cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

6D MKII a disappointment???

skyking
Contributor

I did order the 6D MKII from B&H - arrives Monday. This is an upgrade from my 6D. I am a little concerned about the recent tests showing, at lower ISO's, poorer dynamic range. Apparently the 6D MKII showed very good dynamic range at higher ISO's. Apparently the 80D had better dynamic range at lower ISO"s then the 6D MKII. I'll know a lot better when I get the camera but is that is the truth its a little disappointing for what I'm paying for this camera.

 

Any comments??

 

James

108 REPLIES 108

Like I said, I am just trying to understand what you are talking about, not argue.  Your rants are condescending and offensive.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


KlausEnrique wrote:

Bob, you are right in that Tom's photo does not require superior dynamic range. It just needed for Tom to not make a mistake. But you know what, we all make mistakes at some point.

On your second point, however, unfortunately, you are incorrect. Low light performance refers to shooting, well, in low light. I am not sure if Tom was shooting in low light, but he probably wasn't. One does not normally shoot birds in flight in the middle of the night. How well does a camera perform in low light generally refers to: can the camera find focus in the dark? How noisy is the camera at high ISO?(which in this case, the 6D Mark II is pretty good). So, no, we are not talking about low light, we are talking about dynamic range, which affects not only photos shot in low light, but in all circumstances. Now, for all practical purposes, Tom was recovering information from the shadows (because he mistakenly underexposed his image). But even in normal conditions one may want to bring out the detail in the shadows, specially if you do not want to have your highlights all blown out! And some times you are hit with banding because of Canon's poor dynamic range.

The photo below was shot in the middle of the day. It is a 16 minute exposure. The highlights on the red channel are already blown out, but the blue and green channels have not even left the sensor's floor, so there is banding in the shadows. Even entry level cameras from Sony, Nikon and Pentax would not have that issue. This was shot with a 5DS which is not a cheap camera and has even better dynamic range than the original 6D and obviously way ahead of the 6D Mark II (although not as good as the 5D Mark IV). I already own the Pentax 645Z, which is even more expensive than the 5DS, but I still want to have a 35mm body with decent dynamic range (by 2017 standards). The 5D Mark IV doesn't cut it, but given that Canon already has advanced on dynamic range technology, even if it still remains the industry's laggard, to not include the meagre best that they can offer in this regard in ALL their models, is a huge disappointment.

 

Central_Park_Infrared_10.JPG


Um ... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but

 

A)  That looks like an IR photo. The reason the blue and the green are pegged at zero is that you're filtering them out, right?

 

B)  What you see in the lower half isn't banding. It's the reflections of the trees in the background.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


@RobertTheFat wrote:

@KlausEnrique wrote:

Bob, you are right in that Tom's photo does not require superior dynamic range. It just needed for Tom to not make a mistake. But you know what, we all make mistakes at some point.

On your second point, however, unfortunately, you are incorrect. Low light performance refers to shooting, well, in low light. I am not sure if Tom was shooting in low light, but he probably wasn't. One does not normally shoot birds in flight in the middle of the night. How well does a camera perform in low light generally refers to: can the camera find focus in the dark? How noisy is the camera at high ISO?(which in this case, the 6D Mark II is pretty good). So, no, we are not talking about low light, we are talking about dynamic range, which affects not only photos shot in low light, but in all circumstances. Now, for all practical purposes, Tom was recovering information from the shadows (because he mistakenly underexposed his image). But even in normal conditions one may want to bring out the detail in the shadows, specially if you do not want to have your highlights all blown out! And some times you are hit with banding because of Canon's poor dynamic range.

The photo below was shot in the middle of the day. It is a 16 minute exposure. The highlights on the red channel are already blown out, but the blue and green channels have not even left the sensor's floor, so there is banding in the shadows. Even entry level cameras from Sony, Nikon and Pentax would not have that issue. This was shot with a 5DS which is not a cheap camera and has even better dynamic range than the original 6D and obviously way ahead of the 6D Mark II (although not as good as the 5D Mark IV). I already own the Pentax 645Z, which is even more expensive than the 5DS, but I still want to have a 35mm body with decent dynamic range (by 2017 standards). The 5D Mark IV doesn't cut it, but given that Canon already has advanced on dynamic range technology, even if it still remains the industry's laggard, to not include the meagre best that they can offer in this regard in ALL their models, is a huge disappointment.

 

Central_Park_Infrared_10.JPG


Um ... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but

 

A)  That looks like an IR photo. The reason the blue and the green are pegged at zero is that you're filtering them out, right?

