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


@KlausEnrique wrote:

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...

Canon has steadily improved their dynamic range, it is malarkey that Canon hasn't improved their dynamic range.

 

The only reason I had a photo to push 5 stops to begin with was complete user error. 

 

In every other case Canon has had more than adequate dynamic range going back to the original 6D.

 

If you need more dynamic range than Canon currently offers then yes, you should sell your Canon gear, and find another hobby.


"Canon has steadily improved their dynamic range, it is malarkey that Canon hasn't improved their dynamic range.

 

The only reason I had a photo to push 5 stops to begin with was complete user error. 

 

In every other case Canon has had more than adequate dynamic range going back to the original 6D.

 

If you need more dynamic range than Canon currently offers then yes, you should sell your Canon gear, and find another hobby."


I did not say that Canon has not improved their dynamic range. Indeed, the only reason I have stayed with Canon is that every now and then they do improve it. The bad thing is that it is still not good enough, as the banding in your photograph shows. Now, in your case it was user error but in other conditions it is not. Any high contrast situation requires good dynamic range: any time the sun is in your landscape, nightscapes, infrared (as mentioned on my previous comment), and even things like natural light portraits. Your assertion that "In every other case Canon has had more than adequate dynamic range" is simply not true. Just because YOUR needs might be fulfilled doesn't mean every other photographer's are. And maybe you should push your "hobby" a little harder!

 

So my point: given that Canon has improved in dynamic range as far as the 5D Mark IV (which is still well below Nikon, Sony and Pentax), it is perverse that Canon gave the 6D Mark II a worse dynamic range at low ISO than the original 6D...


 

"I did not say that Canon has not improved their dynamic range."

 

They have improve a little bit but the fact remains they are behind Sony and Nikon in sensor development. Anybody that denies this just has not used a Nikon lately.  Usually sensor tech and other electronics leap frogs each other most recent camera design and release..  However, the last offerings from Canon have not done so.

 

It is the main reason I have not bought the 1Dx or Mk II.  (I have been offered some very attractive offerings for a 1Dx so that may change soon.):smileyhappy:

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


@KlausEnrique wrote:

"Canon has steadily improved their dynamic range, it is malarkey that Canon hasn't improved their dynamic range.

 

The only reason I had a photo to push 5 stops to begin with was complete user error. 

 

In every other case Canon has had more than adequate dynamic range going back to the original 6D.

 

If you need more dynamic range than Canon currently offers then yes, you should sell your Canon gear, and find another hobby."


I did not say that Canon has not improved their dynamic range. Indeed, the only reason I have stayed with Canon is that every now and then they do improve it. The bad thing is that it is still not good enough, as the banding in your photograph shows. Now, in your case it was user error but in other conditions it is not. Any high contrast situation requires good dynamic range: any time the sun is in your landscape, nightscapes, infrared (as mentioned on my previous comment), and even things like natural light portraits. Your assertion that "In every other case Canon has had more than adequate dynamic range" is simply not true. Just because YOUR needs might be fulfilled doesn't mean every other photographer's are. And maybe you should push your "hobby" a little harder!

 

So my point: given that Canon has improved in dynamic range as far as the 5D Mark IV (which is still well below Nikon, Sony and Pentax), it is perverse that Canon gave the 6D Mark II a worse dynamic range at low ISO than the original 6D...


 


Even if one accepts your assertion that Tom's picture shows banding, I think you're conflating dynamic range with low-light performance. Tom's picture doesn't require a particularly high dynamic range, but it challenges the camera's low-light performance by being five stops underexposed. Low-light performance is only part of a camera's dynamic range; the other part (avoidance of blown highlights) doesn't apply at all in this case. So why belabor it here?

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Klaus may be concerned by simply DR but I am complaining about the total sensor vs the competition.

" ... the fact remains they are behind Sony and Nikon in sensor development."

Again if you think not, you haven't used a D810 or D5.  This is coming from a dyed in the wool Canon guy.

