p.44 #1 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
artsupreme wrote:
What's the difference of buying a 5yr old 5DIII or a 6DII with 5yr old sensor tech? And you tell me, what do Canon customers deem important?
We don't know yet because we have not seen any real-world reviews. My comment was more about how people's argument changes ground when the company solves the ones they complained about. It seems many are incapable of saying 'thank you for solving that problem' and instead drag up aspects that were previously not an issue.
p.44 #3 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Paul Mo wrote:
So with all this drama we can expect a massive increase in DR from Canon from now on.
And 200% price hikes.
Haha. Well said.
We talked, smiled, cheered, complained and whined about lots of things before settling on DR. But how long you can talk about DR of a camera that is not released yet? Not too long. DPR saved us by deleting Bills's thread. Now we have conspiracy theories.
p.44 #6 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
jcolwell wrote:
?
He most probably refers to the deletion of the thread on DPReview, containing over the 100 messages. Then someone asked about that thread, and it got deleted too. And that, in a sense, feels like a censorship ...
p.44 #7 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
bclaff_too wrote:
What has happened at dpreview is just a distraction; perhaps we should focus back on the topic?
Given the fact that a significant aspect of the thread is intended to assist our fellow members understand the pro's & con's regarding the new camera (6D2), so they can begin / prepare to discern the viability of their gear direction ... the issue regarding the source and validity or propriety of the information provided does seem at least of modest concern that minimally raises an eyebrow. That's not to suggest foul play on the part of DPR, etc. (no need to go there).
Folks tend to want to simply know that they are operating / basing decisions on the valid information ... particularly when it comes to spending their hard earned $$$. The seemingly odd pull of the thread, then leaves people to wonder what the basis for it could be. To wit: 1) One person might see that as meaning that the information provided is true (and perceive it is being minimized); 2) Another person might see that as meaning that the information was realized to be not true (although, I think they'd have alerted you to that) and they are "backtracking". 3) A different person might see that as trying to correct an NDA issue.
So, for those who are watching ... the removal of the DPR thread does raise questions that do have impact on what their perception is regarding the information that is being provided with the intent of helping our valued & respected FM members. At a minimum ... I think it muddies the water, and reduces the (perceived) confidence in what folks are about to get in their mailbox for the $$$ charged to their CC. That may be a bit unsettling for folks who have their pre-orders in place.
1/2 empty vs. 1/2 full ... it "verifies" that the raw data of the 6D2 is NOT on par with 80D / 5D4 / 1DX2 sensor vs. it "suggests" that the raw data provided by DPR may not be correct. Between the seemingly revised review that "kicked the IQ can down the road" and the removal of the DPR thread ... in concert it seems to bring a certain in play that reduces confidence for those who previously were more confident in their purchasing / gear direction.
It would be very interesting to be the fly on the wall in certain places right now. To that end ... I have sent B&H a note asking them to advise me if they would prefer I utilize their return policy (if the I'm not pleased with the IQ) or prefer I cancel the pre-order to wait for verification of the 6D2 IQ, so the return is not necessary (if the 6D2 < 6D information is true).
If the retailer is facing a glut of returns vs. a glut of cancellations ... they may prefer to take their chances with one vs. the other. OTOH, if they happen to KNOW that the information is either TRUE or (somehow) FALSE, then they may have a different preference, depending on that knowledge.
Likely, I won't get a response ... but, I have asked.
As to "back on topic" ... DR has been addressed. Tonal response & color response / fidelity seem to be IQ issues that remain.
p.44 #8 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
lighthound wrote:
Is this thread next?
Ummm ... this is FM. The only time I know of that Fred invokes moderator "censorship" is when we start disrespecting our fellow FM'ers. And even then, it has never been the entire thread (that I'm aware of), just the minimum amount of inappropriate posts within the thread.
p.44 #9 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Mikehit wrote:
My comment was more about how people's argument changes ground when the company solves the ones they complained about. It seems many are incapable of saying 'thank you for solving that problem' and instead drag up aspects that were previously not an issue.
Yup, fixed f/8 AF ... so I'm still in.
Flippy screen ... been waiting for flippy FF for a while.
Low ISO DR ... that was always understood to be a "hope" (fueled by the low ISO performance of the 80D).
p.44 #10 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
lighthound wrote:
So all we really know is that discussions of a Sensor is being Censored.
jcolwell wrote:
?
-pekr- wrote:
He most probably refers to the deletion of the thread on DPReview, containing over the 100 messages. Then someone asked about that thread, and it got deleted too. And that, in a sense, feels like a censorship ...
Thanks. That probably explains it. Doesn't explain why it was posted here, though.
p.44 #11 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Blair Maynard wrote:
I am headed that direction too. Have you tried the focus peaking. I know it may be a pain with a zoom lens to zoom then manual focus, but I like the idea that you see everything in focus turn red in the viewfinder.
I have played with it and find it will probably be most useful for me with video since it seems the AF for video with the metabones is pretty meh.
