Is 6D2 the only new camera with low DR?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My guess is the Sigma SD-H has less dynamic range, it sure has slower AF, no wifi, video, gps and/or shavind option...

But boy would I love a SD-H
 
Since when is stating an opinion of what the facts are considered "a defense?" As for your investment in the lenses, they're still perfectly capable of delivering the same results on the camera you already have. Where do you get off thinking anyone owes you something in the future in addition to what they sold to you in the past?

Oh, I get it; you must be part of "the entitled generation."
 
Since when is stating an opinion of what the facts are considered "a defense?" As for your investment in the lenses, they're still perfectly capable of delivering the same results on the camera you already have. Where do you get off thinking anyone owes you something in the future in addition to what they sold to you in the past?

Oh, I get it; you must be part of "the entitled generation."
 
What I don't get are the defenses. They aren't things any consumer should be saying in defense of a thing, a thing they exchanged their money for. Like, you already have the lenses, so you're stuck. Essentially defending opportunistic design and manufacture. Or, there are plenty of cheap lenses, meaning the system is viewed from a race to the bottom price cutting perspective. The features are set by marketing to meet minimum expectations, meaning the cameras are meant to barely deserve your attention & not meant to engender better than that. Canon cuts costs to remain profitable, meaning the bottom line of a company means more to that consumer than the usability in their own hands.

The people aren't even defending their purchase, they're defending decisions that diluted the utility of their purchase. It gets astoundingly sycophantic. All manufacturers operate under constraints with demand schedules that shape their ability to profit. That never makes marginal offerings a great thing. The fervor behind statements that amount to no more than, "its pretty livable when you lower your expectations" is hilariously self defeating.

It isn't even close to a bad camera, but I have been completely put off by the posts demanding that we all deal with it, or that were destined to own or because Canon is too smart for us. Like that's a victory for these posters.

The 6D2 is just a body where the sensor didn't receive the improvements the other new bodies have gotten. Coupled with the other changes being older Canon developments that really only appears as an update because the 6D was also behind the curve. The vari angle touchscreen isn't new for 2017, dpaf isn't new for 2017, the dr isn't new for 2017, the af isn't new for 2017, the video resolution and codec isn't new for 2017, the price point for a ff dslr isn't new for 2017, there's really nothing new about the camera. That isn't a terrible thing, but the vitriol spewed in defense of this milquetoast release certainly is.
 
YES ,it is. And from what i saw on this website, is even worse than 6D . Canon is the last sensor manufacturer that embrassed the " on sensor ADC " technology ( look at 80D , 5DMK4 and 1DX MK2 ) , but decided to use such an old technology for the sensor of 6D2 . Starting with 2000 , when Canon started producing DSLRs , every time when they wanted to cripple a camera to protect the most expensive one above the first one , they where simply mounted a worse AF sistem in the cheaper model or they lowered the fps or they constructed simplier the cheaper model, but in the last 17 years, Canon always mounted on every DSLR that was released the best sensor technology that they had in that moment . For example , Eos 500D it had slightly better IQ than the 50D ( less banding since it was released later than 50D ) , 60d had better IQ than 7D ( 60D was released almost a year later then 7D ) , 6D had better IQ than 5D MK3 , etc .

Canon was way behind Sony in sensor technology , but they were working hard to put the best they could when they released a new DSLR , even if with 6-8 months before they had released a more expensive one .

But this time is the first time for Canon when they intented to cripple a camera with a new strategy : Now they finally have a new sensor technology , but they chose to cripple 6D 2 by deliberately "killing " the IQ .

So , i'm afraid that this is the first time when they will have catastrophic sales with a Dslr released in the last 17 years because now , all canon users knows that canon finally can offer a decent DR for their sensors , but they chose to disrespect the loyal customers that chose to buy Canon cameras hoping that in time they go near Sony on sensor technology ,and now , when they , finally , did it , they are asking 4000$ if you want a decent DR and a good IQ .
Ugh, here we go again with these oft-repeated theories:

1. Canon "cripples cameras to protect some other camera ... blah, blah."

2. Canon "disrespects loyal customers ... blah, blah."

3. Canon "doesn't give good IQ" ... "doesn't give decent DR" ... blah, blah.

These are false theories that have been repeated on this & other forums with slight variations for at least 10 years now.

