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 03 Jan 2018 (Wednesday) 08:28
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

6D mark II...Did we make a mistake?

 
saea501
... spilled over a little on the panties
saea501's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Florida
Jan 06, 2018 06:31 |  #61

PJmak wrote in post #18534374 (external link)
Unless you are pushing the boundaries of your current hardware because you are so good and you are not able to accomplish your ideas with what you have........which is pretty rare. You have no business even caring about what camera is good and what is not. It just doesn't matter.

Every single camera is able to produce art.

I clicked like on this.

It's a shame I can't click it two or three more times.

It's also a shame most don't believe this.


Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob
https://www.flickr.com ...282@N06/with/382034​70844/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,265 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Jan 06, 2018 09:52 |  #62

saea501 wrote in post #18534713 (external link)
I clicked like on this.

It's a shame I can't click it two or three more times.

It's also a shame most don't believe this.

Is that what is really going on, or is that your interpretation?

I skipped the camera mainly for two reasons; low DR, and line-skipping (aliasing) video. I would never conclude that one must have one of the best cameras to make "good images". The best a camera can do tells you nothing about what it can do in specific situations. I'd like a FF camera that I could set to Av mode, auto-ISO, HTP, and -1EC so that I get 2 stops more headroom, but only one stop darker review image, and not have to concern myself with highlights. An ISO 400 exposure at the ISO 100 setting on a FF camera with modern DR (and lacking banding noise) is not a noise problem. If the light is too bright for 1/4000 and the Av value I have chosen, it doesn't matter, because the RAW is still the same one as straight ISO 100 under the hood, and if that value would have worked for ISO 100, it still gives the same RAW results at ISO 200 with HTP with (or without) -1EC.

This is where cameras should be moving; I shouldn't even have to use -1EC; there should be a two-stop HTP available. Cameras like the 6D2 can get in trouble with that kind of highlight protection, if a few factors add up: a very fast f-number, poor camera-native white-balance, ISOs 250, etc, plus any metering offsets that need to be corrected.

Exposure latitude can free people from worrying about things that don't ultimately matter, and pay attention to what is truly important. A photograph is about a scene, a slice of time, and lens translation; not watching highlights.




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.
Jan 06, 2018 10:26 as a reply to John Sheehy's post |  #63

:cry: "Is that what is really going on, or is that your interpretation?"

It's what's going on for me and countless others that know how to use their equipment.

As the saying goes: Crap in one hand and wish in the other........then see which one fills up first. ;-)a


Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob
https://www.flickr.com ...282@N06/with/382034​70844/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
power ­ shot
Member
55 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Jan 06, 2018 11:21 |  #64

From the 7DmkII, and now the 6DmkII, Canon sure is on a downhill slide




LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Tom Reichner.
Jan 06, 2018 12:27 |  #65

PJmak wrote in post #18534374 (external link)
Unless you are pushing the boundaries of your current hardware because you are so good and you are not able to accomplish your ideas with what you have........which is pretty rare. You have no business even caring about what camera is good and what is not. It just doesn't matter.

saea501 wrote in post #18534713 (external link)
I clicked like on this. ^ ^ ^
It's a shame I can't click it two or three more times.
It's also a shame most don't believe this.

I totally agree with most of what PJmac said ....... except that I don't think that it is quite so rare.

One doesn't have to be "so good" to push the boundaries of one's equipment. One only has to have certain output/final use objectives to see their gear prove inadequate.

For instance, anyone who submits to stock agencies that have a super-picky review process where they examine every image at 100% - all of those folks are pushing their camera's limits.

Or anyone printing big - if you want to print an image at 36" or 48" or 60" across, and display it in a small room where it will be viewed at very close distance, then the technical abilities of one's camera will be stressed.

These scenarios are really not so rare. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who submit images to microstock agencies and have their images routinely rejected due to small technical imperfections. And there are thousands upon thousands of people who print at sizes of 36" or greater and end up with images that have some unpleasant artifacts that you can see if you view the prints from just a few feet away (which is actually a very common viewing distance, even for very large prints).

So I think that there are actually A LOT of people who are pushing the very boundaries of their camera bodies, and whose bodies are holding them back when it comes to getting more images accepted at agencies or when it comes to what size they can print their photos at. But for the few folks who are not pushing these boundaries, then yes, PJmac is right - upgrading makes no sense whatsoever for these people.

