ISO 200 looks slightly mottled already (see borders in lighthouse sample).Mid-ISO shots of low contrast subjects are missing again.Canon fail. DPR fail.
Michael Todd: "To distinguish it from the more expensive 5D Mark III, the 6D features a simpler, 11-point AF system with a single cross-type focus sensor." Rubbish. Back to only focusing with the center AF point? I always said the 40D/50D had better AF than the 5D 2, now the 6D has joined the substandard AF club.
Focus & recompose doesn't even work for shooting the kids; let alone sports and action. I usually need to trigger the shot in less than one second.
smallcams: In case the review didn't mention it, the battery life is pretty darn amazing.
Yea, about half of what the 2006 Fuji F30 did.
Again no mid-ISO shots of low contrast subjects. It's a pity.ISO 400 is completely missing in the samples.Most shots are either base ISO or in the 800-1600.Then the high ISO shots are often w/o detail or the detail is not in focus.That way it's hard to draw any conclusions about the ISO range that COULD actually be used beyond ISO125.
Tape - again?
Make such a camera with 6..10 megapixel and I'll buy it blindly!
ZAnton: Using low light conditions DPReview has certainly improved the ISO tests, although there are no similar shots for other cameras for comparison (except for G1X).Second problem is, that all objects there (except the rat) are big (compared to the pixel size) and of the even color or moderately changing color.Such conditions is excellent for the NR, but they rarely seen in the real life, (unless you are making a macro of a pencil in the dark toilet. :-))
The real troubles come on the small objects (hairs, leaves if they are far away enough) etc.So guys, put the rat in the focus please. It looks like "rat quality" degrades very fast even here.
Completely agree that the setup is not good for showing ISO performance. No in focus low contrast detail, so NR can go in and smooth away all the noise and images look fine, except for appearing somewhat less 3-dimensional due to reduced color differentiation. But human eye is very forgiving w.r.t color.
Small sensor size is possibly because Nikon (and likely also Canon) want to protect their DSLR sales. Their reckoning is probably that many potential buyers of such cameras don't put the highest focus on sensor size (upgraders from compacts may not have all the knowledge about IQ that is around in the forums here.)
I would like to see more "mid ISO" shots in all the sample galleries. ISOs between 400 and 1250 of low contrast scenes with fine details. Thus far most of the shots in most galleries are either ISO 100/200, or high ISO (1600+) with scenes that do not have much detail. Thus the interesting part is masked out. The ISO100 is always great and of ISO1600+ nobody expects exceptional detail and color differentiation. I'm looking for really clean ISO 800 in a crop camera and I suspect that's still not available (depending on personal expectations of clean-ness, of course).