Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,301 posts
Likes: 247
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 23, 2017 08:19 |  #91

saea501 wrote in post #18434736 (external link)
This is comical and sad at the same time. The 6D II will be forever plagued by this regurgitated internet garbage just as the original 6D has been hammered for it's 'poor AF system'. I can attest to the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the AF system on the 6D......at least not on mine. So I can only imagine this dynamic range scarlet letter that has been hung on the 6D II falls into the same pant load of crap as the poor AF. As a result, many will avoid buying a great, affordable, more than capable camera for no sound reason.

Great images? Really? From a 6D II? How can that possibly be......what with it's terrible DR?

You're very good at mocking the strawman. No one has ever implied that low base-ISO DR affects all images noticeably. It does, however, prevent adopting more advantageous approaches to exposure that
give more highlight headroom, like negative film, and smaller RAW files at the same time.

High base-ISO DR is not some gratuitous special effect. It just means less camera-added noise, usually potentially visible at base and very low ISOs. HTP, 1/3-stop digitally pushed ISOs (125, 250 etc on most Canons), and f-numbers below 2.8 all cause "under-exposure" and are least risky with low added post-gain read noise (or high DR) at low ISOs to work without problems. They have only come with warning tags in the past because of high post-gain noise (low base-ISO DR).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,301 posts
Likes: 247
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 23, 2017 08:20 |  #92

MatthewK wrote in post #18434741 (external link)
I read perhaps the most asnine comment the other day regarding the 6D2; actually, it's probably the most asnine photography-related comment I've ever come across: "the DR on this camera is unpleasant and rough to my eyes"

LOL

The images I have seen from the 6D2 thus far are indistinguishable from photos I've seen from pretty much every other camera, which is a good thing. Enough whining about DR, go out and take some photos.

Well, that person has no idea what RAW DR is, and their comment is no reflection on DR.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ascenta
Senior Member
Avatar
483 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 187
Joined Sep 2005
     
Aug 23, 2017 08:38 |  #93

This thread needs pages and pages of photos...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,610 posts
Likes: 2561
Joined Oct 2015
     
Aug 23, 2017 08:53 |  #94

John Sheehy wrote in post #18434771 (external link)
...

High base-ISO DR is not some gratuitous special effect. It just means less camera-added noise, usually potentially visible at base and very low ISOs. HTP, 1/3-stop digitally pushed ISOs (125, 250 etc on most Canons), and f-numbers below 2.8 all cause "under-exposure" and are least risky with low added post-gain read noise (or high DR) at low ISOs to work without problems. They have only come with warning tags in the past because of high post-gain noise (low base-ISO DR).

Gobbledy-gook. Mumbo-jumbo-jibba-jibba bull puckey. No modern SLR has a major problem with noise.

IMHO, your list of things that cause under-exposure is a bit silly. Underexposure, overexposure, or even proper exposure is up to the shooter. Noise, in general, is the result of underexposure. It is not caused by any particular ISO or f/stop.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
saea501
... spilled over a little on the panties
Avatar
6,226 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6040
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Florida
     
Aug 23, 2017 09:04 |  #95

John Sheehy wrote in post #18434771 (external link)
You're very good at mocking the strawman. No one has ever implied that low base-ISO DR affects all images noticeably. It does, however, prevent adopting more advantageous approaches to exposure that
give more highlight headroom, like negative film, and smaller RAW files at the same time.

High base-ISO DR is not some gratuitous special effect. It just means less camera-added noise, usually potentially visible at base and very low ISOs. HTP, 1/3-stop digitally pushed ISOs (125, 250 etc on most Canons), and f-numbers below 2.8 all cause "under-exposure" and are least risky with low added post-gain read noise (or high DR) at low ISOs to work without problems. They have only come with warning tags in the past because of high post-gain noise (low base-ISO DR).

That's quite a shovel full you urped up there.

Mr. Bassett summed it quite nicely......Gobbledy-gook mumbo jumbo jibba jibba.


Remember what the DorMouse said.....feed your head.
Bob
https://www.flickr.com …282@N06/with/38​203470844/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elitejp
Goldmember
1,572 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Mar 2008
Post edited 10 months ago by elitejp.
     
Aug 23, 2017 12:34 |  #96

saea501 wrote in post #18434736 (external link)
This is comical and sad at the same time. The 6D II will be forever plagued by this regurgitated internet garbage just as the original 6D has been hammered for it's 'poor AF system'. I can attest to the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the AF system on the 6D......at least not on mine. So I can only imagine this dynamic range scarlet letter that has been hung on the 6D II falls into the same pant load of crap as the poor AF. As a result, many will avoid buying a great, affordable, more than capable camera for no sound reason.

