6d2 is here.

Patbil10 wrote in post #18416371
Agreed ! I just don't understand why. I know all the landscape photogs are the biggest complainers about DR....the photo I posted above is the closest I ever came to a landscape yet I was able to pull out allot of great details in the shadows with an original 6D....

Perhaps I'm alone but if I still had the 6D awaiting the 6D2, all the negative hype about DR would not bother me...

You know the 6dii is worse than the 6D, right? If you still had the 6D and DR was even somewhat important to you and would have no problem spending 2K for a 5 YEAR newer camera with worse DR.....

Patbil10 wrote in post #18416371
Agreed ! I just don't understand why. I know all the landscape photogs are the biggest complainers about DR....the photo I posted above is the closest I ever came to a landscape yet I was able to pull out allot of great details in the shadows with an original 6D....

Perhaps I'm alone but if I still had the 6D awaiting the 6D2, all the negative hype about DR would not bother me...

If you look at the scores you will see the 6DII nicely matches the scores for the 5DIII, a 5 year old camera. And scores of the 6DII are actually a bit worse than those of the original 6D, also a 5 year old camera. So the point is not that you can still lift shadows and have nice results. The point is that with the 6DII Canon launched a FF, 2000 dollar camera with old sensor technology and, as TeamSpeed said earlier, actually took a step backward with this camera, where they did implement the latest sensor technology in cameras half the price, like the 80D.

Stregone wrote in post #18416376
Well i guess the important thing is that you feel superior to everyone else.

OMG, not at all ! People here are among the most knowledgeable around and I respect everyone. I guess I'm the minority who doesn't see DR as a huge deal....recovering 3 stops from the shadows is easily done with most recent Canon bodies....

If the 6D2 is only able to recover 3 stops, it's still a good camera with lots of improvements over the original 6D.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18416242
My default ISO setting for birds is 800. It's only in Summertime that I can go lower to ISO 400. I also shoot a lot at ISO 1600. Depends on the quality of light and the location on how much noise that will give me but in fairly good conditions ISO 1600 will be very clean. I don't shoot at ISO 3200 unless it's an emergency.

I did notice how the 6DII files are pretty similar to those of the 5D4 at higher ISOs. What concerns me is the wiggle room. In winter I mainly walk the park and it gets dark there and I may have no choice but to underexpose. What I was wondering is this. The 6DII scores for DR are bad at base ISO but are actually better than quite a number of cameras at higher ISO speeds. Now I have only seen people pulling shadows and reducing highlights on files at base ISO and the 6DII does not do so well there, to say the least. However, as the 6DII is relatively better at higher ISO speeds in terms of DR, I was wondering how pulling shadows on files of ISO 800 or ISO 1600 would do. Or does the bad DR at base ISO also influence wiggle room in files with higher ISO speeds?

And thanks, Cary, for responding as I really do need help here.

None of the cameras that you are mentioning here have banding noise of any significance, so the amount of noise as measured by Photons2Photos and DxO are fairly representative of what you can expect. Most of the biggest differences between under-exposing vs using higher ISOs for the same sensor exposure occur at the bottom of the ISO range. The difference between 100 and 200 is the greatest, 200 and 400 a little smaller, 400 and 800 smaller yet, and above that, even smaller and smaller, until you get no noise improvement at all from mathematically pushed ISO settings. Both types of ADC have this pattern, but for on-sensor ADCs, the effect is more diluted.

The absolute read noise of the 6D2 is about 8x as high at base ISO as at the highest ISOs. The absolute read noise of the 5D4 is about 2.67x as high at base ISO, and the absolute read noise of the 6D3 is about 3x that of the 5D4 at base ISO, and they are about the same at the highest ISOs. The higher the ISO, the less of the difference between them. The 6D2 keeps improving in absolute read noise up the ISO scale to 800, slows down a bit for 1600, and is fairly level by 3200. The 5D4, however, is almost level already at 400, and only improves at a very slow rate above that, because it had less room to improve to begin with, with less noise at base ISO.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18416386
If you look at the scores you will see the 6DII nicely matches the scores for the 5DIII, a 5 year old camera. And scores of the 6DII are actually a bit worse than those of the original 6D, also a 5 year old camera. So the point is not that you can still lift shadows and have nice results. The point is that with the 6DII Canon launched a FF, 2000 dollar camera with old sensor technology and, as TeamSpeed said earlier, actually took a step backward with this camera, where they did implement the latest sensor technology in cameras half the price, like the 80D.

