no idea who this camera is for. neither do most people
My friend and I have been exchanging messages back and forth about the 6D's target demographic. He would believe that this is aimed at wealthy folks who might leave the camera in an auto mode. (Hence, no need for the nicer AF of more recent systems.) I really think otherwise, that it's aimed at enthusiasts. I'm not looking to win an argument here, I'm just curious what you folks think (by demographic / bucket of people) about to whom this new rig is aimed?
I think we'd all agree that this is principally aimed at people looking to get their first FF camera. But who are these people? Just spitballing here, I would guess...
- Enthusiasts who always wanted FF but have always blanched at the price. This thing seems dead nuts aimed at 60D and 7D users that don't value those cameras for the APS-C length / speed but value them for being 'higher end'. (I know some sports and birding folks who love their 7D for length / speed reasons -- this would not be aimed at them.)
- Journalism / photography students -- textbooks are still built around FF old-school 35mm film lengths and rules, right? Wouldn't APS-C multiples just foul that up?
- Perhaps a just-starting-out pro photographer's choice until he makes enough money to warrant a pro rig.
- Serious tourists / landscape fans -- people who own tripods and spend a day shooting a national park.
- People who often enlarge their shots and long for better IQ over their APS-C rigs?
Personally, I think the 6D is really a 5D2 with a few nice features to buoy the price for the next 2 years. The 5D2's price would have plummeted were it left on the market and this was not released, right?
But what do you folks think? Who is this really aimed at?
Seems to me it's targeted at the very same people the 5DC was targeted at back in 2005, new FF owners. I was one when I bought the 5DC in 2006 (for AUD$4,200 including 24-105L). I still have it and it is a great camera with good glass (I've since added the superb 70-200L II IS). But let's look at the comparison and then assess whether the Canon hierarchy have dropped the ball as some here suggest.
The 5D was marketed by Canon (and I think generally regarded) as the world's smallest, lightest and most affordable FF DSLR. Seven years on and the 6D is a smaller, lighter, more affordable and more competent DSLR by almost any measure of specification you want to use.
The 5d is 12.8 mp, the 6D 20.2mp.
The 5D processor was a Digic II, the 6D has a Digic 5+.
The 5D body weighs 810g and measured 6x4.4x3", the 6D 770g and 5.7x4.4x2.8.
The 5D shoots continuously 3fps, the 6D 4.5fps.
The 5D's has 9pt autofocussing (with no cross-type), the 6D 11.
The 5D's LCD was 2.5" and 230k pixels, the 6D's is 3.2" 1024K.
5D ISO is 100-1600 (expandable to 50-3200) and the 6D 100-25,600 (expandable to 50-102,400).
5D has exposure compensation of +/- 2 ev, 6D has +/-5.
5D's viewfinder is 96%, 6D's is 97%.
Add to this the list of things the 6D has that the 5D doesn't - video function, liveview, touch screen, HDMI, built-in wireless, built-in GPS. I may have missed things, but the general point is that it is aimed at the same market but offers more to them at a better price (as you would expect).
I understand why some people might be disappointed with the specs, but I think we get a bit greedy some times. Proof, of course, is in the eating but, at this price, I for one will consider upgrading to the 6d from my 5dC once the detailed peformance reviews are in.