Canon is a business that wants to sell its products. They don't "cripple" any products. They want to sell all of them. They can make as much or more money on the cheaper products as they can on the more expensive products — because they'll sell more units. Rather than crippling any product, they design their products to sell at a certain PRICE. You pay more, you get more. That's what every business does. That's what every photographer in business does too. They simply won't deliver the latest and greatest of everything in every model, especially not in the cheaper models. That's how a company survives.

What loyal customers? Let's get over this fantasy about loyal customers. There is no "loyalty" running either way. That's because Canon is a camera company. It's not your family, and it's not your army. Customers buy if they like, don't buy if they don't like. Customers are free agents. They don't make a pledge of loyalty — not publicly and not in their own minds. They can and do go elsewhere (and sometimes come back). Some customers use multiple brands (Canon + Fuji, etc.). Some customers publicly trash the company at every opportunity. There is no loyalty with cameras. If people stick with Canon products, it's because they like the products, NOT because they are "loyal" — such a misused word in the camera world!

The 6D2 will make fantastic photos, just as its predecessor did. The idea that its IQ is "killed" or its DR is not "decent" is just nonsense. Its IQ / DR is suitable for many kinds of professional work.

The 6D2 is Canon's bargain FF and some costs have to be reduced to make a bargain model. Canon offers six cameras that are more expensive, and many that are cheaper. They don't have to match every competitor for every feature at every price level. They don't have to offer everything that every user wants within every user's budget. Canon simply has to sell cameras and make money! Sorry if that doesn't match your ideas about what a camera company should do, but that's reality.
Which side are you on? Canon or consumers?

Yes, Canon is a camera company and they are in the business to make a profit. But it is also our right as consumers to demand more from manufacturers. Why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't we want more value from their products?

Most arguments defending the 6D Mkii boils down to something along the lines of "Canon's goal is to sell cameras and to make money". Isn't that the same goal for all other camera brands, yet they can offer more?

Sorry, that excuse is just a cop out from Canon apologists. Not everyone is happy to be milked and strung along by Canon.
I am on the side of reality vs. unreality. That means understanding how business works. Consumers have a "right" to demand a pie in the sky. But business is not a democracy. Canon already delivers plenty of value in their products — that's why people buy their products.

I'm a photographer, and my customers have the "right" to demand that I work for a lower hourly rate, deliver bigger prints for the same price, deliver better wedding albums for less money, etc. They can point out that somebody across town offers more "value". That doesn't mean I will lower my prices or offer more for less money.

Other brands don't necessarily offer "more". They may offer of more of one feature, but less of another. Sometimes another brand will offer more of something to make up for its other deficiencies. E.g., Sony has a limited product line and mediocre design, so they have to offer more of something to attract customers. If you really feel another brand offers more, the doors are open to you.

The idea that Canon "milks" and "strings along" is strange and misconceived. That's taking things way too personally, which is really bizarre. Canon hasn't changed its strategy of making a profit from the first day you bought your first Canon product until now. They have always been on the profit-making strategy, and that's not about to change, despite your "demands". The only thing that has changed is your mindset. Pointing that out is not being an "apologist". Rather, it's just noting a rather obvious reality.
 
The 6D2 is Canon's bargain FF and some costs have to be reduced to make a bargain model. Canon offers six cameras that are more expensive, and many that are cheaper. They don't have to match every competitor for every feature at every price level. They don't have to offer everything that every user wants within every user's budget. Canon simply has to sell cameras and make money! Sorry if that doesn't match your ideas about what a camera company should do, but that's reality.
The point of a camera is to make photos. When I delivered sets of photos to people, none of them cared about the camera I made them with, only the results. Making a camera with a very basic handicap for making photos gives the photographer also a handicap. And it will sit badly with the consumers when they see that a camera half the price has a dynamic range significantly better than this supposedly superior model.

