We've talked about some of this before.
Mountains are problematic (for me) if the sky isn't just right.
E.g. a polarizer would have certainly helped with this:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/FaaLRHrQLD9riKyWA
and this:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/3AFrxnTxiUs5fbgR9
Yeah, I know a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera - even a pinhole camera. ;-) And Google probably has better photos for places we're going than I'll be able to take. But I like taking pictures, and I want something that will work well for a while and not be an annoyance. And not cost a (relative) fortune.
Yeah, the 6D2 is a great camera and the dynamic range issues aren't really an issue 99% of the time. This example from DPReview has extreme push of the shadows (look at the dog's face and the man's hand when zoomed) when better exposure at the beginning (probably) would have made all the difference. Or taking the picture a few minutes earlier. But at normal sizes, it still looks like a very nice photo.
(Emphasis added.)
If one knows how it behaves, one can compensate.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
E.g. a polarizer would have certainly helped with this:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/FaaLRHrQLD9riKyWA
and this:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/3AFrxnTxiUs5fbgR9
Yeah, I know a good photographer can take great pictures with any camera - even a pinhole camera. ;-) And Google probably has better photos for places we're going than I'll be able to take. But I like taking pictures, and I want something that will work well for a while and not be an annoyance. And not cost a (relative) fortune.
Yeah, the 6D2 is a great camera and the dynamic range issues aren't really an issue 99% of the time. This example from DPReview has extreme push of the shadows (look at the dog's face and the man's hand when zoomed) when better exposure at the beginning (probably) would have made all the difference. Or taking the picture a few minutes earlier. But at normal sizes, it still looks like a very nice photo.
Real world impact
If you shoot JPEG, you'll never notice any of this, since the differences occur beyond the ~8.3EV or so that tend to be incorporated into a typical image. Similarly, at higher ISO settings, amplification overcomes the electronic noise, so you see the camera begin to out-perform the 80D and then close the gap with the D750, just as Bill's chart suggests.
However, it means if you're processing from Raw at low ISOs, you have much less flexibility in terms of what you can do with the file than we'd expect from a modern camera. Almost as soon as you start to push the image or pull detail out of the shadows, you risk hitting the camera's electronic noise floor and hence you won't see the advantage over the smaller sensor 80D that you might reasonably expect.
Adding to the problem is Canon's metering system, which tends to underexpose images when there's strong back-light. If the metering sensor were high resolution or advanced enough to detect faces, one might expect proper exposures for human subjects even in backlit shots; however, we've found the low resolution metering sensor in the 6D Mark II to be often incapable of detecting - and properly exposing for - faces. That means that backlit shots will be underexposed (unless you intervene), and you'll have limited ability to recover these underexposed shots because of the sensor's poor performance.
(Emphasis added.)
If one knows how it behaves, one can compensate.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
