I will be surprised if these initial findings hold up with more testing. But even if they do, it's worth considering that DR only provides a potential benefit in scenarios that fall outside the norm for most shooters. And the most important "test" is your own practice.
To illustrate, in the years I have been using my 6Ds for event work, I cannot recall a single time when I felt let down by the sensor. In contrast, I have struggled mightily with the workflow for the 5D Mark IV, which has the superior sensor on paper.
Compared to my 6D, I find that the 5D IV easily blocks up highlights in sunny conditions--even when correctly exposed. Using modified profiles in ACR (having custom parametric curves) I still have to manhandle the files, shoving the shadows and highlights sliders around a lot more than I am used to with other Canon bodies.
For this reason, the 5D Mark IV is the first Canon model where I have chosen to enable Highlight Tone Priority for normal RAW shooting in daylight. I haven't tried this in years, but I am happy to say that Adobe now handles the tone mapping for HTP RAWs seamlessly and beautifully. This makes the 5D4 files a lot more malleable with a longer tonal curve in the highlights. (Sure, I could underexpose my shots manually, but that would mess up my previews and histograms; using HTP is elegant and more convenient.) I will say that the 5D4 sensor's improved shadow noise and utter lack of banding makes this setting practical to use even up to higher ISOs, a definite plus over earlier models.
So, here we have a conundrum: a supposedly "superior" camera, having a sensor with 2 stops greater dynamic range at ISO 100, still manages to record (absent special handling) images with messed up shoulders in the histogram, while the "inferior" camera creates files that are a breeze to edit.
So I will submit to all of you that you should wait until you can test the output of the 6D Mark II using the tools and workflow you are familiar with. There may be some unexpected surprises. And more importantly, a measured superiority in one characteristic only tells you part of the story. This superiority has to be relevant to and visible in what you shoot for it to have any meaning.
I will be surprised if these initial findings hold up with more testing. But even if they do, it's worth considering that DR only provides a potential benefit in scenarios that fall outside the norm for most shooters. And the most important "test" is your own practice.
To illustrate, in the years I have been using my 6Ds for event work, I cannot recall a single time when I felt let down by the sensor. In contrast, I have struggled mightily with the workflow for the 5D Mark IV, which has the superior sensor on paper.
Compared to my 6D, I find that the 5D IV easily blocks up highlights in sunny conditions--even when correctly exposed. Using modified profiles in ACR (having custom parametric curves) I still have to manhandle the files, shoving the shadows and highlights sliders around a lot more than I am used to with other Canon bodies.
For this reason, the 5D Mark IV is the first Canon model where I have chosen to enable Highlight Tone Priority for normal RAW shooting in daylight. I haven't tried this in years, but I am happy to say that Adobe now handles the tone mapping for HTP RAWs seamlessly and beautifully. This makes the 5D4 files a lot more malleable with a longer tonal curve in the highlights. (Sure, I could underexpose my shots manually, but that would mess up my previews and histograms; using HTP is elegant and more convenient.) I will say that the 5D4 sensor's improved shadow noise and utter lack of banding makes this setting practical to use even up to higher ISOs, a definite plus over earlier models.
So, here we have a conundrum: a supposedly "superior" camera, having a sensor with 2 stops greater dynamic range at ISO 100, still manages to record images (absent special handling) with messed up shoulders in the histogram, while the "inferior" camera creates files that are a breeze to edit.
So I will submit to all of you that you should wait until you can test the output of the 6D Mark II using the tools and workflow you are familiar with. There may be some unexpected surprises. And more importantly, a measured superiority in one characteristic only tells you part of the story. This superiority has to be relevant to and visible in what you shoot for it to have any meaning.
I will be surprised if these initial findings hold up with more testing. But even if they do, it's worth considering that DR only provides a potential benefit in scenarios that fall outside the norm for most shooters. And the most important "test" is your own practice.
To illustrate, in the years I have been using my 6Ds for event work, I cannot recall a single time when I felt let down by the sensor. In contrast, I have struggled mightily with the workflow for the 5D Mark IV, which has the superior sensor on paper.
Compared to my 6D, I find that the 5D IV easily blocks up highlights in sunny conditions--even when correctly exposed. Using modified profiles in ACR (having custom parametric curves) I still have to manhandle the files, shoving the shadows and highlights sliders around a lot more than I am used to with other Canon bodies.
For this reason, the 5D Mark IV is the first Canon model where I have chosen to enable Highlight Tone Priority for normal RAW shooting in daylight. I haven't tried this in years, but I am happy to say that Adobe now handles the tone mapping for HTP RAWs seamlessly and beautifully. This makes the 5D4 files a lot more malleable with a longer tonal curve in the highlights. (Sure, I could underexpose my shots manually, but that would mess up my previews and histograms; using HTP is more elegant and convenient.) I will say that the 5D4 sensor's improved shadow noise and utter lack of banding makes this setting practical to use even up to higher ISOs, a definite plus over earlier models.
So, here we have a conundrum: a supposedly "superior" camera, having a sensor with 2 stops greater dynamic range at ISO 100, still manages to record images (absent special handling) with messed up shoulders in the histogram, while the "inferior" camera creates files that are a breeze to edit.
So I will submit to all of you that you should wait until you can test the output of the 6D Mark II using the tools and workflow you are familiar with. There may be some unexpected surprises. And more importantly, a measured superiority in one characteristic only tells you part of the story. This superiority has to be relevant to and visible in what you shoot for it to have any meaning.