Do you think the photo I posted above would be impossible to get with the 6D2 ?

Patbil10 wrote in post #18416371
Agreed ! I just don't understand why. I know all the landscape photogs are the biggest complainers about DR....the photo I posted above is the closest I ever came to a landscape yet I was able to pull out allot of great details in the shadows with an original 6D....

Perhaps I'm alone but if I still had the 6D awaiting the 6D2, all the negative hype about DR would not bother me...

That doesn't seem like a very difficult scene for DR. It looks like you are out in the open with everything. You probably only pulled up what, maybe 2 stops on the planters, if that?

Do you have a sample where you are on narrow streets with tall buildings and you wanted to keep the details of the sky while also bringing forward the dark doorways with all their intricate detail?

Basically we need a very good wide DR range just so that we can then post process the image to shrink that DR range back down for viewing pleasure.

I can pull up the 5D4 around 4 stops before things get a bit squirrel-y with noise. The 6D2 starts to show this electronic noise right around 2 stops or so.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18416245
no.

noise patterns at high ISO, and AA filter as TS mentioned, might even make the 6DII better than some other cameras that you might not initially think would be outperformed by it.

saying DR at base is bad is just not true. It is not what is expected from a modern FF DSLR camera. But is much better than many past options.

At the full image level, yes, because of the quantity (26M) of pixels. At the pixel level, the base-ISO DR is the same as some of the first Canon DSLRs, like the D30, D60, 10D, and 5D. That's measured read noise, of course. The 6D2 has significantly less banding noise and coarse chromatic blotches than those cameras.

Patbil10 wrote in post #18416371
Agreed ! I just don't understand why. I know all the landscape photogs are the biggest complainers about DR....the photo I posted above is the closest I ever came to a landscape yet I was able to pull out allot of great details in the shadows with an original 6D....

Perhaps I'm alone but if I still had the 6D awaiting the 6D2, all the negative hype about DR would not bother me...

Sometimes it's just experience. If all you have ever known is the 6D and you had developed a work flow working around it's limitations then you were given a camera with much greater performance, your perspective might change. Many of us shoot multiple cameras as well as multiple brands. When you see the difference say between a Nikon D810 and a 6D you begin to wonder what the heck Canon is doing. When you see Canon come out with a new model knowing that they already have solved much of their sensor limitations and then the new sensor performs worse than a 5 year old camera, you really begin to wonder what the heck Canon is doing.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18416405
That doesn't seem like a very difficult scene for DR. It looks like you are out in the open with everything. You probably only pulled up what, maybe 2 stops on the planters, if that?

Not sure how many stops exactly but I do recall recovering 100% of the shadows.(how many stops is that ?) and pulling back on the highlights...

Patbil10 wrote in post #18416366
Better AF, DPAF, higher MP, etc....dynamic range was never a consideration. Like I said, it never was an issue. Can Canon cameras recover from 5 stops of under exposure....no but then again, who the hell does that ?! LOL

5 stops under-exposed for ISO 100 is not "under-exposed" for ISO 3200. "Under-exposure" has no real meaning or quality other than the lower signal-to noise ratio down there relative to either exposing more at that ISO, or lower than using a higher ISO for the same absolute sensor exposure.

There is nothing in the recording of any tonal area in a RAW that has qualities such as "shadow"; all there is, is signal vs noise. Period. If ISO 100 at -5EC has the same noise as ISO 3200, there is nothing negative about using the ISO 100 setting for ISO 3200 shooting, other than the darker review image, and an auto-brightness embedded/review JPEG for RAW files is only a firmware writing away from reality at any given time.

