Better than Expected

John Sheehy said:

Well, Canon deserves it, because they pulled a fast one. They took a regressive path in read noise, at a time when it was totally unnecessary to do so.

Click to expand...

You imply intent where you have no evidence of such. Unless you worked at Canon as part of the team engineering the 6D2 sensor you have no clue what their priorities or trade offs were. We can infer that "include DPAF" was a big priority, but we don't know how that might have affected their other decisions.

And before you say "5D4" the 6D2 chip may be (likely is) on an entirely separate line at the fab with separate capabilities.

John Sheehy said:

Yes, they will sell a few more 5D4s, but they will also have a lot of people skipping a potential upgrade, or moving to other manufacturer's bodies.

Click to expand...

It likely won't change their sales by a perceptible number. The press has been chattering about DR for nearly a decade now, and yet Canon remains #1. It's clear that the vast majority of images made do not exploit even Canon's old tech +3 ability to push, much less Sony's best of class +5 ability.

I'm in the middle where I would certainly like to see Canon match Sony on this metric, but it's simply not a priority above lens selection, color science, ergonomics, etc.

John Sheehy said:

Canon lives in a dream world where Canon is the only choice, and nobody can resist a "partial" upgrade that includes some "downgrade" with it.

Click to expand...

Canon apparently knows more about what features actually sell cameras and lenses than anyone chattering in forums, otherwise they wouldn't be #1.

You'll get no disagreement from me on this one. Yet people chirp up and say "Canon has poor high ISO" all the time because of these scores.

John Sheehy said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

DxO scores the A7 III at 3730 and the 5Ds at 2381.

Click to expand...

Low light sports ISO is a very poor metric, unless you are shooting high-keys scenes with slide-film-like exposures, or extra RAW ETTR, in those ranges of ISOs. The ranking of cameras with this metric have nothing to do with shadows or much higher ISOs, where the rankings could easily flip. DxO needs to bury this metric, as it has NOTHING to do with real "high" ISOs (or truly low light) at this point in time (it comes from a time when usable results, even in the highlights at ISO 3200, seemed to be magic). Their DR ratings, adjusted for consistent highlight headroom with saturation-based "measured ISO" is much more representative of shadows, and truly high ISOs. Of course, none of this takes noise character into consideration, so you really need to look at the noise, as objectively as possible.

--
John
http://www.pbase.com/image/55384958.jpg

Click to expand...

watson076 said:

So like many other people who have spent enough time on the web, you kinda get the impression that the 6D Mark II is some horrible dud. A majority of the reviews are not very positive as is the countless videos on YouTube. I myself have alsways been skeptical of reviews, maybe because photography it’s a very subjective and personal thing and to be honest every since DXO became a thing we kinda quit enjoying photography and became measurebeaters. A good friend of mine shoots professionally and doesn’t spend time on forums or reading reviews. He bought the Mark II a few months back completed unaware of all the bad press and when I asked him his opinion he said aside from the spread of focusing point the camera was now one of his favorites.

i decided to take a chance and picked up the Mark II a little while back. Here is my thoughts

pros

• Excellant Detail, very nice even at the pixel
• level.
• Fantastic Color (better than my 6D classic)
• Love Love the Flip Out Screen
• Touch screen controls are top notch
• WiFi / Bluetooth works flawlessly
• Focusing is very fast and better in low light than my mirrorless bodies.
• Menu is very organized, easy to navigate
• Feels great in the hand, controls are logically placed.
• All week battery life (im coming from mirrorless)
• Live View focusing and movies work well
• Good Metering
• High ISO performance is pretty amazing
• Face Detection works well
• Dual Pixel AF makes it is easy to focus with super shallow DoF

Cons

• White Balance inconsistent ( I shoot raw so not an issue)
• JPEGs are decent, but you really need to shoot raw to get the most of it this body.
• Focusing point crammed together make portraits challenging (vertical orientation)

I do not see any issues with dynamic range, but I don’t often do extreme lifting of shadows either.

Click to expand...

Eveyting about it just felt last year (or worse), hence the less than enthusiastic reviews, I guess