Dynamic range: what’s all the fuss about?
QReviews and online comments on the new Canon EOS 6D Mark II have, in the main, slated it for many reasons but mainly its lack of progress on the dynamic range compared with other brands. I appreciate I am no expert but when I have visited photography exhibitions I cannot tell if a photo was taken on a Canon or a Nikon, or whatever. Is there really such a difference? Bazarchie (AP forum)
AIt’s all relative. There are no really bad system cameras any more. Having bags of dynamic range means you can shoot with more confidence in conditions where the light is harsh. It also protects you from inaccurate exposure. The Canon EOS 6D Mark II exhibits good dynamic range at medium and high ISO sensitivities. At low ISOs it’s around an EV (exposure value) behind its principal rival, the Nikon D750. There are ways of boosting dynamic range, such as merging exposures, for example. But it’s inconvenient and more work, although not a catastrophe. If your work demands very wide dynamic range at low ISOs, you probably wouldn’t buy an EOS 6D Mark II, although an experienced photographer would be able to cope with it.
The EOS 6D Mark II has good dynamic range at medium and high ISOs