6d2 is here.

Wilt wrote in post #18415484
the resolution of the monitors (2K to 4k) and the POOR (vs. the sensor) DYNAMIC RANGE of the monitor both result in making the technical advantages of one model/brand vs. another virtually INVISIBLE!

Uhm... have to disagree on this.
1) It is always difficult to expose properly, therefore the ability to push/pull is quite important. Note that per-channel dynamic range is also very important, and makes the difference when you want colors to stay the same when the image is pushed.
2) You fail to understand the concept of tone mapping.
3) I don't see what the display resolution has to do with dynamic range.

mwsilver wrote in post #18415464
Frankly, we here are a minority. I'll bet most potential 6D Mark II owners don't frequent on line websites and wouldn't understand half the stuff written on them if they occasionally do. They purchase by brand, and most people only know two brands, Canon and Nikon, With more Canon cameras around there is more visibility. Most occasional photographers with cash who will buy the 6D2 probably have no clue what dynamic range is, or even care, but they will buy it because of the "magic" of full frame which they've leaned about from reading consumer reviews and marketing material. I suspect this will be a very popular camera and will give many users the impression they own a "professional" camera which will give them "professional" results. Honestly, going on other sites and seeing the images that people post, most people can't tell the difference between excellent and mediocre images and don't know how to get the best from their equipment anyway..

That is true, we are a minority. And like you say the majority doesn't know or care a bout Dynamic Range and whatnot. BTheir opinions are atleast partly based on what people like us, serious hobbyists and professionals, say about canon. If the attitudes towards canon change in our circles it will affect how people think about canon outside those circles too. There is a lag time, and who knows to what degree it will affect things, but it is silly to think the opinions of the layperson is completely divorced from the opinions of the expert.

mwsilver wrote in post #18415464
I suspect this will be a very popular camera and will give many users the impression they own a "professional" camera which will give them "professional" results. .

I think you mean people who don't have a lot of understanding of composition and the technical end of photography will expect to get professional results, and you aren't saying that this camera in the right hands still won't deliver professional results. It really should deliver a perfectly acceptable (professional even) photo under most conditions.

I did something a few days ago that I've never done before. A friend of mine expressed an interest into getting a DSLR. He wants full frame. Before, I would have naturally suggested he get a Canon, or at least leaned in that direction. In fact he asked what Canon I suggest he get for his needs.

I discussed the current Canon options with him, but I also suggested he take a look at the Sony offerings, and possibly even Nikon as well since he doesn't have an investment in glass at this point. We will see where he ends up, and certainly he wouldn't be well versed on things like dynamic range, etc. at this point but it wouldn't hurt to look at the competition before he blindly goes to Canon.

From a digital standpoint, I've never owned anything but the 5D series of bodies (unless you count the M3). For me the 5DIV was a welcome upgrade from the Mk II. While I don't shoot the 6D series, I'm confused as to why they would not upgrade to their newer sensor technology. I read somewhere the speculation that Canon wanted to make use of the older production lines which may be the case but I'm not quite sold on that concept yet. The more likely reason in my opinion is to keep it a level lower than the 5D series and provide potential new FF shooters and upgrade path for the future. That is all well and good, but you also open the options to the competition when they are offering as good or in some cases better performance for the same money.

I wouldn't jump ship at this point unless something truly drastic went wrong with Canon, but if I were just getting into photography and wanted a DSLR FF, I suspect I would be looking at other products before pulling the trigger. Personally, I'm waiting to see what happens with the 5DS Mk II, since I was very close to getting that instead of the Mk IV. If they continue the improvement with dynamic range, and at the higher resolutions of 50+MP I could make a case for having both in the stable. I'm really curious as to what they do with Foveon technology if anything.

mwsilver wrote in post #18415464
Frankly, we here are a minority. I'll bet most potential 6D Mark II owners don't frequent on line websites and wouldn't understand half the stuff written on them if they occasionally do.

