6d2 is here.

aezoss wrote in post #18416872
Checked my LR catalog. Out of 12k photos taken on Canon DSLRs

22% ISO 100
18% ISO 125-320
60% ISO 400-25600

I primarily photograph events in the worst indoor flash-free venues imaginable, family pj-ish stuff, birds, aircraft and occasionally outdoor sports & macro. Base ISO DR may be an important overall performance metric but high ISO handling would seem to have more relevance to the average dad with a fancy camera demographic I fall into.

It doesn't seem like Canon is skimping on high-ISO performance for product differentiation, or to save a lot of money. The 1DxII is only a little better than the 6D2.

What some seem to be missing is that low DR prevents a superior way of getting higher ISO exposure indices (real-exposure "ISO" vs "ISO setting"). Imagine you are shooting someone sitting in a dark area and there are neon beer lights in the background, much brighter than the subject. The "correct" ISO for the subject is 1600 for the Av and Tv values you want to use (the real substance of exposure), so you set the camera to ISO 1600 (or auto-ISO does it for you), and the neon signs get blown out and lose their color. If you used ISO 100, though, and "under-exposed" by 4 stops, the colors of the lights could still be there, and you could render the RAW conversion to keep the color of the lights. On a camera with very high base-ISO DR, there would be little extra noise as a result. With a 6D2 and most older Canons, there is a much larger noise penalty from doing ISO 1600 exposure from the ISO 100 setting.

... and I can hold onto my legacy 6D, because the 6D2 doesn't offer two of the most important improvements I would hope for; crop mode 4k, and improved base-ISO DR.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18417293
It doesn't seem like Canon is skimping on high-ISO performance for product differentiation, or to save a lot of money. The 1DxII is only a little better than the 6D2.

What some seem to be missing is that low DR prevents a superior way of getting higher ISO exposure indices (real-exposure "ISO" vs "ISO setting"). Imagine you are shooting someone sitting in a dark area and there are neon beer lights in the background, much brighter than the subject. The "correct" ISO for the subject is 1600 for the Av and Tv values you want to use (the real substance of exposure), so you set the camera to ISO 1600 (or auto-ISO does it for you), and the neon signs get blown out and lose their color. If you used ISO 100, though, and "under-exposed" by 4 stops, the colors of the lights could still be there, and you could render the RAW conversion to keep the color of the lights. On a camera with very high base-ISO DR, there would be little extra noise as a result. With a 6D2 and most older Canons, there is a much larger noise penalty from doing ISO 1600 exposure from the ISO 100 setting.

... and I can hold onto my legacy 6D, because the 6D2 doesn't offer two of the most important improvements I would hope for; crop mode 4k, and improved base-ISO DR.

Interesting example, I see your point. In that scenario I'm more comfortable with a conventional approach, speedlite, table lamp, phone, etc to light the foreground subject. It would take time and experience to unlearn that behaviour.

Lee

This thread has gone on for more than 100 pages (this is my 10th and hopefully last contribution). Reading everything, it seems that we as DSLR users cannot determine what demographic the 6D2 is aimed at.

Canon says it is 'entry-level' FF, but has manifestly failed to define what they mean by that. Based on the original 6D, this community assumed that ancillary features/controls would be skimpy but the image sensor itself would be state-of-the-art. But the 6D2's sensor is definitely NOT state-of-the-art for 2017 (or even 2016). Canon could have followed the spirit of the original 6D very easily with the following specs:

22MP, DR and high-ISO performance equal to 5D4, but the IQ edge goes to the 5D4 with 30MP.
27pt AF system, i.e. disable all the non-cross points on the 80D's AF module and pare down the AF options; edge to 5D4
5 FPS shooting, again edge to 5D4
1/4000 shutter, 1/180 flash sync. Edge to 5D4
No weather sealing. Big edge to 5D4.
Basic 4K video. Gets the video crowd off your case.

This set of specs would have left plenty of differentiation between the 6D2 and 5D4, at the $2K price point, without giving up the perceived advantages of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor. Would have given 6D owners solid reasons for upgrading. Would have given APS-C users a reason to buy it (its all about the images). Instead they choose a discordant set of features which don't really please very many experienced photographers. Sounds like it was cobbled together by marketing types.

aezoss wrote in post #18416872
Checked my LR catalog. Out of 12k photos taken on Canon DSLRs

22% ISO 100
18% ISO 125-320
60% ISO 400-25600

I primarily photograph events in the worst indoor flash-free venues imaginable, family pj-ish stuff, birds, aircraft and occasionally outdoor sports & macro. Base ISO DR may be an important overall performance metric but high ISO handling would seem to have more relevance to the average dad with a fancy camera demographic I fall into.

The 6D2 could still hold on to the 6D's legacy as a reasonably priced good high ISO performer.

Incidentally, I spent a fair amount of time researching my first DSLR, a 6D + 24-105, before I bought it. I actually wanted the 7D2 but it wasn't out yet. And I think it was that dork Northrup that convinced me I "needed" full frame. I had reservations about the 6D and seriously wanted the D610. If I remember correctly there were issues with D610 oil spots, live view wasn't as good as Canon and Nikon bodies & lenses were noticeably higher priced at the time. Ergonomics, menu system and price swung me to Canon.

Canon reliability has been 100% for me. That's a key consideration for my next hardware investment. Nikon isn't inspiring confidence in that regard.

