6d2 is here.

That's interesting ... although he has pulled the composite chart that he posted on DPR, 6Dii test itself is still there so that you can make your own version. This is a respected site, I believe, and there is no suggestion that the site owner is playing games. The questionmark hangs over the validity of the CR2 file that was provided to him.

All 'as clear as mud'. Only two more weeks before the actual camera is out, thankfully.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18403644
It is not how it went down for the last gen, 6D which followed right on the heels of the 5D3 had better noise handling and DR,.

The timing is right for a similar situation, and in this case, even if the sensor has not evolved past the 5D4 tech, it does have larger photo sites which in the past has often = ea little better of like generation.

It will be interesting to see how foolish Canon is this time, as to how much better the 6DII will be in DR compared to its higher end 5Dn brethren; it screwed itself out of higher margins with the 6D with lost sales of the 5Dn for several years, I wonder if they do that to themselves again.

Wilt wrote in post #18403971
It will be interesting to see how foolish Canon is this time, as to how much better the 6DII will be in DR compared to its higher end 5Dn brethren; it screwed itself out of higher margins with the 6D with lost sales of the 5Dn for several years, I wonder if they do that to themselves again.

I thought the Canon 5D3 was a hit with the intended audience (especially wedding). With marginal differences in IQ, Canon differentiated the 6D and 5D3 through the "prosumer" interface, AF system, shutter/sync speeds, and video specs. The 6D was marketed more at the "consumer" level, which is always expected to have larger bulk sales.

Yeah, I don't remember any problems with 5D3 sales.

DaviSto wrote in post #18403967
....Only two more weeks before the actual camera is out, thankfully.

I'm almost a little let down that I will be off the grid in Botswana,. I'll miss the big reveal all together

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18404080
I'm almost a little let down that I will be off the grid in Botswana,. I'll miss the big reveal all together

I feel your future pain. Not too late to cancel!

I know, I'm a real sad case..

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18403640
Canon claims it is LESS noisy at high ISOs than 5D4.

Indeed, me too.

That is still possible by up to 1/3 stop or so, because I don't think anyone has compared the 6D2 to cameras like the 5D4 to see if the exact same exposure causes the same RAW signal levels. Dynamic range at high ISOs does not directly relate to noise. The whole idea of obsessing over high-ISO DR is rather absurd, IMO. At high ISOs, you just turn on HTP to get a stop more DR! If you want more than that, you just under-expose at a lower (but still high) ISO.

There is also the possibility that the noise doesn't measure at a lower intensity, but has a finer character that cleans up more easily.

DaviSto wrote in post #18403654
And now the DPR thread stating that the first thread had been deleted has also been itself deleted. Whole lot of panicking going on over at DPR at the moment it seems.

https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/post/5984181​9

I was surprised that anyone at DPR gave Bill the files, and allowed him to publish the measurements. Perhaps someone over-stepped their authority. I had a feeling that this wasn't going to go smoothly.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18404112
I was surprised that anyone at DPR gave Bill the files, and allowed him to publish the measurements. Perhaps someone over-stepped their authority. I had a feeling that this wasn't going to go smoothly.

There's another possibility that no one at DPR leaked 6D2 files, and DPR is doing it's own cleaning of false claims. Bill Claff's site says he bases his charts on donated RAWs (coming from any donor). The only thing that's been revealed is that preliminary DR claims are based on hearsay.

davesrose wrote in post #18404114
There's another possibility that no one at DPR leaked 6D2 files, and DPR is doing it's own cleaning of false claims. The only thing that's been revealed is that preliminary DR claims are based on hearsay.

So how does that explain that the file share not associated with DPR also have their files removed? No, files were leaked from a preproduction model because people do indeed have these now in their hands, and somebody violated their NDA clause. That is more likely, because the raw files were tagged with the correct model number, and there were SEVERAL files at one point.

That is more logical and more likely, because it has happened in the past too. False claims of files and faked raw files and the effort to remove all traces isn't logical and much less likely. There is no value in going through the effort.

DaviSto wrote in post #18403688
Or it might mean that there was no genuine production model 6D2 CR2 file in the first place. Maybe we will never know.

Maybe it may never matter ... Maybe the noise will be the same in release cameras, as is the case about 100% of the time, historically.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18404123
So how does that explain that the file share not associated with DPR also have their files removed? No, files were leaked from a preproduction model because people do indeed have these now in their hands, and somebody violated their NDA clause. That is more likely, because the raw files were tagged with the correct model number, and there were SEVERAL files at one point.

That is more logical and more likely, because it has happened in the past too. False claims of files and faked raw files and the effort to remove all traces isn't logical and much less likely. There is no value in going through the effort.

Do you have any evidence of this? The supposed leaked RAW from DPR has never been confirmed (and the thread in question now removed). Seems reasonable that DPR staff would step in if a poster was making false claims that they were getting files from DPR. It appears the only other RAW is that link at FM: from a photographer who isn't an Explorer of Light, and didn't provide an explanation for why he took down his RAW file.

People most likely to have had a pre-production 6D2 from Canon:

Explorers of Light Directory

davesrose wrote in post #18404137
Do you have any evidence of this? The supposed leaked RAW from DPR has never been confirmed (and the thread in question now removed). Seems reasonable that DPR staff would step in if a poster was making false claims that they were getting files from DPR. It appears the only other RAW is that link at FM: from a photographer who isn't an Explorer of Light, and didn't provide an explanation for why he took down his RAW file.

People most likely to have had a pre-production 6D2 from Canon:

Explorers of Light Directory

And the major review sites like DPR, Imaging Resources, DXO, etc, as they have their reviews done before consumers get their hands on the camera.

DPR boards are full of mis-information, yet those posts never get cleaned up. DPR doesn't administrate their board for bad info or fake info, unless influenced by outside sources. It appears you have your mind set that there is no way raw files have made it out into the wild from the myriad of 6D2 bodies that are out there, despite this happening time and time again in the past. I guess we will all see once the raw files appear once again for mass consumption.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18404143
And the major review sites like DPR, Imaging Resources, DXO, etc, as they have their reviews done before consumers get their hands on the camera.

Right, so only *potential* RAW coming from DPR: which again might have stepped in because of false claims (irrespective of whether Canon contacting them).