Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 26 Jul 2017 (Wednesday) 17:02
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

6D Mark II Owners Unite! Discuss and post Photos!

 
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,002 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Sep 12, 2017 12:49 |  #166

Trevor04GT wrote in post #18450317 (external link)
Good point. I looked at the a7r2 and it's still outside of my budget right now.

Another option is the A7II. About the same specs and quite a bit cheaper than the 6DII. Also, the A7III is due out next month and from the rumor specs, this has a lot of potential.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Dlee13
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Dlee13's Avatar
Joined Apr 2012
Sydney
Sep 12, 2017 16:18 |  #167

Trevor04GT wrote in post #18450244 (external link)
The DPAF for video and cross type/AF system increase are massive, MASSIVE selling points for me. With that said, I guess I have to determine if those are more important than IQ over 3200 ISO, right? I've watched a few videos and reviews of it being about the same IQ up until 3200 ISO, with the original being better above that.

I honestly don't get these reviews that say the 6D is better at ISO over 3200. I know I would never bother using the 6D at ISO 12,800 as it was a noisy mess but the 6DII is still clean.

Canon 6D at ISO 6400

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4252/34621305400_9556dfc702_b.jpg

Canon 6D2

ISO 6400

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4327/36054780152_5a9e86d185_b.jpg

ISO 16000

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4293/36178947466_7b177c5d61_b.jpg

ISO 25600

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4360/36254036662_601866fb76_b.jpg

Canon 6D Mark II ~ Canon M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS ~ Canon EF 17-40mm f4L ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~ Sigma 85mm f1.4
Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
saea501
... spilled over a little on the panties
saea501's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Florida
Sep 12, 2017 16:22 |  #168

SixDeeFan wrote in post #18450077 (external link)
Then your above statement is wrong.

You miss my point. The image quality is superior to the 6D (and the 5DII) because of all the new features.

I would very much like to see evidence of this statement.

Please post examples.


Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob

LOG IN TO REPLY
SixDeeFan
Member
229 posts
Joined Aug 2014
Irvine, CA
Sep 12, 2017 16:28 as a reply to saea501's post |  #169

Don't need to...this is a common sense statement. All the new features ASSURE better pics than the 6D. Then again, maybe I should take out my old Rebel XT and check it against the 6D2?


6DII | 16-35 f/4L IS | 35 f/2 IS | Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC G2 | Tamron SP 2X Pro TC

LOG IN TO REPLY
saea501
... spilled over a little on the panties
saea501's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Florida
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by saea501. 2 edits done in total.
Sep 12, 2017 16:31 |  #170

Dlee13 wrote in post #18450564 (external link)
I honestly don't get these reviews that say the 6D is better at ISO over 3200. I know I would never bother using the 6D at ISO 12,800 as it was a noisy mess but the 6DII is still clean.

....'a noisy mess'......no kidding........

12800......really? A noisy mess, huh?

Damn...I gotta get some glasses cause I must be missing the 'noisy mess' part. Here's my 'noisy mess'.

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/719/21279631111_06b5f7da31_c_d.jpg

Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob

LOG IN TO REPLY
saea501
... spilled over a little on the panties
saea501's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Florida
Sep 12, 2017 16:36 |  #171

SixDeeFan wrote in post #18450578 (external link)
Don't need to...this is a common sense statement. All the new features ASSURE better pics than the 6D. Then again, maybe I should take out my old Rebel XT and check it against the 6D2?

Now that is priceless.

'Common sense statement'......of course.....I should have known. The features assure better pictures. Yes....yes....of course. Man, your an advertiser's dream.

In truth, it is a non-sense statement.


Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob

LOG IN TO REPLY
Trevor04GT
Senior Member
Trevor04GT's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
Phoenix, AZ
Sep 12, 2017 17:42 |  #172

Yeah, I wouldn't say the 6D produces a "noisy mess" at many ISOs. I think it does a great job at almost everything I throw at it.

It does make me feel better seeing those examples. As long as its not 'terrible', I can handle it.


Trevor - Canon 6D / Canon 35mm 1.4L / Canon 50mm 1.4 USM / Canon 24-105mm F4L / Canon 135mm F2L

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
gjl711's Avatar
53,002 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Deep in the heart of Texas
Sep 12, 2017 17:55 |  #173

You cant evaluate noise using a processed jpeg displayed at a fraction of it's original size. All the noise is processed away. Peta Pixel did a pretty decent comparison here (external link).


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
Trevor04GT
Senior Member
Trevor04GT's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
Phoenix, AZ
Sep 12, 2017 18:31 |  #174

gjl711 wrote in post #18450635 (external link)
You cant evaluate noise using a processed jpeg displayed at a fraction of it's original size. All the noise is processed away. Peta Pixel did a pretty decent comparison here (external link).