The 6D2 release feels like the worst Christmas ever. We asked for that top of the line thing all our Sony & Nikon friends are getting and our parents got us the cheap dollar store knock off. Might as well have asked for socks and underwear.

Still, socks and underwear are never not useful. Certainly not glamorous, as in hey check out these gnarly argyles, but they get the job done.

Lee

\
"f I remember correctly there were issues with D610 oil spots,"

The oil spots were from the beta camera D600. The D610 was the fix

scorpio_e wrote in post #18417470
\
"f I remember correctly there were issues with D610 oil spots,"

The oil spots were from the beta camera D600. The D610 was the fix

Gotcha. Thanks for the correction.

aezoss wrote in post #18417473
Gotcha. Thanks for the correction.

It's not that important.. Unless you have a D600

russbecker wrote in post #18417467
This thread has gone on for more than 100 pages (this is my 10th and hopefully last contribution). Reading everything, it seems that we as DSLR users cannot determine what demographic the 6D2 is aimed at.

Canon says it is 'entry-level' FF, but has manifestly failed to define what they mean by that. Based on the original 6D, this community assumed that ancillary features/controls would be skimpy but the image sensor itself would be state-of-the-art. But the 6D2's sensor is definitely NOT state-of-the-art for 2017 (or even 2016). Canon could have followed the spirit of the original 6D very easily with the following specs:

22MP, DR and high-ISO performance equal to 5D4, but the IQ edge goes to the 5D4 with 30MP.
27pt AF system, i.e. disable all the non-cross points on the 80D's AF module and pare down the AF options; edge to 5D4
5 FPS shooting, again edge to 5D4
1/4000 shutter, 1/180 flash sync. Edge to 5D4
No weather sealing. Big edge to 5D4.
Basic 4K video. Gets the video crowd off your case.

This set of specs would have left plenty of differentiation between the 6D2 and 5D4, at the $2K price point, without giving up the perceived advantages of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor. Would have given 6D owners solid reasons for upgrading. Would have given APS-C users a reason to buy it (its all about the images). Instead they choose a discordant set of features which don't really please very many experienced photographers. Sounds like it was cobbled together by marketing types.

That is a very good synopsis, I feel, of what has happened, and why we have so many disparate views of what the 6D2 can or cannot do. With all these model lines they have created, they have painted themselves into a corner.

We have 4 different Rebel lines (mini-rebel series 100/200D, the stripped down rebels XXXD, the long time rebels XXXD, and now the T7s/77D line), 2 different prosumer APS-C lines (XXD and 7D), 2 different prosumer FF lines (6D and 5D), and the 2 different 1D FF series. That is 10 diluted range of cameras, with only 3 being FF, and the rest being crop. Canon only has so many features and hardware to put across these 10 ranges, and without any more innovation, they seem to be having a hard time figuring out what combinations of what things can keep sales going.

These 10 models span the following price points:
$550 through $1800 - 6 APS-C models
$2000 through $3300 - 2 FF models
$6000 through $12000 - 2 1D FF models

Wow, 6 APS-C models.

Life would be so much easier if they trimmed it down to
- APS-C: 1 entry level, 1 high end level (7D)
- FF: 1 entry level (6D), 1 high end level (5D4)
And make the 1DX an APS-H again.

By the way, I just noticed that the 6DII has been added to the list at DXOmark. No scores yet though, but it seems to me that if the camera is listed, scores can't be far behind.

Put in the 5DS and 5DSr in the high end prosumer FF as well. So Canon has quite a few FF higher end options, and only one "entry" FF. Nikon has a better spectrum of entry, mid, and higher end FF models.

Good point they are still making those, so I will have to edit the list, they are indeed a different prosumer FF line.

I thought it was obvious the number of crop bodies was to have product on the shelf for every possible price range for prospective purchasers across a large selection of retailers. Canon's big enough to allow for this. Add kits to the mix and there's no price between $500-1100 without a Canon product.


Team...you need to add the 4 M products in there too

Dynamic Range has been kicked around a lot here, but are there other considerations besides DR in a sensor? I mean, I guess not all pixels are created equal in different sensors or we wouldn't be talking about DR, but can they also vary by sharpness? (or the sum of all pixels perhaps) I was wondering about this after looking at the comparison tool someone posted, where you can line up 4 cameras and click around on that image (I put the link below if anyone wants to see it). The 6D Mark II looks as good as any of the other cameras when simply looking at the sharpness of the image - the text on the color wheel for instance. So I'm wondering if that is something that might have been improved on while at the same time DR remains about the same?

https://www.dpreview.c​om …6435&y=0.834553​7791720969

Detail can be increased by a weaker AA filter over the sensor, a different lens or copy of a lens during the studio shot, or more accurate AF.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18418786
Detail can be increased by a weaker AA filter over the sensor, a different lens or copy of a lens during the studio shot, or more accurate AF.

... or AF focus field shape (lens and aperture dependent).

Holy crap there's already a freaking ton of youtube videos on this body. So many with DR somewhere in the title and by people with less than 500 subs. Seriously a different ball game in terms of sheer number of 'reviewers' for this 6d2 vs the 6d 4-5 years ago.

Time will tell if it'll be the seller they want it to be. Will social media be a reason it doesn't perform as well, will it be a declining market? Does Canon drop the price? Does it surprise us all and sell like hot cakes?