6d2 is here.

My bad. I was looking at 6DII pics and somehow got linked to original 6D pictures.
.

DaviSto wrote in post #18404232
I'm sure that it's not the case but looking at your record of posting here, it would be possible for somebody to get the impression that the only reason you joined POTN was to trash the 6D2.

And what makes you say that I'm trashing the camera ??

If you've bothered to read any of my previous posts, I was actually defending the 6DII, not trashing it.

After the announcement, I was super excited and was all set to purchase this camera.
But the RAW analysis changed that. Here is I wrote ten days ago:

x-vision wrote in post #18396766
Over at FredMiranda they have 6DII raw files.

Unfortunately, 6DII's dynamic range (DR) seems to *not* have been improved from the 6D:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …topic/1497323/2​5#14098826

And while I could care less about the lack of 4K video and a second card slot, DR is very dear to me (hehe).

So long, 6DII, I really wanted to like you.

x-vision wrote in post #18404249
And what makes you say that I'm trashing the camera ??

If you've bothered to read any of my previous posts, I was actually defending the 6DII, not trashing it.

After the announcement, I was super excited and was all set to purchase this camera.
But the RAW analysis changed that. Here is I wrote ten days ago:

OK .... my apologies if I read you wrong.

On the Bill Claff stuff ... he is a respected source and his analysis of the CR2 file provided to him is not in doubt. But the provenance of that file is questionable and I think it is better to wait for proper reviews of known genuine files before jumping to a conclusion.

Canon's publicity material suggests a big step up in DR from the 6D. I seriously doubt that Canon would make that claim if every objective independent test was going to show the opposite.

I'll wait for something much more transparent that I am confident I can trust before passing judgement. If it turns out that the 6D2 is a duff camera, I'll have to accept that ... and I'll eat my hat.

smythie wrote in post #18403844
Well, no. It is because a camera takes a single image while the human brain is constantly performing a massive HDR on multiple images and then adding whatever its imagination leads it to believe should be there

Well, yes. Regardless of the theory of how or why humans perceive details in a much greater "dynamic" range of luminosities than most cameras, the underlying fact is that we do. And it is because of the camera's limited dynamic range -- particularly in high contrast scenes -- that they are usually incapable of reproducing images as we perceive them.

So Canon Europe is lying in his official promo video ?? 0:14 sec big letter "INCREASED DYNAMIC RANGE"

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=_i7O5lppFPw

VooDooZG wrote in post #18404282
So Canon Europe is lying in his official promo video ?? 0:14 sec big letter "INCREASED DYNAMIC RANGE"

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=_i7O5lppFPw

It is not a lie, it is marketing. If you exaggerate claims in the interest of building new product hype, it isn't a lie. DJI lied to us saying that the new Goggles would honor head movement on the P4, but alas, now that we all go our preorders, nope... And no update seen in the near future to add it.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18404287
It is not a lie, it is marketing. If you exaggerate claims in the interest of building new product hype, it isn't a lie. DJI lied to us saying that the new Goggles would honor head movement on the P4, but alas, now that we all go our preorders, nope... And no update seen in the near future to add it.

I don't think it works quite like that. Of course the use of exaggerated language for marketing effect is pretty normal. 'Good' translates to 'stunning' ... 'updated' translates to 'revolutionised'.

But 'reduced' does not translate to 'increased' ... that's misrepresentation and Canon will not do it because the risks are too high. They will be caught in a lie and that would be damaging to their reputation and to their sales.

On FM Rob has posted saying

"Now I have hundreds of 404 requests on my website" and "Unfortunately my canon contact is in serious trouble over this." so seems this is quite serious and related to the DPR thread.

Well i guess if canon didnt specifically say it has better dynamic range than the 6d they could and would be correct, and wouldnt have any marketing lies.
In any case, this isnt what i was expecting if true

elitejp wrote in post #18404393
Well i guess if canon didnt specifically say it has better dynamic range than the 6d they could and would be correct, and wouldnt have any marketing lies.
In any case, this isnt what i was expecting if true

But Canon have explicitly stated in their 6D2 marketing that DR is significantly improved as compared with the 6D.

Less explicitly but still quite clearly various Canon reps have stated that--give or take--the 6D2's DR is broadly equivalent to the 5D4's.

None of this would suggest that they are about to release a camera with DR about the same as the 6D ... or maybe just a tad inferior to it.

We all hope youre right

Some people aren't claiming that Canon is "exaggerating" claims about improved DR. They're saying Canon has crimped the 6D2 sensor, and that Canon is lying that the 6D2 has similar sensor tech as all current Canon models (even claiming it has slightly less DR then the 6D). That's quite different then subtleties in marketing, and what I think is an example of fallacy (the 6D2 is a known product and is part of the current line of Canon products). Well the final verdict of the 6D2's DR will be shown with published results from DPR and DxO.

The 6D2 can have the same tech as the newer bodies, but it doesn't have to have the same performance. That is what people are suggesting. Chevy has made several variations of the 350, but they all perform differently.

No one is really doubting whether or not the 6D2 can have same/different performance, but just being concerned that said performance seems worse (even if in only one area and marginally so) than that of the previous generation. That's rather concerning.

But they are all V8 engines. Chevy wouldn't think to go back to the LU5 if they were already in the LB9 cycle of production.