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]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

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.

---

I think it's funny that he has to resort to a IR filtered image where visible light isn't allowed to get to the sensor to show the inadequacy of Canon sensors. 

For years the story was claimed that you could only push Canon images by two stops and that was so inferior to Sony sensors that could be pushed 4 stops. But, 4 stops was not only adequate it was what you needed. Now that Canon images can be pushed 4 stops with no issues, suddenly 4 stops is inadequate. While you might be able to push a Sony sensor 1 or 2 more stops than a Canon sensor, I'm sorry I'm not buying that there is a need for it.



A reminder that Ansel Adams Zone System is based 9 stops of dynamic range with Zone 0 being pure black, and Zone X being pure white. 

[KlausEnrique]

It is not funny. It is a real Canon deficeincy and the infrared example was not because "I had to" but because it was the latest example I encoutered of Canon's dynamic range being subpar.

Like I said, I don't really care if any of you is convinced that this is an issue, but people who look at forums should be aware that it exists. Attached is a straight 30 sec exposure (ISO 100 with a 5DII) of a pretty dark nightclub. Again, the highlights are all blown out, and the shadows all show heavy banding.

You will have to excuse me if I don't reply any more to your "I don't think this is an issue" type comments.

PS Ansel Adams shot film, which has more dynamic range than the best that Canon can offer, i.e. the 5DIV. Just FYI...

---

TTMartin wrote:

---

RobertTheFat wrote:

---

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.

---

I think it's funny that he has to resort to a IR filtered image where visible light isn't allowed to get to the sensor to show the inadequacy of Canon sensors. 

For years the story was claimed that you could only push Canon images by two stops and that was so inferior to Sony sensors that could be pushed 4 stops. But, 4 stops was not only adequate it was what you needed. Now that Canon images can be pushed 4 stops with no issues, suddenly 4 stops is inadequate. While you might be able to push a Sony sensor 1 or 2 more stops than a Canon sensor, I'm sorry I'm not buying that there is a need for it.



A reminder that Ansel Adams Zone System is based 9 stops of dynamic range with Zone 0 being pure black, and Zone X being pure white. 

---

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

PS Ansel Adams shot film, which has more dynamic range than the best that Canon can offer, i.e. the 5DIV. Just FYI...

---

No Ansel Adams' 'film' did not have more dynamic range than even the Canon 5D Mk III.



Again, Ansel Adams Zone System is based 9 stops of dynamic range with Zone 0 being pure black, and Zone X being pure white. 

Time for you to go back to Dynamic Range Review (DPR) your BS isn't needed here.

[KlausEnrique]

@TTMartin, "BS" is what you have in your brain. Film has around 13 real stops of dynamic range. The 6DII has 9. You can say that my comments are not needed here, but you are just spreading misinformation.

---

TTMartin wrote:

---

Again, Ansel Adams Zone System is based 9 stops of dynamic range with Zone 0 being pure black, and Zone X being pure white. 

Time for you to go back to Dynamic Range Review (DPR) your BS isn't needed here.

---

[ebiggs1]

"PS Ansel Adams shot film, which has more dynamic range than the best that Canon can offer, i.e. the 5DIV. Just FYI..."

Actually, FYI, film has better resolution, mostly, but it has less DR.  Of course it depends on the sensor and/or the film you are comparing but generally speaking digital will have better DR.

BTW, recent DSLR sensors are approaching better resolution, too.

I agree Canon sensors lag behind especially Sony sensors in overall performance.

[KlausEnrique]

Kodak VISION3 has 13 stops of dynamic range. That is film. Look it up...

[ebiggs1]

Klaus have another cup of coffee and read more slowly...

"Of course it depends on the sensor and/or the film you are comparing but generally speaking digital will have better DR."

Hey, man, I am on your side about Canon sensors.  I, too, think they are falling short to what Sony and Nikon are offering in their newest models. It has always been a leap frog thing.  One company comes out with a better, whatever, and the next model from the other company gets better.  However, I don't see that in the last updated models from Canon.  It seems to me they skipped a mode upgradel !

Now do I think Canon cameras are better overall, darn toot'in, I do.  There is more to a camera than just the sensor.

[KlausEnrique]

@ebiggs1

Yes, you have not been one of the people here who start off with "are you crazy?" "what planet are you on?" "We don't need your BS" etc. so thank you for that.

I have to admit that I don't know the dynamic range of black and white film. The last time I used it was when I was studying photography at Parsons, and that was a long time ago and I was not shooting anything particularly contrasty then.

Also glad to hear that you are on my side, although this is not really about sides. This is about trying to help the people who read these forums looking for advice. Some of the people who would act as if they were experts don't really know what they are talking about. I started my career shooting nightscapes and I wish someone would have told me that Canon was about the worst brand to pick up for that type of photography. But no, these "experts" would have you believe that there are no trade-offs with Canon and if it is not the right brand for you, then there is clearly something wrong with you.

Again, the two points that I want to reiterate are 

1) when it comes to dynamic range, Canon is the worst camera brand, even if it has improved as far as the 5DIV. That is still a huge disappointment!
2) In the 6DII Canon did not improve the dynamic range at the bottom of the ISO range. In fact, it is worse than the original 6D. That is a massive disappointment!

But like you said, dynamic range is not the only parameter to consider, and I agree with you that as Full Frame camera systems, Canon are better overall. But if I were in the same situation I was when I started my career, the Pentax K1 would have been the "perfect" camera for my nightscape photography. And if I were looking for a better all around inexpensive camera, then the original 6D and the 5DIII are both much better cameras than the 6DII. Heck, even the 80D seems like much better value for money than the 6DII.

Following your advice... Going to get a cup of coffee and going to get on with my day. Hope you have a good one!

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Klaus have another cup of coffee and read more slowly...

"Of course it depends on the sensor and/or the film you are comparing but generally speaking digital will have better DR."

Hey, man, I am on your side about Canon sensors.  I, too, think they are falling short to what Sony and Nikon are offering in there newest models. It has always been a leap frog thing.  One company comes out with a better, whatever, and the next model from the other company gets better.  However, I don't see that in the last updated models from Canon.  It seems to me they skipped a mode upgradel !

Now do I think Canon cameras are better overall, darn toot'in, I do.  There is more to a camera than just the sensor.

---

[ebiggs1]

"... glad to hear that you are on my side, although this is not really about sides."

Corrected, I am in agreement with you.  This is from my personal experience with them not from the ole inner web.  It seems to me that Canon 'settleled' for the sensor they have now. It isn't a leap forward in technology that Canon is famous for in the past.

In addition, off topic, I would like to see the AA filter gone.

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

Kodak VISION3 has 13 stops of dynamic range. That is film. Look it up...

---

Ansel Adams didn't use Kodak VISION3 film.

And according to Kodak's Vision3 film brochure 'SENSITOMETRIC CURVES “0” on the x-axis represents normal exposure of an 18-percent gray card in the red, green, and blue layers of this film. A white card is 2 1/3 stops higher than normal exposure, and there are at least 3 1/2 stops above that for capturing specular highlight detail. A 3-percent black card is 2 2/3 stops below normal exposure. There are at least 2 1/2 stops of latitude below that for capturing shadow detail.'

2 1/3 + 3 1/2 + 2 2/3 + 2 1/2 = 11 stops of dynamic range

edit: someone (marketing, internet blogger, ???) must have added pure black and pure white to the 11 actual stops of dynamic range to come up with a 13 stop number. But, as Ansel Adams make very clear in his book 'The Negative', The Zone System, Dynamic Range and Textuaral Ranges that is not the correct definition of 'Dynamic Range'.