So, feel very wise about dismissing the sensor improvements of the last 11 years with some junk about corporate objectives, why should us little termite photographers involved in the nitty-gritty of making pictures be able to grasp your grand corporate vision. All we can do is on an individual level to bypass the 6D Mark II, maybe even the Canon system altogether.
The 6D2 does not have a "basic handicap" or any handicap for making photos. That's totally false. Its DR is as good as that of the 5D3 — which I have used for years. That means a 6D2 can be used professionally for a broad range of photography: fine art, photojournalism, weddings, advertising, travel, etc. If someone is "handicapped" with the 6D2, it is not the camera.

That "junk" about corporate objectives is called REALITY. That you would call it "junk" reflects your unrealistic expectations of how a camera company should work.
 
According to the website from Canon it should be better.
For photographers seeking to make use of better dynamic range, lower noise and creative depth-of-field options, the new full frame 26.2 Megapixel CMOS sensor will encourage creativity, ensuring details are captured right across the image, from the brightest of highlights to the darkest of shadows. Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II using similar sensor technology as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. A high maximum ISO of 40,000 (expandable to ISO 102,400) ensures that photographers can keep shooting long after the sun has gone down and with in-camera diffraction correction plus the Auto Lighting Optimizer also on board, the EOS 6D Mark II is ready for high-quality images the moment it’s switched on.
I still can't believe that they did this intentionally, maybe there will be a fix for this low DR issue?
Canon not only used a downgrade sensor intentionally but they also had a little fun with the AF system as well.

The idea of chucking an APC system in a FF camera must have have given them a little snort.
I have been using the original 6D's AF system for years and the 6D2's AF is definitely an improvement over that of the original 6D. The AF system is fine for a broad range of photography. I need about 3 good AF points, not 45. The 6D2 is the economy model in Canon's FF camera line. You can't expect the latest and best of everything in the economy model.
 
IMO, the 6D2 is configured more for product differentiation than profit margin on that particular camera body. I think Canon wants to bolster the sales of the 5D4 and just might be making room to slide in another FF body between the 6D2 and the 5D4. The reason for this is that Sony seems to be offering the A7 (and soon to be A7ii) at very aggressive price points. One can buy the A7 with their 28-70mm kit lens at Best Buy for $1,200. It seem that FF is moving toward being offered as a more main stream product so maybe Canon is positioning themselves to compete in this arena.
 
According to the website from Canon it should be better.
For photographers seeking to make use of better dynamic range, lower noise and creative depth-of-field options, the new full frame 26.2 Megapixel CMOS sensor will encourage creativity, ensuring details are captured right across the image, from the brightest of highlights to the darkest of shadows. Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II using similar sensor technology as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. A high maximum ISO of 40,000 (expandable to ISO 102,400) ensures that photographers can keep shooting long after the sun has gone down and with in-camera diffraction correction plus the Auto Lighting Optimizer also on board, the EOS 6D Mark II is ready for high-quality images the moment it’s switched on.
I still can't believe that they did this intentionally, maybe there will be a fix for this low DR issue?
Canon not only used a downgrade sensor intentionally but they also had a little fun with the AF system as well.

The idea of chucking an APC system in a FF camera must have have given them a little snort.
What Canon did with the 6D2 is pathetic. I've been a Canon customer for a very long time, but it has become untenable for me to reward these shenanigans with "product differentiation." Going forward, my money will be spent elsewhere.
 
What I don't get are the defenses. They aren't things any consumer should be saying in defense of a thing, a thing they exchanged their money for. Like, you already have the lenses, so you're stuck. Essentially defending opportunistic design and manufacture. Or, there are plenty of cheap lenses, meaning the system is viewed from a race to the bottom price cutting perspective. The features are set by marketing to meet minimum expectations, meaning the cameras are meant to barely deserve your attention & not meant to engender better than that. Canon cuts costs to remain profitable, meaning the bottom line of a company means more to that consumer than the usability in their own hands.

The people aren't even defending their purchase, they're defending decisions that diluted the utility of their purchase. It gets astoundingly sycophantic. All manufacturers operate under constraints with demand schedules that shape their ability to profit. That never makes marginal offerings a great thing. The fervor behind statements that amount to no more than, "its pretty livable when you lower your expectations" is hilariously self defeating.

