Canon EOS 6D Mark II pre-production sample gallery

I'm not looking at the whole gallery, but images 5 & 6 do NOT look right. Not at all.

It looks as if actual focus just 'missed', none of the ground elements even remotely sharp.

Something is clearly amiss here., and it doesnt matter if its jpeg or raw.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

joaquin100

We sometimes talk about IQ from X Camera assuming the Lens is top notch. This reminds me my D810 which exposes how miserable are some of my Lenses and how good some others are.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

adventurer69

Really , those photos are not the best . It is more representative of the camera user rather than of the actual ability of the camera itself .

Jul 1, 2017permalink

photomedium

No brand smacks their customers expectations like Canon. It never fails.
Just about the only camera that delivers some versatility is the 6k 1DxII, the rest of the lineup looks as redacted as a CIA top secret document.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

fyngyrz

The camera goes to ISO 40,000. Highest sample isn't even close.

Guess we'll have to wait for another gallery to even *begin* to evaluate the camera. Sigh.

Jun 30, 2017permalink

Akpinxit

Two things I've learned from this gallery : DPP RAW conversion for emergency only and (not so ) high ISO 2000 JGPs OOC won't be the reason to buy this camera .

Jun 30, 2017permalink

daddyo

I'm sure this is a very good camera, but these sample images don't inspire confidence in that. Few of them exhibit good sharpness, contrast, or visual impact -- which is a shame given the setting. In many of these images, it's hard to determine a focal plane.
I have a gallery of Yellowstone images taken with the old Olympus E-3 that are better than these in my opinion.
No offense to anyone, nor Canon -- it's just my opinion based on what I'm seeing.

Jun 30, 2017permalink

it pretty much NEVER is the camera but the scene or photographer or processing !

it rather astounds me that anyone bothers to judge by DPR pics!

but could you really tell ANYTHING much from a low rez jpeg on a website ???

Jun 30, 2017permalink

retr01976

Ok is it just me or does the SL2 seem a bit more exciting than the 6D Mark II ?

Jun 29, 2017permalink

just you!

Jun 30, 2017permalink

Clark666

bison don't like photographers http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bison-rams-injures-couple-at-Yellowstone-11256451.php

Jun 29, 2017permalink

Look Ma! It's a mudhole in the middle of nowhere, along with a few dim photos from a dying brand.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

davev8

i dying brand?????you know canon has recently pick up 2% more market share...it seams its very easy to make oneself look stupid these days

Jun 30, 2017permalink

http://www.diyphotography.net/camera-sales-report-2016-lowest-sales-ever-dslrs-mirrorless/

Yes, dave8, however it "seams" to you, with no less than six grammatical errors in less than 30 words, Canon is a dying brand in a dying market.

Jun 30, 2017permalink

davev8

yes i try to flush out grammar police wherever i go
that link as for as my quick glance goes shows that the camera market is declining we all know that ....makes Canon look all the more impressive being one of the very few camera manufacturers that are making a profit and gaining market share in a declining market

Jun 30, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1794776925/interchangeable-lens-camera-sales-steady-as-canon-profits-plunge

"Interchangeable lens camera sales steady as CANON PROFITS PLUNGE," says dpreview, but why believe the experts if you're a cosmic "genius" like dave8?

Jun 30, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5087428378/canon-boosts-2017-profit-forecast-following-strong-q1-financial-results

Meanwhile Canon survives on business products like scanners, printers, projectors, and broadcast video gear, but the market for DSLR, mirrorless, and compact cameras goes nowhere but down.

"The company's outlook on 2017 camera unit sales are gloomier, with ILC unit sales dropping 7% and compacts down 13%, working out to -9% overall."

Jun 30, 2017*permalink

davev8

my statement still stands...yes profits my be down but canon are still in profit and have recently gained 2%market share... 2016 see tham make 250 billion yen which PLUNGED DOWN from 350 billion yen in 2015 ..canon are projecting an increase for 2017...canon today ARE one of the very few making a profit with cameras

Jun 30, 2017permalink

the best and worse thing about the internet is any Ahole can say/type anything even if clueless moron or just prejudice.

besides HOW can you judge any cam via DPR pics ? Really ??

also as if you are good enuf photographer to judge anyone else ?

Jun 30, 2017permalink

"Even if clueless moron or just prejudice," says KrampusClaus, and "canon has recently pick up 2% more market share" says dave8, and I can only wonder if any of the Canon boosters on dpreview can write a simple sentence without two or three grammatical blunders.

