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

[KlausEnrique]

@TTMartin

"Just to clarify you think that all Canon cameras are the 'wrong gear' because they don't score well on dynamic range tests?"

No, I am a Canon fan, and I've owned Canon gear since the EOS 1V. Currently own the 5DS which I really like. And honestly I think Canon provides probably the best 35mm system of all the manufacturers. But Canon's weak spot is dynamic range and there are a lot of photography styles that demand superior dynamic range. And Canon would be a poor choice for those. And you guys keep on saying that the 6DII is an excellent camera, whereas the reality is that it is a huge disappointment. The 6DII is a crippled version of the 5DIII with the sensor divided into a few more MPs. Nobody should buy it! If you want to spend $2K on a FF Canon system, people should spend an extra $200 and buy the 5DIII instead... Which is exactly what people are doing and that is why sales of the 6DII are terrible and the 5DIII are doing better. Are you advising people to buy the 5DIII instead? Are you telling them that if they are going to be shooting natural light commercial portraits that maybe they should be buying a Nikon? That if they are going to do pure landscapes maybe the Pentax K1 is better?

Now, you said it slowly, but you are still talking about converting a RAW image into a JPG or a TIFF or whatever other format you want to convert. That is not what we are talking about. If you read the conversation about "upstream" and "downstream" amplification. Those are things that are happening BEFORE the RAW file is written on to your SD card. And you are talking about how to interpret the RAW file once it has been written...

And like I said, none of you guys is talking about banding, which happens because of the upstream processing that Canon does. Which gives you better image quality at the useless end of the ISO range, and criples your images at the useful end of the ISO range. It makes NO sense!

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

See, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. One post you say RAW files are black and white. Next post you post an image that is NOT black and white! Which one is it??? Why don't you post a picture that shows the individual pixels like I did??? 

---

I'm typing this really slowly, so maybe you'll understand. The image in the RAW file is black and white greyscale. To be output you have to use a RAW converter that knows which pixel is covered by the Red filter, Blue filter, and the two Green filters. The RAW converter then uses this information to create a color image. When the RAW converter doesn't have the correct information on which pixel is supposed to be Red, Blue or Green, it produces funky output like this.

This is NOT a RAW image, it is a image that was output from a RAW converter that didn't know which pixels were supposed to be Red, Blue and Green in the black and white greyscale file, so when it converted it, it output an incorrectly colored image.

I didn't one that shows individual pixels like you did, because all the pixels in the RAW image file (IFD #3) are grey. Your image showing individual pixel is an simplified illustration of how the RAW converter converts that greyscale image into color, because it knows the greyscale image went through colored filters.

---

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

And like I said, none of you guys is talking about banding, which happens because of the upstream processing that Canon does. Which gives you better image quality at the useless end of the ISO range, and criples your images at the useful end of the ISO range. It makes NO sense! 

---

We don't talk about banding because, banding hasn't been a significant factor in the latitude of Canon's RAW files since the days of the 5D Mk II. 

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

The 6DII is a crippled version of the 5DIII with the sensor divided into a few more MPs. Nobody should buy it! If you want to spend $2K on a FF Canon system, people should spend an extra $200 and buy the 5DIII instead... 

---

How is it 'crippled' compared to the 5D Mk III?

It has equivalent dynamic range.

It has a higher fps 6.5 vs 6.

It has a quieter shutter than the 5D Mk III.

It has GPS, WiFi, and a tilt swivel LCD that the 5D Mk III lacks.

It is lighter than the 5D Mk III.

It has a small boost in megapixels as you pointed out.

The AF system has it's pluses and negatives. Fewer and more concentrated AF points, but, has more cross type AF points. The 6D Mk II can focus at f/8 on 27 AF points including 9 cross type. The 5D Mk III can only focus at f/8 on it's center AF point, and that was because of a firmware upgrade.

Sorry, I just don't buy what you are saying. You are so intent on slamming the 6D Mk II, but, the facts just don't support your statements.

[KlausEnrique]

Dynamic range is the same... Agreed. For a camera that is coming out how many years after the 5DIII, you think that is good?

Yes, you are right in that it is not crippled in every way. But

5DIII

- Better AF system
- Dual Card Slots

6DII

- Dual Pixel Tech (you forgot to mention it!) - Good

- higher fps 6.5 vs 6 - You are not going to notice it

- It has GPS, WiFi, and a tilt swivel LCD that the 5D Mk III lacks - Good

- It is lighter than the 5D Mk III - Good

- It has a quieter shutter than the 5D Mk III - You are not going to notice it

So you pick a swivel LCD over dual card slots? You would take Dual Pixel over a better AF system? Would you really pick a brand new 6DII over the 5DIII? Really??? Heck, if a kid came to me and asked me, I'd be like buy the OLD 6D and save yourself $1K!

