Previous news story    Next news story

Canon EOS 6D sample images added to hands-on preview

By dpreview staff on Nov 19, 2012 at 23:22 GMT

We've added a gallery of real-world and studio images to our Canon EOS 6D preview. The EOS 6D won't be available until at least December but we've been able to borrow a pre-production model for which we've been allowed to post samples. We've shot with the camera in a series of lighting conditions, using a variety of lenses, including the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. We've also shot an ISO sequence under challenging low-color-temperature artificial light. Click the links below to see how Canon's latest full-frame challenger performs.

The camera used for this gallery was pre-production, and image quality should be considered 'Beta' standard.

Canon EOS 6D preview samples - published 19 November 2012

There are 47 images in the preview samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

1016
I own it
223
I want it
31
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 263
12
AttilaTheHun
By AttilaTheHun (10 months ago)

Where to buy it for the best price?

0 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (Nov 22, 2012)

up to ISo 6400 it keeps up with the OM-D...later on it takes lead ...not bad!
If it only was smaller...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 23, 2012)

Where did you get Canon 6D raws and the software to extract them?

Also yeah, the OM-D has a tiny sensor compared to a 35mm full frame. And the OM-D isn't really useable above ISO 1600 anyhow, while any newish DSLR or APSC mirrorless is.

1 upvote
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (Nov 26, 2012)

not alway need any raws (unless you really need pixsel peeping)
e.g. just compare to similar test done for OM=D

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/03/09/olympus-omd-em5-iso-series

Not usable above ISO 1600? And any new DSLR is?
Look around and see :

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/06/02/omd/
3200 is still excellent and 6400 frequently not bad either.

It is better than many latest DSLR...just use the comparometer on the DP review na d...again, look around for real pictures. And find many examples of ISO 3200 available around!
IT is really small and pictures are just very good quality.
Thre are situations FF is better? Yes! But for 90% of the time you will get excellent resulkts with this little performer.
Similar but better results (at least as picure quality is concerned) you can get from Fuji X-E1.

3 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Nov 27, 2012)

Kecajkerugo, I would certainly have to agree - the photo shot by Ming Thein are quite good - maybe excellent. The OM-D give a lot of bang for the buck. .... The 6D looks good, but I'd like to see more before jumping to any conclusions.

1 upvote
draleks
By draleks (Nov 29, 2012)

I have an E-PL5 (same sensor and optics as OM-D) and I don't notice any extreme drop in quality between ISO1600 and ISO5000. Both look quite nice. Of course, ISO200 produces the highest detail level and the most punchy colors. At the max ISO of 25600 the results are acceptable in the sense that the photos would be happily accepted as evidence in a court case, but not as something you would want to show off to anybody.

On the other hand, with the max ISO I almost managed to snap a photo of the passengers in a crossing high-speed train a bit late in the evening. Unfortunately I had some issues with the focus and of course releasing the shutter at the right time, but I'll try again another time and see how it goes.

1 upvote
Rock and Rollei
By Rock and Rollei (Nov 22, 2012)

Looks absolutely perfect to me as a travel camera - smallish, with a proper viewfinder (even the best electronic ones make me feel ill), good low-light AF, built-in GPS and WiFi - I couldn't have designed it better myself.

3 upvotes
7enderbender
By 7enderbender (Nov 21, 2012)

Oh, and just because somebody in a marketing department somewhere knows what "the future" is should drive my decision? I'm not intrested in EVF and mirrorless. It's good for what it is but I'm still not interested. Yes, "modern" optical viewfinders often stink. But that doesn't make looking at a screen any more desirable. I can't see myself buying anything Sony for a number of reasons. And I looked carefully the last time around when I had to make a "system" decision. And I will not buy the Fuji X-E1 either. No optical viewfinder, no business from me. While it's still possible at least. We've see enough denigration of quality already thanks to the gizmofication of photography.
Oh, and the 6D I would only consider as a backup emergency body. I don't really get that either. Weird priorities with a lot of this stuff these days.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 22, 2012)

It is because the masses who makes such cameras cheaper to buy, has weird priorities. It's all good though so I could afford them.

0 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Nov 22, 2012)

All you snobs & dinosaurs ... Try demonstrating that you understand an iota of what an EVF is and the laundry list of features it offers (stuff that optical view finder users can only dream about), before you even sound off.

Its the future because of the paradigm shift in how it makes a camera a far better tool for the photographer. Its a REAL TIME enabler. Its as significant as using online web services as opposed to paper.

Try reading my other posts on this topic cos I can't be bothered to explain again.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
7enderbender
By 7enderbender (Nov 25, 2012)

And how does an electronic viewfinder (if there even is one - on more and more cameras they leave it out altogether and leave you with the screen on the back like on my P&S) help me make better photographs? Just because something is new and fancy things don't get more practical. And just because (after trying and having an open mind) I like the old workflow better doesn't make me a dinosaur. Here is my challenge for you: have you ever used a really good optical viewfinder? That doesn't seem likely because they're hard to come by thanks to other "advancements" that the stupid majority has deemed essential. The viewfinder on my "full frame" 5DII certainly leaves a lot to be desired when I compare it to my old film cameras without AF. Speaking of real-time enabler my friend...
Oh, and there is still lots of room for paper by the way.

1 upvote
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (Nov 26, 2012)

electronivc viewfinder can be small outside and cover 100% of the view and yet capable to show a preview with exposure.
The whole point here is the size and the preview capabilities.
And there is no vibrating mirror....

0 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Nov 28, 2012)

@7enderbender. Precisely the ignorant snobbish dinosaur I referred to. Do I know OVF? Been shooting for 20 yrs, 15 on Canon. In the film era, OVFs were all you had (and FF too).

Obviously u've only looked at the LCD on yr P&S. Give us a break, all digicams have one. Instead of sounding off, try looking into a contemporary EVF. Sony & M4/3s are a good start. Not those u saw 1-2 years ago.

The OVF-mirror nonsense is a film era relic & really has no place in the digital age. Think: bulk, cost, mirror vibration, shutter lag while waiting for the mirror to lift. How many of yr OVFs are actually 100% view? Bet most of y'all never had one. OVFs are only framing tools!

EVFs are the most significant breakthrough since Live View. U see exactly what the sensor sees REALTIME - BEFORE the exposure! Colour temp, focus peaking, level indicator, histogram, DOF, low light boost, even in outdoor sun! What value being able to "chimp" & shoot less while increasing your keepers?

Paper? Real-time is it?

2 upvotes
JimSab
By JimSab (Dec 10, 2012)

I'm sorry but the need to see what the exposure will look like is unncessary for anyone serious in learning the disciplines of photography. I'm 21, but I'm an old soul, I love OVF's.

Todays cameras are making photographers lazier and lazier, I have a camera where everything is manual, you guess the exposure (or used a separate light meter), completely guess the focus (by distance, nothing else), and I managed to get perfect photos on the medium format film.

Film cameras taught photographers to judge the light, brightness and colour etc - they learned to intuitively judge exactly what they needed to do. Today people just press a button and hope for the best.

