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]

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.

[KlausEnrique]

Dude, get this right. I love my 5DS. I HATE it's dynamic range! You are just a Canon fan boy, aren't you?

The dynamic range I love is that of my 645Z. That is good dynamic range. And the dynamic range of the 5DS and the 6DII are not that close... Had you used DXO Mark properly, you would have seen that!



See, I had you right. You don't care about giving people the best advice. You are just a Canon sales man that wants to pair people with the Canon camera that you like best.

By the way, next time you show a chart of dynamic range, push the "Print" button, otherwise you are looking at dynamic range on a Screen as your graph clearly shows. I mean, you don't even know how to use DXO Mark! The proper graph is this one (see how it says Print in blue!):



And sorry that I am "trolling" your beloved 6DII. Someone had to set the record straight, fanboy!

Good luck to you all!

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@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.

---

[TTMartin]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@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.

---

---

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

By the way, next time you show a chart of dynamic range, push the "Print" button, otherwise you are looking at dynamic range on a Screen as your graph clearly shows. I mean, you don't even know how to use DXO Mark! The proper graph is this one (see how it says Print in blue!):

The 'Print' button normalizes the noise based on an 8 megapixel 'Print', so by using 'Print' the higher the megapixels a camera has, the more dynamic range it supposedly has. When 'Screen' is selected as I did, it shows the actual dynamic range of each pixel. As you noticed I said the 6D Mk II and 5D S have the same dynamic range pixel per pixel, which they do.

What you (and DXO) ignore is that due to the dual-pixel sensor the character of the noise of the 6D Mk II will be fine and grain like, similar to your 5D S. When you choose 'Print' at DXO they normalize it based on the 26 megapixels output created by combining the dual-pixels. Where in reality the noise characteristics of the 6D Mk II is more like that of a 52 megapixel camera, since that is the actual number of photosite capturing the image. 

Again, instead of bashing the camera blindly based on tabloid like headlines, you might might want to actually try using it, since you've find it has much more in common with your 5D S than you seem to realize.

I'm sorry that the facts seem to be inducing some cognitive dissonance with your current opinions. 

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

The dynamic range I love is that of my 645Z. That is good dynamic range. 

You are just a Canon sales man that wants to pair people with the Canon camera that you like best.

fanboy!

---

So why would you even consider buying a different camera?

Why just not use your 645Z for all your photography?

Perhaps because there is more to a camera than just dynamic range? 

Actually, I try and recommend the camera that I think will meet a persons needs the best based on what their stated needs are. 

As for being a Canon fanboy yes, I am a former Nikon user current Canon fanboy. By the way this is a Canon manufacturer's site, if you don't like Canon fanboys you might stick with Dynamic Range Review (dpreview.com) and the like.

Again, I'm sorry that the facts seem to be inducing some cognitive dissonance with your current opinions.

[KlausEnrique]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

The dynamic range I love is that of my 645Z. That is good dynamic range. 

You are just a Canon sales man that wants to pair people with the Canon camera that you like best.

fanboy!

---

So why would you even consider buying a different camera?

Why just not use your 645Z for all your photography?

Perhaps because there is more to a camera than just dynamic range? 

Actually, I try and recommend the camera that I think will meet a persons needs the best based on what their stated needs are. 

As for being a Canon fanboy yes, I am a former Nikon user current Canon fanboy. By the way this is a Canon manufacturer's site, if you don't like Canon fanboys you might stick with Dynamic Range Review (dpreview.com) and the like.

Again, I'm sorry that the facts seem to be inducing some cognitive dissonance with your current opinions.

---

Yes, you are right. There is more to a camera than dynamic range. I have acknowledged that many times. The 645Z is not great at EVERYTHING. And it is not particularly cheap either...

I am willing to recognize that there are trade-offs. You on the other hand seem to think that there is a perfect Canon camera for everyone!

Anyhow, peace to you, man. Enjoy your Canon World where all your other Canon fanboys agree with you and makes you think that you are right...

[TTMartin]

---

@KlausEnrique wrote:

And yes, the reason why I am posting here is because I am sorry for all those poor souls who have followed your "advice" and now are stuck with the wrong gear because of YOU!

---

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

[RobertTheFat]

---

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???

Next post you show how to decode a RAW file, which has NOTHING to do with the RAW file that Canon has already badly "cooked". Quick tip, we are talking about HOW the camera processes the data BEFORE it writes the RAW file. You are talking about what to do AFTER!

And yes, the reason why I am posting here is because I am sorry for all those poor souls who have followed your "advice" and now are stuck with the wrong gear because of YOU!

