p.34 #1 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
RustyBug wrote:
I'm not "pi$$ed" off" by it, but it sure is a head-scratcher as to whether this is going to be reality going forward, or somehow it is not representative of what Canon will be putting in our hands.
Those who have been long time users of Canon know that many upgrade models are met with a degree of "meh" by a lot of folks as Canon methodically / strategically plods along at their own pace of improvement. I wasn't shooting Canon when the 1D2 > 1D2 N (although I have both of those bodies) released, so I don't know what the sentiment was back then.
That said, the current (and hopefully somehow unrepresentative ray: ) response to the the prospect of the unimproved IQ of the 6D2 is being felt much more strongly than the "meh" of minor or modest improvements that get labeled as "not class leading" or "not innovative". Not class leading, not expected. Not innovative, not expected. Not improved IQ, not expected. The first two seem to be business as usual as "meh". The (current info) one seems to be NOT business as usual and has some eyes popping wide open for a lot of folks ... some seemingly popping right out of their head.
I thought the 6D2 was going to fit my goals like the missing piece of a jigsaw puzzle. But ... IF ... this IQ holds true, then I'll probably do something different. I like the IQ of my 80D at base ISO (but it's crop limits UWA, etc.) so I may simply pick up something in the 11mm range to offset that ... giving pause to see A) if the 6D2 is really as we are seeing here, and B) to see if Canon responds with a 6D2 N of sorts (if A holds true).
Those who have know I've shot the SLR/C for my FF (until the 80D IQ came along), know I'm long in the tooth overdue for a new FF. I really thought the 6D2 was going to be "the one" for me. At the moment, even the flippy screen doesn't override the drop in base ISO IQ from the 80D level down to the 6D2 level for me.
Like Dave, I haven't thrown out the 6D2 just yet ... but, I must acknowledge that alternative plans are being considered while waiting to learn if our concerns are indeed reality. ...Show more →
Up to ISO 400 included the 80D outperforms the 6D2. At ISO 800 both are the same. From ISO 1600 and up the 6D2 takes the leadership.
Anyway, the max. difference amounts to about 1.3 EV at ISO 25600, which is very logical, since both use similar sensor technology (except for the "minor" detail of how the data is readed). This is also the maximum difference predicted by the sensors relative sizes (log2(1.6^2) EV). But the 6D2 needs a huge ISO setting to mask its noisy sensor read.
In other words, the 6D2 needs at least ISO 1600 to start getting advantage of the full frame size. Any crop camera with a decent sensor defeats it. I'd only trade a 80D for a 6D2 for shallower depth of field, for wider angle with FF lenses, or to exclusively shoot at high ISO.
The 80D (btw the the first Canon camera with on-chip ADC) is perfectly one of the most hard rivals the 6D2 currently has. Perhaps Canon forgot that potential 5D4 buyers can also look at the 80D ;-)
p.34 #2 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
On a side note, all the leaked CR2 are made with the "Firmware Version 1.0.2" (from the EXIF). I can't believe Canon got a dual-pixel processing wrong (that would be +0.5Ev for the 6D2).
p.34 #3 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
This is why I'm not sure I trust this random Canon rep.
M42Nebula wrote:
On a side note, all the leaked CR2 are made with the "Firmware Version 1.0.2" (from the EXIF). I can't believe Canon got a dual-pixel processing wrong (that would be +0.5Ev for the 6D2).
p.34 #4 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
alundeb wrote:
Canon may say what they want about how the 6D II is supposed to perform, but we have seen the evidence and it is not going to change with firmware or production units, sorry.
What you are proposing here is that firmware upgrades are incapable of addressing IQ issues? I don't know enough about the history of Canon's firmware updates, but I would find it strange that a firmware update couldn't address an IQ issue or add to it's value. I may be wrong, but I think you're correct that it would be unlikely that the sample pre-production unit wouldn't do a fair job at representing the new model in it's entirety. I do understand you're not suggesting that they put out the camera and then issue a firmware update, I'm just talking about having an upgraded firmware in the actual released model.
AFAIK, firmware updates are usually needed to address incompatibility issues. I could be wrong on that as well, but in general, it is usually, if not all of the time, a PITA to have to issue the updates, and doesn't help the overall impression of the camera model.
p.34 #5 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
cgarcia wrote:
... Some people criticize the DXO dynamic range definition, but every other definition out there (e.g. "photographic dynamic range") merely adds/substracts a fixed offset, even worse introducing external variables (e.g. circle of confusion) which only serve to make the results non comparable across cameras. ....
I strongly disagree. The Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos is a better measure than the DxOMark Landscape Score (and yes, it does use the Circle of Confusion).