OVF's have a DOF button for one, if there aren't any horizons then images don't need to be PERFECTLY straight (or you just need better eyes).

OVF's have as much DR as our eyes, EVFs don't. The simple fact is that you risk missing a potential image because it was "in the shadows" or "blown out" in the EVF.

Yay debates!

0 upvotes
3systermuser
By 3systermuser (Nov 21, 2012)

it does not matter how small these new FF D-SLRs get , the future is mirrorless and EVF SLT or more like A99v mirrorless version.

Once you use and understand the benefit and power of the EVF , you wont like to go back to tunnel vision of the Optical VF.

and as for sure still life IQ , the Fuji X-E1 (that I just bought last night) or the NEX7 at base ISO easily compete well against any huge bulky D-SLRs.

so, as Sony marketing dept concluded , in near future , most of us (unless our main interest is BIF or sports)downgrading to either NEX , Fuji or Samsung type of cameras.

2 upvotes
leomartinez
By leomartinez (Nov 21, 2012)

I do not think the future is going to be so narrow as to not fit a DSLR... well, at least I hope not.

I love the poetic of prisms: SLR, DSLR, MFC, etc.

0 upvotes
raincoat
By raincoat (Nov 22, 2012)

You may be right.
Just like the person who said the future is digital sensors in SLR back in 1930.

And meanwhile, you use your crappy EVIL and SLT while I use stuff that actually works NOW. I'll join you in 20yrs.

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 22, 2012)

Some, even downgrading to smartphones. I don't see FF DSLRs going down as much as APSC which has a lot of competition.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Nov 23, 2012)

Too bad that the Nikon D600 dslr easily beats the A99 for high ISO work, even when using a very good Zeiss lens on the Sony A99. (Irony that both cameras use the same Sony sensor.)

Sony made a big mistake not going with a real moving mirror system in the A99. That SLT system is still just a neat trick (which is good at conveying data to the shooter) but the fixed translucent mirror detracts from image quality.

Now Sony would be smart to release a full frame Nex able to mount those Sony A series Zeiss lenses (and good Minoltas too). Though I think whatever phase detect system is built into the 24MP sensor in the A99 and D600 makes AF during video too slow, so this hypothetical FF Nex system body would need a new sensor for good video--ideally with about 14MP.

24MP is only necessary for massive cropping or huge poster printing--and few can afford the latter.

0 upvotes
barri
By barri (Nov 23, 2012)

I am a bit perplexed about these Sony-bashing replies. I agree that the future lies in mirrorless or SLT and EVFs. I use the A99, I compared it to Canon 5DIII and D600, and I can only say the Sony A99 is a damn fine camera.

@ zodiacfml : and the A99 works NOW. Delivers all a PRO would need. A very exciting camera, and I would never want to go back to an OVF...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Nov 28, 2012)

@HowaboutRAW. So sick of the snobbish dinosaurs still stuck on the OVF treadmill.

The D600's nowhere near the A99-5D Mk III-D800 class. The A99 beats them & even the 1DX in so many ways.

The A99 has full PD AF in any mode, even video and live view. Its default 0.05s shutter release lag beats even the 1DX's default setting (similar front e-curtain tech).

Articulated LCD. I've shot @ waist & ground level more now than in my entire life. A real pro rated body has 200,000 shutter cycles btw.

Plus all the EVF benefits I've been raising. See my other posts.

Fools crap about unnoticeable -0.4EV loss of light. But I've shot the Carl Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 with up to 4.5 stops of in-body image stabilisation. I've had 1/8th s shots at 70mm perfectly usable. U can dream about the shooting possibilities lost with your D600 (& all other makes where they feed you BS about in-lens stabilisation).

I shoot @ ISO 800 you shoot @ ISO 12800. W/o mirror vibration. Which one has better image quality now?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (Nov 21, 2012)

The images look fine and the colors are nice. If I had this camera I'd get great results from it. I'm eager to see how the AF will perform.

4 upvotes
3systermuser
By 3systermuser (Nov 21, 2012)

the AF in the 6D I tested at Canon showroom was not as good as the one in the 5D3 displayed next to this 6D camera.
but I was shocked how noiseless it got and how good its low light AF with the center point.
however , I seldom use the center AF point , most of time I use AF , I use left part of the AF sensor because I like to put my main subject on the left side of the photo most of times.
this is why I am seriously debating returning my D800e once again to get another copy of it or just shun it this year and get back to Sony+ Canon again.

anyway, the 6D is a good camera for low light and it may well be slightly better than the 5D3 in low light street photgraphy world because it is so quiet and so noise-free at ISO12800 as long as shooting it RAW.

but all that said , the Fuji X-E1 is just as good as any of current FF D-SLRs in terms of noise control and shutterlag.

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

because this topic came up in this thread (below):

A Time-Lapse Showing How Quickly Dust Accumulates on Nikon D600 Sensors

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/21/a-time-lapse-showing-how-quickly-dust-accumulates-on-nikon-d600-sensors/#5T1yXBW7Euu9SGZ8.99

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ScarletVarlet
By ScarletVarlet (Nov 26, 2012)

Something about the way Nikon makes their cameras? I took my aging D70s to Death Valley for the Thanksgiving week. Disappointed the old battery isn't performing very well, but that's to be expected. I usually spend a lot of time with Photoshop cleaning up what I can of the damage done by dust in my Nikon glass. No matter how well I cared for each lens I end up with specs, which do not all appear to be dust, but very tiny fragments of paint or similar substance. Interesting article there. Not influencing more, but feels like affirmation I'm moving in the right direction (away from Nikon.) Hoping to have the 6D early next year and have less bother from poor quality components and compounds in the Nikon build.

1 upvote
Kyle Clements
By Kyle Clements (Nov 27, 2012)

Thanks for the post!

After 2600 shots, the build up of dust on my D600 has slowed significantly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUD2taNR8FQ

Once a D600 is broken in, it's not nearly so bad.

Meanwhile, my D70 is still problem free so long as I shoot RAW...

0 upvotes
showmetheprime
By showmetheprime (Nov 21, 2012)

I think the word I'm looking for is "meh".............

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

no what you really wanted to say is "ignore me i am a moron without a life and job who posts crap all day on dpreview".

and in fact that describes you perfectly.....

3 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

He has still yet to answer if he used any of these cameras to hold any authority to what he says. I'll take it he hasn't.

Keep webexpertin', prime.

2 upvotes
Michael Barkowski
By Michael Barkowski (Nov 29, 2012)

Why should this guy get slammed for expressing his feeling about the camera?

0 upvotes
shahid11235
By shahid11235 (Nov 21, 2012)

War between Canon and Nikon fans.. (to be continued) :-p ;-)

0 upvotes
JimSab
By JimSab (Nov 22, 2012)

It's funny because it'll never end, and the same images will always be produced by both brands, of exactly the same quality XD

1 upvote
candc
By candc (Nov 21, 2012)

I know the camera has a built in lens correction feature, was that being used?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 21, 2012)

Chromatic aberration correction was enabled. Vignetting correction was disabled. Distortion correction is only available when reconverting RAW files in-camera after they're shot, and wasn't used for any of these samples.

