Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?

[bbasiaga]

Most likely, these specs are just made up, because:
a) "APS-C Sized body" doesn't make any sense. Maybe some bits were lost in translation, so we've got "APS-C Sized body" instead of "APS-C Sized sensor" and those are 70D specs.
b) "11 AF Points, f/2.8 Cross-type in the center" doesn't make much sense as well. How many cross-type in the center? 1? 5? 7?  60D and 650D got all 9 cross-type.
c) If "APS-C Sized body" somehow means that it is smaller than 5D/1D, then I doubt that it would be xD series camera. SD card slots are reasonable for smaller bodies. However, a single SD card slot in $2000 body is just ridiculous and if they did that just to keep the price as low as possible, then the "Built-in Wifi & GPS", "Weathersealed" body and a new FF sensor doesn't make sense at all.
d) IMHO, only 5D(something) can replace the 5D2. Writing random numbers on cameras is a Nikon thing, not Canon. Let's call it 5D2minusCF 

As a 70D these specs make a lot more sense.  even if it is full frame after all.  I wonder if Canon would still be considered dead/over/Kodak/irrelevant/stupid if the chips do fall this way?

[RC]

Yup, at $1200-$1500, this camera would sell. And sell well.

But at the same price as the D600, who's going to buy it?

If you've got an APS-C Canon DSLR and "L" lenses then you're probably in a position to buy the 6D but would you?

When you look at it, $2000 for 24MP Nikon D600 or $2000 for 20MP Canon 6D.

Who's going to think that the Canon is a good purchase? Nobody... people will buy it because they feel like there is no other choice, not because they want to.

Furthermore, I don't understand who will buy this camera anyway.   Who is it really marketed at?   The consumer segment has no clue between APS-C and FF.  FF is not an upgrade over crop, they each have their purpose (you don't upgrade your car by buying a truck, cars haul people and trucks haul stuff).  Those that want to add a FF (like myself), will find the specs inadequate.  So who is this thing for?   All I see is Canon purely reacting to their competitor and not producing  a product for their customers.  Tell me where I'm wrong. 

[dilbert]

Yup, at $1200-$1500, this camera would sell. And sell well.

But at the same price as the D600, who's going to buy it?

If you've got an APS-C Canon DSLR and "L" lenses then you're probably in a position to buy the 6D but would you?

When you look at it, $2000 for 24MP Nikon D600 or $2000 for 20MP Canon 6D.

Who's going to think that the Canon is a good purchase? Nobody... people will buy it because they feel like there is no other choice, not because they want to.

Furthermore, I don't understand who will buy this camera anyway.   Who is it really marketed at?   The consumer segment has no clue between APS-C and FF.  FF is not an upgrade over crop, they each have their purpose (you don't upgrade your car by buying a truck, cars haul people and trucks haul stuff).  Those that want to add a FF (like myself), will find the specs inadequate.  So who is this thing for?   All I see is Canon purely reacting to their competitor and not producing  a product for their customers.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

Where you're wrong is that the design and planning for this camera probably started 3 or 4 years ago.

Thus what you see in this design is Canon reacting to what Nkon/Sony were doing then, not now.

The features (including sensor) would have been locked down sometime last year.

[DB]

Yup, at $1200-$1500, this camera would sell. And sell well.

But at the same price as the D600, who's going to buy it?

If you've got an APS-C Canon DSLR and "L" lenses then you're probably in a position to buy the 6D but would you?

When you look at it, $2000 for 24MP Nikon D600 or $2000 for 20MP Canon 6D.

Who's going to think that the Canon is a good purchase? Nobody... people will buy it because they feel like there is no other choice, not because they want to.

Furthermore, I don't understand who will buy this camera anyway.   Who is it really marketed at?   The consumer segment has no clue between APS-C and FF.  FF is not an upgrade over crop, they each have their purpose (you don't upgrade your car by buying a truck, cars haul people and trucks haul stuff).  Those that want to add a FF (like myself), will find the specs inadequate.  So who is this thing for?   All I see is Canon purely reacting to their competitor and not producing  a product for their customers.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

You're not wrong per se, but what if the new norm is FF? It may only be a matter of time before all Rebels are FF, especially now that compacts (like the EOS-M) are using same APS-C sensor as T4i.

Look at it this way, all Rebel users who read this forum see that serious amateur/enthusiasts constantly dismiss crop-sensors as sub-par in the IQ stakes. After some time, all crop-sensor DSLR owners aspire to move up to FF, particularly if they've already acquired some good glass. Eventually, a manufacturer makes a more affordable FF body, and then everyone's expectations rise.