It isn't even close to a bad camera, but I have been completely put off by the posts demanding that we all deal with it, or that were destined to own or because Canon is too smart for us. Like that's a victory for these posters.

The 6D2 is just a body where the sensor didn't receive the improvements the other new bodies have gotten. Coupled with the other changes being older Canon developments that really only appears as an update because the 6D was also behind the curve. The vari angle touchscreen isn't new for 2017, dpaf isn't new for 2017, the dr isn't new for 2017, the af isn't new for 2017, the video resolution and codec isn't new for 2017, the price point for a ff dslr isn't new for 2017, there's really nothing new about the camera. That isn't a terrible thing, but the vitriol spewed in defense of this milquetoast release certainly is.
 
According to the website from Canon it should be better.
For photographers seeking to make use of better dynamic range, lower noise and creative depth-of-field options, the new full frame 26.2 Megapixel CMOS sensor will encourage creativity, ensuring details are captured right across the image, from the brightest of highlights to the darkest of shadows. Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II using similar sensor technology as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. A high maximum ISO of 40,000 (expandable to ISO 102,400) ensures that photographers can keep shooting long after the sun has gone down and with in-camera diffraction correction plus the Auto Lighting Optimizer also on board, the EOS 6D Mark II is ready for high-quality images the moment it’s switched on.
I still can't believe that they did this intentionally, maybe there will be a fix for this low DR issue?
Canon not only used a downgrade sensor intentionally but they also had a little fun with the AF system as well.

The idea of chucking an APC system in a FF camera must have have given them a little snort.
I understand that Canon wants to protect there 5D market and choices have to be made, but the IQ is something that can't be played around with.. if the new model lags some features that others do have oke, but there must be progress on the IQ part without having to make 3 photos with different lightning to get a good result..
The IQ is fine for a broad range of professional applications. If you need better, Canon offers better, just not in this particular model.
 
According to the website from Canon it should be better.
For photographers seeking to make use of better dynamic range, lower noise and creative depth-of-field options, the new full frame 26.2 Megapixel CMOS sensor will encourage creativity, ensuring details are captured right across the image, from the brightest of highlights to the darkest of shadows. Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II using similar sensor technology as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. A high maximum ISO of 40,000 (expandable to ISO 102,400) ensures that photographers can keep shooting long after the sun has gone down and with in-camera diffraction correction plus the Auto Lighting Optimizer also on board, the EOS 6D Mark II is ready for high-quality images the moment it’s switched on.
I still can't believe that they did this intentionally, maybe there will be a fix for this low DR issue?
Canon not only used a downgrade sensor intentionally but they also had a little fun with the AF system as well.

The idea of chucking an APC system in a FF camera must have have given them a little snort.
I understand that Canon wants to protect there 5D market and choices have to be made, but the IQ is something that can't be played around with.. if the new model lags some features that others do have oke, but there must be progress on the IQ part without having to make 3 photos with different lightning to get a good result..
The IQ is fine for a broad range of professional applications. If you need better, Canon offers better, just not in this particular model.
Or better yet, jump to Nikon and get better IQ across their range.
 
According to the website from Canon it should be better.
For photographers seeking to make use of better dynamic range, lower noise and creative depth-of-field options, the new full frame 26.2 Megapixel CMOS sensor will encourage creativity, ensuring details are captured right across the image, from the brightest of highlights to the darkest of shadows. Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II using similar sensor technology as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. A high maximum ISO of 40,000 (expandable to ISO 102,400) ensures that photographers can keep shooting long after the sun has gone down and with in-camera diffraction correction plus the Auto Lighting Optimizer also on board, the EOS 6D Mark II is ready for high-quality images the moment it’s switched on.
I still can't believe that they did this intentionally, maybe there will be a fix for this low DR issue?
Canon not only used a downgrade sensor intentionally but they also had a little fun with the AF system as well.

The idea of chucking an APC system in a FF camera must have have given them a little snort.
I understand that Canon wants to protect there 5D market and choices have to be made, but the IQ is something that can't be played around with.. if the new model lags some features that others do have oke, but there must be progress on the IQ part without having to make 3 photos with different lightning to get a good result..
The IQ is fine for a broad range of professional applications. If you need better, Canon offers better, just not in this particular model.
Or better yet, jump to Nikon and get better IQ across their range.
So you are on a Canon sub-forum promoting Nikon? No problem.