0 upvotes
andreas2
By andreas2 (Nov 21, 2012)

If only the camera sensors could be as sensitive as the poster on this site....

7 upvotes
eninja
By eninja (Nov 21, 2012)

people comment that Fuji jpeg is better. Are these people comparing on the same ISO level?

people comment in a bad way that sharpness is reduce in high ISO to gain clean photo. i dont understand these people, do they want sharp jpeg photos but noisy ones?
do they insist on magic to happen, that in low light you get photos like you are in bright light? you need to sacrifice something, and balance it, this is called improvement. first of all this is Jpeg, means ready to eat, so if this jpeg taste better than before then people should be happy for the improvement.

6 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 21, 2012)

I don't think anyone's asking for magic. But the fact is that Fuji's JPEG processing is superb - colour rendition and white balance are both excellent, and the balance between sharpening and noise reduction particularly well-judged. It delivers impressive detail at both low and high ISOs.

Meanwhile, as we pointed out in our review of the EOS 5D Mark III, Canon's latest JPEG processing smears fine detail even at low ISOs, regardless of the NR or sharpness setting. The 6D, not surprisingly, looks similar. Whether this matters or not depends on what you're using the JPEGs for, of course.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
6 upvotes
StyleZ7
By StyleZ7 (Nov 21, 2012)

The High ISO pictures (6400; 12800) look just great compared even to one generation older Canon's.
This will be a great step-up to FF and nice step-up to camera Max. Auto ISO setting.

Still crossing my fingers for retail price in banana republic where i'm living ;)

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Marco Nero
By Marco Nero (Nov 21, 2012)

For a Beta (testing camera) with Full Frame sensor and higher sensitivity in Low Light than the 5DIII, I think the results look fairly good, especially when you realize that DPreview didn't use anything too fancy in relation to the lenses they used for these sample shots. I'd say Canon are on to a winner with the 6D. They've also managed to trim the size down a little. Nice results and so far the camera looks like it might become quite a success with the lower price for Wedding photographers, Landscape fans (especially with Night Sky themes) and perhaps even the occasional sport photographer.

5 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 21, 2012)

I think this is a low ISO camera. ISO 200 shots looks spectacular in my perspective as though they are jpegs from RAW. The ISO 800 and above images are easily inferior with grit and less saturation and that's with reduced size on DPR's gallery.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

well you can download the original resolution files.. no need for guessing. but your whole comment makes no sense at all (as your comments below)..... so i guess we should ignore you brabblings....

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 21, 2012)

i was reluctant to pixel peep as these are straight from camera but i did anyway and just discovered the smeared fine detail they were complaining and problem with noise just more noticeable. regarding my comment above, i guess i must have forgotten what its like shooting jpeg since i probably get better NR when shooting raw. so yeah, just ignore me.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Fox Fisher
By Fox Fisher (Nov 21, 2012)

Imagination > Skill > Camera

9 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 21, 2012)

Hmm, are these photos or jpegs straight from the camera? Some photos seem too good with correct white balance, color and contrast.

0 upvotes
Area256
By Area256 (Nov 21, 2012)

You know white balance, colour and contrast can all be changed in the camera? We forgot about those settings with the creation of great RAW processing software - but it's possible to create good in-camera jpegs with a bit of work.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Robert Garcia NYC
By Robert Garcia NYC (Nov 21, 2012)

Yes, just take a look at Fuji XPro1 and XE1 spectacular jpegs.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 21, 2012)

Hmm...that's possible as this camera might have been getting a little help from the DPR team. Again, only some of the photos and not all.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 21, 2012)

Just to re-iterate, these are all out-of-camera JPEGs with no additional processing. The only 'help' the camera got was exposure compensation at the time of shooting when necessary, and occasional intervention over white balance setting. We'd do this with any camera, and fully expect users to as well.

4 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 21, 2012)

I kinda agree now as I went to Nikon's and Sony galleries, and then a 5dMark III. I discovered that there's more chance of cold white balance, less contrast, less saturation on Nikon and Sony on the samples, while the Mark III, though has less remarkable sample photos than the 6D here, performs better than the two. Anyway, I'm just amazed on some shots that I could not find a thing to correct in post processing.

0 upvotes
Scott Eaton
By Scott Eaton (Nov 21, 2012)

Nice to know that Canon is still using the same engine that blows reds and produces mushy colors that rival 1998 consumer print film.

6 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Flower shots and sepia tone really show off blown reds and mushy colours.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Nov 21, 2012)

I don't think any digital camera could do that . I believe it's only possible in post to produce the look you're after.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

and good to know that pro canon photographers still make a ton of money with such cameras.. you are a jerk scott.

1 upvote
asp1880
By asp1880 (Nov 21, 2012)

Blown reds are entirely fixable in-camera. Just pick a "natural" picture style and/or dial down saturation a notch or two.

2 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Nov 21, 2012)

I'm getting incredibly bored with the constant excuse of camera manufacturers say' This is only a preproduction sample, don't judge the image quality'.
If it's not the final image quality, then why send the camera to the worlds LARGEST photography web site to have them post sample photos? Because the whole 'this is preproduction' is just a backdoor excuse.

5 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Sometimes last minute changes are done. They're really just making a disclaimer in case that they do.

The images look fine to me, personally. Don't see what people are complaining about.

3 upvotes
Area256
By Area256 (Nov 21, 2012)

Sony changed the RX1 slightly after the initial announcement. It does happen sometimes. However I'd bet it's very unlikely to change at this point; since for Canon to be selling these worldwide starting in December, they'll likely already have started building up stock - and there is a good chance this camera is from one of those initial runs. So unless they find some flaw in the production, the only things that is likely to change would be the firmware.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Nov 21, 2012)

From what I've seen so far, most, if not all, Canon pre-production cameras produce the same image quality as production copies.

0 upvotes
ivan1973
By ivan1973 (Nov 21, 2012)

I classify those who whine about little things into incapable photographers. Seriously speaking even the lowest grade DSLRs nowadays are so advance and so capable that it would only be the photographers's problem not to have taken good photos. I am still using primitive old 5D with max iso 1600 and very happy with the images.

8 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

don´t spoil the fun for the nikon fanboys to write something negative about canon.

most of them can not take a decent photo with all their gear.

7 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

I had my 40D for a few years before selling it to get my 7D. Loved it to bits and was pretty much able to do any shot I wanted with it.

I only got my 7D for video purposes. As a camera I don't even use most of it's more advanced features, as the photos I take with my 7D now are no "better" than the photos I took with my 40D. This isn't a bad thing, it just shows that the camera does not make the photograph. In other words, I act like I still have a 40D.

If a photographer wants to improve his/her images, then he/she should look into their technique first before splashing out on gear. 99% of the time practice yields better images than any new DSLR purchase.

7 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Nov 21, 2012)

Very funny Gthmoth.

1 upvote
JimSab
By JimSab (Nov 21, 2012)

Peoples comments make me laugh. Yes it's all personal opinion and now you have reason to complain because the JPEG images don't look good at 100%, because ALL of you are going to print 1m wide images from this camera in Jpeg where it will be the only time this "fault" will be visible.

