a worst case scenario for exposure. I didn't try to recover insignificant (to me anyway) detail off in the dark background. I don't like a phony HDR look, and strive more to suggest how things looked to me then and there. Maybe it is just that my style is not very demanding in terms of DR. Still, I'm surprised that I apparently can't tell a three-stop deficiency.
Is it really a case of only one stop difference though? A number of the comparisons to other modern cameras (5dmk4 etc) show that the difference is larger than that. More like up to 3 stops at base iso?