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

Bob, you are right in that Tom's photo does not require superior dynamic range. It just needed for Tom to not make a mistake. But you know what, we all make mistakes at some point.

On your second point, however, unfortunately, you are incorrect. Low light performance refers to shooting, well, in low light. I am not sure if Tom was shooting in low light, but he probably wasn't. One does not normally shoot birds in flight in the middle of the night. How well does a camera perform in low light generally refers to: can the camera find focus in the dark? How noisy is the camera at high ISO?(which in this case, the 6D Mark II is pretty good). So, no, we are not talking about low light, we are talking about dynamic range, which affects not only photos shot in low light, but in all circumstances. Now, for all practical purposes, Tom was recovering information from the shadows (because he mistakenly underexposed his image). But even in normal conditions one may want to bring out the detail in the shadows, specially if you do not want to have your highlights all blown out! And some times you are hit with banding because of Canon's poor dynamic range.

The photo below was shot in the middle of the day. It is a 16 minute exposure. The highlights on the red channel are already blown out, but the blue and green channels have not even left the sensor's floor, so there is banding in the shadows. Even entry level cameras from Sony, Nikon and Pentax would not have that issue. This was shot with a 5DS which is not a cheap camera and has even better dynamic range than the original 6D and obviously way ahead of the 6D Mark II (although not as good as the 5D Mark IV). I already own the Pentax 645Z, which is even more expensive than the 5DS, but I still want to have a 35mm body with decent dynamic range (by 2017 standards). The 5D Mark IV doesn't cut it, but given that Canon already has advanced on dynamic range technology, even if it still remains the industry's laggard, to not include the meagre best that they can offer in this regard in ALL their models, is a huge disappointment.


@RobertTheFat wrote:

@KlausEnrique wrote:

"Canon has steadily improved their dynamic range, it is malarkey that Canon hasn't improved their dynamic range.

 

The only reason I had a photo to push 5 stops to begin with was complete user error. 

 

In every other case Canon has had more than adequate dynamic range going back to the original 6D.

 

If you need more dynamic range than Canon currently offers then yes, you should sell your Canon gear, and find another hobby."


I did not say that Canon has not improved their dynamic range. Indeed, the only reason I have stayed with Canon is that every now and then they do improve it. The bad thing is that it is still not good enough, as the banding in your photograph shows. Now, in your case it was user error but in other conditions it is not. Any high contrast situation requires good dynamic range: any time the sun is in your landscape, nightscapes, infrared (as mentioned on my previous comment), and even things like natural light portraits. Your assertion that "In every other case Canon has had more than adequate dynamic range" is simply not true. Just because YOUR needs might be fulfilled doesn't mean every other photographer's are. And maybe you should push your "hobby" a little harder!

 

So my point: given that Canon has improved in dynamic range as far as the 5D Mark IV (which is still well below Nikon, Sony and Pentax), it is perverse that Canon gave the 6D Mark II a worse dynamic range at low ISO than the original 6D...


 


Even if one accepts your assertion that Tom's picture shows banding, I think you're conflating dynamic range with low-light performance. Tom's picture doesn't require a particularly high dynamic range, but it challenges the camera's low-light performance by being five stops underexposed. Low-light performance is only part of a camera's dynamic range; the other part (avoidance of blown highlights) doesn't apply at all in this case. So why belabor it here?


Central_Park_Infrared_10.JPG

The 5Ds has better dynamic range than the 6D2 and the 5D4?  What on Earth are you talking about?  

 

The 5Ds has a base ISO range of 100-6400, while the 6D2 has a base ISO range of 100-40000.  While 5Ds has twice the resolution of the 6D2, the 6D2 blows the socks off of the 5Ds when it comes to low noise.  The 5D4 has a base ISO range of 100 to 32000.

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


@Waddizzle wrote:

The 5Ds has better dynamic range than the 6D2 and the 5D4?  What on Earth are you talking about?  