I will be surprised if these initial findings hold up with more testing. But even if they do, it's worth considering that DR only provides a potential benefit in scenarios that fall outside the norm for most shooters. And the most important "test" is your own practice.
To illustrate, in the years I have been using my 6Ds for event work, I cannot recall a single time when I felt let down by the sensor. In contrast, I have struggled mightily with the workflow for the 5D Mark IV, which has the superior sensor on paper.
Compared to my 6D, I find that the 5D IV easily blocks up highlights in sunny conditions--even when correctly exposed. Using modified profiles in ACR (having custom parametric curves) I still have to manhandle the files, shoving the shadows and highlights sliders around a lot more than I am used to with other Canon bodies.
For this reason, the 5D Mark IV is the first Canon model where I have chosen to enable Highlight Tone Priority for normal RAW shooting in daylight. I haven't tried this in years, but I am happy to say that Adobe now handles the tone mapping for HTP RAWs seamlessly and beautifully. This makes the 5D4 files a lot more malleable with a longer tonal curve in the highlights. (Sure, I could underexpose my shots manually, but using HTP is more elegant and convenient.) I will say that the 5D4 sensor's improved shadow noise and utter lack of banding makes this setting practical to use even up to higher ISOs, a definite plus over earlier models.
So, here we have a conundrum: a supposedly "superior" camera, having a sensor with 2 stops greater dynamic range at ISO 100, still manages to record images (absent special handling) with messed up shoulders in the histogram, while the "inferior" camera creates files that are a breeze to edit.
So I will submit to all of you that you should wait until you can test the output of the 6D Mark II using the tools and workflow you are familiar with. There may be some unexpected surprises. And more importantly, a measured superiority in one characteristic only tells you part of the story. This superiority has to be relevant to and visible in what you shoot for it to have any meaning.
I will be surprised if these initial findings hold up with more testing. But even if they do, it's worth considering that DR only provides a potential benefit in scenarios that fall outside the norm for most shooters. And the most important "test" is your own practice.
To illustrate, in the years I have been using my 6Ds for event work, I cannot recall a single time when I felt let down by the sensor. In contrast, I have struggled mightily with the workflow for the 5D Mark IV, which has the superior sensor on paper.
Compared to my 6D, I find that the 5D IV easily blocks up highlights in sunny conditions--even when correctly exposed. Using modified profiles in ACR (having custom parametric curves) I still have to manhandle the files, shoving the shadows and highlights sliders around a lot more than I am used to with other Canon bodies.
For this reason, the 5D Mark IV is the first Canon model where I have chosen to enable Highlight Tone Priority for normal RAW shooting in daylight. I haven't tried this in years, but I am happy to say that Adobe now handles the tone mapping for HTP RAWs seamlessly and beautifully. This makes the 5D4 files a lot more malleable in ACR with a longer tonal curve in the highlights. Sure, I could underexpose my shots manually, but using HTP is more elegant and convenient. (I will say that the 5D4 sensor's improved shadow noise and utter lack of banding makes this setting practical to use even up to higher ISOs, a definite plus over earlier models.)
So, here we have a conundrum: a supposedly "superior" camera, having a sensor with 2 stops greater dynamic range at ISO 100, still manages to record images (absent special handling) with messed up shoulders in the histogram, while the "inferior" camera creates files that are a breeze to edit.
So I will submit to all of you that you should wait until you can test the output of the 6D Mark II using the tools and workflow you are familiar with. There may be some unexpected surprises. And more importantly, a measured superiority in one characteristic only tells you part of the story. This superiority has to be relevant to and visible in what you shoot for it to have any meaning.
I will be surprised if these initial findings hold up with more testing. But even if they do, it's worth considering that DR only provides a potential benefit in scenarios that fall outside the norm for most shooters. And the most important "test" is your own practice.
To illustrate, in the years I have been using my 6Ds for event work, I cannot recall a single time when I felt let down by the sensor. In contrast, I have struggled mightily with the workflow for the 5D Mark IV, which has the superior sensor on paper.
Compared to my 6D, I find that the 5D IV easily blocks up highlights in sunny conditions--even when correctly exposed. Using modified profiles in ACR (having custom parametric curves) I still have to manhandle the files, shoving the shadows and highlights sliders around a lot more than I am used to with other Canon bodies.
For this reason, the 5D Mark IV is the first Canon model where I have chosen to enable Highlight Tone Priority for normal RAW shooting in daylight. I haven't tried this in years, but I am happy to say that Adobe now handle the tone mapping for HTP RAWs seamlessly and beautifully. This makes the 5D4 files a lot more malleable in ACR with a longer tonal curve in the highlights. Sure, I could underexpose my shots manually, but using HTP is a lot more seamless and elegant. (I will say that the 5D4 sensor's improved shadow noise and utter lack of banding makes this setting practical to use even up to higher ISOs, a definite plus over earlier models.)
So, here we have a conundrum: a supposedly "superior" camera, having a sensor with 2 stops greater dynamic range at ISO 100, still manages to record images with messed up shoulders in the histogram (without special handling), while the "inferior" camera creates files that are a breeze to edit.
So I will submit to all of you that you should wait until you can test the output of the 6D Mark II using the tools and workflow you are familiar with. There may be some unexpected surprises. And more importantly, a measured superiority in one characteristic only tells you part of the story. This superiority has to be relevant to and visible in what you shoot for it to have any meaning.
Jul 09, 2017 at 06:48 PM
Previous versions of garyvot's message #14101038 « Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II »
