arbitrage wrote: 5D4 slaying one some believe will appear on the shelves in 2 weeks
Not a 5D slayer ... just somewhere between 80D & 5D4.
+1 that critter & BIF shooters have less concern for ISO 100-400 (convergence close enough after that) than others might.
Might be showing my lack of understanding a bit with this question:
So, while there is a certain "expectation" that the new sensor should perform in the same ballpark as the others, and many of us are scratching our heads at how it can be that it (seemingly, per the evidence presented to date) it does NOT perform in that ballpark ... could this be related to decisions about the 6D2 CFA being different from the CFA being used in the others?
Is that something that could explain why the "same sensor" seems to be performing "so differently". By that, the 80D / 5D4 / 1DX II are all tested to be around 64 ISO (for the 100 ISO setting), while their predecessors were tested @ 80 ISO for the 5D3 & 1DX, and 93 ISO for the 70D.
If the 6D2 retains its base ISO of the original 6D (also @ 80 along with the 5D3 & 1DX), could the choice of the CFA be the rationale for why "same sensor" is yielding different results?
I think part of the response has been not just a matter of the technical aspect of it being different (which smaller pixels with same CFA would be understandably "slightly lower" ... but, scratching our heads at how the same sensor could yield different results from the other bodies using the sensor.
Then ... what is the potential for a different CFA showing up (assuming the theory of "original 6D CFA being used) in the models to be shipped?
