6d2 is here.

elitejp wrote in post #18407314
Canon doesnt have anything to offer with this release. If you are or were looking to upgrade you might as well go sony. At least you can still be current sensor wise rather than buying a 6d2 and automaticaly being 5 years behind. But if the 6d is
acceptable to you for whatever reason then feel free to support canon.

There are those impressed with the features and in that department the 6DII looks pretty decent. Better AF, flippy screen, better weather sealing, a few more FPS and a couple other features. All it's really missing is 4k video and a decent sensor so videographers and those driven by IQ arn't going to like this camera.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18406532
So I been playing around with the image comparison tool on DPR and I found something I found interesting. Now I have a 1440p 27" monitor so this may look different on some peoples displays, but to me the 6D2 has the sharpest detail out out all 4. I would defitnely say the other 3 have slightly less noise, but the noise on the 6D2 isn't bad and is easily fixable.


Am I crazy or does the 6D2 really have the best detail?

I did a compare of 6d2, 5d mkiv, sony 7r II, and 70D (My camera), and I think the 6d2 holds it's own with 2 of those. What's clear is that my camera comes off the worst, so going to the 6d2 would be an improvement for me at least. The difference in image quality seems to vary a bit depending on what you select with that zoom tool. Looking at the color wheel with the playing cards fanned out in the upper right and the 6d2 does seem sharpest, including the Sony. All the DR results to this point seem a bit disappointing, so far....

patrick j wrote in post #18407358
I did a compare of 6d2, 5d mkiv, sony 7r II, and 70D (My camera), and I think the 6d2 holds it's own with 2 of those. What's clear is that my camera comes off the worst, so going to the 6d2 would be an improvement for me at least. The difference in image quality seems to vary a bit depending on what you select with that zoom tool. Looking at the color wheel with the playing cards fanned out in the upper right and the 6d2 does seem sharpest, including the Sony. All the DR results to this point seem a bit disappointing, so far....

Yeah I was quite surprised at those results, even against the D750 the 6D2 had much sharper detail. I would really like to know if it was due to an error in their test (poorly focusing lens) or if the 6D2 sensor gives a very high level of sharpness when within +2ev pushes.

gjl711 wrote in post #18406523
I think there are two camps when upgrading. Those that are looking for features as the prime motivator and those that look to image quality as the prime motivator. For the first group this looks like a decent upgrade as a lot of features are improved over the 6D. For the later group, this camera is a joke. What the heck is Canon thinking?

Maybe there is a third group, the ignorant, those that just don't know enough to really be able to compare this camera to anything and all they want is a full frame body because they read somewhere it's better.

To me the first and the third groups of users are pretty much the same, ignorant.
I mean who would buy a 2000 dollar camera just because it got "cool" features?
To a normal photographer, hobbyist or professional, iq should be the prime motivator if not the only

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #18407433
To me the first and the third groups of users are pretty much the same, ignorant.
I mean who would buy a 2000 dollar camera just because it got "cool" features?
To a normal photographer, hobbyist or professional, iq should be the prime motivator if not the only

The most important thing to me is neither features nor image quality ... it's the quality of my images (QI).

QI depends on both features and bench-tested IQ ... the AF system, exposure measurement/management systems, the flash system, the LCD screen (resolution, touch sensitive, tilty/flippy), the menu and control systems and potential customization, colour rendition, lens quality/range, quality of noise, size and weight, ruggedness and weather protection, general ergonomics, etc., etc. are all important ... and so is IQ (up to a point).

Different things are of different degrees of importance to different photographers trying to maximize QI for the stuff they shoot. Oh ... and the 'stuff you shoot' is pretty important to QI too.

When it comes to QI, I actually find the most useful feature on my camera is 'Photographer mode'. As in "today I shot nothing but HCB ... caught some amazing moments" ... and ... "tomorrow I'm going to shoot mainly PH and make a little money selling headshots" ... or ... "over the weekend I want to try AL and go for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, although I'm worried it might hit on my personal finances" ... or ... "I'm never going to shoot AA again ... I could barely lift the frigging camera!".

DaviSto wrote in post #18407167
Each shutter screen on a FF camera will have roughly twice the mass of the 'same' shutter screen on a crop camera and will have to travel roughly one and a half times as far in the same time interval. There's superior engineering involved in doing that and you are either going to have to spend more cash or expect a little less.