That's true. There is so much jargon in use on most websites and forums that it's incomprehensible. I think a sticky post with a glossary would be a huge help.

patrick j wrote in post #18415650
I think you mean people who don't have a lot of understanding of composition and the technical end of photography will expect to get professional results, and you aren't saying that this camera in the right hands still won't deliver professional results. It really should deliver a perfectly acceptable (professional even) photo under most conditions.

Exactly. We are in agreement. And, I'm sure that there even a lot of semi pros who will happily use this body despite the limited dynamic range. My wife's assistant has a part time and growing business photographing babies and young children. Her work is quite good IMHO. She uses the original 6D and a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 USM II. I'm sure the 6D II would be a very desirable step up for her.

Here's Jared Polin's video on the 6D2's DR. I don't think people will like this video as much since he highlights the point it's the same as other cameras by ISO 320 and doesn't make much of a difference.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18415897
Here's Jared Polin's video on the 6D2's DR. I don't think people will like this video as much since he highlights the point it's the same as other cameras by ISO 320 and doesn't make much of a difference.

Re-reading my reply, I was reading your comment incorrectly, I think, so I'm editing it. As I heard it he seems to be pretty favorable about the camera. I'm still on the fence about possibly upgrading to it.

patrick j wrote in post #18415911
He's saying the opposite of that - at ISO 100 the DR is very close to the 80D, but at higher ISO's you get more DR and cleaner files. Also, if you listen, he dubbed over some numbers he reported, probably had something wrong and researched it and then dubbed in the correct numbers as a voice over.

No, he is saying that at ISO100, the 6D sucks and by ISO320 it catches up.

The 80D beats or closely matches the 6D2 up through ISO 800... There is one ISO level in that range where the 6D2 does noticeably better. (blue is 6D2, black is 80D).

Now look at the next graph, this shows why I think the 6D2 is a slightly larger 5D3 sensor... I think they started the design of the 6D2 almost immediately after the release of the 6D, and to save money, while putting in all the other features, they recycled the 5D3 sensor tech.

gjl711 wrote in post #18415923
No, he is saying that at ISO100, the 6D sucks and by ISO320 it catches up.

Correct, at 1:00 he says it is nearly on par with other cameras at ISO 100 and then says it does a better job at higher ISO's. I have the M5 which is the same sensor as the 80D and I can 100% say it cannot match the 6D2 for high ISO performance.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18415924
The 80D beats or closely matches the 6D2 up through ISO 800... There is one ISO level in that range where the 6D2 does noticeably better. (blue is 6D2, black is 80D).

Now look at the next graph, this shows why I think the 6D2 is a slightly larger 5D3 sensor... I think they started the design of the 6D2 almost immediately after the release of the 6D, and to save money, while putting in all the other features, they recycled the 5D3 sensor tech.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=184​15924&i=i109024563
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=184​15924&i=i110717714
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

The thing with that is Jared tends to go on real world results, not test charts (which I personally think is much better). Even as a Nikon user he dismisses DXO results and only focuses on real world performance. I've had my M5 for roughly 6 months now and I would have trusted my 6D at ISO 800 over my M5, although I don't greatly underexpose my images.

What is even more sad is that the brand new 6DII is being compared to a 18 month old crop camera. Heck, there are already rumors out there for the 80D mII or 90D coming possible by years end.

DR is quantifiable, as is floor electronic noise. There is no mystery behind raw file data. Also there are several real world reviews done to show the high level of electronic noise sitting in the shadows. It is what it is at this point, there is no changing it, but rather learn how to live with it.
This just means that one has to continue with ETTR or HAMSTTR with the 6d2 as previous bodies required.

gjl711 wrote in post #18415923
No, he is saying that at ISO100, the 6D sucks and by ISO320 it catches up.

The way you paraphrased him was not what he said nor what he was implying. He's said that at 100 ISO the the 6D2 is not quite as good as the 80D, but by 320 ISO its on par with Canon's other full frame bodies. He goes on to suggest if he had to choose that he would prefer a camera with good DR at higher ISOs than what he believes is a minor difference at 100 ISO. He also implies that at higher ISOs shadow recovery is good and invites you to download his examples to see for yourself. I'm not suggesting whether this camera is worthy or not, but merely reporting on the intent of this video.