So, back to the topic at hand, if someone buys a 6D2 and it allows them to print their images at larger sizes, or it helps them get more images accepted by publishers and stock agencies, then buying the 6D2 would not be a mistake.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

LOG IN TO REPLY
eddieb1
Senior Member
eddieb1's Avatar
709 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Oregon
Jan 06, 2018 13:49 |  #66

Bassat wrote in post #18534362 (external link)
Just curious... Do you two know each other?

Ummmmm......Maybe?ߘ




LOG IN TO REPLY
welshwizard1971
Goldmember
1,296 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Southampton Hampshire UK
Jan 06, 2018 13:56 |  #67

The initial 6D mk II reviews were very positive, a worthy upgrade etc, then a single pixel peeping review site noticed that the DR was fractionally worse than the original 6D, and even then only at higher ISO ranges I believe, then all of a sudden there was gnashing of teeth, projectile vomiting, petitions, street marches, threats of legal actions etc, all from people who hadn't actually used the camera, and that ridiculous reaction has tainted it in peoples eyes, and I have to admit, I got suckered into it a bit too. With the benefit of hindsight, and a few months of maturity, the fact is for 95% of the features, it IS better, so what's the fuss? If Ford brought out a new car which was 95% better, better fuel consumption, lighter, faster acceleration, better handling, better braking, more speakers, better seats, digital stereo, but the stereo didn't have a tape player like the old car did and it's top speed was 2 MPH slower, does that make the car a failure, a retrograde step? How many people actually listen to the tape player anyway, who drove at the top speed all the time? Same as the 6D mk II, who needed that dynamic range for every shot? Who bought the original for it's full and featured video capabilities? Most people wouldn't have noticed the video or DR was slightly worse, in a lifetime of use, but would have noticed the flip out screen, the much better auto focus etc, every single time they used it. Put simply, for the average guy, even the high end guy 99% of the time, of course it's a better camera than the original .......


5DIII, 40D, 16-35L 35 ART 50 ART 100L macro, 24-70 L Mk2, 135L 200L 70-200L f4 IS
Hype chimping - The act of looking at your screen after every shot, then wildly behaving like it's the best picture in the world, to try and impress other photographers around you.

LOG IN TO REPLY
ma11rats
Senior Member
ma11rats's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Az
Post has been last edited 1 month ago by ma11rats. 3 edits done in total.
Jan 06, 2018 14:21 |  #68

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18534973 (external link)
The initial 6D mk II reviews were very positive, a worthy upgrade etc, then a single pixel peeping review site noticed that the DR was fractionally worse than the original 6D, and even then only at higher ISO ranges I believe, then all of a sudden there was gnashing of teeth, projectile vomiting, petitions, street marches, threats of legal actions etc, all from people who hadn't actually used the camera, and that ridiculous reaction has tainted it in peoples eyes, and I have to admit, I got suckered into it a bit too. With the benefit of hindsight, and a few months of maturity, the fact is for 95% of the features, it IS better, so what's the fuss? If Ford brought out a new car which was 95% better, better fuel consumption, lighter, faster acceleration, better handling, better braking, more speakers, better seats, digital stereo, but the stereo didn't have a tape player like the old car did and it's top speed was 2 MPH slower, does that make the car a failure, a retrograde step? How many people actually listen to the tape player anyway, who drove at the top speed all the time? Same as the 6D mk II, who needed that dynamic range for every shot? Who bought the original for it's full and featured video capabilities? Most people wouldn't have noticed the video or DR was slightly worse, in a lifetime of use, but would have noticed the flip out screen, the much better auto focus etc, every single time they used it. Put simply, for the average guy, even the high end guy 99% of the time, of course it's a better camera than the original .......