I dont think anyone thinks the 6d2 is incapable of taking good pictures. But there are definitively better options for a similar price offered by other companies. Canon did the the very minimum that they could do to offer a new camera.
With that being said the 6d suits my style and needs just fine and the same can be said about the 6d2


6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Avatar
7,610 posts
Likes: 2561
Joined Oct 2015
Post edited 10 months ago by Bassat.
     
Aug 23, 2017 13:01 |  #97

John Sheehy wrote in post #18434771 (external link)
...
High base-ISO DR is not some gratuitous special effect. It just means less camera-added noise, usually potentially visible at base and very low ISOs. HTP, 1/3-stop digitally pushed ISOs (125, 250 etc on most Canons), and f-numbers below 2.8 all cause "under-exposure" and are least risky with low added post-gain read noise (or high DR) at low ISOs to work without problems. They have only come with warning tags in the past because of high post-gain noise (low base-ISO DR).

Just for giggles I decided to see how BAD (according to the above parameters) I could make a shot look. This is on a crop camera (80D), f/22, 1/4000, ISO 16000, with HTP engaged. If this is as bad as it gets, I'm really happy with my 80D. Think of what I could do if I used proper settings!

EDIT:
Oops! I forgot to add that it as taken with POS 18-55 STM.


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


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PJJ205
Member
219 posts
Likes: 394
Joined Aug 2015
     
Aug 23, 2017 13:16 as a reply to  @ post 18434741 |  #98

Pretty sure I saw that same comment on Canonrumors... I felt embarrassed and I wasn't even the one who wrote it hahahah.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,092 posts
Likes: 1593
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Aug 23, 2017 13:48 |  #99

elitejp wrote in post #18435022 (external link)
I dont think anyone thinks the 6d2 is incapable of taking good pictures. But there are definitively better options for a similar price offered by other companies. Canon did the the very minimum that they could do to offer a new camera. ..

Good summary. Canon really did the minimum they could get away with and other companies are sprinting past them in IQ, features and cost. Sony is really the one to watch as they can take Canon lenses.


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
repete7
Member
Avatar
199 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 24, 2017 07:42 |  #100

Here's one where I used the flippy screen.


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


Karen Flickr (external link)
Canon 6D2|Canon Eos-m|Canon ef-m 22|Samyang 14mm f/2.8|Canon 40 stm|Canon 50 f/1.8 stm|Canon FD 50mm macro|Canon Macro 100L|Canon 16-35 f/4L IS USM |Canon 24-105L IS USM II|Canon 70-300 IS II USM|Canon 100-400L|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lowrider
Senior Member
Avatar
775 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Tucson
     
Aug 24, 2017 10:44 |  #101

Ascenta wrote in post #18434787 (external link)
This thread needs pages and pages of photos...

Yes - All these comments both negative and positive should be posted here:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1482880

Not mucking up this thread!

Lou




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,301 posts
Likes: 247
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 24, 2017 20:34 |  #102

Bassat wrote in post #18435052 (external link)
Just for giggles I decided to see how BAD (according to the above parameters) I could make a shot look. This is on a crop camera (80D), f/22, 1/4000, ISO 16000, with HTP engaged. If this is as bad as it gets, I'm really happy with my 80D. Think of what I could do if I used proper settings!

EDIT:
Oops! I forgot to add that it as taken with POS 18-55 STM.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Bassat in
./showthread.php?p=184​35052&i=i168011768
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

I'm not sure what your point is, in replying this to my post. It has nothing to do with my post.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,060 posts
Gallery: 380 photos
Likes: 1847
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Aug 25, 2017 03:52 |  #103

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4430/36652423391_7da82e807e_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/XQRf​wk  (external link) 733 Link Breath of the Wild (external link) by Daniel Lee (external link)

Sony Alpha A7III ~ Canon EOS M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS
Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~
Sigma MC-11 ~ Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 ~ Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art

Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wunhang
Senior Member
Avatar
672 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
     
Aug 25, 2017 09:12 as a reply to  @ Dlee13's post |  #104

You overdid the NR... model looks too plastic-y! :-D


Canon 5D IV | Canon 5D II | XSI (Infrared modified) | SL1 | 16-35mm L f/4.0 IS | 24-70mm L f/2.8 II | 40mm f/2.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200mm L f/4.0 IS | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | C/Y 28mm f/2.8 | Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC | C/Y 50mm f/1.7 | Zeiss 100mm MP
::SmugMug (external link)::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,060 posts
Gallery: 380 photos
Likes: 1847
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Aug 25, 2017 19:32 as a reply to  @ wunhang's post |  #105

Yeah if only the 6D2 had more DR then this small plastic figurine wouldn't look like a small plastic figurine.... :p


Sony Alpha A7III ~ Canon EOS M5 ~ Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 ~ Canon EF 35mm f2 IS
Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS ~ Canon EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM ~
Sigma MC-11 ~ Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 ~ Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art

Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

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

276,274 views & 856 likes for this thread
6D Mark II Owners Unite! Discuss and post Photos!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dlpso
860 guests, 357 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.