[RC]

Yup, at $1200-$1500, this camera would sell. And sell well.

But at the same price as the D600, who's going to buy it?

If you've got an APS-C Canon DSLR and "L" lenses then you're probably in a position to buy the 6D but would you?

When you look at it, $2000 for 24MP Nikon D600 or $2000 for 20MP Canon 6D.

Who's going to think that the Canon is a good purchase? Nobody... people will buy it because they feel like there is no other choice, not because they want to.

Furthermore, I don't understand who will buy this camera anyway.   Who is it really marketed at?   The consumer segment has no clue between APS-C and FF.  FF is not an upgrade over crop, they each have their purpose (you don't upgrade your car by buying a truck, cars haul people and trucks haul stuff).  Those that want to add a FF (like myself), will find the specs inadequate.  So who is this thing for?   All I see is Canon purely reacting to their competitor and not producing  a product for their customers.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

Where you're wrong is that the design and planning for this camera probably started 3 or 4 years ago.

Thus what you see in this design is Canon reacting to what Nkon/Sony were doing then, not now.

The features (including sensor) would have been locked down sometime last year.

And that does make sense....unfortunately.

[Wahoowa]

Looks like more than one leaked picture. So, this could be real, but the specs are really disappointing.

Did people from the Photoshop 101 class got to post on CR for homework?

Oh, yeah, that's an intelligent post. Hope you feel better with yourself for it.

[pedro]

At reading some of the posts in this 21 page thread at the time I feel happy for not having waited on an entry FF body. About 3 weeks ago I bought the 5D3 and yes, I paid full price 3,6 k at a brick and mortar retail shop but I do not regret it one moment. It is a tremendously versatile camera (I am a passionate amateur, sometimes making a few bucks on selling a photograph, or getting remunerated with a "reader photographer fee" if the regional newspaper publishes a picture I took. I do all the ISOs. H1 and H2 are just fine for b/w available light as the "grain" even after post still looks like in the old days with pushed Tri-X pan's ;-) I like this "feature". And even though the 5D3 price is high (I've saved up for a long time) it is worth it. Getting kind of a mini 1Dx at almost half the price is great.
But a decent entry FF would make sense. The annoying thing in these specs is the SD only mode, and the AF unit. If  the sensor is based on the 5D3's and 1Dx the lower MP count might even help IQ-wise. Warning: I am not a tech. So, if this cam will have H1 (51k) and (102k) it will deliever. And we'd get back to affordable FF days after a long time. Hope it doesn't break the 2k mark.

[Chuck Alaimo]

Nikon and Sony have completely out foxed Canon.

Canon's first big mistake was putting only 22MP in the 5D3 with a sensor that performs about the same as the 5D2.

Having learnt from the lesson of the 1Ds3/5D2, Canon did not want to introduce a "lesser camera" (6D) than the 5D3 with the same sensor because lots of would-be purchasers of the 5D3 would simply buy the 6D instead. So the 6D will have 20MP to stop it stealing sales from those who want more MP (22) from the 5D3.

Where Nikon has outfoxed Canon is that their camera at about the same price ($2099 is close enough to $1999) but with 20% more pixels. Nikon were able to deliver a 24MP FF camera at $2099 because their next model up camera has substantially more megapixels - 36.

Canon's product lineup below the 1DX is screwed. They really need to throw it out and start over.

And why does Canon need to do that?

Because the number of megapixels in their sensors is now too low. And if megapixels didn't matter then why wouldn't the 6D have the same, if not more, than the 5D3?

You must have gotten the MP kool-aid.  MP's aren't everything!  If the rumored specs said 24 MP, would that and that alone make this on par?  No.  Where the d800 differentiates itself from the mk3 isn't in mp's, but in IQ and DR at ISO 100-800, and above ISO 800 Canon takes the lead in both IQ and DR.

Back to why these specs suck.  It isn't MP's --- if it said 40 MP's it would still suck due to only having 11 AF points with 1 cross type at the center, and sd card only memory (unless this new sensor fixed the DR issues - but if it did, then the 6d would be closer to $2800).  Those are really the biggest issues. It's 2012, we shouldn't have to center point recompose on a brand new $2000 camera.  I could even deal with SD only if the AF was actually modern - it doesn't need to be the 61 point of the mk3, but dang it use the 21 point from 7d or the 45 point from the 1d4.  If it had at least that then it would be a worthy purchase and sit on my left side as backup to my mk3 (if the ISO performance is close to that of the mk3).  As it stands, the throwback to 2008 AF is useless, and SD only would prevent any kind of burst shooting due because SD wouldn't be able to handle writing at higher speeds.  So sorry, while I agree these specs are a big fail --- it isn't because of MP's...

