There are many benefits to the FF sensor of the 6D2 to make it superior to the 80D.
The world doesn't spin on DR.
Despite your attempt at picking a fight or fanning the flames or trying to discredit my comment, where exactly do I have any hatred or have anything related to the world spinning on DR in my comment below? It was purely factual and objective. Nothing is of an opinion or based in any emotion.
You cannot really say in one comment that the 6D2 is a FF 80D, then in the very next statement, say that the 6D2 FF sensor is superior to the 80D, that is very contradictory in itself, isn't it? I can't tell if you agree with me or not.
It feels like you already had the bowstring drawn and was ready to let an arrow fly at the first person to bring up the facts, based on your tone and words. Too bad the aim was off!
Spikey131 wrote:
You should also consider the (already hated) 6D2.
It is basically a full frame 80D.
...
TeamSpeed wrote:
Only from a form/function standpoint, not from a sensor standpoint, at least not below ISO 800. The 6D2 DR for landscapes is about the same as the 5D2.
I will correct myself a bit here to be even more factual, at the risk of more arrows being lobbed over. The 80D DR matches or exceeds the DR of the 6D2 at ISO 500 and lower. The gap starts to widen in the 6D2 court at about ISO 1000, where it starts to walk away from the 80D.
Sensible comments Jeff, and wonderful pics! That last one wold look great as a wall mural at a restaurant!
The only thing I would say is that I shot alot with the 5D and 5D2, the 5D2 just didn't seem to add much over the 5D, especially for the price difference. Granted I probably don't appreciate some of the differences now, but for me, the 5D2 was one of the most lackluster FF offerings, again just for what I shot, and how I used it.
The 5D3 was exciting to me, the 6D was as well for where it was in the market, and now the 5D4 is so far my most favorite FF body. The 7D2 is my most favorite APS-C to date, and I have had all of them except the 60D through 80D. The SL2 comes today!
DR = RAW + pushing RAWs = files need to be malleable. 5D2 would exhibit banding when you were to push shadows etc. in all ISOs. The 5D3 was not much better, the 6D was and had easily the best sensor out of the three, not only with lower high-ISO noise but also way more malleable files without the same artifact/banding issues.
But what does all that really mean? Did you see images Milan linked? How about the thousand other pro/enthusiasts that were using 5D2 and 5D3 for the better part of a decade now? - many still in these very fora.
Amazing shots are possible as long as you just be there and click.
A D810 or A7 or w/e won't "make" the shot that a 5D2 or a 5D4 would "break" because it lacked DR. Amazing shots are amazing shots. If you needed fill-flash with Canon, you would need it with the others. If you wanted above meh DR, you would have to blend more than one exposures with all.
The proof is in the pudding, the rest is forum-cheap-talk & excuses.
A friend now has my original 5D and its still going strong. She recently joined us on a trip to Canyon DeChelley. She used her 24-105 while I used my 100-400 on my 5D3 so I could get better shots of the rock art. I worked up all the images in Lightroom and the old 5D stood up well against the 5D3 - I did some wider angles as well. The main improvements I gained going 5D2 were resolution, the dust shaker, and at the time video. A 5D is 4368 pixels wide while a Retina iMac display is 5120 pixels wide though the images look just fine to me. The 5D2 had less noise in the deep blue skies of the Sierras like my middle image above or more adjustment latitude. Although I have to add that Lightroom handled this noise better than my PSE did with my original 5D usage.
I'll add that looking at my images above I might be tempted to lift the shadows a bit more just because of all this talk of DR. This processing is more the way I remembered the scene and before I felt the need to beat every last bit of adjustment out of my images.
It wasn't just banding, it was the electronically induced noise from the off-chip ADC. The gains of the 80D, 5D4, and 1DX2 are due to the new design that reduces the amount of electronic noise, something Sony tackled years prior. Amazing shots are also those that are post processed, so we have no idea what effort went into them. Bracketing shots and merging are a limited means to a final product. Having the DR latitude means processing is faster and easier, and more versatile to merging bracketed shots.
The 6D is indeed a great camera. Just the fact that it has better DR (as you bring up) than the 5D2, 5D3, and now the 6D2, means it should be considered. It was already mentioned as an option to consider earlier, if a FF is desired around the price point of a 5D2.
However if an APS-C is needed, then the "greater low ISO DR and great AF" 80D is a great option to consider, especially given the other scenarios to be recorded.
So the options are pretty easy, I would suggest the 6D for a FF choice for landscape and some action, the 80D for an APS-C for more action and some landscape.
While I'm at it, here is a 10-18 shot on the 70D from Queenstown. Pretty sharp edge to edge on my display. I think any of these cameras can produce wonderful images.
Now imagine if lighting was a bit off for that last shot, and you needed to do a bracketed merge on that? Between the rocking boat and the changing waves, the results would not have been good.