I think your analogy makes sense..only the DR would represent either engine power output or MPG being the same or lower. The fact that the benefits of the 6d2 over the 6d are in user experience, it makes sense to compare things like the tilting touchscreen to cabin ergonomics....what your touching, while driving, lane departure warning/radar cruise to better AF setup. But since the DR is similar, the car gets you to your destination in the same manner, no better..ie quicker acceleration, or say, using less fuel. The meat and potatoes of the automobile will always be it's engine/drivetrain as is the sensor/processor to the camera. Everything else makes relates to the user experience, whether or not it's for the better.


www.matthewbeutelphoto​graphy.com (external link)
1D4, 6D, 80D, 35f2IS, T 85f1.8VC, T 24-70f2.8VC, T 17-50f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
7,240 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 06, 2018 14:33 |  #69

power shot wrote in post #18534883 (external link)
From the 7DmkII, and now the 6DmkII, Canon sure is on a downhill slide

Yep, a certain death spiral. One-sixth of a stop of dynamic range loss is calamatous. Every shot I take uses every bit of available dynamic range, EVERTY TIME! I don't see how I can go out in public with anything labeld 'Canon' ever again. Better to throw all my Canon gear in the trash and replace with more expensive, lower-IQ Nikon gear, or - whoa is me - maybe I'll just go pick up a Kodak Instamatic at the next garage sale I pass. Worthless pathetic Canon gear like the 80D, 6D, 135L and 35IS should never be seen in public again. Shame on you Canon! $15,000 worth of gear DOWN THE DRAIN!!! YOU OWE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Just one question, have you ever touched a 7D2 or 6D2?


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Colorblinded
Goldmember
Colorblinded's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
Jan 06, 2018 14:41 |  #70

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18534921 (external link)
I totally agree with most of what PJmac said ....... except that I don't think that it is quite so rare.

One doesn't have to be "so good" to push the boundaries of one's equipment. One only has to have certain output/final use objectives to see their gear prove inadequate.

For instance, anyone who submits to stock agencies that have a super-picky review process where they examine every image at 100% - all of those folks are pushing their camera's limits.

Or anyone printing big - if you want to print an image at 36" or 48" or 60" across, and display it in a small room where it will be viewed at very close distance, then the technical abilities of one's camera will be stressed.

These scenarios are really not so rare. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who submit images to microstock agencies and have their images routinely rejected due to small technical imperfections. And there are thousands upon thousands of people who print at sizes of 36" or greater and end up with images that have some unpleasant artifacts that you can see if you view the prints from just a few feet away (which is actually a very common viewing distance, even for very large prints).

So I think that there are actually A LOT of people who are pushing the very boundaries of their camera bodies, and whose bodies are holding them back when it comes to getting more images accepted at agencies or when it comes to what size they can print their photos at. But for the few folks who are not pushing these boundaries, then yes, PJmac is right - upgrading makes no sense whatsoever for these people.

So, back to the topic at hand, if someone buys a 6D2 and it allows them to print their images at larger sizes, or it helps them get more images accepted by publishers and stock agencies, then buying the 6D2 would not be a mistake.

.

Pretty much, and I don't understand why this is such a difficult topic to settle. Different people need and want different things from their tools. Fact is, there are other cameras made by not Canon that offer certain advantages Canon is struggling to catch up to. Canon is behind in some technical aspects that do impact how images can be captured and used. That may or may not matter to a given individual's photographic goals and desired output, but they're real.

I am personally disappointed with the direction Canon has been taking, as I'd like to see them fully competing with the best everyone has to offer, and to me they're not trying hard enough. That doesn't mean the 6D2 is a bad camera, or can't be everything a lot of photographers need, but I specifically upgraded some of my equipment for instance because a) I'm invested in the Canon system and b) I was often hitting the limitations of how flexible the 5D3's RAW files could be. The 6D2 does not provide that upgrade path for myself and certainly plenty of other photographers. Not to say I couldn't use it for some things, but it lacks the versatility a better sensor offers.

Arguing against cameras with better noise characteristics, more dynamic range, or more megapixels is silly. Respect and understand that others have different needs. I need and want more dynamic range more than I do more megapixels. Others may think those priorities are backwards.

The only mistake in buying the 6D2 is that it's not sending Canon the message to try harder. Their other cameras have shown up with improvements, the 6D2 is a newer release and steps backwards in dynamic range. If I had my druthers people wouldn't be buying it so as to tell Canon "that's not good enough."


http://www.colorblinde​dphoto.comexternal link
http://www.thecolorbli​ndphotographer.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Goldmember
Capn Jack's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
NE USA
Jan 06, 2018 14:44 |  #71

power shot wrote in post #18534883 (external link)
From the 7DmkII, and now the 6DmkII, Canon sure is on a downhill slide

Were you being sarcastic and forgot the smiley?