---------------------------------------------
15Bit wrote:
Interesting that the AF was more than "good enough". Unfortunately over here an A7RII is not really a 6DII competitor - once you factor in the cost of a Metabones V2 and a spare battery or two it costs somewhat closer to a 5D4 than a 6D2.
Indeed it ended up more than a 6DII but certainly less than a 5D4. You can find a A7RII for around $2000-2100 used and a metabones for around $300 used.
p.44 #12 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
RustyBug wrote:
... the issue regarding the source and validity or propriety of the information provided does seem at least of modest concern that minimally raises an eyebrow. That's not to suggest foul play on the part of DPR, etc. (no need to go there).
Folks tend to want to simply know that they are operating / basing decisions on the valid information ... particularly when it comes to spending their hard earned $$$. The seemingly odd pull of the thread, then leaves people to wonder what the basis for it could be. To wit: 1) One person might see that as meaning that the information provided is true (and perceive it is being minimized); 2) Another person might see that as meaning that the information was realized to be not true (although, I think they'd have alerted you to that) and they are "backtracking". 3) A different person might see that as trying to correct an NDA issue.
... ...Show more →
All I can say is that I have quite a good track record and that if I had any doubts as to the analysis it would either still be marked as an estimate or would not be on PhotonsToPhotos at all.
p.44 #13 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
RustyBug wrote:
Ummm ... this is FM. The only time I know of that Fred invokes moderator "censorship" is when we start disrespecting our fellow FM'ers. And even then, it has never been the entire thread (that I'm aware of), just the minimum amount of inappropriate posts within the thread.
FM ROCKS !!!
I've known an entire thread to be removed, but it is pretty rare i think. And in the case i am thinking of, it was justified to remove the whole thing.
p.44 #14 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
-pekr- wrote:
He most probably refers to the deletion of the thread on DPReview, containing over the 100 messages. Then someone asked about that thread, and it got deleted too. And that, in a sense, feels like a censorship ...
Yes, you are correct.
---------------------------------------------
jcolwell wrote:
Thanks. That probably explains it. Doesn't explain why it was posted here, though.
I was simply making an observation of the latest developments over in DPreview that were already being discussed here. And I had made a lame attempt at a little humor of the previously misspelled censor vs sensor earlier in this thread. By no means was I suggesting that Fred censors any threads or subject matter here on FM, but rather Canon might "ask" him to remove any objectionable material for some strange reason.
p.44 #15 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
For those who have used or are interested in Bill Claff's "Photons to Photos Interactive Charts here is a link to a good interview with Bill. In this podcast he discusses how he measures the images, how DXO measures and how to use his charts to make decisions in using your camera.
p.44 #16 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
All I can say is that I have quite a good track record and that if I had any doubts as to the analysis it would either still be marked as an estimate or would not be on PhotonsToPhotos at all.
I'm also disappointed with the deleting of the thread(I had some inputs in that thread) but I understand DPR want to maintain a good relationship with all camera vendors.
Bill, I'm not sure what's your plan and passion for PhtonsToPhotos. It's a great website and I hope it can be kept as independent and Not-for_Profit in a long run. If that's the case, I would suggest to maintain a good relationship with DPR too.
p.44 #17 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Rusty1 wrote:
For those who have used or are interested in Bill Claff's "Photons to Photos Interactive Charts here is a link to a good interview with Bill. In this podcast he discusses how he measures the images, how DXO measures and how to use his charts to make decisions in using your camera.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm
I had a lot of fun doing that and for people who are more verbally oriented that's a good idea.
Reminded me of the time I used to co-host a weekly call-in radio show on computers.
p.44 #18 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
Bill, I'm not sure what's your plan and passion for PhotonsToPhotos. It's a great website and I hope it can be kept as independent and Not-for-Profit in a long run. If that's the case, I would suggest to maintain a good relationship with DPR too.
Definitely passion with a bit of planning thrown in.
With zero revenue, and no desire to change that model, PhotonsToPhotos will always be independent.
I've acted as an "independent consultant" for at least three online "magazines"; dpreview is the best known.
Despite these relationships I still get the bulk of my raw files from "ordinary" photographers who appreciate the site and are willing to contribute their time (normally 30-45 minutes I would guess).
p.44 #19 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
What's with all the secrecy about this latest major development?
It's very apparent that the web is in the process of being scrubbed clean of any raw images and any related data. Yeah, good luck with that, but the only acknowledgement I've seen is a brief nothing to see here folks let's move along.
Surely Rob or Bill knows what's going on here. I see Rob's link for the actual raw files is gone as well now.
p.44 #20 · Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II
I think it is a plot by EVF makers to sell more components.
Meanwhile some users will buy the 6D II camera and take wonderful images despite the less than perfect sensors and conspiracies.
that the raw data of the 6D2 is NOT on par with 80D / 5D4 / 1DX2 sensor vs. it "suggests" that the raw data provided by DPR may not be correct. Between the seemingly revised review that "kicked the IQ can down the road" and the removal of the DPR thread ... in concert it seems to bring a certain 
in play that reduces confidence for those who previously were more confident in their purchasing / gear direction.