The 5D falls apart at higher ISOs when compared to the newer offerings. 3200 was great in its time, but the 80D beats it now (granted a decade later). So it depends if the selection being made here will be primarily daytime landscapes or more action and low light landscapes. That will most likely dictate what body to buy. Daylight scenes of open landscapes aren't very taxing. Street scenes where you have a sky you don't want to blow out, and storefronts that are shrouded in darkness? There are better tools for that than something like a 5D or 5D2.
Shots like this are bit more challenging, and depending on what is in the scene, pulling shadows up becomes standard fare. If there is activity on the street, bracketing isn't an option. Also hiking shots where you have rock walls and trails with a beautiful sky will sometimes also create challenges, but in many cases, a bracketed set might be sufficient unless there is wind and foliage.
That that shoot landscapes as a passion or for a living will know whether DR is important or not. It doesn't matter whether others value it less or call it forum fodder.
The 6D should do fine with the above, as would the 80D. The 5D2, not so much. Shoot some action as well, and the 80D now starts to edge out.
Agreed, bracketing won't always work and you always have to work with the limits of your situation and tools. Everyone's needs are different and experienced photographers know what they are looking for in a lens or camera. Better IQ is better. But I have to add that I never saw a banding issue with my 5D2 and I've never found it or my 5D3 to be DR limited. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. I simply live within my slider limits in Lightroom. But then ask me again in a year or so when I've had a chance to exercise my 5D4 a bit more. I've seen modest, not earth shattering, improvement in each camera generation. Remember, I came from Kodachrome so I may be easily impressed.
These are terrible examples, but in our real estate market, we don't need great IQ shots, the MLS listing only shows 960px shots.
I had to bring up the shadow areas over 2 stops. No banding, just some noise of course, but detail was there. If I had more time and took out the better lens, the IQ would have been better. With the 5D2, shadow areas of real estate when brought up would start to look pretty ugly, at least with the 2 copies I had.
Now this is technically and creatively a terrible example and I only had about 5 minutes to get it downloaded and quickly worked on, but it shows how easy it is to have a DR situation on your hands. Wind was blowing a bit, and a bracket wasn't going to help here either. Real estate, street scenes, weddings outside, etc are all DR-risky environments. Depending on what you shoot, DR can be VERY important. So it is up to the thread starter on what they shoot and how important good AF is, as well as good DR.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
A friend now has my original 5D and its still going strong. She recently joined us on a trip to Canyon DeChelley. She used her 24-105 while I used my 100-400 on my 5D3 so I could get better shots of the rock art. I worked up all the images in Lightroom and the old 5D stood up well against the 5D3 - I did some wider angles as well. The main improvements I gained going 5D2 were resolution, the dust shaker, and at the time video. A 5D is 4368 pixels wide while a Retina iMac display is 5120 pixels wide though the images look just fine to me. The 5D2 had less noise in the deep blue skies of the Sierras like my middle image above or more adjustment latitude. Although I have to add that Lightroom handled this noise better than my PSE did with my original 5D usage.
I'll add that looking at my images above I might be tempted to lift the shadows a bit more just because of all this talk of DR. This processing is more the way I remembered the scene and before I felt the need to beat every last bit of adjustment out of my images.
Nice images. As an aside you may want to give her some consultation on getting that aperture, shutter speed and ISO down, to get the most IQ out of her 5D.
Can't say I ever noticed at DR or band issues with my 5D MKII and I mainly used it for landscape these past 9 years. I often lighten shadows in PP a wee bit but I prefer a natural appearance (shadows stay relatively dark). With that said, I prefer my 6D but the 5D2 is good enough as a second camera (and to avoid swapping lenses) and I usually choose the 5D2 over my 80D save for video shoots.
3) The dynamic range is on 80d is better at iso100 but not by much and bracketing and blending or NDgrads are really needed anyway in my opinion for good landscape shooting. Which means better at ISO 100 does not matter for landscape off tripod in low light. It does matter if you are a day shooter to get more dynamic range win bright sunlight but most landscapers would tell you - thats not landscape thats a snapshot with lousy light. And for wildlife which usually is at low light - you would be better with 5dii because you would be shooting above iso400.
4) that said, the 80d is really good as compared to 5dii considering that 80d is apsc and 5dii is ff. It will do better at i) cheaper lens, ii) better point selection, iii) better fps, iv) better iso 100 performance at high noon.
Given your pursuit and that they are so close I would be inclined to the 80d - wake boarding does occur at high noon at iso 100 where dynamic range counts. Alternatively, if you have lots of money, I would get rid of 40d, and all others and get 5div - better at everything than 80d.
Wow, thanks for the robust discussion everyone. I am going to go back read everything more carefully, but just a few comments right now.
5DIV isn't going to happen as I just can't justify the funds based on how much I shoot.
Was seriously considering the 5DIII, but it is still a significant amount of money and if I am going to upgrade FF, it seems like I wouldn't be getting all that better of a sensor. As you can tell I don't upgrade much and like the upgrades to be pretty significant.
Had high hopes for the 6DII, but again, it isn't clear the sensor is that much better than what I have. Similar reasoning for the 6D as well....just not sure its worth moving to a 6D from a 5DII due as it wouldn't be much of a sensor upgrade.
