6D MKII a disappointment???

[skyking]

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

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

That is just my initial adjustment.  My next step is too usually add some contrast.  On many photos I do bring the Shadows and Highlights to those values.  Sometimes, though, it seems make the image look a little dull if I max out the adjustment.

[EDIT]. I think you may have completely misunderstood my point, BTW.  The left image is th Before.  The right image is the After.  Again, these are the initial adjustments to an image.  What happens next depends upon the image.  

Your explaation of what you do is a bit hard to follow.  I think you left something out of it.

---

Yes, I did miss understand the right one was your final one.

And processing techniques are hard to explain since there are so many variables.

Things  I always do:

Blacks are always 'clipped' so you have true black, black level. *1

Blacks is always a negative value, Whites is always a positive value.

Blacks and White are always the same offset from zero, i.e. -25 and +25, -35 and +35, -10 and +10, etc

I adjust Exposure, Blacks and Whites, so the highlights are not clipped (except in the case of specular highlights on reflective images, or the sun is in the image), and the shadows are clipped (have a true black)

This I usually do

I usually set Highlights to -100 and Shadows to +100

*1 - 'Nikon currently clips the average read noise at zero, losing some data. Canon includes an offset, so processing by some raw converters can preserve the low end noise, which can be important for averaging multiple frames to detect very low intensity subjects (as in astrophotography).' - Roger Clark, PhD, NASA 

[Waddizzle]

I still say that I use a different approach to wind up in the same place.  You say that you always wind with an equal offset from zero for Blacks and Whites.  My left photo shows exactly that.  It shows plus and minus seven as being the final adjustments.  

I will point out that this balanced set of adjustments is more the exception, not the rule for me.  The content of the image drives the final set of adjustments.  I don't see how imposing a requirement that the adjustments must always be symmetrical is desireable.  Every image is s different set of circumstances, which should require a different set of adjustments, IMHO.

My point is simple.  Lightroom offers a visual display of clipping, just as it does for sharpening.  I think it is pretty rare that an image would be equally at or near saturation for both Blacks and Whites.  They should be independent adjustments.  I use Exposure [and Contrast] to make a symmetrical adjustment.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

I think it is pretty rare that an image would be equally at or near saturation for both Blacks and Whites.  They should be independent adjustments.  I use Exposure [and Contrast] to make a symmetrical adjustment.

---

I use the Exposure adjustment to make the Black and White adjustments symmetrical. I do this as a way of standardizing the look and exposure of my photos. I was asked to give my processing tips on how to maximize the dynamic range of the Canon cameras that don't perform well on 'the test'. That's my intent, not to get into a contest with you and how you process your photos. You're happy with the dynamic range you get processing your way, then keep doing it your way. As I showed my way works even when having to push the exposure five (5) stops. 

The point of all of this was other manufacturers and Canon now on some of their cameras like the 80D and 5D Mk IV bury some of the noise below the black point. Other Canon cameras like the 7D Mk II have a different black point which can on the surface appear to be noisier and have less dynamic range. By not baking in higher black point the camera is actually more useful to a broader range of photographers. Unfortunately, so many people like the poster above talking about going to Fuji, have given credence to 'the test' scores that Canon had to reduce the functionality of RAWs of some of their cameras like the 80D and 5D Mk IV to score well on 'the test'. I can guarantee you that the 6D Mk II sensor and the 5D Mk IV sensor have nearly identical dynamic range. The difference is the 5D Mk IV''s RAW file has been optimized like other manufacturers RAW files to score well on 'the test', and the 6D Mk II's RAW file has been left in its RAWer state so that it will appeal to those photographers that need that like those that do astrophotography. 

[Waddizzle]

TTMartin,

No one is trying get into a contest.  But, I do find your approach to be fundamentally flawed by assuming that the distribution of light is always symmetrical.  Once glance at a histogram shows how varied, and asymmetrical, the distribution of light frequencies can be.

The image that you posted from an 80D using your approach was admittedly flawed when using your technique.  I get great images from my 80D.  I was only suggesting a different approach so as not wind up with flawed result, such as the one you posted.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

TTMartin,

No one is trying get into a contest. 

The image that you posted from an 80D using your approach was admittedly flawed when using your technique.  I get great images from my 80D.  I was only suggesting a different approach so as not wind up with flawed result, such as the one you posted.

---

I never posted an image from an 80D.

The only image I post was a five (5) stop underexposed image from a 7D Mk II that went from this before processing.

To this after processing

I have repeatedly said the technique doesn't work with an 80D because the 80D already bakes the noise clipping black point into the RAW file. Obviously you have missed the entire point to my post. So please just drop it.

[derekmccoy]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of having equal opposite black and white points.
What I normally do to maximise DR is set my desired exposure, drop my highlights and raise my shadows to taste, then hold Shift and double click on both Whites and Blacks to bring them just below clipping point. I then hold alt and pull the blacks slightly further down to bury them and get true black.

And yes, that duck shot would have been far cleaner with an 80D (which is the respective equal improvement everyone was expecting from the 6D2).

[Waddizzle]

---

@derekmccoy wrote:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of having equal opposite black and white points.
What I normally do to maximise DR is set my desired exposure, drop my highlights and raise my shadows to taste, then hold Shift and double click on both Whites and Blacks to bring them just below clipping point. I then hold alt and pull the blacks slightly further down to bury them and get true black.

And yes, that duck shot would have been far cleaner with an 80D (which is the respective equal improvement everyone was expecting from the 6D2).

---

I agree. What you are doing is basically what I do.  It seems to work just fine.

BTW, the duck shot was with an 7D2, though.   He just corrected me andd said that it began life underexposed by 5(?) stops.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@derekmccoy wrote:

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of having equal opposite black and white points.
What I normally do to maximise DR is set my desired exposure, drop my highlights and raise my shadows to taste, then hold Shift and double click on both Whites and Blacks to bring them just below clipping point. I then hold alt and pull the blacks slightly further down to bury them and get true black.

And yes, that duck shot would have been far cleaner with an 80D (which is the respective equal improvement everyone was expecting from the 6D2).

---

I agree. What you are doing is basically what I do.  It seems to work just fine.

BTW, the duck shot was with an 7D2, though.   He just corrected me andd said that it began life underexposed by 5(?) stops.

---

WTF does a properly exposed duck have to do with this discussion. SMH

Let's see how your processing works on a photo that was 5 stops underexposed.

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@derekmccoy wrote:

---

I agree. What you are doing is basically what I do.  It seems to work just fine.

BTW, the duck shot was with an 7D2, though.   He just corrected me andd said that it began life underexposed by 5(?) stops.

---

WTF does a properly exposed duck have to do with this discussion. SMH

Let's see how your processing works on a photo that was 5 stops underexposed.

---

Five stops?  Sorry, I don't have any of those.  You really do have a terrible temper, BTW.  Good Day!

[skyking]

Guys easy!! This was a good discussion. What ever works for you works. Besides being a amateur or hobbiest photography all my life I am a home brewer. I've learned thorugh the years there are many ways to make beer which is the same for photography. Many ways to shoot and process a photo. If it works for you that's all that count's. I saw Rick Salmon highlighting the 6D MKII. Thats seems like a good recommendation.   I'll know better when I get the camera.