However, your comment speaks to the oft-repeated theory that Canon "disrespects loyal customers". Your comment shows what "loyal customers" actually do. Customers switch brands whenever they please. Customers trash the brand they are using whenever they please. That's because there is no loyalty, nor should there be. The camera business is not your family and it's not your army.
 
Last edited:
Since when is stating an opinion of what the facts are considered "a defense?"
When they are not facts, but rather specious comments
As for your investment in the lenses, they're still perfectly capable of delivering the same results on the camera you already have.
Exactly. The point is then moot. The lenses are not a reason to invest in a new body. The new body is the reason to invest in a new body. Yet, due to the lack of a new feature set in this body, the zealots are falling back on the "Canon glass" as a reason to buy it. Nonsense, $2k on this body doesn't make the lenses any better.
Where do you get off thinking anyone owes you something in the future in addition to what they sold to you in the past?
Where do you get off being so spectacularly wrong? They don't owe me anything in the future. Also, I don't owe them any fealty. They come out with a product I don't like, that isn't my fault. People with malleable standards can brown nose a corporate entity as much as they please, but that isn't me.
Oh, I get it; you must be part of "the entitled generation."
No, I'm not a boomer.
--
Landscaper
 
Last edited:
What I don't get are the defenses. They aren't things any consumer should be saying in defense of a thing, a thing they exchanged their money for. Like, you already have the lenses, so you're stuck. Essentially defending opportunistic design and manufacture. Or, there are plenty of cheap lenses, meaning the system is viewed from a race to the bottom price cutting perspective. The features are set by marketing to meet minimum expectations, meaning the cameras are meant to barely deserve your attention & not meant to engender better than that. Canon cuts costs to remain profitable, meaning the bottom line of a company means more to that consumer than the usability in their own hands.

The people aren't even defending their purchase, they're defending decisions that diluted the utility of their purchase. It gets astoundingly sycophantic. All manufacturers operate under constraints with demand schedules that shape their ability to profit. That never makes marginal offerings a great thing. The fervor behind statements that amount to no more than, "its pretty livable when you lower your expectations" is hilariously self defeating.

It isn't even close to a bad camera, but I have been completely put off by the posts demanding that we all deal with it, or that were destined to own or because Canon is too smart for us. Like that's a victory for these posters.

The 6D2 is just a body where the sensor didn't receive the improvements the other new bodies have gotten. Coupled with the other changes being older Canon developments that really only appears as an update because the 6D was also behind the curve. The vari angle touchscreen isn't new for 2017, dpaf isn't new for 2017, the dr isn't new for 2017, the af isn't new for 2017, the video resolution and codec isn't new for 2017, the price point for a ff dslr isn't new for 2017, there's really nothing new about the camera. That isn't a terrible thing, but the vitriol spewed in defense of this milquetoast release certainly is.
 
What I don't get are the defenses. They aren't things any consumer should be saying in defense of a thing, a thing they exchanged their money for. Like, you already have the lenses, so you're stuck. Essentially defending opportunistic design and manufacture. Or, there are plenty of cheap lenses, meaning the system is viewed from a race to the bottom price cutting perspective. The features are set by marketing to meet minimum expectations, meaning the cameras are meant to barely deserve your attention & not meant to engender better than that. Canon cuts costs to remain profitable, meaning the bottom line of a company means more to that consumer than the usability in their own hands.

The people aren't even defending their purchase, they're defending decisions that diluted the utility of their purchase. It gets astoundingly sycophantic. All manufacturers operate under constraints with demand schedules that shape their ability to profit. That never makes marginal offerings a great thing. The fervor behind statements that amount to no more than, "its pretty livable when you lower your expectations" is hilariously self defeating.

It isn't even close to a bad camera, but I have been completely put off by the posts demanding that we all deal with it, or that were destined to own or because Canon is too smart for us. Like that's a victory for these posters.