A FF shutter vs a crop shutter ? Yes, there's a difference, and the FF shutter will probably cost a couple bucks more to produce. The difference in sensor cost will be a little higher, and there are other technologies that add up to the production bill.
However, the production price of a camera is way lower than most people would ever imagine (especially if the R&D costs are almost zero - as I suspect is the 6D2 case), and the final price to the customer is only a matter of marketing decisions.

The 6D series is meant for market segmentation: a lower cost camera that won't cannibalize sales of premium series. 6D cameras are engineered with cheap hardware to squeeze out profit to the last dollar (literally). Hence the crappy sensor. You want a better camera ? Then give Canon more money for a premium product.
This makes a lot of sense in a market where people have no better options from competitors.
In other words, Canon thinks that:
- Some of us don't know better and will be happy to be fed a shiny regurgitation of 5 year old technology.
- Some of us who know better are so knee-deep into the lens investment that we are forced to swallow whatever Canon feeds us (that includes underwhelming premium products).

Wilt wrote in post #18407188
True, but now we conflate in the OTHER reasons that the 5DS is not simply 'less DR due to smaller sensels which gather less light'

I can't make sense of that sentence, but higher pixel density never results in lower image-level DR at base ISO. The pixel-level DR goes down less than the aggregate contribution of more pixels goes up, precisely because the DR of a pixel is limited mostly by the supporting electronics; not the pixel quality. Most P&S sensors with 16MP on a 1/2.3" sensor have greater pixel-level DR at base ISO than Canons with off-sensor ADCs! They totally destroy a 1/2.3" crop from any current FF sensor from Canon, Sony, and Nikon. A 600MP FF would make current FF sensors a DR joke, by comparison. Even my older tiny-pixel, tiny-sensor 10 and 12MP cameras with RAW have about the same pixel-level DR as my best Canons at base ISO, and much higher DR comparing the whole sensors to a crop that size from a DSLR. Only at high ISOs do the DSLRs (well at least, the relatively newer ones, the 6D and 7D2) have less read noise, and they have about the same photon noise, per unit of sensor area.

Sub-dividing sensor surface area does not compromise DR, at low ISOs. On the contrary, not dividing it forces the individual noise impulses of the readout circuitry to have a larger area of influence with lower pixel counts. Think of how much noisier a magnetic tape recording gets if you slow the tape to 1/4 speed to quadruple the recording time. A denser sensor is like a longer piece of tape to do the same job, as far as post-gain read noise is concerned.

Hello all, I've been reading this thread with some interest as it is my intention to move up to a full frame body. I currently have the original 7D (not the Mk 2 - just the normal one), which I have had for the last 6 years using for family shots and normal family holidays. I do love this camera but have always been very disappointed with its iso performance. Basically it starts to show digital noise very early. That combined with the normal crop depth of field differences has lead me to the conclusion that a FF is going to be a better bet. (Luckily all the lens I have will be fine on a FF)

The question is will the 6D2 be a good option for the upgrade? I am concerned about the recent news regarding its disappointing dynamic range - but in comparison to my 7D I am assuming that it is better? And also its lower max shutter speed (although just one stop in reality) However, is it going to be a better and safer bet to just push for the 5D2 knowing that it is more expensive?

Obviously a very open question so please go easy

The 6D2 will big step up for you. I had the 7D and know its limitations. The 5D4 is much better than the 6D2 but you have to determine whether the advanced features it has are relevant to you to justify the price premium.

eon_designs wrote in post #18407520
The question is will the 6D2 be a good option for the upgrade?
[...]
However, is it going to be a better and safer bet to just push for the 5D2 knowing that it is more expensive?

Did you mean 5D4 ?
In any case, if you are concerned about SNR, even an old used 5D2 will be better than your 7D.

x-vision wrote in post #18407060
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.

I agree with you, but I've been on this site for long enough to know that there are people here who will claim, however improbably, that they can see that 0.2 stop difference clear as day, and that not having it makes the camera useless to them and jeopardizes their entire professional photography business.