 

The 5Ds has a base ISO range of 100-6400, while the 6D2 has a base ISO range of 100-40000.  While 5Ds has twice the resolution of the 6D2, the 6D2 blows the socks off of the 5Ds when it comes to low noise.  The 5D4 has a base ISO range of 100 to 32000.


@Waddizzle - Why don't you read what I actually wrote before you hit the "post" button?

 

I never said the 5DS has better dynamic range than the 5D Mark IV. Seriously, reread my post and then quote where I say that.

 

In fact, I said the opposite! Jeez!

 

Second, yes, the 5DS does have better dynamic range than the 6D2 at all ISOs (that the 5DS delivers). Why exactly are you mentioning ISO ranges?  Are you telling me that you think dynamic range is the same as ISO range??? If that is the case, then I would also recommend that you familiarize yourself with the different concepts before you start ranting again... The ISO range of a camera does not have anything to do with the dynamic range of a camera as the graph below shows... I.E. The 5DS has a shorter ISO range than the 6D2, and yet it also has better dynamic range over the 6D2 (you are welcome!)

 

Dynamic Range.JPG


@KlausEnrique wrote:

 

Second, yes, the 5DS does have better dynamic range than the 6D2 at all ISOs (that the 5DS delivers)


Okay.  I see, you’re just comparing dynamic range across the ISO range the 5DS delivers, which is apples to oranges.

So, the 5Ds is better at going from 0 to 30 mph, but only has a top speed of 35 mph, while the others have top speeds over 60 mph.  Again, that’s apples to oranges.

But, if the 5D4 has better dynamic range than the 5Ds, across the ISOs the 5Ds delivers, then what good is a 5Ds?  I’m just trying to make sense out of your facts and claims, which seem cherry picked to me.

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


@Waddizzle wrote:

@KlausEnrique wrote:

 

Second, yes, the 5DS does have better dynamic range than the 6D2 at all ISOs (that the 5DS delivers)


Okay.  I see, you’re just comparing dynamic range across the ISO range the 5DS delivers, which is apples to oranges.

So, the 5Ds is better at going from 0 to 30 mph, but only has a top speed of 35 mph, while the others have top speeds over 60 mph.  Again, that’s apples to oranges.

But, if the 5D4 has better dynamic range than the 5Ds, across the ISOs the 5Ds delivers, then what good is a 5Ds?  I’m just trying to make sense out of your facts and claims, which seem cherry picked to me.


LOL...

 

OK, honestly, I don't care if you agree with me or not... If you are a happy human being then I am good...

 

Yes, you are right, I am comparing dynamic range across the ISO range of the 5DS. But that is so that I can compare apples to apples. The 5DS maxes out at 12,800. And until that point it has better dynamic range than the 6DII. And after that you cannot compare them because then that would be comparing apples to oranges.

 

It sounds like to you, a camera with ISO 20,000,000 would be a dream come true. In your analogy, that would be like a car that can do 1,000 mph, but your analogy is completely wrong. A better analogy is that ISO 50 is Formula One, and ISO 12,000 is little kids racing in tricicles, and that is as far as the 5DS goes. And the 6DII goes even further and you can play races with tinny little plastic cars... If that is what interests you, then good for you. Personally, I don't see the point, but that does not mean that I am right. Is it a good thing that the 6DII has a wider ISO range? Yes, it undoubtedly is, but that does not make its poor dynamic range at the more important end of the ISO range any better.

 

And on to your last point, yes the 5DIV has better dynamic range. But dynamic range is not the only important thing in a camera, right? I mean, I still have a Canon system, and Canon does have the worst dynamic range ever! I think the 5DIV is a better all-around camera, but I make very large prints of my work, so the 50 MPs are more important to me than the superior dynamic range of the 5DIV. However, I do need a third body with good dynamic range and since Canon is not going to provide it, I am going to get a Pentax K-1, which does not have a very good focusing system and the Pentax lenses are not as great as Canon's, but it will have to do... Because life is not perfect. Happy shooting!

Announcements