Again, I feel you guys are swinging at everything. You made up your mind that the 6DII is a great camera and nothing anybody says will change your mind. Fine. But in my mind, the 6DII is an inferior camera to the 5DIII and the 5DIII was announced in 2011... I would have hoped at the very least for Canon to improve the dynamic range, which they didn't and which is a HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT...

---

TTMartin wrote:

---

KlausEnrique wrote:

The 6DII is a crippled version of the 5DIII with the sensor divided into a few more MPs. Nobody should buy it! If you want to spend $2K on a FF Canon system, people should spend an extra $200 and buy the 5DIII instead... 

---

How is it 'crippled' compared to the 5D Mk III?

It has equivalent dynamic range.

It has a higher fps 6.5 vs 6.

It has a quieter shutter than the 5D Mk III.

It has GPS, WiFi, and a tilt swivel LCD that the 5D Mk III lacks.

It is lighter than the 5D Mk III.

It has a small boost in megapixels as you pointed out.

The AF system has it's pluses and negatives. Fewer and more concentrated AF points, but, has more cross type AF points. The 6D Mk II can focus at f/8 on 27 AF points including 9 cross type. The 5D Mk III can only focus at f/8 on it's center AF point, and that was because of a firmware upgrade.

Sorry, I just don't buy what you are saying. You are so intent on slamming the 6D Mk II, but, the facts just don't support your statements.

---

[Waddizzle]

I think an AF system with 27 f/8 AF points is superior to a system with just one f/8 focus point.

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

Dynamic range is the same... Agreed. For a camera that is coming out how many years after the 5DIII, you think that is good?

---

It is only a negative if you felt the dynamic range of the 5D Mk III or original 6D were severely lacking. The fact is the other pluses of Canon far outweigh the dynamic range difference. Nikon and Sony through DXOMark originally and now other sites have done a good job making it seem like a major issue, it really isn't.

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

You made up your mind that the 6DII is a great camera and nothing anybody says will change your mind. Fine. But in my mind, the 6DII is an inferior camera to the 5DIII

---

In your mind the 6D Mk II is inferior to the 5D Mk III, in reality not so much.

The 6D Mk II is the camera it needs to be. It is not meant to be a 1D camera. It slots in Canon's line up perfectly. For new purchasers it has enough pluses to make it superior choice over the 5D Mk III. For those with the 5D Mk III looking to upgrade the choice is obviously the 5D Mk IV.

[TCampbell]

For crying out loud... is this thing still going?

I stopped posting as soon as I realized that all the questions had been answered to those who were actually interested in learning something.

I suspect Klaus is not interested in learning anything.  As such, I did not bother to respond to those posts.

[KlausEnrique]

Yep. In my mind the 6DII is slightly inferior to the 5DIII, and value for money I think the 6DI is a great proposition.

I don't agree with your statement that the 6DII fits perfectly, because to me it should have had the same dynamic range as the 5DIV. I would have probably bought it as my vacation camera if that had been the case. So I am getting yet another system (which I would have prefered not to), in this case the Pentax K1.

Anyhow, TT, thank you for the back and forth... One day you guys should really do a thread on the banding!

Happy shooting!

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

You made up your mind that the 6DII is a great camera and nothing anybody says will change your mind. Fine. But in my mind, the 6DII is an inferior camera to the 5DIII

---

In your mind the 6D Mk II is inferior to the 5D Mk III, in reality not so much.

The 6D Mk II is the camera it needs to be. It is not meant to be a 1D camera. It slots in Canon's line up perfectly. For new purchasers it has enough pluses to make it superior choice over the 5D Mk III. For those with the 5D Mk III looking to upgrade the choice is obviously the 5D Mk IV.

---

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

No, I am a Canon fan, and I've owned Canon gear since the EOS 1V. Currently own the 5DS which I really like. 

---

That's interesting because pixel for pixel the Canon 6D Mk II has as good or better dynamic range than the 5DS. 

Perhaps you should ignore the tabloid headlines about the 6D Mk II over at Dynamic Range Review (dpreview.com) and rethink your trolling the 6D Mk II here. Heck you might even go as far as buy the 6D Mk II as your travel camera, now that you see that pixel for pixel it has just as much dynamic range as the 5DS which you like so much.

edit: you'll also find that since the 6D Mk II has a dual-pixel sensor, that it has very similar noise characteristics as the 5DS. Due to the dual-pixed sensor the noise of the 6D Mk II will be just as fine as a non-dual pixel 52mb sensor.