 

B)  What you see in the lower half isn't banding. It's the reflections of the trees in the background.


Hi Bob,

 

A) yes, that is an IR photo, and yes, you are kind of right. In IR photography you filter out visible light. That means the red, green and blue pixels in the Bayer filer of your camera don't receive any visible light, but the red pixels are more sensitive to infrared light than the green and blue ones, hence they blow out before the greens and the blues leave the sensor floor. Anyhow, I just brought up Infrared as one example where Canon's mediocre dynamic range shows up pretty fast. But I could have equally posted an HDR sunset photograph that would show the same. In fact, why don't you just Google "canon banding issue" and then go to images you can see thousands and thousands of photographs showing the banding that I am referring to. To be honest, it is a little surprising to be on a Canon forum and yet people don't seem to have ever heard of this. Every single Canon camera will show this if you don't throw enough light at the sensor to push the sensitivity pass its floor, as you can attest by the photo that you posted. The banding and the poor dynamic range are closely intertwined. Canon does a bad job at reading the data that the sensor is capturing and it keeps it in analog form longer than other brand sensors. I am sure there is an article somewhere where you can read all about this...

 

B) no, I was not referring to the reflections of the trees. Here is a crop of the image that shows it better. Hopefully you will see it. In this case the banding is very strong in a vertical fashion. And that is just an artifact that Canon cameras have. In the case of the image you posted, the banding is mostly horizontal. If you post a crop of the area without doing any noise reduction I can point it out for you.

 

_K8A2345.JPG


@KlausEnrique wrote:

@RobertTheFat wrote:

@KlausEnrique wrote:

Bob, you are right in that Tom's photo does not require superior dynamic range. It just needed for Tom to not make a mistake. But you know what, we all make mistakes at some point.

On your second point, however, unfortunately, you are incorrect. Low light performance refers to shooting, well, in low light. I am not sure if Tom was shooting in low light, but he probably wasn't. One does not normally shoot birds in flight in the middle of the night. How well does a camera perform in low light generally refers to: can the camera find focus in the dark? How noisy is the camera at high ISO?(which in this case, the 6D Mark II is pretty good). So, no, we are not talking about low light, we are talking about dynamic range, which affects not only photos shot in low light, but in all circumstances. Now, for all practical purposes, Tom was recovering information from the shadows (because he mistakenly underexposed his image). But even in normal conditions one may want to bring out the detail in the shadows, specially if you do not want to have your highlights all blown out! And some times you are hit with banding because of Canon's poor dynamic range.

The photo below was shot in the middle of the day. It is a 16 minute exposure. The highlights on the red channel are already blown out, but the blue and green channels have not even left the sensor's floor, so there is banding in the shadows. Even entry level cameras from Sony, Nikon and Pentax would not have that issue. This was shot with a 5DS which is not a cheap camera and has even better dynamic range than the original 6D and obviously way ahead of the 6D Mark II (although not as good as the 5D Mark IV). I already own the Pentax 645Z, which is even more expensive than the 5DS, but I still want to have a 35mm body with decent dynamic range (by 2017 standards). The 5D Mark IV doesn't cut it, but given that Canon already has advanced on dynamic range technology, even if it still remains the industry's laggard, to not include the meagre best that they can offer in this regard in ALL their models, is a huge disappointment.

 

Central_Park_Infrared_10.JPG


Um ... Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but

 

A)  That looks like an IR photo. The reason the blue and the green are pegged at zero is that you're filtering them out, right?

 

B)  What you see in the lower half isn't banding. It's the reflections of the trees in the background.


Hi Bob,

 

A) yes, that is an IR photo, and yes, you are kind of right. In IR photography you filter out visible light. That means the red, green and blue pixels in the Bayer filer of your camera don't receive any visible light, but the red pixels are more sensitive to infrared light than the green and blue ones, hence they blow out before the greens and the blues leave the sensor floor. Anyhow, I just brought up Infrared as one example where Canon's mediocre dynamic range shows up pretty fast. But I could have equally posted an HDR sunset photograph that would show the same. In fact, why don't you just Google "canon banding issue" and then go to images you can see thousands and thousands of photographs showing the banding that I am referring to. To be honest, it is a little surprising to be on a Canon forum and yet people don't seem to have ever heard of this. Every single Canon camera will show this if you don't throw enough light at the sensor to push the sensitivity pass its floor, as you can attest by the photo that you posted. The banding and the poor dynamic range are closely intertwined. Canon does a bad job at reading the data that the sensor is capturing and it keeps it in analog form longer than other brand sensors. I am sure there is an article somewhere where you can read all about this...