The 5DmkIII's raw images were astounding at all ISO's (bar 102400 because that's stupid).... and it seems that the 6D's images might ALMOST be slightly better at high ISO.. which is fantastic! In Raw that is, I don't care about jpeg.

I still cannot WAIT till I buy this camera. I don't need the "Extra features" of the Nikon, I like Canon and always will. Besides, if the main thing is the lack of focus points - it makes little difference if both cameras' focus points are in a similarly small area of the frame.

I enjoy people's winging though, it makes me laugh, you should go study optimism or something :)

7 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 21, 2012)

If you don't need a camera's 20 MP, then why buy it anyway? But if you need/want it, then those 20 MP should deliver the goods. Preferably not only via RAW but also in the JPGs.

If you ever had the pleasure to work with the new Fuji's fabulous JPG engine, then Canon's overprocessing engine is almost an insult to the eyes.

Will the 6D be a great camera? I sure think so. Will it be capable of wonderful results in RAW? I have no doubts about it.

But the JPG engine simply is subpar compared to most of it's competitor's. The argument of not needing 20 MP anyway isn't valid, because why does it give you 20 MP if this resolution is useless in the first place? That's all I say. ;)

3 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

For most photography purposes, JPEG isn't a good idea. Only 8-bit, so a lot of dynamic range is lost. Most serious photographers usually shoot in RAW.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 21, 2012)

Absolutely agree regarding to shooting and developing RAWs for maximum quality. Pretty much none of my pictures hanging on the wall is a JPG ooc.
But that's no excuse for a badly executed JPG-engine. If nobody ever shoots JPGs for anything above 2 MP, then why is a JPG-engine for the fullsize pictures included at all?

2 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Same reason why auto is included with DSLRs, to appeal to newcomers. Auto is terrible on DSLRs yet you don't see photographers selling their cameras over it.

0 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 21, 2012)

Agree regarding auto-modes.
Still I see a difference to JPG quality, because most people buying into a new camera first off judge it's image quality through the web and here the material is made up by ~95% of JPG images, not RAWs.
So I bet (most) camera manufacturers want their JPG images to look good and for some "good" means noise-free, no matter 'bout the loss in details.
When your name is Hasselblad, JPGs won't be of much concern for average costumers, but when your name is Canon it is for sure an important parameter your average costumer will judge. Mentioned costumers like noise-free images, so here the vicious circle closes...

1 upvote
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Unless you're a press/sports photographer, I fail to see how JPEG quality is a factor.

0 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 21, 2012)

Well, many people also use lower end fullframes for holiday/family snaps and stuff like that and dislike going the RAW route with all those pictures. Yes, quite some people also snap with fullframes, at least I know some of them.
Myself not included as I don't care that much for snapshots and am used to, prefer and sometimes even forced (greetings from Sigma cams) doing RAWs.

Anyway, have fun with the 6D in case you get it. ;)
Greetings to Ireland and have a nice evening.

0 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 22, 2012)

We're going back to newcomers and such then. Haven't heard of a lot of people use FF cameras though, and personally I think your statement is false. I'd speculate the majority of photographers with a DSLR are using crop sensors. FF cameras are only now becoming cheap enough to be more widely used, but only gearheads and more serious photographers only ever seem to use them.

Personally people who use DSLRs to just take snapshots disappoint me. No thought process involved, and generally a gigantic waste of money. I was under the naive impression that people buy DSLRs with the intention to be more serious with photography, rather than use it as an overpriced compact.

As for the 6D, at the moment I've no intention of buying it. I will however probably get a FF DSLR someday so I can use inexpensive circular fisheye lenses and such.

0 upvotes
Adrian Van
By Adrian Van (Nov 20, 2012)

The image quality is certainly good enough and 1600 iso and higher looks better for noise in jpeg at least than 5D mark2 I would say in my opinion, would others agree? Process from Raw might be similar after PP. Many of the samples look a bit contrasty though with not enough dynamic range on sunny days with deep dark shadows compared to Nikon's cameras with ADL. Again Post Processing could level the field on dynamic range again or achieve much better results.

0 upvotes
bskbo
By bskbo (Nov 20, 2012)

Thanks for the gallery. I think the pictures are good enough to judge the quality of the sensor. It's amazing how good these iso 25.600 shots are.

1 upvote
ML_Digital_nYc
By ML_Digital_nYc (Nov 20, 2012)

Just look at the image with the thing on the right side, just totally hideous color, clarity, noise reduction, sharpness... NIKON fixes all that so don't worry.

1 upvote
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

"the thing on the right".. you brain is not very evolved uh?

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
ML_Digital_nYc
By ML_Digital_nYc (Nov 20, 2012)

you see it too gothmoth...i'm glad you agree with me.

0 upvotes
wisep01
By wisep01 (Nov 20, 2012)

i think that by "thing on the right'" he means the right hemisphere of his brain, which is clearly hideous in terms of sharpness and clarity

0 upvotes
ML_Digital_nYc
By ML_Digital_nYc (Nov 20, 2012)

wait, wisep01...are we talking about the first thing or the second thing?

0 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Are you really that stupid?

4 upvotes
ML_Digital_nYc
By ML_Digital_nYc (Nov 21, 2012)

Shleed no need to call wisep01 stupid, that's not nice...although I don't even see a sample image of the hemisphere so maybe he is a bit off?

0 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Okay, you're either trolling or being incredibly stupid. I'm hoping it's the former.

1 upvote
ML_Digital_nYc
By ML_Digital_nYc (Nov 21, 2012)

Shleed...when you step back and really take a good overall view of the drivel here, you shall see this is merely a big pot of daft hyperbole stew. I am merely adding my pinch of salt.

1 upvote
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't know if it is made on purpose, but shooting macro is usually used to conceal poor ISO performance. Slow gradients, even colors, no small and sharp detail. Cactus, rind, leaves - are best for this. Same on the test scene - hand painted figures, wooden man, fiber balls. My cell phone will show decent performance on these objects.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
showmetheprime
By showmetheprime (Nov 20, 2012)

Dear oh dear. Well we can see why you won't be buying it for its high ISO performance. Total lack of detail anywhere, Canon's trademark in camera mushy noise reduction strikes again. And of course we know the sensor's already a fail because Canon will not trump the performance of any camera higher in the pricing tree under any circumstances. With a feature set that most low grade point and shoots can match the question is why would anyone buy this at all? Is this the beginning of the end of Canon? Or are we already well along that road?

8 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Nov 20, 2012)

Yes, it's been the beginning of the end for Canon since...well, every time they release a new camera. This is another uninformed, repetitive response that misses the point yet again. Noise reduction can be modified and who buys a camera like this to shoot in JPEG? Those who do shoot in JPEG know how to change the pertinent settings. Also, Canon offers different feature sets that occasionally do offer superior image quality over more expensive cameras. The most excrutiatingly, painfully obvious example is the 5DMkIII and the 1DX. Sometimes people need features, sometimes they mostly just need great IQ. I'm sure Canon will go out of business in several hundred years with their horrible track record of forcing everyone else to up their game with something other than meaningless gimmicks.

