6d2 is here.

x-vision wrote in post #18406955
A larger number of smaller pixels produce better image quality overall than a smaller number of large pixels.
This is related to sampling frequency and to the electrical characteristics of smaller pixels (relative to their size, smaller pixels are actually less noisy than larger pixels).

If you understood better, you would realize that unless fundamental circuit noise is improved (lessened) a smaller pixel does not gather as many photons per unit time, leading to inferior signal:noise. Pixel counts make for more detail resolution, but at the expense of lower signal:noise, all else being equal. Research it. An example in history...the change from Canon 40D to 50D...more pixels, not as good as 40D in noise.

scorpio_e wrote in post #18407009
I guess we will have to see real world examples when the camera comes out. It not looking good for the 6D MKII from the preliminary results.

If the 6DMKII had the same or better dynamic range as the 5DIV, I may have upgraded. At this point, I am going to stay with the 6D and be happy

Maybe I will buy a new lens..

In truth, a good lens was always more likely the better purchase ... no matter the 6Dii had actually turned out the way many hoped it would. So ... consider yourself blessed.

I wasn't going to get a 6D Mark II... picking up the 5D4 and M5 this year is enough spending for me, but it's disappointing to not see the 6D2's sensor perform better and it makes me wonder what is going on over at Canon. Sure, the 5D4 and 80D/M5 aren't class leading but they're a step in the right direction. A direction I was hoping to see Canon continue down.

Wilt wrote in post #18407012
If you understood better, you would realize that unless fundamental circuit noise is improved (lessened) a smaller pixel does not gather as many photons per unit time, leading to inferior signal:noise. Pixel counts make for more detail resolution, but at the expense of lower signal:noise, all else being equal. Research it. An example in history...the change from Canon 40D to 50D...more pixels, not as good as 40D in noise.

Something I see time and time again in sensor vs sensor arguments is people conflating the influence of pixel pitch and sensor design and manufacturing technologies.

All things being equal, bigger pixels are always better w.r.t. signal to noise, but all things are not always equal.

So looks like I need to start smoking that pig! DPR is confirming that the 6D2's sensor has lower DR and no indication of better high ISO. Canon doesn't seem to be implementing their current sensor technology (maybe info will come out to confirm it not using on chip A/D). DPR has a comparison of it with the 5D3: similar DR but less banding. It's going to make me hesitant to recommend the 6D2 to others. Maybe for folks wanting their first FF for better high ISO and the AF system...but to have a base DR not be to spec with the current line up, Canon is shooting themselves in the foot.

I own an EOS 5D Mark III - should I buy a 6D Mark II?

Can someone help me?

I understand there are no DR improvements.

But ive read some say this sensor doesn't even have any improvements in low light/hi ISO performance?

How could this be true? Recycling the same sensor from years ago?

Wilt wrote in post #18406857
Fact is, the 5DS is 50Mpixel with pixel pitch of 0.004144mm vs. 5DIV having 30MPixel with pixel pitch of 0.055357mm, or the 5DS pixel has only 60% of the pixel area, leading to reduced S/N in the 5DS in order to support higher pixel count, which means less DR too.

No. The 5Ds(r) has the highest base-ISO DR of any off-sensor-ADC Canon. The fact that it has an off-sensor ADC is the only reason that it isn't the Canon with the greatest base-ISO DR.

Jotto123 wrote in post #18407028
But ive read some say this sensor doesn't even have any improvements in low light/hi ISO performance?

The comparison charts so far show it being similar to other FF Canons, with the 1DX2 being the best.

Jotto123 wrote in post #18407028
Can someone help me?

I understand there are no DR improvements.

But ive read some say this sensor doesn't even have any improvements in low light/hi ISO performance?

For all practical purposes, the 6DII sensor is the same (or slightly better overall?) than the 6D sensor.

Yes, dynamic range (DR) was measured to be 0.2 EV stops worse.
That's hardly worth a discussion, IMO, as there is no way that this 0.2 difference can be perceived by a human.
It will only show in lab measurements.

In case it's not clear, the biggest disappointment with the 6DII is that it doesn't have the improvements found in the 5DIV and 80D.
So, yes, it appears that Canon is reusing some older tech for the 6DII - rather than employing their latest sensor tech.

x-vision wrote in post #18407060
..
In case it's not clear, the biggest disappointment with the 6DII is that it doesn't have the improvements found in the 5DIV and 80D.
So, yes, it appears that Canon is reusing some older tech for the 6DII - rather than employing their latest sensor tech.

What makes this so sad is that it took them 5 years to put this together. 5 years and this is the best they have?

well I think its more like for $2000. this is the best they're going to give you in a full Frame


.. a FF 80d , but with crippled sensor

xinvisionx wrote in post #18406934
I was hesitant pulling the trigger on the 5D Mark IV for fear of better IQ in the 6D Mark II. I knew my 6D had better IQ than the Mark III. So personally, I'm relieved.

That is exactly what Canon marketing wanted you to do.
Don't think about how much better Sony cameras are. Just think about how awful some cheaper Canon cameras are.
Give Canon your money. You've been pwnd.

rantercsr wrote in post #18407111
well I think its more like for $2000. this is the best they're going to give you in a full Frame


.. a FF 80d , but with crippled sensor

And a crippled shutter
And crippled sync speed

Scoobert wrote in post #18407121
And a crippled shutter
And crippled sync speed

No ... those are both quite legitimate product differentiation from the 5Div. They are easily worked around and hardly consequential for most photographers most of the time. Step upstairs to the 5Div if you really, really need them ... and don't be 'cheap' and expect Canon to offer you everything you'd get on a professionally targeted body like the 5Div on its (very good and very well featured) entry level full-frame body for simply way less money. That's not how it works.

Anybody dreaming they were going to get a 5Div for hardly half the price was simply delusional.

But not giving the 6Dii the latest sensor tech was a big error by Canon imho.

DaviSto wrote in post #18407128
No ... those are both quite legitimate product differentiation from the 5Div. They are easily worked around and hardly consequential for most photographers most of the time. Step upstairs to the 5Div if you really, really need them ... and don't be 'cheap' and expect Canon to offer you everything you'd get on a professionally targeted body like the 5Div on its (very good and very well featured) entry level full-frame body for simply way less money. That's not how it works.

Anybody dreaming they were going to get a 5Div for hardly half the price was simply delusional.

But not giving the 6Dii the latest sensor tech was a big error by Canon imho.

Was comparing it to the 80D. You know the crop body that can have 1/8000 shutter and 1/250 sync. You know those professional stepped up bodies like the 70D And just what is the super easy work around to go from 1/180 sync to 1/250? And I am assuming the other work around to the crappy shutter limitation is to put a ND filter on..because that's always easy and cheap.

Scoobert wrote in post #18407148
Was comparing it to the 80D. You know the crop body that can have 1/8000 shutter and 1/250 sync. You know those professional stepped up bodies like the 70D And just what is the super easy work around to go from 1/180 sync to 1/250? And I am assuming the other work around to the crappy shutter limitation is to put a ND filter on..because that's always easy and cheap.

But stuff that it is really easy to build into a crop body is a far bigger challenge to incorporate in a full frame body. Making simplistic comparisons between crop and FF bodies is totally misleading.