Dpreview has just posted full size sample images from the 6D.

For the pixel-peepers, here is a studio-shot comparison between the 6D and the 5DIII at ISO-6400:

EOS 6D.vs EOS 5DIII.

It appears that Canon has done quite a good job on the 6D sensor. Possibly better than on the 5DIII .

Pretty good given how underexposed most shots are. Seriously can they take a photo or is the 6D metering that bad? I'm guessing the former.

Very interesting. The 6D looks better to my eye at the 25,600 and 51,200 ISO marks.

Pixel Perfect wrote: Pretty good given how underexposed most shots are.



The exposures look pretty good to me. My monitor must be bad.

I'm pushing the low ISO files (basic too, picasa) and they look great even for jpg.

Processed through?

They've tried to protect highlights at all cost, but most shots don't have that high a contrast. The cactus shots are good, but the ones with blue sky too dark IMO

The lighting in their studio setup is not consistent across bodies/shots so you can't really draw any comparative conclusions from it.

BrianO wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote: Pretty good given how underexposed most shots are.



The exposures look pretty good to me. My monitor must be bad.

They tend slightly towards the dark side, just the way I like them and the way my eyes see the world. I don't think a preference for subdued hues is indicative of a desire to protect HL any more than "bright" photos mean they're "protecting" shadows. On the other hand, that 24-70 2.8L IS USM II has a surprising amount of light fall off wide open.

Have they been pushed +100 EV ? .

Gochugogi wrote: They tend slightly towards the dark side, just the way I like them and the way my eyes see the world.

DPReview used to be based in dreary ol' England; now they're based in dreary ol' Seattle. So, yeah, that's how things actually look to us.

Gochugogi wrote:
BrianO wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote: Pretty good given how underexposed most shots are.



The exposures look pretty good to me. My monitor must be bad.

They tend slightly towards the dark side, just the way I like them and the way my eyes see the world. I don't think a preference for subdued hues is indicative of a desire to protect HL any more than "bright" photos mean they're "protecting" shadows. On the other hand, that 24-70 2.8L IS USM II has a surprising amount of light fall off wide open.

Not my cup of tea for many of those exposures with blocked up shadows.

If you have an adobe rgb capable monitor do NOT view images in google chrome, it is extremely buggy and color management is borked, makes shadows look horrid in any image.

The macro of the water beads at 3200ISO does it for me.

...now somebody buy it, put a couple thousand clicks on it, and sell it back to me!

Thank you jorkata.
ISO 50k looks comparable with my 5D IIs high ISOs (in between12.800-25k) jpeg files as far I see from a quick comparisment. But without any banding, more detail and more beautiful noise pattern.

This looks fine (to me).

Ralph

It looks that the IQ is at least equal to the one of 5D MK3. So, the AF ,shutter speed and lower fps. are the limitations compared with 5D MK3.At 1300$ difference,it's pretty fair offer( anyway, in 2-3 months it will priced at 1800$ ).

I am looking forward to see the final comparisment in the standard studio scene ...

I have to say there seems to be more details in the 6D samples compared to the 5D3. I noticed it particularly on that green leather owl thingee on the right.

However, the 6D samples seem to also be consistently shot at faster shutter speed.
ISO6400 1/8s vs 1/5s,
ISO12800 1/15s vs 1/10s,
ISO25600 1/30s vs 1/20s.

I also have to say that after looking at these samples, my initial reaction was, why would they release a lower grade camera with slightly better sensor so soon after they released the 5D3?

Granted, these were shot with a pre-production camera, but if these really are an indication to the production sensor capability, I wouldn't be able to help but feel a little pissed at Canon for not using this sensor in the 5D3... If I was a 5D3 owner.

I have given my evaluation on this camera already at intro time. As I told you I am not really overwhelmed, but to many FM members this camera is going to be their new love baby. This camera will be one of the most popular and most used cameras here on the board. The 5D mk III is just too expensive for a lot of enthusiast photographers. That is true for the 1Dx also, and obviously that model is mainly targeted at professionals rather than amateurs. So the 6D fits perfectly well in a popular price class. There will be many who will not like some of the body features, or claim this is a totally useless product that Canon should not have brought to the market because it's not a Nikon copy with EF mount , but the sensor is not something the buyers of this camera are going to whine about a lot. The 6D is just a lot of EOSfun for the money. Full frame, connectivity built in and great ISO range with a IQ performance that doesn't leave a lot to desire. The 5D mk III is a better camera mostly for the users who need a better body and it's AF, but for the rest of us this 6D is the affordable baby 5D. I have been criticizing Canon lately for it's lack of innovation, and some weird marketing. But this 6D is not going to be a marketing failure that some other photographers try to paint from this camera. It will be Canon's full frame bread and butter model and a carrier of their brand values for many photo enthusiasts. I even would not be surprised when a few 5D mk III owners are willing to downgrade for some qualities the 6D offers and their 5D lacks. I said it before, that will even be true for some professionals. The 6D is that good.

n0b0 wrote:
I wouldn't be able to help but feel a little pissed at Canon for not using this sensor in the 5D3... If I was a 5D3 owner.

Why? People who bought a 5d3 knew what it was capable of and presumably whether it was suitable for their needs?

I'm certainly not in the slightest bit annoyed. I bought the 5d3 for different reasons.

You can't stop buying camera bodies based on what's around the corner since there will always be something around the corner.

Tend to agree the 6d image is a bit better. I wonder if the difference is on the sensor or the JPEG engine? At the moment it could be either.

(I believe these were JPEG's not JPEG's from RAW?)