It's a pitiful brand, and these nitwits make it look even worse, along with the awful photos from "a recent Canon-organized trip to Yellowstone."

Jul 1, 2017permalink

@jacobfreeze

I'm not sure what point your making. Your opinion is that canon is dying. If that is 'true', so now what.

ILC market has been contracting for years. Wow, breaking news.

Now what.

Canon isn't going anywhere. Neither is Sony. Nikon is almost on deathwatch.

Amazing.

So your point again, was...

oh, it's a pititful brand...

What a fool you're making of youreself.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

jacobfreeze, i am ASSume you are a professor in photography, have a phd in electrical engineering and have been selling your photos for $millions each year, but funny pretty much ANY canon cam is above your capabilities and definitely the corporate heads are mile ahead of you business sense & capability.

I suspect most any camera fanboy of any brand would think you are completely clueless and really not worthy of owning a canon.

Or not.

jacobfreeze, you make reading these comments a TOTAL waste of time as ZERO intelligence was used in you comment, any comment.

your comments show how little you really do know about photography and/or are jealous of owners of canon or something even worse ?

intelligence is an awful thing to waste, assuming you have any?!

I kid, I am just torquing you off !!! I suspect it worked !

Jul 2, 2017permalink

Offside

Judging by the pictures, this camera is not for portraits.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

GiovanniB

And not for nature and landscape either. Foliage colors, except for the lightest ones, appear grayish-brownish as always with Canon. Although I must admit the 5D IV seems to be Canon's first foray in the right direction green-hue wise. But I've already switched to Sony for landscapes and will only return if Canon delivers equal colors and dynamic range at similar resolution, while keeping the OVF.

Jun 29, 2017*permalink

J A C S

I really hope that Canon will never get the Sony colors.

Having said that, the colors in this gallery are really dull and disappointing. Still not Sony ones, which is a good thing.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

Arneb

Sony jpeg colors also aren't my favorite, but if you shoot RAW... shouldn't be a huge problem I think.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

zlatko

What's with all of the "not sharp" comments? You're probably viewing the photos at more than 100%. I've downloaded a bunch of samples here and viewed them at 100% in Photoshop and they look super sharp. I would not want them any sharper.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

I downloaded a number of them, viewed at 100%, and noticed a lack of detail that I suspect is due to heavy Noise Reduction in camera. At ISO 800 I noticed it especially (look at the 16-35mm shots indoors as example) but it can be seen at lower ISOs too to a lesser degree.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

zlatko

There is only on ISO 800 indoor shot. It is at 1/6th of second and focus appears to be on the light fixtures, not the tables. Even assuming perfect steadiness, at f/5.6 much of that big, deep room is not in focus. And you can't judge in camera noise reduction in that particular shot because it is processed in DPP.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

There are five ISO 800, one ISO 1250, four ISO 2000, two ISO 3200, and two ISO 6400 shots included. I'm not judging off of one shot, just used that as example (hence me saying 'as example' in the original post).

Jun 29, 2017permalink

Because some pics are definitely not sharp at all. And there's something wrong with that if its a 'sample gallery'.

If my camera was producing such softness, i'd be pulling out my hair trying to find out why. Its not a good look.

Jul 4, 2017permalink

CanonKen

Something just doesn't look right. I own a 6D, and at ISO 100-800 (and higher), everything looks fantastic at 1:1. I hope 6 extra MP has not 'ruined' this camera.

Will reserve judgement for a full review with RAW's available and to download.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

anyway

With all the noise reduction and washed out details these pictures look like they come from a phone camera…

Jun 29, 2017permalink

zeratulmrye

Those samples look pretty soft no matter JPG or converted RAW, ISO100 or above, this lens or that lens...

Jun 29, 2017permalink

TN Args

A few portraits would have been nice. Even of one another.

Jun 29, 2017permalink

Hudas

it is still the same canon. the Dynamic Range is still awful...much so like the 80d

Jun 29, 2017permalink

TimT

I didn't look at all of them, but I did look at at least 30 at 100%, and I can't find even one that looks sharp. Were they all shot handheld? The center of the images look much better than the soft edges, but still not sharp, so is it the lenses?

Jun 29, 2017permalink

darlot

it is a photographer, not the camera :)

Jun 29, 2017permalink