 

B) no, I was not referring to the reflections of the trees. Here is a crop of the image that shows it better. Hopefully you will see it. In this case the banding is very strong in a vertical fashion. And that is just an artifact that Canon cameras have. In the case of the image you posted, the banding is mostly horizontal. If you post a crop of the area without doing any noise reduction I can point it out for you.

 

_K8A2345.JPG


A)  Yes, if you filter out the green and blue channels, the red will blow out first. I sort of thought that was what I had already said, but I guess I didn't make myself clear.

 

B)  I surmise that that crop is from the lower left of the frame, but it's pretty hard to tell. In any case, I still think you're interpreting reflections as banding.

 

C)  I've searched this thread for the image you think I posted, but couldn't find it. Senility must be overtaking me more rapidly than I had imagined.

 

D)  I apologize for the cluelessness of the participants in this forum. Frankly, I had no idea. I guess it's a good thing you came along to enlighten us.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

This has been a very interesting discussion to say the least. BTW, I did upgrade to the 6D MKII and love it so let me make a few observations:

 

 

1. I use to shoot film all the time and still do but just for fun. Dynamic range with film? You have to be kidding. You could do magic in the darkroom but you could not bring back the highlights or shadows, etc.

 

2. With film we loved grain!!  I still love shooting Kodak Tri X with it nice luminance grain. Same for color.

 

3. I stuck with Canon as all my many lens and other cameras are Canon and being retired I didn’t want to spend the bucks for the 5D M4. Nor did I want to sell everything and go Sony, Fuji or Nikcn.

 

4. I tend to shoot a lot of 3, 5 or 7 (HDR) exposures to get better dynamic range. Not all the time mind you.

 

5. Could Canon have done a better job with the 6D MK2? Yes. For example the focus points. It looks like they just took the focus points from the 8D and dropped them in the 6D MK2 so they looked and are clumped together. They should have expanded them. 

 

6. They could have put two card slots in the camera not just one.

 

7. 4K? For me...I don’t care. I have high end video cameras including my iPhone 7 to do that.

 

8. So many people want all th features of the 5D MK4 in the 6D MK2!! Canon needs to make some separations between the cameras.

 

9. So far nobody has said anything about noise, etc. in my large prints.

 

10. The even better thing, we have options. If you have. 6D MK1 stay with it. Buy a Canon 5d MK3 or go Sony, etc.

 

11. Go shoot film and get a whole new perspective.

 

Again, this has been a great “pixel peeping” discussion and I have enjoyed it.

 

Now, go out and shoot!!

 

James

Skyking,

 

1) I used to shoot film a lot in the 1980s, as I traveled a lot and saw a lot sights.  Then along came disposables, and the law of diminishing returns kicked in.  I was really just a casual shooter.

 

3).I like and love my Canon gear.  It has been easy to learn to use, and I get great results.

 

4). I like to shoot HDR shots, too.  Frequently, my exposure sets are not centered around 0 Ev, either.

 

5). I do not mind the AF points being cluster together.  The spacing in the viewfinder is similar to higher end cameras, which have more coverage because of more AF points.  I think the clustering helps the AF tracking in AI Servo immensely.

 

6). If they had included two card slots, then why would anyone buy a 5D Mark IV?  Yes, it would have been a nice feature.  But, carrying a spare card is a minor inconvenience.  With the larger 40B RAW files, one needs a 64GB card.

 

7). Seeing how 4K is not currently a US broadcast standard, i do not see the point of it in a DSLR.  If people want to get that serious about video, then they should invest in a serious video camera, instead of body primarily designed to shoot stills.

 

8). The biggest separation is the two card slots between a 5D3 and a 6D2.  I have not used a 5D4, so I cannot directly compare the two.  Personally, I think the 6D series is for people who want a 5D, but are on a budget.  Likewise, I think the 5D series is for people who want a 1D, but are constrained by a budget.

 

9). I posted the shot of “Friday Night Lights”, which if memory serves, was shot at ISO 12800.  At best it was ISO 10000.  I was using AUTO ISO, and it was bouncing between those two settings.  I shot with -1 Ev compensation, too.   Otherwise, all of my shots would have been ISO 25600.  I was using 1/500 shutter for most of the night, a f/5.6 aperture, with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.