10 upvotes
showmetheprime
By showmetheprime (Nov 20, 2012)

What on earth are you on about? The 1DX absolutely smokes the soccer mom's favourite 5DIII, it's not even in the same ball park. So if the 6D is not a "JPEG camera" then Canon have been wasting all of their effort for years, because where Canon's RAW performance is concerned the sensor is a joke. That seems to make the 5DIII a fail too then by that standard. I guess you're right.

2 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Nov 20, 2012)

I know for sure it will be a fine camera aimed at a part of the market where pixel level judgments and DR comparisons are out of the question. Aimed at the facebook generation, those images will look wonderful at max. 1280px screen use.

1 upvote
showmetheprime
By showmetheprime (Nov 20, 2012)

Ah yes, it doesn't matter that a full frame camera produces utter garbage where IQ is concerned because all anyone wants to do is post an 800 pixel image to Facebook with their £1800 camera. Don't make me laugh.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (Nov 20, 2012)

The 1D X does have somewhat better noise performance, but the 5DMkIII has better detail resolution. Canon's RAW performance is excellent and their JPEG engine is excellent. Parameters may be tweaked to produce way overprocessed images, but if you know what you're doing JPEG images are excellent. Don't be so stupid.

3 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Prime, have you used any of those cameras to make judgement on them? Be honest.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Nov 20, 2012)

The slightly out of focus parts of the images are very unpleasantly mushy. The production version of this camera will need to be vastly improved to compete with the likes of the Sigma DP Merrills or even the venerable D700, let alone the D600 or D800.

5 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

and that matters how?

when YOUR images still look like crap no matter what camera and fantastic sensor you use... LOL

Comment edited 9 seconds after posting
1 upvote
compay
By compay (Nov 20, 2012)

I had a D700, which served me really well the last 4 years....i sold it for a good price...than wanted the d600 (not the d800 because of those too big files). Heard the stories about oil spots...and decided to go to my old roots Canon (still own my F1n and the FD L lenses) again. So sold the absolute great but absurdley long 24-70 2.8 ed as well. And bought the 5d mark 3. Woow finally those Canon colors again. I am really really satisfied with the 5d mark 3...which feels like a sensitive rock. And when i see those examples of the D6, i think this will be a great camera also. The D700 did a realy great job but i was not always happy with the colors especially skin tones. I believe photographs you have to judge from some distance. I do not like or want to take part on the nikon canon rivalry...but when i have to say something in general....nikon is for the scientist who wants to hear from (nikon or nikon men or DxO) that it is the best camera...

3 upvotes
compay
By compay (Nov 22, 2012)

woow russbarnes....you really do have intelligent answers........for a person like you....

you are a really interesting person....for persons like you

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Nov 20, 2012)

Secondly is the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L which caught me again with its nasty distortion at 28mm.

But firstly thanks for the gallery that makes it easier ( not that I am interested in this crazy canon pop-out of a camera ) for viewers to do a quick test of the camera's capabilities.

0 upvotes
pca7070
By pca7070 (Nov 20, 2012)

Getting used to Feveon X3 images, these really look fuzzy.

2 upvotes
my username was already taken

Wow, my old D700 smokes this toy!
Clearly, if you're moving up to full frame and have a limited investment in glass or if you're just starting out, buying a D600 over the 6D is the only smart thing to do.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

Yes, if you shoot sports or landscapes

0 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 20, 2012)

Love your no nonsense comment that actually wants be to do the complete opposite...

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 20, 2012)

Thank you for passing judgement on who is smart and who isn't. I must be both since I have a D700 and a 5D3.

2 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Nov 20, 2012)

Nikon is better for sports? Guess that explains all the white lenses at the games...

9 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 20, 2012)

what is to always start with "this or that is better"?
Hello, this is about the D600 or the 6D - and at present has problems with oil and dust on the sensor (D600) - otherwise she wipes away the D700 full. . . the D600 and the 6D

who think - buy one anyway Pentax K-5 ;)

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

EmmanuelStarchild: now we talking about low end FF cameras. Not $5k+. And I know that Nikon had much better AF even on very cheap DSLRs

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

rusticus: K-5 is great camera indeed, but AF is just bad

0 upvotes
The A-Team
By The A-Team (Nov 20, 2012)

Right, because how could anyone possibly coax a decent shot out of the 6D? I mean really...

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Photos talk. Not gear.

0 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (Nov 21, 2012)

SEtI :
K5's AF is just bad ?
German photo magazine do something than you have never try : compare AF performances for Canon 7D, Nikon D7000,
Pentax K5, Sony alpha55, Panasonic GH1, Olympus E-P1 and Sony NEX-5.
The K5 have the most accurate AF of ALL DSLR !!
http://uppix.net/d/1/1/bc3646aa9693464ef8951d4bcc06f.jpg
The article is here :
http://www.colorfoto.de/testbericht/7/7/6/2/0/2/Test_Autofokus_ColorFoto_2011-09.pdf
K5 : 72% of accurate images.
D7000 : 51%
7d : 50%
So yeah, maybe Canikon's AF is faster, but what the point to have such fast AF is your images are inaccurate ?

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 21, 2012)

Couscousdelight: you're funny =)

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

that german photo magazine is written by clueless people.

magazines these days are just crap.. written mostly by people who have no clue and do improper testing.

just recently some headline in a german magazine: "over 140 lenses tested". and when you count the tests not even 80 lenses where tested.

and then the test results differs from issue to issue.
the same lens is tested in 2 issues and the result is so different.. well it is useless to talk about most magazines.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Bristlenose Mike
By Bristlenose Mike (Nov 20, 2012)

Have a look here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotois/8193961656/

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

What ISO?

0 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

People can you please tell me where is that creepy banding? Can't see it at 1600-6400

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 20, 2012)

How come the 7D gets a built in flash but the 6D doesn't?

1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 20, 2012)

OOps worng thread.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Nov 20, 2012)

Or for that matter why not the 5D3 either? I guess they weighted build robustness over convenience. A built in flash would be useful for impromptu fill, or for controlling off-camera flash.

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 20, 2012)

why should the 6D have a built BLTZ? An external flash is always better

0 upvotes
The A-Team
By The A-Team (Nov 20, 2012)

Built in flash with TTL control and and swivel screen would have surely been icing on the cake.

1 upvote
Apewithacamera
By Apewithacamera (Nov 20, 2012)

I would buy this camera anyday over the D600! It is that good!

8 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Nov 20, 2012)

Really? So tell me what is the clear difference between the 6D and D600. Do you have a site with images to elaborate your findings why it is so much better? Love to see it!

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

It has better colors especially skin tones as for me.

7 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 20, 2012)

@Ape: I wouldn't have expected any other opinion from you (or Vegas). ;-)

@SETI: where have you seen portraits with 6D to compare skintones?