[pedro]

Nikon and Sony have completely out foxed Canon.

Canon's first big mistake was putting only 22MP in the 5D3 with a sensor that performs about the same as the 5D2.

Having learnt from the lesson of the 1Ds3/5D2, Canon did not want to introduce a "lesser camera" (6D) than the 5D3 with the same sensor because lots of would-be purchasers of the 5D3 would simply buy the 6D instead. So the 6D will have 20MP to stop it stealing sales from those who want more MP (22) from the 5D3.

Where Nikon has outfoxed Canon is that their camera at about the same price ($2099 is close enough to $1999) but with 20% more pixels. Nikon were able to deliver a 24MP FF camera at $2099 because their next model up camera has substantially more megapixels - 36.

Canon's product lineup below the 1DX is screwed. They really need to throw it out and start over.

And why does Canon need to do that?

Because the number of megapixels in their sensors is now too low. And if megapixels didn't matter then why wouldn't the 6D have the same, if not more, than the 5D3?

You must have gotten the MP kool-aid.  MP's aren't everything!  If the rumored specs said 24 MP, would that and that alone make this on par?  No.  Where the d800 differentiates itself from the mk3 isn't in mp's, but in IQ and DR at ISO 100-800, and above ISO 800 Canon takes the lead in both IQ and DR.

Back to why these specs suck.  It isn't MP's --- if it said 40 MP's it would still suck due to only having 11 AF points with 1 cross type at the center, and sd card only memory (unless this new sensor fixed the DR issues - but if it did, then the 6d would be closer to $2800).  Those are really the biggest issues. It's 2012, we shouldn't have to center point recompose on a brand new $2000 camera.  I could even deal with SD only if the AF was actually modern - it doesn't need to be the 61 point of the mk3, but dang it use the 21 point from 7d or the 45 point from the 1d4.  If it had at least that then it would be a worthy purchase and sit on my left side as backup to my mk3 (if the ISO performance is close to that of the mk3).  As it stands, the throwback to 2008 AF is useless, and SD only would prevent any kind of burst shooting due because SD wouldn't be able to handle writing at higher speeds.  So sorry, while I agree these specs are a big fail --- it isn't because of MP's...

+1 Chuck Alaimo

[zim]

While I'm not in the market for this camera after buying the 5d3, I think you guys are missing the point... everyone griped they wanted an entry level full frame, they got it...  To me, I think this is squarely put right there for those advanced rebel shooters and xxd users who have the option... Do you want to go full frame and get better IQ but NOT want to take out a second mortgage to get the 5d3 or 1dx, OR do you want a 7d (or 7d m2 whenever that comes to fruition).  It's for that person that wants better images without all the fancy bells in whistles... That guy who may want GPS so they can utilize it for social media and the like...  It's no 5d3 but it isn't trying to be either...  While it doesn't get me excited per se, perhaps it would have many moons ago when I was a xxd shooter...  It is what it is, an entry level full frame.  Nothing less, nothing more.

For those wondering who this camera is aimed at awinphoto got it pretty spot on at page 4

[dilbert]

Nikon and Sony have completely out foxed Canon.

Canon's first big mistake was putting only 22MP in the 5D3 with a sensor that performs about the same as the 5D2.

Having learnt from the lesson of the 1Ds3/5D2, Canon did not want to introduce a "lesser camera" (6D) than the 5D3 with the same sensor because lots of would-be purchasers of the 5D3 would simply buy the 6D instead. So the 6D will have 20MP to stop it stealing sales from those who want more MP (22) from the 5D3.

Where Nikon has outfoxed Canon is that their camera at about the same price ($2099 is close enough to $1999) but with 20% more pixels. Nikon were able to deliver a 24MP FF camera at $2099 because their next model up camera has substantially more megapixels - 36.

Canon's product lineup below the 1DX is screwed. They really need to throw it out and start over.

And why does Canon need to do that?

Because the number of megapixels in their sensors is now too low. And if megapixels didn't matter then why wouldn't the 6D have the same, if not more, than the 5D3?