And, it's not a fixed offset because PDR is based on Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) not just read noise.
This means that other sources of noise such as Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) are accounted for in PDR but ignored in the DxOMark Landscape Score.
p.34 #6 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
lighthound wrote:
And depending on how pissed off people get over this,
So.... I'm now clinging to the 0.002% of hope. At least it's an improvement from yesterday.
RustyBug wrote:
I'm not "pi$$ed" off" by it, but it sure is a head-scratcher as to whether this is going to be reality going forward, or somehow it is not representative of what Canon will be putting in our hands.
Those who have been long time users of Canon know that many upgrade models are met with a degree of "meh" by a lot of folks as Canon methodically / strategically plods along at their own pace of improvement. I wasn't shooting Canon when the 1D2 > 1D2 N (although I have both of those bodies) released, so I don't know what the sentiment was back then.
That said, the current (and hopefully somehow unrepresentative ray: ) response to the the prospect of the unimproved IQ of the 6D2 is being felt much more strongly than the "meh" of minor or modest improvements that get labeled as "not class leading" or "not innovative". Not class leading, not expected. Not innovative, not expected. Not improved IQ, not expected. The first two seem to be business as usual as "meh". The (current info) one seems to be NOT business as usual and has some eyes popping wide open for a lot of folks ... some seemingly popping right out of their head.
I thought the 6D2 was going to fit my goals like the missing piece of a jigsaw puzzle. But ... IF ... this IQ holds true, then I'll probably do something different. I like the IQ of my 80D at base ISO (but it's crop limits UWA, etc.) so I may simply pick up something in the 11mm range to offset that ... giving pause to see A) if the 6D2 is really as we are seeing here, and B) to see if Canon responds with a 6D2 N of sorts (if A holds true).
Those who have know I've shot the SLR/C for my FF (until the 80D IQ came along), know I'm long in the tooth overdue for a new FF. I really thought the 6D2 was going to be "the one" for me. At the moment, even the flippy screen doesn't override the drop in base ISO IQ from the 80D level down to the 6D2 level for me.
Like Dave, I haven't thrown out the 6D2 just yet ... but, I must acknowledge that alternative plans are being considered while waiting to learn if our concerns are indeed reality. ...Show more → cgarcia wrote:
Up to ISO 400 included the 80D outperforms the 6D2. At ISO 800 both are the same. From ISO 1600 and up the 6D2 takes the leadership.
Anyway, the max. difference amounts to about 1.3 EV at ISO 25600, which is very logical, since both use similar sensor technology (except for the "minor" detail of how the data is readed). This is also the maximum difference predicted by the sensors relative sizes (log2(1.6^2) EV). But the 6D2 needs a huge ISO setting to mask its noisy sensor read.
In other words, the 6D2 needs at least ISO 1600 to start getting advantage of the full frame size. Any crop camera with a decent sensor defeats it. I'd only trade a 80D for a 6D2 for shallower depth of field, for wider angle with FF lenses, or to exclusively shoot at high ISO.
The 80D (btw the the first Canon camera with on-chip ADC) is perfectly one of the most hard rivals the 6D2 currently has. Perhaps Canon forgot that potential 5D4 buyers can also look at the 80D ;-) ...Show more →
Until Canon produces EF-S lenses with 60% more resolution, less CA and less of other aberrations compared to EF, the overall IQ of the Canon croppers won't be comparable to FX of the same pixel count. (I far prefer the Nikon DX croppers with their improved IQ and sharpness without the Canon blurry filters, but that is another story.)
I suspect that most of the global consumers of entry level FF cameras are not the critical FM users, but people that shoot at ISO 400-1600 most of the time and simply want the better results at high ISO from FF than was possible from the cropper bodies.
p.34 #7 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
bootster wrote:
What you are proposing here is that firmware upgrades are incapable of addressing IQ issues? I don't know enough about the history of Canon's firmware updates, but I would find it strange that a firmware update couldn't address an IQ issue or add to it's value. I may be wrong, but I think you're correct that it would be unlikely that the sample pre-production unit wouldn't do a fair job at representing the new model in it's entirety. I do understand you're not suggesting that they put out the camera and then issue a firmware update, I'm just talking about having an upgraded firmware in the actual released model.
AFAIK, firmware updates are usually needed to address incompatibility issues. I could be wrong on that as well, but in general, it is usually, if not all of the time, a PITA to have to issue the updates, and doesn't help the overall impression of the camera model. ...Show more →
The only way a firmware update is going to give a 0.5eV signal to noise improvement is if they left in some setting from the development testing that kept a circuit active unecessarily, and which in turn contributes to noise due to interference or heat generation.