6 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

I had 5D and 5DII and from 5DIII I see that skin tones didn't change so much. And D600's skin tones don't impress me

4 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 20, 2012)

Look we all know that Nikon over colour and after processing is a must. With a Canon a lot less if any is required. That's why I got rid of all my Nikon kit and glass years ago. Never looked back....

3 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

BeanyPic: Same story. My favorite body was first 5D... it was pure magic with 35/1.4, 135/2 and 70-200/4IS

1 upvote
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 20, 2012)

Strictly speaking this is not a 6D purchase - way too much slimmed down and artificially neutered - what you can actually better than other cameras: Well, the stupid built-in GPS and WiFi - for me nonsense

1 upvote
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

What bells and whistles you will miss? And what is your style of shooting?

0 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Nov 20, 2012)

@SETI, Yes, I understand that you prefer one camera over the other, I do that too. The question is why the 6D is better than D600 as monkeywithcamera says. How did he test that, where are his findings. Just saying it is so much better makes you sound as a brandholic

0 upvotes
Damo83
By Damo83 (Nov 20, 2012)

@Apewithacamera

Thanks for your input.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 20, 2012)

The color issue has become the last bastion of digital photographic irrationality. Usually it is used when the camera of someone's preference lacks some other IQ abilities in comparison to most other makers' cameras. This has been the case of Olympus (43's size inferiority complex) and recently of Canon users (because of DR and shadows quality).

It's interesting that when Canon had best DR and high ISO, those were touted as most relevant. When Nikon stole those crowns (D3/D3s and Sony sensored cameras), they became irrelevant. Then AF: since the 1D3 debacle and the poor performance of almost every Canon in that respect, including 5D2, that was not relevant anymore. Now that Canon has recovered some distance in the ISO area (but not matched Nikon actually), it's imprtant again, and AF, my God! Now it's the single most important feature of a camera! How can anybody use a camera that's not at the same level as the newest Canons? These people must be nuts or just Nikon fanatics! ;-)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
SETI
By SETI (Nov 21, 2012)

Absolutely hollow talking... bunch of measurebators

2 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 20, 2012)

The only problem I have worth mentioning with Canon's image quality on their DSLRS is banding. Looks like the 6D is yet another camera with this issue.

Canon and Panasonic are notorious for it, and to me, it's nearly a complete deal breaker for Canon. Luckily their Powershot Camera division got the message and can produce ISO 12,800 images from the G15 that are actually pretty decent with zero banding.

It's odd to me to watch Canon lose their grip as a market leader. Not sending DPR a review sample (been an issue for a while now and not just with DPR), not catching up in sensor technology, and not being as competitive as Nikon on DSLR's.... one has to wonder who's calling the shots over there at Canon (both USA and Japan that is).

It's pretty clear to see from the outside that Canon seems to be losing ground on reality, even though they continue to post profits. That won't last long and I dare say next year they might get a big dose of reality.

-Carl

12 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Nov 20, 2012)

Banding is only a problem if you push 3 stops and then pixel peep. Have you been paying attention to the D600 disaster? The door is wide open for Canon to own the entry level FF market.

3 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 20, 2012)

Hi Jack, what is the "D600 disaster"? The dust/oil issue? That's part of almost every new launch these days (recall D7000?), at least with Nikon. It has not stopped the D7000 becoming one of the best sellers ever for Nikon, beating soundly the competition at that market point. The D600 has been in the top10 best-selling group for almost the whole period since launch at Amazon (it's now 9th), even with D800 still selling well (it's been in the top20 since launch). Other than that, there has been absolutely no problems with the D600, which is pretty remarkable given the AF issues with D800, the light leaks of 5D3 and problems with almost every camera launched recently.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
9 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Nov 20, 2012)

@cgarrard: Even if Canon loses their market leader position, Sony is nowhere ready to take the lead. They have all the sensors and cameras, but not enough lenses to fit into Canon's shoes. Only Nikon is in the right place to take the crown.

Looks like YOU need a BIG dose of reality.

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 20, 2012)

I doubt Canon is going to suffer much in the short run. They and Nikon have huge brand recognition in photography. It only needed for Nikon to produce half-decent compacts and they are already second to Canon in that market. Canon has this very basic ML model, no lenses, and ity's already selling very well everywhere. Sony and Panny, even though big electronics names, are struggling in every department, making huge losses for the past few years. They should care about other departments, cameras won't save them from the Korean competition (Samsung and LG).

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 20, 2012)

correct canon has the best SYSTEM.... and with the next sensor generation the complainers will have to stop complaining.

yes canon sensors are not the best right now.... who cares?
millions of pro photographer have take fantastic images with worse equipment in the past.

as if a better sensor will help any of you guys to make a better image. focus on your own skills not DXO marks.

the next generation of FF sensors from canon will make the excellent camera bodys even better. but then some doorknob photographers will still complain.

wait until canon moves from 500nm to a smaller process and you will see.

8 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 20, 2012)

Theres one small "if".

If Canon can do better. Sure they might been just milking customers with recycling same sensor tech over and over.. But that "if". What if they cant do better?

About banding, well if it that was just 3 stops push and pixel-peep issue, nobody would care. Unfortunately unless you own 1D class, its "lift shadows" and look at nice colored patterns. And DR in highlights is pretty bad too.

It doesnt mean you cant do great pics with Canon. It just means its harder. And seriously outdated.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Nov 20, 2012)

Hi rhlpetrus, not only the dust and oil, but the AF on the D600 is not good.

Mescalamba, there is nothing wrong with Canon's highlight DR.
As shot: http://www.jmphotocraft.com/lrdr/brady_as.jpg
Adjusted: http://www.jmphotocraft.com/lrdr/brady_lr.jpg

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BeanyPic
By BeanyPic (Nov 20, 2012)

Eh!!!

0 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (Nov 20, 2012)

Sorry, but the extremely minor problem of a light leak on the 5D3 (and no other problems since in case anyone's keeping score) is nothing compared to the horrific oil/dust that comes back after cleaning the 600 over and over and over again. Ask Lensrentals what a nightmare it's become. They actually tell their renters to watch for it DURING their shoot as the spots will come back from a professionally cleaned sensor that quickly. The only reason this camera is selling so well is that most people buying it don't read reviews, forums, hang out at lensrentals, and so on. They don't know but one day they will as they wonder why their pics are getting worse and worse.

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

there is no if.. get a clue what your talking about.
look what canon is producing beside cameras (litho, stepper etc....)

it´s just the case that canon has maximised it´s profit from the 500nm process.

that is why canon is making profit and sony not.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Nov 20, 2012)

@All (no offense intended): Learn the ways of the CORPORATION, you must... Cheers! :) P.S.: I've just had a terrible experience - my Teutonic car entered the scheduled maintenance (1 day) and I got a Toyota Avensis as a spare car. There was no "Vorsprung Durch Technik" feeling at all, it was the most boring thing I was able to drive so far, but it did the job. I think this will be the role of the 6D.: to do the job. Each and every day.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 20, 2012)

@photo nut:

Why are you mentioning Sony? I never mentioned Sony at all nor do I intend, or did I intend to say they would be ahead of Canon. That's ridiculous. Sony has no chance to be ahead of Canon right now, or in the foreseeable future.. but Nikon clearly does.

