I'm upset, not because of the 6D, but what it could have been.
Face it, the 6D is just an incremental 'upgrade' (and I use the term loosely) to the 5D mk2. Will it take pictures as well as the 5D mk2? Damn straight it will. Is it a fine camera? Well, it's as good as the 5D mk2.
But the 5D mk2 is 4 years old. It was groundbreaking 4 years ago, because there was nothing else like it. Now there's a lot like it, including itself.
The 6D isn't an 'upgrade', it's exactly the same camera with a few fancy 'rebel' features. It may as well be the 5D mk2n, or the 18-55 IS II.
10 years ago, Canon was groundbreaking, the 1Ds was the first FF DSLR that didn't break the bank (much).
Then 4 years ago, they were groundbreaking again, 5Dmk2 was the first FF that 'normal' people could afford, plus it had full HD video. The market went nuts, and justifiably so.
Canon were streets ahead of the competition, with good reason. Their R&D was good, they whipped the pants off anything from the yelow camp.
Then they turned into this:
4 years later, and what do we get? The same as the 5D mk2, give or take 5% better or worse in some areas.
The 5D mk3 was the upgrade for the 5D mk2, surely. It was the first time since the EOS 3 that top-of-the-line AF came in a non-1-series body. It has good IQ, good low-light. But it wasn't 'groundbreaking' in its price (and in terms of the competition, the D800 is a lot more 'groundbreaking' than the 5D3). The FF-for-the-masses was still the 5D mk2, Canon acknowledged that by keeping the 5D2 in the line-up.
The 6D does nothing. It replaces the 5D mk2. It does nothing to 'upgrade'. And then they have the balls to charge the same or higher than the 5D mk2. And they have even more balls to charge us just a smidge under the D600, for about half-as-much camera.
Nikon are catching up. Maybe in terms of sales, definitely in terms of tech. More power to them.
i'm sure I speak for a lot of people when I say, i can't switch camps. Too many lenses, workflow, whatever. I can't afford a 5D3. If i could afford a 6D, i'd rather get a 5D mk2 and a good lens to boot.
The 6D is not a 'bad' camera. But it's 4 years too late, and $500 too much. We expected more.
Is there anything 'wrong' with the 5D mk3? Hell no, it's a great camera. But for that price, it's not 'the best' anymore. Weigh up Pros and Cons of 5D mk3 and D800, and you end up about even. You don't get the same as when you weigh up 5D mk2 vs D700, that was very tipped in Canon's favour.
Is there anything wrong with the EOS M? No, it looks very good. But again, it's just so very "mirrorless? me too!". OK, it's much better than some tiny-sensored things (i'm looking at you, J1). But it's just a Canon-brand NEX. Nothing has that 'excitement', nothing is 'groundbreaking'. FF NEX might be out next year, i'd get excited at that. Digital XPan might get announced tomorrow, i'll get excited at that. Leica just announced an M with Liveview. That may be 'incremental' from the M9, but when you realise that it's the first FF Mirrorless on which you can mount almost *any* FF lens ever made, that's exciting (it's unaffordable, but it's still exciting).
Does that make it our fault, for expecting Canon to continue to be 'groundbreaking', to be 'exciting'?
Yes, i'll wear that.
I expected more.
I will never expect anything 'exceptional' from Canon again.