The 6D2 is just a body where the sensor didn't receive the improvements the other new bodies have gotten. Coupled with the other changes being older Canon developments that really only appears as an update because the 6D was also behind the curve. The vari angle touchscreen isn't new for 2017, dpaf isn't new for 2017, the dr isn't new for 2017, the af isn't new for 2017, the video resolution and codec isn't new for 2017, the price point for a ff dslr isn't new for 2017, there's really nothing new about the camera. That isn't a terrible thing, but the vitriol spewed in defense of this milquetoast release certainly is.

--
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4576345868
The defenses are an explanation of reality.
If that were the case, then why are you dismantling them?
I don't understand your comment.
You bought some Canon lenses and you're "stuck"? No you aren't. You can sell off your Canon lenses, have them paid for and shipped in 2 weeks or less. A minor hassle, but not a big deal in the long term. There is a lively market in used camera gear. People switch brands all of the time.
So then the defenders saying that people can't/won't change brands due to the overall reliance on Canon glass are wrong? Excellent!
I don't understand your comment.
Defending "opportunistic design and manufacture"? No, just pointing out that every product is built for a price. You don't get the luxury features at the bargain price. If you think there's something wrong with that, you are being unrealistic. Canon is not some not-for-profit photographers' aid society.
Neither are any of their competitors. I can pretty easily see their issues, with them being publicly traded and my full time job literally being commercial credit analysis and such. But, as a consumer I don't care. My money pays for my required features. There is plenty of competition. There are plenty of real, tangible, in the wild features out there. It is unrealistic to state that it can't be done. As a consumer, I look for what I want, not what generates the highest profits for the seller. If I did that, then what's their remaining job, and who is looking out for my best value proposition?
Easy answer: go and get the features you require. Don't blame Canon for not building your personal camera for your personal needs within your personal budget.

Nobody but you is "looking out" for your best value proposition. That's definitely not Canon's job. Each customer has their own personal value proposition, and each customer looks after themselves. That's how the system works.
Canon gear is very useable and covers an amazing price range from very cheap to very expensive. They offer something for nearly every budget. Your claim that their "cameras are meant to barely deserve your attention" are so far out from reality that they don't deserver further comment.
No, the reality is that my focus of attention is determined by me, not you.
You made a claim about Canon building cameras that "barely deserve your attention". I don't think that's true generally, considering their success. But If you're talking about your own attention, I can't disagree.
Cameras don't somehow become "unusable" just because Canon made a profit. You have things totally backwards there. Consumers have a wide range of choices in cameras and lenses from various brands. If they buy Canon, it is because they deem Canon products to be very, very USEABLE for them and to deserve their money.
And if other people do that, it still doesn't mean they're the best option for everyone. What other people do with their money should not determine what you do with yours. And it most assuredly doesn't mean it's a valid argument against the choices of others. Imagine using Justin Bieber's revenue to argue the quality and suitability of his music. Appeals to the masses are weak.

--
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4576345868
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that Canon cameras are the "best option for everyone". They aren't! Canon offers a very wide range of gear, for nearly every budget. That doesn't mean they offer the best for every use, and for every user and for every budget. No company can do that. If another company offers what you require, by all means buy it. I won't judge you. I'm not making any judgment against the choices of others. I'm just explaining how business works.
 
Last edited:
Since when is stating an opinion of what the facts are considered "a defense?" As for your investment in the lenses, they're still perfectly capable of delivering the same results on the camera you already have. Where do you get off thinking anyone owes you something in the future in addition to what they sold to you in the past?

Oh, I get it; you must be part of "the entitled generation."
 
According to the website from Canon it should be better.
For photographers seeking to make use of better dynamic range, lower noise and creative depth-of-field options, the new full frame 26.2 Megapixel CMOS sensor will encourage creativity, ensuring details are captured right across the image, from the brightest of highlights to the darkest of shadows. Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II using similar sensor technology as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. A high maximum ISO of 40,000 (expandable to ISO 102,400) ensures that photographers can keep shooting long after the sun has gone down and with in-camera diffraction correction plus the Auto Lighting Optimizer also on board, the EOS 6D Mark II is ready for high-quality images the moment it’s switched on.
I still can't believe that they did this intentionally, maybe there will be a fix for this low DR issue?
Canon not only used a downgrade sensor intentionally but they also had a little fun with the AF system as well.