It doesn't take a genius to pay attention to the fact that Canon's sensors are starting to lag behind. Many people see this quite plainly. Are they still generally good sensors? Of course.. but if Canon dont' want to give up the top position in imaging they better start paying attention to details out there.

You're reply makes zero sense in the context I wrote.

Carl

0 upvotes
shleed
By shleed (Nov 21, 2012)

Does it HONESTLY bloody matter which company is better? Really?

Talk about your cameras all you want, you're just going to take crap at the end of the day.

0 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (Nov 21, 2012)

No.

What matters is consumer satisfaction. I've seen an increasing level of dissatisfaction among Canon users, and less and less response from Canon in addressing issues. Instead of making excuses or apologies for Canon, all users should be concerned about this especially when they have thousands of dollars invested into a Canon system.

Not getting DPR a review sample is unthinkable, and rest assured DPR aren't the only press Canon is fumbling the ball on. New, young, and experienced people are taking over for many at Canon and it's showing- so they better learn quick. Canon isn't bullet proof.

Bottom line, Canon's service and product are starting to wane and aren't living up to their usual stellar standards of late. So that is something to be concerned about for some. If it doesn't matter to you, then no need to spend any energy on the topic.

Carl

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/21/a-time-lapse-showing-how-quickly-dust-accumulates-on-nikon-d600-sensors/#5T1yXBW7Euu9SGZ8.99

0 upvotes
marcal
By marcal (Nov 20, 2012)

I do not think that the 6d with very good optics can drop files so poor.
Jpg file you took with the added noise?

2 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

so again.. this time slow....what is it you want to say?

3 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 20, 2012)

These are out-of-camera JPEGs at default settings, with no additional processing. This means Long exposure NR is OFF, and High ISO Speed NR is set to 'Standard'. The EOS 6D's JPEG output, unsurprisingly, looks very much like the 5D Mark III's, with the same noise reduction effects on low-contrast detail such as foliage, even at low ISOs.

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 20, 2012)

My guess is it will perform very well in RAW, close to 5D3. Will still lose, likely, in DR at low ISO to D600, but otherwise excellent IQ. I can't understand these fanboysm from both sides: "awesome, best than anything Nikon ever produced", "cr@p, the disastrous Canon sensor of 5 years ago". Hyperbole, pure and simple.

6 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 20, 2012)

@rhlpetrus

"Fanboys" is a term that is part of the culture of this site, but many of the "fanboys" are likely employees of the respective companies.

Amazon has acknowledged that paid reviewers are posting all over their site--dpreview is owned by Amazon--what controls does dpreview have that Amazon doesn't?

That's why some posters make nonsensical, unmeasured statements in favor of one brand or the other. They are essentially advertisers. It doesn't matter that they have a gallery showing the kids, the dog, etc., or a carefully crafted posting history designed to get you to trust them.

I'm with you, as far as the camera. Looks great, wish I had the money to buy it, don't sweat the small stuff. For me though, this camera would just be a big toy. The m43 cameras that I shoot have all the IQ I need for my purposes.

4 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Nov 20, 2012)

Problem of 6D is called 5DMK2.

7 upvotes
Houseqatz
By Houseqatz (Nov 20, 2012)

^ I agree.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 20, 2012)

@bobbarber:

you are right, there are professional "spin doctors" as they are called in politics posting here. You see that when a camera is launched, they come up with totally unsubstantiated claims and "facts" in support of a camera, or against one. The easiest way to spot them is when you see someone that gets a camera and keeps moaning about "problems" over and over, get multiple samples that are all faulty and never waste the opportunity to bring it back. It happens in all forums, but I have found that particularly disturbing in the lower and upper Nikon forums. It's either "focus issues" or something else, like "oil on sensor", lately. This always come up with cameras that are, in some way, revolutionary, like the D7000, The D800 and now the D600. On Canon's side you had the 7D, the 5D3 and wait and see, it'll happen to the 6D as well.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
1 upvote
SETI
By SETI (Nov 20, 2012)

Mescalamba: 6D has same shitty AF?

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/21/a-time-lapse-showing-how-quickly-dust-accumulates-on-nikon-d600-sensors/#5T1yXBW7Euu9SGZ8.99

0 upvotes
ManualFocusG
By ManualFocusG (Nov 20, 2012)

Just comparing the studio shots at ISO 51200 and 102400, the 6D shows a lot less purple splodges than the 5D III. In fact it looks much better to my eyes! Very encouraging.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-eos-6d-beta-preview-samples-gallery#page=3

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-low-light-iso-samples

DPR, what's your view?

1 upvote
R N
By R N (Nov 20, 2012)

It seemed like this sequence was taken to shoot for the shadows and low light shooting... and I'm liking what I'm seeing: clean shadows. (2321807, for example)

Bring on the production camera tests, including RAW!

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 20, 2012)

When I compared these JPEG mud compare my X100 JPEG, then I know why I will not buy a 6D
;)

5 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Nov 20, 2012)

It is even worse when comparing it to my X-Pro 1. Unfortunately Canon has not improved the JPG engine so the Fuji X will still be my compact JPG cameras of choice. Too bad because the build in WiFi on the 6D would have been great for quick uploads of JPG images.

I am sure that the 6D will shine in RAW, though. And that is an issue where the X-Pro 1 RAW images processors (i.e. Adobe Lightroom / ACR) struggle.
Plus Fuji is a bit enthousiastic about their ISO values compared to the real world...

5 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

who except photojournalists and noobs shoot JPG?

everyone concerned about image quality will shoot RAW anyway.

8 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Nov 20, 2012)

A lot of people are more concerned about the last few percentage points of image quality on a test chart than the contend or composition of their images. Those people usually rant around in forums only showing poor test images in their stream if they share any photos at all.

So for pixelpeeping snobs JPG is not an option. But for people who own cameras with good JPG engines (such as Fuji X-Series) and who are technically skilled enough photographers who can get the exposure right in camera, JPG has become a serious alternative.

3 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Nov 20, 2012)

Oh, and dpreview thinks so, too! In their X-Pro 1 Review they write:

"Last but not least, the X-Pro1's JPEG processing can deliver just as much resolution as the converted RAW. We were impressed by the X100's JPEG processing, and the X-Pro1 lives up to the same standards."

2 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Nov 20, 2012)

@Gothmoth: How much is your statement colored by the quality of the jpeq engine in your camera?
There is a big difference between "jpeg is cr*p" and "my cameras jpeg engine is cr*p".

0 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 20, 2012)

i never shoot JPG.... 8 BIT... bah......

i have some olympus cameras too and they are well known for their good JPG engine. still i don´t use JPG.

0 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Nov 20, 2012)

Nice Camera!

2 upvotes
Summi Luchs
By Summi Luchs (Nov 20, 2012)

I really don't understand why camara makers build in such an aggressive noise reduction in their JPEG engine at this camera level. Yes - the low noise looks impressive, but one of the main reasons to buy a modern FF camrea is their high resolution and mainteined image quality at high ISO. I hope NR will have enough customisation settings in the final version - at least for those who don't shoot everything RAW. I must admit that I like the convenience of out-of-camera JPEGs and make use of it while shooting in less critical light situations.

