Some perspective @ 50, 120 & 200 vs. 9.
50 & 120 vs. 80D
I'm beginning to think I've confused myself.
Looking at the chart, I'm seeing the 6D2 having roughly the same ISO invariance as the 80D at low ISO. Am I reading that correctly? And if we liked the amount of lift we could get from the 80D @ low ISO ... why are we saying that the 6D2 is not good?
My read on this (which could be way "whack") is that if you shoot low ISO, you'll have plenty of lift capability and clean shadows. If you shoot at high ISO, you won't have much lift capability, but you'll have better noise at native ISO (i.e. not much ISO invariance), just don't expect a lot of lift latitude for high DR situations.
While obviously not an ISO invariance champion such as the K-1 or D7200 ... it seems well suited to two different roles. 1) Low ISO with ability to lift for high DR situations. 2) High ISO with good noise for low light situations (not to be confused with high DR needs).
In that regard, it seems that the Sony has a similar approach (albeit with a bit more invariance along the way up). That, and if we use the ability for iSO invariance as THE guiding metric, then it would suggest that the 80D is the "better" camera than the 5D4.
Some perspective @ 50, 120 & 200 vs. 9.
50 & 120 vs. 80D
I'm beginning to think I've confused myself.
Looking at the chart, I'm seeing the 6D2 having roughly the same ISO invariance as the 80D at low ISO. Am I reading that correctly? And if we liked the amount of lift we could get from the 80D @ low ISO ... why are we saying that the 6D2 is not good?
My read on this (which could be way "whack") is that if you shoot low ISO, you'll have plenty of lift capability and clean shadows. If you shoot at high ISO, you won't have much lift capability, but you'll have better noise at native ISO (i.e. not much ISO invariance), just don't expect a lot of lift latitude for high DR situations.
While obviously not an ISO invariance champion such as the K-1 or D7200 ... it seems well suited to two different roles. 1) Low ISO with ability to lift for high DR situations. 2) High ISO with good noise for low light situations (not to be confused with high DR needs).
In that regard, it seems that the Sony has a similar approach (albeit with a bit more invariance along the way up).
Some perspective @ 50, 120 & 200 vs. 9.
50 & 120 vs. 80D
I'm beginning to think I've confused myself.
Looking at the chart, I'm seeing the 6D2 having roughly the same ISO invariance as the 80D at low ISO. Am I reading that correctly? And if we liked the amount of lift we could get from the 80D @ low ISO ... why are we saying that the 6D2 is not good?
My read on this (which could be way "whack") is that if you shoot low ISO, you'll have plenty of lift capability and clean shadows. If you shoot at high ISO, you won't have much lift capability, but you'll have better noise at native ISO (i.e. not much ISO invariance), just don't expect a lot of lift latitude for high DR situations.
Some perspective @ 50, 120 & 200 vs. 9.
50 & 120 vs. 80D
I'm beginning to think I've confused myself.
Looking at the chart, I'm seeing the 6D2 having roughly the same ISO invariance as the 80D at low ISO. Am I reading that correctly? And if we liked the amount of lift we could get from the 80D @ low ISO ... why are we saying that the 6D2 is not good?
Some perspective @ 50, 120 & 200 vs. 9.
50 & 120 vs. 80D
I'm beginning to think I've confused myself.
Looking at the chart, I'm seeing the 6D2 having roughly the same ISO invariance as the 80D at low ISO. I'm I reading that correctly? And if we liked the amount of lift we could get from the 80D @ low ISO ... why are we saying that the 6D2 is not good?