It seems unlikely though.
Jul 09, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Guest
Guest
p.34 #8 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
This dynamic range story is very strange. I mean in terms of history, market perspective, in terms of technological progress. It does not make any sense.
This story leaves a lot of questions.
p.34 #9 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
15Bit wrote:
The only way a firmware update is going to give a 0.5eV signal to noise improvement is if they left in some setting from the development testing that kept a circuit active unecessarily, and which in turn contributes to noise due to interference or heat generation.
It seems unlikely though.
+1
The noise is calculated from the masked pixels of a real image that shows up as correctly exposed. If there was some error in a gain setting or something, the image would show up as overexposed in DPP. Image quality can be "improved" in firmware by cooking the raw data, but that is not an answer that would be satisfying in any way. We could go on with more speculation in different kinds of errors, and prove why that could not be the case. Only something very very strange, in the category of a miracle, could help with this issue.
p.34 #12 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
I'm honestly quite surprised Canon crippled the DR (relatively speaking) on a camera that won't be refreshed again until ~2022. With their new processes used on the 80D, 1DX II, and 5DM4 among others I think everyone was expecting those DR improvements to make their way into the 6D II, which was totally reasonable. Obviously still a very usable sensor but a completely unnecessary omission and very much a disappointment given today's competition - or even 2012 competition. It won't matter to everyone, but there was just no reason to leave it out IMO.
We'll wait for more tests to surface but the information so far seems fairly conclusive.
Dima135 wrote:
A few years ago, a journalist from dpreview asked the some guy from canon about the dynamic range. He said that he does not know about any problems, and in general their cameras have the best dynamic range.
If it's the interview I'm thinking of, what he (Managing Director and Chief Executive, Image Communication Products Operations at Canon) said was:
"We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy."
and
"when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best."
So, if they actually believe both those things, it suggests one of the problems is the ego of upper management. Keep in mind also this interview took place in 2014, long before they improved their DR.
p.34 #13 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
bclaff_too wrote:
I strongly disagree. The Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos is a better measure than the DxOMark Landscape Score (and yes, it does use the Circle of Confusion).
And, it's not a fixed offset because PDR is based on Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) not just read noise.
This means that other sources of noise such as Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) are accounted for in PDR but ignored in the DxOMark Landscape Score.
Yes, I see I saw this definition just in your site, but I think that without reasoning about why the Circle of Confusion has any relation with the dynamic range. To start this is a subjective parameter (visual acuity, viewing distance and enlargement). Unless the CoC it is indirectly used to refer to the pixel size (but I still don't see why the pixel size by itself should be used to calculate the acceptable noise floor).
For a given technology, the pixel size of course affects the signal-noise ratio, but smaller pixels can be binned, aggregating "more signal than noise" an effectively increasing the DR by trading resolution. So this can be taken into account normalizing the resolution (as DXO does to an arbitrary 8MP).
I must agree that a SNR larger than 1 is not enough for an high quality image, but the threshold has to be placed somewhere (preferably in the same point across sensors to be comparable).
I assume that these were the problems you are solving with your definition, but your page also lacks in my opinion math formulas (e.g. neither I understand how you deduce the SNR value for the D300 CoC).
I also agree that there are more sources of noise, but many are already addressed by the manufacturers and only have significative impact for specialized users (e.g. astro). E.g. I think that Canon firmware "cuts" a bit in production units the upper limit of DR to skip the non linear response there (DN usually never reaches the max value of 16363 at ISO 100). Most photographers only care about read noise, which hasn't been fully solved yet... a total "ISO-less" sensor doesn't exists, and would be a revolution, beyond we have already achieved (which is a lot). And there are of course many other variables than DR or SNR (e.g. color performance...) but are not easy to be calculated at home.
The interesting thing is that we buyers are each day more informed. Manufacturers intentionally don't publish the performance of their imaging products, which they perfectly know, and traditionally we ended looking at sample pictures, which introduce a lot of external variables (e.g. remember when all review sites merely posted camera jpeg crops to evaluate the noise). It is important the knowledgement openly shared by the reviewers and the forums, and to agree common conventions (without excluding innovation, of course).
p.34 #14 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
bclaff_too wrote:
I strongly disagree. The Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) at PhotonsToPhotos is a better measure than the DxOMark Landscape Score (and yes, it does use the Circle of Confusion).
And, it's not a fixed offset because PDR is based on Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) not just read noise.
This means that other sources of noise such as Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) are accounted for in PDR but ignored in the DxOMark Landscape Score.