Anyhow, really have more important things to do. I have made my point and whoever wants to listen will do. I am sure your photography is as enlightened as your posts!

---

---

Can we please take you at your word this time? I believe I can assure you, without fear of contradiction, that not one of us will shed a tear if you never post a line in this forum again.

[ionut]

"I mentioned we'd get to the math... well it's time to talk math.

In binary, if I have a 1 bit processor, I can store only two values... 0 or 1... (think of this as not just off and on... but also as black and white). 

If I have a 2 bit processor, I can store only 4 values... 0, 1, 2, or 3 (represented by 00, 01, 10, and 11).  You can think of this is as "black", "dark gray", "light gray", and "white" if you were using these values to represent tonality.

(Side note:  If you're not familiar with counting in binary... each time you add another bit to the register you double the number of possible values that can be stored.  With 3 bits you can store 8 possible values (0-7).   With 4 bits you can store 16 possible values (0-15 but when written out they use 0-9 then use the letters 'a' through 'f' to represent 10 through 15)).

Each time you increase ISO by a full stop (assuming it really is a FULL stop and not some gimmickery again) you have to double the value of light.  You can't double the value of light on a 1 bit processor... there's only 1 bit.  But with a 2 bit processor if you had a value of binary 01 (decimal 1)  you could double it to make it binary 10 (decimal 2).  So 1 becomes 2 because you doubled it.  That makes sense.   Trouble happens if you had a binary 10 already (decimal 2) because a 2 bit processor can't store the result... 2 doubled becomes 4 and a 2 bit processor can only store values from 0 to 3... trying to store a 4 results in an overflow.  If this was presenting tonality in an image... the image would be clipped, over-exposed, blown out, etc.

These camera processors have 14 bit sensors.  You can store values from 0 to 65535.  So if some pixel had a value of, say... 30,000 and I needed to double that... then it would double to become 60,000.    That's fine because 60,000 is less than 65535.  But what if we had a pixel that was 40,000.  If we double that we get 80,000 and now we're in trouble because we can't store any values greater than 65535.  This results in clipping.

If a camera has 10 stops of native dynamic range and it's an ISO-invariant sensor (which means it really only ever shoots at ISO 100 and uses math to manipulate the output) then when we go to +1 EV, we just dropped the camera's DR down to 9 stops.   Every stop we boost ISO is traded for a loss of 1 stop of DR.

But wait... lots of ISO invariant cameras claim to have more DR (well... they do if you believe DxO -- I am not a beliver in DxO because I can do math).

The trick is to compress the data.  So instead of boosting ISO straight across the board (e.g. think of Ansel Adams' Zone System... but lets reduce it to just 5 zones).  We can't really double the top zone (zone 5) because we'd get clipping... so we pretty much do nothing.  Then we take zone 4 and we only try to fractionally boost it... zone 3 gets a slightly larger fraction of a boost and so on... zone 1 (the darkest zone) gets a full doubling.  

Really we've just "compressed" the DR... so  that 5 stops of true DR are squeezed to fit into 4 stops of DR.  But that doesn't avoid the fact that it's really just 4 stops of DR.  You could do this in Lightroom by adjusting the black point (instead of adjusting the exposure value)."

Dear TCampbell,

The simple words are not enough to express what you described here... in few words you resumed a whole year of Digital Electronics that I studied on my college! And yes, you're 100% right!

The complex words could be intimidating for some readers and will create probably adverse reactions... Consequently I will avoid!

Thanks for spending your precious time to explain in a simple manner the basic process of transforming the light in digital data!

For me it is not a surprise what you wrote but I'm amazed about your patience to explain complex things in simple manner and spending time for this educational post!

[sasa_g]

@TTMartin , thanks for sharing valuable infos in this forum

@KlausEnrique, same to you!

i´ve learned from both of you, even if you guys dont agree to each other at some points. Thank you for that!

@TCampbell, your detailed explanation of digital processing, upsteram/downstream etc was a real enjoyment for me and i have learned a lot.  Thanks you!

so back to topic 🙂

I have a 80D, a 6D, and was able to get a 6DMKii at a quite low price ..so i couldnt resist.

Now after few weeks i can say, the 6DMKii is definitely not a dissapointment to me.

I cant understand how people can hate so much about this camera, and especially as most of them never used the 6DMKii in reality.

I performs very good for me, the autfocus is a huge upgrade to the 6D and the flip-screen is just wow.

I think basically it depends on what you want to shoot with a camera, i do mostly portraits/available light/street.

cheers