Guess I just figured, for $850 refurbished minus whatever I get for the kit lens, a 80D would be a pretty minimal upgrade path and would serve me well for the majority of my shooting right now which family stuff. (could still use the 5DII for portraits). Just wanted some good opinions on which folks would prefer for the occasional landscape I do right now...the 80D I would get, or my old 5DII.
I would probably couple the 80D with my 17-55 if I used that. With the 5DII, I would probably use my 24-105 or 17-40. (although I have been considering selling the 17-40 and getting a 16-35 and getting the new version of the 24-105.
Anyway, it seems that a lot of it comes down to if folks value DR or resolving power more with respect to landscape.
Again really appreciate the discussion.....and yes the 40D would go by the wayside along with my original digital rebel. :-)
Just a side note, I would put the 80d/7d2 high ISO 6400 and higher against the 5d2, especially when you equalize the image size. The noise is fine and more grain like, and is easier to clean up. Dxo simply don't reflect that. Of course it has been a while but I can find some comparison shots to show this if I hit my NAS to find examples.
Or just do the 6DII and be okay that the sensor isn't a huge upgrade, but then be back to a simpler one body setup (may have to pick up a 100-400....what a shame)
Milan Hutera wrote:
5D3 was widely adopted by agencies as the great all around small-ish camera and was used quite a lot at sporting events as well. So unless the OP absolutely needs two bodies for his work (unlikely), why not sell the 40D for peanuts and 5D2 for peanuts and get the one nice all arounder that will satisfy his every need? Again, the difference, if there is actually any, is 0.2 stops.
Yes the 5D3 was the first non-1 series I owned that just does everything very well (I had 5D's and 5D2's as well). You could easily have a pro career with a 5D3 and a backup camera and never need to change.
Not having in-camera backup is a big deal to me so the 6D would be out as my only pro camera plus the 5D3 AF system is excellent
Milan Hutera wrote:
Not taking it personally at all, but to argue that 5D3 is worse than 5D2 and after clicking on the link I found out that it's worse by 0.2 stops - zero point two stops - (basically a margin of error) it's quite something... Not to mention the questionable nature of the numbers.
5D3 was widely adopted by agencies as the great all around small-ish camera and was used quite a lot at sporting events as well. So unless the OP absolutely needs two bodies for his work (unlikely), why not sell the 40D for peanuts and 5D2 for peanuts and get the one nice all arounder that will satisfy his every need? Again, the difference, if there is actually any, is 0.2 stops....Show more →
If you have a problem DXO's testing method, that's your issue and not mine. I think their testing methods are perfectly valid and the details are explained on their website if you are interested to read more and I also think they are not biased in any way (if that's what you are suggesting). My path was 5D --> 5D II --> 5D III and indeed the jump from 5D II to 5D III didn't bring any improvement in dynamic range for me. I admit it was slightly disappointing for me at the time, even though autofocus performed undoubtedly at much higher levels. So yes, I maintain what I said that in terms of landscape shooting at ISO 100-1600 5D III and 5D II is pretty much the same. And Like I said, 5D IV is a different beast, shadow recovery is a lot better and banding is gone. But ok, I'm done now
Snapsy wrote:
As an aside you may want to give her some consultation on getting that aperture, shutter speed and ISO down, to get the most IQ out of her 5D.
I noticed that, I probably should have put her camera in P mode and auto ISO if the original 5D had that. I often look at my postings and wonder if I should have used a better aperture/ISO setting for a given image. Fortunately I've found the 5 series to be fairly forgiving of my inattentiveness.
To the OP: If you already have a 5D2 then there is no need to upgrade unless you are feeling limited in some way, for example AF, or save for a 5DS/4 if you are feeling resolution limited. I'd invest in lenses instead. I upgraded my 5D2 to a 5D3 when Canon added f8 AF to it and I could take a 1.4x extender instead of a 7D to use with my 100-400. Until decent EF-S STM lenses started appearing I always regarded my crop cameras as attachments to my 100-400.
Milan Hutera wrote:
So unless the OP absolutely needs two bodies for his work (unlikely), why not sell the 40D for peanuts and 5D2 for peanuts and get the one nice all arounder that will satisfy his every need? Again, the difference, if there is actually any, is 0.2 stops.
If I went this direction 5DIII or 6DII....don't need a second card. Not a huge difference in price.
I am only really feeling limited with AF for family action and sports shots.
A 5DIII or 6DII would likely be a good one camera solution. Its not about being able to afford it, but it is hard to justify ~2K for the above. If I knew I was getting a better camera for landscape, improved sensor, etc, when I do shoot landscape....it would be easier for me to justify. (not saying I need it, just the perceived I am getting what I am paying for)
$850 for a 80D to satisfy the above need is easier to stomach.
On a positive note, I tried the 5DII today for tubing pictures and the 70-200 had enough reach so I wouldn't have to buy a 100-400 right away.