2 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (Nov 20, 2012)

NR was set to "standard". If the 6D is like other recent Canon models, there will be two lower settings ("low" and "off") and one higher setting ('high"). When I shoot JPEG on my 7D (only for sports), I set the NR to "low". That's a reasonable compromise between NR and resolution. Obviously, for best results, shoot RAW.

0 upvotes
Managarm
By Managarm (Nov 20, 2012)

Whoa, the JPG engine is horrible again. Still all about heavy noise reduction and overdone sharpening for getting "nice" looking images? All those bushes and grass reduced to one green textureless blob at ISO 200 - why? That's completely unnecessary, I bet the sensor doesn't need this mistreatment.
One really has to wonder if the target audience of such a nice camera per se wants picture output in cellphone quality.
No noise at ISO 6400? Great, and no details either. I can't imagine a single situation where I want to take an image of such low quality.
Edge performance of the 24-70 II L also is quite underwhelming, even for a lens half it's price. Anyway, don't have to buy that as long as Canon has some of it's very nice prime lenses.

At least bring out some RAWs with decent optics in front of the camera and we will for sure see the image quality that was expected. But this overprocessed JPG mess is not even worth discussing.

10 upvotes
smatty
By smatty (Nov 20, 2012)

I wish I could upload the JPG Engine firmware from my Fuji X-Pro 1 to my Canon DSLR's. I am sure the 6D will shine in RAW (like my 5D MK II) but I am tired of having to post process these images so much to get decent color results (especially skin tones).

Now with the WLAN function build in, the 6D would have benefited from a better JPG engine to use and upload these images straight OOC...

2 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Nov 20, 2012)

At least for stills we can shoot RAW. Unfortunately, the DIGIC also processes HD video, good if you hate noise, not good if you like to see crisp details....

0 upvotes
seta666
By seta666 (Nov 20, 2012)

Well, same as with 5D mk III preview samples, super-high noise reduction.

Open the iso 100 and 3200 side by side, zoom on the wood texture and compare.

In the iso 3200 the texture has completely disapeared because of agressive noise reduction

3 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Nov 20, 2012)

Your reasoning applies to every camera manufacturer out there without exception... No camera regardless of sensor size looks identical at ISO 100 & 3200 respectively...

Whats important is the overall image presented at those extreme sensitivities... and in this regard Canon excels...

4 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't know about 'every camera':

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5639653565/photos/2314688/d600-a99-6400

Level of detail does differ.

0 upvotes
tiberiousgracchus
By tiberiousgracchus (Nov 20, 2012)

Well I'm impressed.

4 upvotes
The A-Team
By The A-Team (Nov 20, 2012)

High ISO images are stunning. 25K looks better than 1600 on my 50D. Cannot wait to get this camera!

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Couscousdelight
By Couscousdelight (Nov 20, 2012)

That "oil paint" effect on a 200iso shot is weird :
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2321798/img_0164?inalbum=canon-eos-6d-beta-preview-samples-gallery
Why Canon's jpg engine have to smooth a 200iso image ?

4 upvotes
Hobbit13
By Hobbit13 (Nov 20, 2012)

you're right, even at 50% that image doesn't look sharp! I hope the ISO200 is a typo in EXIF, @ISO2000 is would be OK image quality.

5 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 20, 2012)

That's just Canon's JPEG processing, as previously seen on the EOS 5D Mark III (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/23, 'Low contrast detail at low sensitivities').

3 upvotes
showmetheprime
By showmetheprime (Nov 20, 2012)

Wow, even DPR agree that the usual overly aggressive noise reduction and smudged detail is the same as the 5DIII. Maybe you should think about that outrageous score you gave that camera against the D800 again. Canon's JPEG engine is a joke - this is a RAW only camera once again. Oh wait, banding prevents any use of the RAW files, so I guess Canon are once again back to the drawing board...

2 upvotes
HarrieD7000
By HarrieD7000 (Nov 20, 2012)

I'm impressed, great pictures. But could be expected, when looking what the camera and the lenses will cost. Just above my budget.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Nov 20, 2012)

Once again everyone whines and niggles that the low level pixel shadow detail isn't as good as blah blah from blah blah. So what, no-one ever looks at pictures that close anyway! If your photos were any good people would be too stunned to care about that nerdy crap.

View these pics at a proper size and they look great, as usual, and no different from anyone elses.

15 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Nov 20, 2012)

True dat. However, some of us who do event such as sports and wedding photography not only do post-crops but blow ups as well. So for those instances, those minute niggles add up.

7 upvotes
The A-Team
By The A-Team (Nov 20, 2012)

Well said.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (Nov 20, 2012)

No, not well said. This high iso noise performance, dynamic range (shadows) and details is exactly the point of buying a full frame camera like this. If that performance is not there, what's the point??

With your argument you might as well save yourself a couple of thousands and get a camera with a smaller sensor. I agree with that sentiment. But that makes this camera rather pointless, doesn't it?

12 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Nov 20, 2012)

1) You're correct

2) That's why few people need this or any other $2,000 + camera

2 upvotes
BioTraveler
By BioTraveler (Nov 20, 2012)

I might as well save a couple thousand dollars and get a small sensor SLR? This camera IS a couple thousand dollars!! Who is giving away free small sensor cameras? I'll take 3!

1 upvote
EDWARD ARTISTE
By EDWARD ARTISTE (Nov 20, 2012)

no pixel peepers? speak for yourself bud. For photogs that also do design work, its 1:1 all day every day bay-bay!

0 upvotes
JimSab
By JimSab (Nov 21, 2012)

I'm pretty sure sports photographers wouldn't buy this camera, and wedding photographers would shoot in Raw if they were smart.

The 6D's images are a fuckload better than pretty much any APS-C camera, and there are a lot of other things a FF camera has to offer over a crop camera. It's not just those two specs that matter.

If people were careful with their exposures then the 6D's "limited" DR wouldn't be a problem.

I'm pretty sure the comparisons b/w the MkIII, D600, D800 and 6D are splitting hairs - no one in their right mind could tell much of a difference in a massive ISO 6400+ print, they'll be enjoying the image for its subject matter.

People have gotten HQ 1m wide prints for over 6 years now with their DSLRs, all that's really changed (i'm mostly basing this info off my 5D) is the ease of use, automation, speed and ability to shoot in no light.

If you want to heavily crop images, you probably should've gotten a better lens for the job, like they would've 10 years ago.

0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Nov 21, 2012)

@mike, I wasn't talking about the 6D in specific but a good FF at those good IQ numbers in general.

0 upvotes
Area256
By Area256 (Nov 20, 2012)

If at all possible, it would be great to see some RAW results. Although I realize that may not be possible yet given there may not be any RAW converters out for the camera at the moment.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Nov 20, 2012)

Unfortunately we don't have a RAW converter that can handle 6D files yet.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 263
12