The idea of chucking an APC system in a FF camera must have have given them a little snort.
I have been using the original 6D's AF system for years and the 6D2's AF is definitely an improvement over that of the original 6D. The AF system is fine for a broad range of photography. I need about 3 good AF points, not 45. The 6D2 is the economy model in Canon's FF camera line. You can't expect the latest and best of everything in the economy model.
I'm also using the 6D mk1 for years and I'm happy and know the limitations. I was exited when the mk2 was announced. I agree with the number of AF point, 45 is nice but if the kept the 11 AF point but made it faster, all cross-type and one f/8 AF it would have been fine.

I wonder how the meeting went at Canon when they discussed the mk2.. did they really say.. well.. its fine that the DR range is less than the original??

The 6D is a 'low budget' Full Frame... so coming from an APC you (at least me) want to go forward with the IQ, also when upgrading (that's why they call it an upgrade) from the mk1 I want at least equal or better IQ, not less in every setting. All the other features are nice to have but in the end the IQ (beside the story/composition etc..) is what counts.. for me.

It's not that I'll switch to a other brand or go to the 5DIV (out of my budget), so I'll keep shooting with the mk1 :-) and spent my money on glass.
 
According to the website from Canon it should be better.
For photographers seeking to make use of better dynamic range, lower noise and creative depth-of-field options, the new full frame 26.2 Megapixel CMOS sensor will encourage creativity, ensuring details are captured right across the image, from the brightest of highlights to the darkest of shadows. Low light shooting has been further improved thanks to the EOS 6D Mark II using similar sensor technology as found on the award-winning EOS 5D Mark IV and EOS-1D X Mark II DSLRs. A high maximum ISO of 40,000 (expandable to ISO 102,400) ensures that photographers can keep shooting long after the sun has gone down and with in-camera diffraction correction plus the Auto Lighting Optimizer also on board, the EOS 6D Mark II is ready for high-quality images the moment it’s switched on.
I still can't believe that they did this intentionally, maybe there will be a fix for this low DR issue?
Canon not only used a downgrade sensor intentionally but they also had a little fun with the AF system as well.

The idea of chucking an APC system in a FF camera must have have given them a little snort.
I have been using the original 6D's AF system for years and the 6D2's AF is definitely an improvement over that of the original 6D. The AF system is fine for a broad range of photography. I need about 3 good AF points, not 45. The 6D2 is the economy model in Canon's FF camera line. You can't expect the latest and best of everything in the economy model.
I'm also using the 6D mk1 for years and I'm happy and know the limitations. I was exited when the mk2 was announced. I agree with the number of AF point, 45 is nice but if the kept the 11 AF point but made it faster, all cross-type and one f/8 AF it would have been fine.

I wonder how the meeting went at Canon when they discussed the mk2.. did they really say.. well.. its fine that the DR range is less than the original??

The 6D is a 'low budget' Full Frame... so coming from an APC you (at least me) want to go forward with the IQ, also when upgrading (that's why they call it an upgrade) from the mk1 I want at least equal or better IQ, not less in every setting. All the other features are nice to have but in the end the IQ (beside the story/composition etc..) is what counts.. for me.

It's not that I'll switch to a other brand or go to the 5DIV (out of my budget), so I'll keep shooting with the mk1 :-) and spent my money on glass.
If you look at the chart on photonstophotos.net, the DR of the 6D2 almost exactly matches the DR of the 5D3. The 6D2 DR is slightly worse than the DR of the original 6D at low ISO, and slightly better at high ISO.

What this means to me is that the DR is a known quantity and is fine for my work. It is basically the same as that of two cameras that I've been very happy with for years (5D3 and 6D). I think Canon simply decided that the DR is not lacking, and they would save some costs by leaving it as is — that is, at a level that has proven itself in tons of professional work, photo contests, etc.

Review sites harp on small differences and blow them out of proportion. And some commenters react as if it is the end of Canon. But ultimately we are talking about small differences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top