I understand what you mean, but my photos will be used for 8x10s, 5x7s and internet posts mainly. Do you think the difference is noticeable in these circumstances?

I will never print/post and un-processed image, for what its worth.


Trevor - Canon 6D / Canon 35mm 1.4L / Canon 50mm 1.4 USM / Canon 24-105mm F4L / Canon 135mm F2L

LOG IN TO REPLY
greenjeans
Goldmember
greenjeans's Avatar
Joined Aug 2010
Greenville, SC
Sep 12, 2017 19:18 as a reply to Trevor04GT's post |  #175

And neither will 95% of the people on this forum regardless of the gear they are using, but there has to be something to complain about.


Gripped 6D, gripped 70D, gripped T3i, 24-105 F4L, 50mm 1.8, 55-250mm, 18-135mm, 60mm EF-S macro, 70-200 F4L IS, 400mm F5.6L, 18-55mm IS STM, Canon 85mm 1.8, Sigma 150-600mm C., Sigma 100-400mm C, Samyang 8mm 3.5 fisheye

LOG IN TO REPLY
repete7
Member
repete7's Avatar
Joined Nov 2010
Sep 12, 2017 20:38 |  #176

ISO 12,800 shot through a window.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Karen Flickr (external link)
Canon 6D2|Canon Eos-m|Canon SL1|Canon ef-m 11-22|Canon ef-m 22|Samyang 14mm f/2.8|Canon 24 stm|Canon 40 stm|Canon 50 f/1.8 stm|Canon FD 50mm macro|Canon Macro 100L|Canon 10-18 stm|Canon 55-250 stm|Canon 24-105L IS USM II|Canon 70-300 IS II USM|Canon 100-400L|

LOG IN TO REPLY
susitna
Member
84 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Sydney, Australia
Sep 12, 2017 22:52 |  #177

gjl711 wrote in post #18450635 (external link)
You cant evaluate noise using a processed jpeg displayed at a fraction of it's original size. All the noise is processed away. Peta Pixel did a pretty decent comparison here (external link).

You evaluate the final image, as that is what you show or sell to people, not the original capture.




LOG IN TO REPLY
fordmondeo
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2007
Portsmouth England
Sep 13, 2017 01:10 |  #178

saea501 wrote in post #18450580 (external link)
....'a noisy mess'......no kidding........

12800......really? A noisy mess, huh?

Damn...I gotta get some glasses cause I must be missing the 'noisy mess' part. Here's my 'noisy mess'.

QUOTED IMAGE

I see what you mean.

I seem to remember my 6D being marginally better than that.
Have you tried the Canon DPP noise reduction? it might help.


Vaginator9000

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Dlee13's Avatar
Joined Apr 2012
Sydney
Sep 13, 2017 03:58 |  #179

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4435/37059477181_fa193b072b_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/YsPv​r8] (external link)Side Street Bokeh (external link) by Daniel Lee (external link)

Canon 6D Mark II ~ Canon M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS ~ Canon EF 17-40mm f4L ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~ Sigma 85mm f1.4
Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,280 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Sep 13, 2017 04:52 |  #180

Up front, I don't own a 6DII, primarily because it offers nothing I need over my 6Dc. I got all the features of the 6DII, for 1/2 the cost, in my 80D.

That said, I've been following this thread for a bit, and feel compelled to off some words. Wisdom optional.

Debating the IQ/noise of a modern full frame SLR is right next to pointless. Nobody in their right mind gives a FFA what the raw looks like at ISO 25,600 or any other ISO for that matter. What matters is the presentation, which will most certainly be processed. Noise is not totally a product of the sensor. Several things matter more than ISO setting: Lighting, exposure, processing to name the first three. I was really surprised by how well the 6D handles crappy light. I've posted frames shot JPG at 25,600; I am happy with them. Just for giggles, I posted a shot of my kitchen taken at ISO 102,400 w/MSNR (admittedly, totally artificial shot). No visible noise IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT, not even in the shadows. If the shooter exposes properly, and processes properly, noise is not a problem for any modern SLR. I shot my 60D at 6400 with good results.

If you judge noise by either the raw file, or by 100% views, you are wasting your cameras potential. Of course my ISO 102,400 shot had noise in it. Of course 100% views at ISO 25,600 have noise in them. So what? Take a good look at a 100% crop from an ISO 800 raw photo. You'll see noise. If you limit yourself to lower ISO because of that noise, you may as well save yourself a ton of money and buy and XSi. It only goes to ISO 1600. I recently bought one for my grandson, with an 18-55, for $75. You don't need a 6D if you are shooting ISO 800/1600.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

79,557 views & 357 likes for this thread
6D Mark II Owners Unite! Discuss and post Photos!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00132 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is kvattis
901 guests, 435 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016