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

In a way I think it is kind of funny. I still shoot film (for fun) and use my Canon AT1 manual 35 mm which I believe I bought back around 1972. I loved shoot Tri-X 400 ASA as the film gave you excellent contrast and grain (which today we call noise). As far a dynamic range with film it was up to the film producer and the darkroom. I find it funny today as some have gotten into shooting film than scan the negatives or prints Not going to get a lot of dynamic range from that, that is for sure.  If I could have afforded a 5D MK4 I would have but that is out of the question. Every camera has a purpose. I'll know better once I get the camera.

 

James


@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).


The duck would not have been cleaner after being pushed 5 stops with the 80D. Despite what 'the test' says the 7D Mk II and the 80D have nearly identical real world dynamic range.

 

The reason you set the Black and Whites to equal values goes back to Ansel Adams and the Zone System. Proper exposure is in Zone 5, Middle Grey, which is half way between Zone 1 and Zone 9, You are setting the total exposure to extend from Zone 1 by just barely clipping the blacks, and Zone 9 by almost clipping the highlights. Thus the proper exposure is half way (equidistant) between those two.

Middle Grey 
Zone System.JPG

Thanks - Again excellent description.  If anything this has been a great learning topic!


@derekmccoy wrote:

 

I then hold alt and pull the blacks slightly further down to bury them and get true black.

 


That is the most import point I was making you need to clip the blacks to get true black.


@TTMartin wrote:

 

A00A0056-10.jpg

 

 


While I appreciate Tom's post on how to extend the dynamic range, the photo above is a big "Canon disappointment": you can clearly see the banding in the background, which is the telltale of Canon's inferior dynamic range. That has nothing to do with not "baking" the true raw file. That is just bad sensor design and bad sensor read technolog (Canon's weak spots). If this image had been captured with a Nikon D810 or a Pentax K-1. the image would not show such artifacts... I am a Canon user and you could almost say I am a Canon fan, but if Canon doesn't improve their dynamic range capabilities (the 5D Mark IV is still not good enough), then more people will jump ship. But to deliberately not include the best technology that Canon has (i.e. the dynamic range of the 5D Mark IV) even if inferior, is borderline outrageous...

 

ISO 12800

 

A594C62B-2BE0-488D-96AC-ECC315CB8491.jpeg

 

Friday Night Lights.

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


@KlausEnrique wrote:

@TTMartin wrote:

 

A00A0056-10.jpg

 

 


While I appreciate Tom's post on how to extend the dynamic range, the photo above is a big "Canon disappointment": you can clearly see the banding in the background, which is the telltale of Canon's inferior dynamic range. That has nothing to do with not "baking" the true raw file. That is just bad sensor design and bad sensor read technolog (Canon's weak spots). If this image had been captured with a Nikon D810 or a Pentax K-1. the image would not show such artifacts... I am a Canon user and you could almost say I am a Canon fan, but if Canon doesn't improve their dynamic range capabilities (the 5D Mark IV is still not good enough), then more people will jump ship. But to deliberately not include the best technology that Canon has (i.e. the dynamic range of the 5D Mark IV) even if inferior, is borderline outrageous...
 

Are you sure about that, Klaus? I'm under the impression that banding is always parallel to the x or y axis of the sensor. The "bands" in Tom's photo aren't; in fact they aren't even all parallel to each other. Given the loss of detail in a 5-stop underexposure, it's next to impossible to determine what the bands really are; but I guess I'd have taken them for some sort of OOF vegetation, like reeds or small trees. Am I missing something obvious?

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

"Given the loss of detail in a 5-stop underexposure, ..."

 

More likely the result of overprocessing.  Pulling something up from extreme exposure errors can have issues.  However, I do agree that the newest crop of Nikon and Sony sensors are better than Canon's.  I, too, think Canon needs to up its game in sensor technology.  I am super impressed with the D810 and I want to try the new D850 as soon as I can.

 

You can keep the Pentax K1. Smiley Sad

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

Yes, I am sure. Just google Horizontal and Vertical Banding Noise (HVBN) Canon. I often shoot infrared which inherently has a much narrower dynamic range and it is a big problem with Canon cameras, because in order to avoid that banding you have to end up with blown out areas...

Are you sure about that, Klaus? I'm under the impression that banding is always parallel to the x or y axis of the sensor. The "bands" in Tom's photo aren't; in fact they aren't even all parallel to each other. Given the loss of detail in a 5-stop underexposure, it's next to impossible to determine what the bands really are; but I guess I'd have taken them for some sort of OOF vegetation, like reeds or small trees. Am I missing something obvious?


 


@KlausEnrique wrote:

@TTMartin wrote:

 

A00A0056-10.jpg

 

If this image had been captured with a Nikon D810 or a Pentax K-1. the image would not show such artifacts...

 


I would hope that full frame sensors you mention could out perform the crop sensor of the crop sensor of the 7D Mk II.

 

Avatar
click here to view the gallery
Announcements