Bill, have you run your own analysis on these RAWs yet? Or are you waiting for a full release camera? Would be interesting to see if your testing method results will agree with what cgarcia has generated so far.
p.34 #15 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
CanadaMark wrote:
I'm honestly quite surprised Canon crippled the DR (relatively speaking) on a camera that won't be refreshed again until ~2022. With their new processes used on the 80D, 1DX II, and 5DM4 among others I think everyone was expecting those DR improvements to make their way into the 6D II, which was totally reasonable. Obviously still a very usable sensor but a completely unnecessary omission and very much a disappointment given today's competition - or even 2012 competition. It won't matter to everyone, but there was just no reason to leave it out IMO.
Oh, I think Canon had a reason: to create a significant gap, not only in features, but also in performance, between the 6DII and 5DIV. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Canon wanted to avoid a repeat of the situation with the 6D and 5DIII, where the 6D's performance rivaled or even exceeded that of the 5DIII in some respects, and therefore likely cannibalized some 5DIII sales.
p.34 #16 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Ciriaco, have you included the difference in pixel size in your calculations?
I haven't in mine and I am wondering if this would not help the 6D2 a bit due to the smaller photodiodes :
The 6D has 6.5 microns pixel while 6D2 has 5.67 microns pixel (active area/micro-lensed?). This means a 2*log2(6.5/5.67) = +0.39Ev gain.
The boost would however also apply to the 5D4 with its 5.36 microns pixel : 2*log2(6.5/5.36)=+0.56Ev.
p.34 #17 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
What's funny is that even the new Rebel t7i and 77D got DPAF and the new DR secret sauce. It's going to be quite comical if the FF 6DII has the worst dynamic range of most of the entire lineup for the next 4-5 years.
Especially considering the 6D was their best one for a few years.
p.34 #18 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
The french website focus numérique did several tests of the pre-production model.
They tested the dynamic range and their conclusion was the 6d has about the same DR as the 5D mark IV (about 6/7 Ev recovery range, under the 8Ev of the Sonys).
"Au final, le 6D Mark II semble présenter une latitude de travail assez proche de celle du 5D Mark IV, entre 6 et 7 IL. Dans ce domaine, les capteurs 24x36 de Sony dominent encore la concurrence et peuvent remonter des informations avec une plus grande souplesse."
p.34 #19 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Patlezinc wrote:
The french website focus numérique did several tests of the pre-production model.
They tested the dynamic range and their conclusion was the 6d has about the same DR as the 5D mark IV (about 6/7 Ev recovery range, under the 8Ev of the Sonys).
"Au final, le 6D Mark II semble présenter une latitude de travail assez proche de celle du 5D Mark IV, entre 6 et 7 IL. Dans ce domaine, les capteurs 24x36 de Sony dominent encore la concurrence et peuvent remonter des informations avec une plus grande souplesse."
This website is absolutely not serious at all in any way. Just as an illustration : they frequently use different raw converters to evaluate DR (for example, they used Fuji's own raw converter to compare the X-pro 2's latitude vs other cameras using LR). Or : they don't normalise ISO comparison shots in raw (i.e., the exposure is different between different cameras). Or : they pretend that they can measure absolute WB when testing strobes (unlikely for various reasons).
Focus numérique has its merits, but not for anything that requires an ounce of rigour.
p.34 #20 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
MayaTlab wrote:
This website is absolutely not serious at all in any way. Just as an illustration : they frequently use different raw converters to evaluate DR (for example, they used Fuji's own raw converter to compare the X-pro 2's latitude vs other cameras using LR). Or : they don't normalise ISO comparison shots in raw (i.e., the exposure is different between different cameras). Or : they pretend that they can measure absolute WB when testing strobes (unlikely for various reasons).
Focus numérique has its merits, but not for anything that requires an ounce of rigour.
I'm not familiar with this website nor the work they usually do. However as I was reading the article/review I did get the impression they were not very thorough or systematic. I saw no actual data other than their personal thoughts on what they saw.
It's a welcomed viewpoint but unfortunately that's all I read there, a viewpoint.
ray: ) response to the the prospect of the unimproved IQ of the 6D2 is being felt much more strongly than the "meh" of minor or modest improvements that get labeled as "not class leading" or "not innovative". Not class leading, not expected. Not innovative, not expected. Not improved IQ, not expected. The first two seem to be business as usual as "meh". The (current info) one seems to be NOT business as usual and has some eyes popping wide open for a lot of folks ... some seemingly popping right out of their head. 
(I far prefer the Nikon DX croppers with their improved IQ and sharpness without the Canon blurry filters, but that is another story.) 
