« on: October 19, 2013, 07:21:23 AM »
Hmmm good point. I wonder as the 6D is more of a budget FF and not quite as robust as other models such as the 7D or 5D class. That was one reason I went with the 5D2. I'd rather have something solid.
I just don't understand this 'the 6D is more flimsy than the 5D II' nonsense on the web. I presume it stems from the fact the 6D has a polymer top plate, is smaller, lighter and is 'entry level'.
I have both and the accusation is nonsense. You just can't tell the difference in the top plate. I would put them both on the same level. In fact it is my guess that the 6D uses a lot of parts from the 5D mkII. They both have a plastic LCD cover as opposed to the toughened glass on the 5DIII and 7D etc etc. The 5D III is definitely a couple of steps up in construction from the II.
The 6D had had a few 'crippling' features to separate it; no LCD auto brightness for instance, but construction wise - they're the same.
I dunno, if I were to bash someone over the head with my 5D it would likely come out on top, I just wouldn't feel as confident weilding a 6D!
Also - i never used the word flimsy. I said not as robust. And I wrapped up with .... Would last 10 years. None of that sounds flimsy.
I agree that the 5D would be more suitable for bashing someone over the head, but as I'm not from Scotland I don't see this as normal photographic technique. Also it would really screw up your camera's AF module.
I was using writer's license when using the word 'flimsy', and wasn't referring to your post alone. I think it is the fact that the 5D is larger that makes it feel different too.