This isn't a question I'm paticularly interested in, but I am intrigued by the articles that say that a new "entry level" FF camera is potentially "better" than camera legendary for its IQ- the 5D MkII. Thoughts?
And yes, I know that better is kinda an open-ended, question, but I meant for it to be that way.
Based on the comparisons I've read, the 5D2 really has no significant advantages over the 6D. The 6D's low light performance and excellent center AF point sensitivity/accuracy are big advantages. WiFi and GPS are nice features for some users.
Does the 5D2 do anything significant better than the 6D? No, in my opinion. The only real advantage is price, but you are buying yesterday's (2008 to be exact) technology. The 5D2's "advantages" are of negligible value: of 1/8000 vs. 1/4000 maximum shutter speed - how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway? 1/160 vs 1/200 sync speed - not a tangible difference. Build quality - the engineering plastic top section (necessary for the wifi and GPS to function) is not a significant difference from the 5D2 all metal body. Both are well built, solid cameras.
6D bashers complain that the 6D doesn't match the 5D3's spec's, but its not supposed to. Its an entry level FF camera, the 5D3 is the next step up. Buyers can compare the specs and prices and make a decision on which better suits their needs and budget.