 

10). I have a 6D.  I recently chose between a 6D2, 5D3, and 5D4.  The 5D4 had features that were not crucial for me, so I picked the 6D2 over the 5D3, mainly because of the 27 f/8 focus points.

11). I have been shooting with the 6D2, and loving the increased resolution and focusing power.  

 

I think I will keep the 6D2.  I can now retire either my 7D Mark II or my 1D Mark IV.  Depending upon the scenario, I would carry one or the other with the 6D, usuallly the 1D4.  

 

I love them both, but neither of them can shoot Friday Night Lights like the 6D bodies can.  I seem to do a lot of shooting under poor lighting conditions, which is what I liked most about the 6D.  I cannot go past ISO 3200 with either the 7D2 or the 1D4, while the 6D bodies are still quite good at ISO 128000.

 

In AI Servo mode, the 6D viewfinder left much to be desired, which is what I liked most about the 7D2 and 1D4.  Now, the 6D2 has its’ own “ring of fire” mode, and it tracks VERY well.  Both the 7D2 and 6D2 can track equally well so far.  I will know for sure the next time I go to an RC Aircraft show..

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@Waddizzle wrote:

 

I was using 1/500 shutter for most of the night, a f/5.6 aperture, with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.

 

 


You know how much I love my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, but, if you are going to continue to do a lot of stadium lit football photography I recommend you consider getting the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. The extra two stops is significant when shooting under stadium lights. I have the older non-OS non-Sport version and it is fine, by all reports the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS Sport is even better. Plan on using a monopod with it as regardless of the version it is a heavy beast. 


@TTMartin wrote:

@Waddizzle wrote:

 

I was using 1/500 shutter for most of the night, a f/5.6 aperture, with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM.

 

 


You know how much I love my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, but, if you are going to continue to do a lot of stadium lit football photography I recommend you consider getting the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. The extra two stops is significant when shooting under stadium lights. I have the older non-OS non-Sport version and it is fine, by all reports the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS Sport is even better. Plan on using a monopod with it as regardless of the version it is a heavy beast. 


Oh, I do use a monopod, for sure.

I do not know how much more I will be shooting in years to come.  I’m just shooting my nephew, who happens to score a TD every game.  The 6D bodies do quite well under the conditions with the 100-400, though.  The shots are ISO 12800 are really good, IMHO  No doubt, if I used an f/2.8 lens I would probably bet even better photos.

 

94D0F1F5-AF8D-42CA-B85B-A7ADA629FD20.jpeg

 

Sample shot at ISO 12800.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

I'm with you on the low light performance of the 6d. I was hoping to grab a 6d2 to correct the AF deficiencies of the original.  I am a bit disappointed that the point spread seems to come from the crop sensor 80d and thus doesn't cover the full frame. Any input from an actual user?

 

Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?


@ScottyP wrote:

I'm with you on the low light performance of the 6d. I was hoping to grab a 6d2 to correct the AF deficiencies of the original.  I am a bit disappointed that the point spread seems to come from the crop sensor 80d and thus doesn't cover the full frame. Any input from an actual user?

 


When looking through the 80D viewfinder, you seem to get more apparent coverage, but that is due to cropping of the image.  I really do not see the difference as big issue.  I am not disappointed.  I think you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective.

 

This AF point coverage difference when using the same AF system on APS-C and FF is not new.  Some Canon 1D and 1Ds bodies used the same AF system, and the APS-H bodes would appear to have better coverage than their FF counterparts, when you looked through the viewfinder.  

 

In fact, the AF coverage of the image circle coming off of the lens was actually identical in both types of camera bodies.  The APS-H bodies were simply presenting a cropped view of the image, which made it seem as if they had better coverage of the image.  I suppose this could be interpreted as “wider” coverage, but in fact it is not.  Coverage is identical.

 

I think the 6D2 tracks VERY well in AI Servo Mode.  In fact, I like the tight spacing of the AF points.  The overall viewfinder coverage in the 6D2 is pretty close to that of the 6D, 45 AF points vs. 11 AF points.  I think the 6D2 fills in the apparent “gaps” between the 6D AF points, although no gaps actually existed in the 6D.  

 

The AF system has more resolution, which makes AI Servo mode work VERY well.  Now, I can see what the camera if focusing on in AI Servo mode.  I was amazed when I first saw the system in the 80D.  The fact that there are 27 AF points that can track at f/8 means I can use an extender and see which AF points are active and tracking, instead of having all AF points disabled except for the center AF point.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Announcements