You must have gotten the MP kool-aid.  MP's aren't everything!  If the rumored specs said 24 MP, would that and that alone make this on par?  No.  Where the d800 differentiates itself from the mk3 isn't in mp's, but in IQ and DR at ISO 100-800, and above ISO 800 Canon takes the lead in both IQ and DR.

Back to why these specs suck.  It isn't MP's --- if it said 40 MP's it would still suck due to only having 11 AF points with 1 cross type at the center, and sd card only memory (unless this new sensor fixed the DR issues - but if it did, then the 6d would be closer to $2800).  Those are really the biggest issues. It's 2012, we shouldn't have to center point recompose on a brand new $2000 camera.  I could even deal with SD only if the AF was actually modern - it doesn't need to be the 61 point of the mk3, but dang it use the 21 point from 7d or the 45 point from the 1d4.  If it had at least that then it would be a worthy purchase and sit on my left side as backup to my mk3 (if the ISO performance is close to that of the mk3).  As it stands, the throwback to 2008 AF is useless, and SD only would prevent any kind of burst shooting due because SD wouldn't be able to handle writing at higher speeds.  So sorry, while I agree these specs are a big fail --- it isn't because of MP's...

Why is the number of AF points a better measuring stick than megapixels?
I typically only use 1 AF point, so if the camera has 65, 64 of them are useless to me.
And when one isn't good enough, I use live view.

Whereas I can use every megapixel with every photograph.

As it is with AF points, it is the quality of them that matters more than the number of them. If the 6D had 39 AF points that worked about as well as the 5D2's 11 then it wouldn't matter if it had 39 or 390 - only one of them would actually be of use. So it all depends on if the 6D will have 11 AF points then is the AF module simply a 5D2 "spare part" or a completely new module.

Oh, as for SD vs CF. It's a pointless comparison. It's a place to put digital photographs, nothing more. If the camera didn't have such a thing then that would be a problem.

[dilbert]

While I'm not in the market for this camera after buying the 5d3, I think you guys are missing the point... everyone griped they wanted an entry level full frame, they got it...  To me, I think this is squarely put right there for those advanced rebel shooters and xxd users who have the option... Do you want to go full frame and get better IQ but NOT want to take out a second mortgage to get the 5d3 or 1dx, OR do you want a 7d (or 7d m2 whenever that comes to fruition).  It's for that person that wants better images without all the fancy bells in whistles... That guy who may want GPS so they can utilize it for social media and the like...  It's no 5d3 but it isn't trying to be either...  While it doesn't get me excited per se, perhaps it would have many moons ago when I was a xxd shooter...  It is what it is, an entry level full frame.  Nothing less, nothing more.

If this was to be an entry level full frame camera 3 or so years ago, it might go down well.

Today it looks like "too little, too late."

Nikon have beaten Canon to market with such a camera.

The combination of the D800/D600 will easily trounce the 5D3/6D combo in every way.

Canon's problem is that when they set out to design these cameras "n" years ago, they designed them for what the market was doing then, not what the market would expect, demand and require now.

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon and Sony have completely out foxed Canon.

Totally irrelevant. What matters is if they out sell Canon.  For the past several years, they have demonstrated a complete lack of ability to do so.  Keep in mind, superior technical specs aren't the whole story - if they were, Betamax would have beaten VHS.

EDIT: Not that I'm saying Nikon or Sony have superior technical specs...   

[azizjhn]

Nikon and Sony have completely out foxed Canon.

Totally irrelevant. What matters is if they out sell Canon.  For the past several years, they have demonstrated a complete lack of ability to do so.  Keep in mind, superior technical specs aren't the whole story - if they were, Betamax would have beaten VHS.

Agree since in there latest financial report says there interchangeable lens cameras units sales increased 47% compared to last year for the same period. I guess they have nothing to worry about.

[gravy]

if the sensor has the new hybrid PDAF would that improve the non-(2.8)cross type AF points?
if the focus of non-(2.8)cross types is better with the new sensor would it matter then?
what have those with 650D said about the hybrid AF? any good?
I'm glad I got the 5DMKIII because this camera would tempt me.
to me, it is a case of buying more than you think you need vs. buying what you think will be sufficient.
I got more than I needed so I can't say that I wish I would have waited for something better to come along.
the 61 point AF is in another league compared to Rebel and 50D if had. it focuses in low light better than anything I've used before. I probably could do with out and be happy with 6D but it's a moot point for me now, some $4300 later!