I use a 7D2 and like it very much. I don't feel Canon is on a slide, and I hear nothing bad about the 5D4.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
7,240 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 06, 2018 15:09 |  #72

Lots of folks ragged on the 60D because it wasn't a 50D. Lots of folks ragged on the 6D because it wasn't a 5D3. I owned, and really liked both of them. Still have the 6D. Added an 80D to the mix because Canon made it such a spectacularly good camera. No smiley face required.

The 6D2 seems to me to be the exact camera Canon wanted to release. It is a full frame 80D. It has lots of upgrades compared to the 6D. It doesn't offer anything I need, but that doesn't make it a bad camera. I'm just not that important.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
saea501
... spilled over a little on the panties
saea501's Avatar
Joined Jan 2010
Florida
Jan 06, 2018 15:12 |  #73

I would be very interested to see this........

Canon and Nikon take several of their DSLR models from entry level to the top end, all of which look just exactly alike, that is, they are all in basically the same housing, bearing no names or model numbers. All of these cameras are physically identical but functionally, inside of these fictitious cases, are the T7i, the D610, the 5DIV, the D3300....and so on.

Then all of the hand wringers and knee jerkers that freak out over measurements that differ by thousandths of a percent and swear that this model sucks and that model just blows away all of the others....go out and use these for few months. Use them and have no clue what they are using.

Then lets hear about the 'shortcomings'.

Point being, if someone handed most of us a 6D II, and we didn't know what it was, I'm betting very few of us would come back, after using it for a while, with many complaints. Most specifically, the dynamic range.

But, apparently, many get some perverse enjoyment crabbing about a multi billion dollar company and how that company is going in the wrong direction because a recent model release didn't live up to their personal expectations.


Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob
https://www.flickr.com ...282@N06/with/382034​70844/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
PJJ205
Member
212 posts
Joined Aug 2015
Jan 06, 2018 15:12 |  #74

Bassat wrote in post #18535011 (external link)
power shot wrote in post #18534883 (external link)
From the 7DmkII, and now the 6DmkII, Canon sure is on a downhill slide

Yep, a certain death spiral. One-sixth of a stop of dynamic range loss is calamatous. Every shot I take uses every bit of available dynamic range, EVERTY TIME! I don't see how I can go out in public with anything labeld 'Canon' ever again. Better to throw all my Canon gear in the trash and replace with more expensive, lower-IQ Nikon gear, or - whoa is me - maybe I'll just go pick up a Kodak Instamatic at the next garage sale I pass. Worthless pathetic Canon gear like the 80D, 6D, 135L and 35IS should never be seen in public again. Shame on you Canon! $15,000 worth of gear DOWN THE DRAIN!!! YOU OWE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Just one question, have you ever touched a 7D2 or 6D2?

Ignore this guy... look at the post history. They spend their time bashing Canon any chance they get, yet don’t provide any images that they have shot with their manufacturer of choice. Either a “troll” or someone with subpar photography skills that holds onto their equipments technical abilities to determine whether or not they are a good photographer.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
7,240 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 06, 2018 15:23 |  #75

saea501 wrote in post #18535046 (external link)
I would be very interested to see this........

Canon and Nikon take several of their DSLR models from entry level to the top end, all of which look just exactly alike, that is, they are all in basically the same housing, bearing no names or model numbers. All of these cameras are physically identical but functionally, inside of these fictitious cases, are the T7i, the D610, the 5DIV, the D3300....and so on.

Then all of the hand wringers and knee jerkers that freak out over measurements that differ by thousandths of a percent and swear that this model sucks and that model just blows away all of the others....go out and use these for few months. Use them and have no clue what they are using.

Then lets hear about the 'shortcomings'.

Point being, if someone handed most of us a 6D II, and we didn't know what it was, I'm betting very few of us would come back, after using it for a while, with many complaints. Most specifically, the dynamic range.

But, apparently, many get some perverse enjoyment crabbing about a multi billion dollar company and how that company is going in the wrong direction because a recent model release didn't live up to their personal expectations.

Exactly. I could do 90% of what i do with my grandson's XSi/18-55. 90% of people would never notice the difference.


Tom

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

15,593 views & 245 likes for this thread
6D mark II...Did we make a mistake?
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 0.00218 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.09s
Latest registered member is Valokuva
977 guests, 417 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017