Using "ISO 100" for ISO 3200 shooting means smaller compressed RAW files, and 5 stops more highlight headroom, compared to actually using the "ISO 3200" setting.

There are existing cameras out there that do not benefit anything in the RAW image quality from using high ISOs based on amplifiers as opposed to "under-exposing" base ISO. There are cameras that don't even have multiple amplification levels, and use the same gain and digitization for all ISOs. Their ISO 3200 is not "under-exposed"; their ISO 3200 is ISO 3200, using the same gain as ISO 100, or 80, or whatever base ISO is.

gjl711 wrote in post #18416409
Sometimes it's just experience. If all you have ever known is the 6D and you had developed a work flow working around it's limitations then you were given a camera with much greater performance, your perspective might change. Many of us shoot multiple cameras as well as multiple brands. When you see the difference say between a Nikon D810 and a 6D you begin to wonder what the heck Canon is doing. When you see Canon come out with a new model knowing that they already have solved much of their sensor limitations and then the new sensor performs worse than a 5 year old camera, you really begin to wonder what the heck Canon is doing.

Weather you're shooting with a 6D or D810, do people regularly intentionally underexpose 5 stops ? I don't think even landscapers do that...

That's the reason why DR was never an issue for me....however I will admit that if Canon put out a camera with lesser capabilities than the 6D, that would be cause for concern.

I think we need to see a few more reviews before passing final judgement !

John Sheehy wrote in post #18416428
5 stops under-exposed for ISO 100 is not "under-exposed" for ISO 3200. "Under-exposure" has no real meaning or quality other than the lower signal-to noise ratio down there relative to either exposing more at that ISO, or lower than using a higher ISO for the same absolute sensor exposure.

There is nothing in the recording of any tonal area in a RAW that has qualities such as "shadow"; all there is, is signal vs noise. Period. If ISO 100 at -5EC has the same noise as ISO 3200, there is nothing negative about using the ISO 100 setting for ISO 3200 shooting, other than the darker review image, and an auto-brightness embedded/review JPEG for RAW files is only a firmware writing away from reality at any given time.

Using "ISO 100" for ISO 3200 shooting means smaller compressed RAW files, and 5 stops more highlight headroom, compared to actually using the "ISO 3200" setting.

There are existing cameras out there that do not benefit anything in the RAW image quality from using high ISOs based on amplifiers as opposed to "under-exposing" base ISO. There are cameras that don't even have multiple amplification levels, and use the same gain and digitization for all ISOs. Their ISO 3200 is not "under-exposed"; their ISO 3200 is ISO 3200, using the same gain as ISO 100, or 80, or whatever base ISO is.

Highly technical information ! LOL Thanks for taking the time to explain.

Patbil10 wrote in post #18416431
Weather you're shooting with a 6D or D810, do people regularly intentionally underexpose 5 stops ? I don't think even landscapers do that...

That's the reason why DR was never an issue for me....however I will admit that if Canon put out a camera with lesser capabilities than the 6D, that would be cause for concern.

I think we need to see a few more reviews before passing final judgement !

It been proven repeatably that the DR of the 6dii is worse than the 6D and the 80D

Scoobert wrote in post #18416447
It been proven repeatably that the DR of the 6dii is worse than the 6D and the 80D

... at base ISO ...

Scoobert wrote in post #18416447
It been proven repeatably that the DR of the 6dii is worse than the 6D and the 80D

Don't you just have to love claims of proof, with no proof? For all I know, this fact belongs on the list of things that everyone believes that are not true.

... tomato juice kills skunk spray...
... different parts of the tongue taste different things ...
... touching a baby bird will cause parental rejection (bird, not you!)...
... NASA spent $$$ on a space pen, USSR used pencils ...
... you can kill someone by throwing a penny off the ESB ...
... Nikon makes ugly camera, wait that one IS true ...
... The 6DII ________ ...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (Carl Sagan, 1980.) HA! That is wrong too! Marcello Truzzi said it in 1978. Thomas Jefferson said it in 1808. Pierre LaPlace said it 100 years before Sagan was born.