The 5D4 might be Canon's DSLR "cash cow" right now, but intentionally crippling the 6D2 to avoid cannibalizing 5D4 sales is short-sighted IMO. Maybe that will work with committed Canon users who own lots of expensive glass, but DSLRs are a highly competitive marketplace where technology moves fast. If Canon isn't willing to advance their technology, Sony or Nikon will, and then Canon will lose customers, not just a few high-end sales in favor of low-end.

As a committed crop user who has been (mostly) lurking in this thread, I find all of this concerning because it doesn't bode well for the hypothetical 7D3 and 90D that are rumored for release next year. Those, however, are already the high end of the crop line, so maybe Canon will be more willing to push the envelope with them.

Mike

CheshireCat wrote in post #18407559
Did you mean 5D4 ?
In any case, if you are concerned about SNR, even an old used 5D2 will be better than your 7D.

Oops - sorry, my bad.

Yes I did mean the 5Dmk4 - It's Friday and I can't focus properly anymore, let alone think properly

x-vision wrote in post #18407060
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.....

mcoren wrote in post #18407569
I agree with you, but I've been on this site for long enough to know that there are people here who will claim, however improbably, that they can see that 0.2 stop difference clear as day, and that not having it makes the camera useless to them and jeopardizes their entire professional photography business....
Mike

I think that the issue is not if you can perceive a .2EV difference, it's that it even is being discussed in the first place. As mentioned by x-vision, the fact they they choose not to at least match the 80D is a huge mistake. The bar was set years ago with the EXMOR and it took years but Canon finally got close to matching it's performance. Then they release a brand new camera that not only didn't get close to their already released cameras, it couldn't even match the 5 year old camera it was meant to replace. It's almost comical.

gjl711 wrote in post #18407579
I think that the issue is not if you can perceive a .2EV difference, it's that it even is being discussed in the first place. As mentioned by x-vision, the fact they they choose not to at least match the 80D is a huge mistake. The bar was set years ago with the EXMOR and it took years but Canon finally got close to matching it's performance. Then they release a brand new camera that not only didn't get close to their already released cameras, it couldn't even match the 5 year old camera it was meant to replace. It's almost comical.

I agree completely, as I tried to say in my subsequent comments.

Mike

eon_designs wrote in post #18407520
Hello all, I've been reading this thread with some interest as it is my intention to move up to a full frame body. I currently have the original 7D (not the Mk 2 - just the normal one), which I have had for the last 6 years using for family shots and normal family holidays. I do love this camera but have always been very disappointed with its iso performance. Basically it starts to show digital noise very early. That combined with the normal crop depth of field differences has lead me to the conclusion that a FF is going to be a better bet. (Luckily all the lens I have will be fine on a FF)

The question is will the 6D2 be a good option for the upgrade? I am concerned about the recent news regarding its disappointing dynamic range - but in comparison to my 7D I am assuming that it is better? And also its lower max shutter speed (although just one stop in reality) However, is it going to be a better and safer bet to just push for the 5D2 knowing that it is more expensive?

Obviously a very open question so please go easy

You need to keep a clear mind on what is the sensor "problem" with the 6D2: you can't push the base-ISO shadows as much as you can with other recent sensors. Other than that, it is not a problematic camera, IQ-wise. The quality of the noise is the finest character Canon has offered, at all ISOs and tonal ranges, according to may people's reports. In this regard, the 6D2 walks all over the original 7D and the 5D2. The original 7D has more banding noise, especially vertical banding at base ISO, and the 5D2 has both horizontal and vertical banding in the base-ISO shadows, and horizontal banding at high ISOs.

The 6D2 base-ISO DR is not something that you are going to see any problems from if you shoot in such a way that there isn't a lot of shadow pushing, on the order of accidentally under-exposing by a few stops, or intentionally shooting ISO 1600 exposure intentionally from the ISO 100 setting for the 4 stops of extra headroom.

FF sensors give you less noise pretty much only when you want and/or accept shallower DOF. FF does not generically offer any noise benefit with the same FOV and DOF, and no optical benefit when the lenses are stopped down and diffraction is the main image softener. If you are looking for shallow DOF, FF is your format, also if you want super-wide angles. If you do focal-length-limited shooting mostly, the generic FF IQ benefits are partly smoke and mirrors.