Because there is a pattern where some of our more important discussions get hijacked by the 6d2-is-fine-or-it's-crap debate, I'm starting this thread so that the issue can be explored more fully and without bringing noise to the other signals.
To start it off, I'll state what I believe to be the rough consensus (hah!), such as it exists...
1- The original 6D was released as a bit of a surprise, as - at the time - full frame cameras were generally much more expensive than its launch price. Also, the sensor was fantastic for its time, especially in low light focus acquisition, beating out the then-up-market 5D3 by some measures.
2- Those two things set up the 6D in the minds of Canon users as positioned as the great-sensor-low-price entry level full frame body. So long as you could tolerate just a handful of focus points. As is most often the case, the users' sense of the 6 series positioning was not - in retrospect - what Canon thought it to be.
3- As often happens, the launch of the 6D2 took a good bit longer than users expected (and perhaps Canon expected). That time factor comes into later arguments, as many users have an expectation that more time translates into better/cheaper roughly in line with what competitors release.
4- At launch, the 6D2 had some improvements, perhaps most notably a tilty-flippy screen and DPAF, but it did not meet the expectations of most Canon users relative to their previous perceptions of the 6 series' positioning. Specifically, they were expecting a sensor as good as the current 5 series, or at least quite a leap from the old one. The 6D2 sensor is indeed better than the original in several ways (DPAF, more mp), but image quality wasn't improved significantly beyond the detail capture possible with more mp and downsampling to the original body's 20 mp size. In short, it didn't surprise and delight, like the first version did.
5- Debate raged about whether or not this was a reasonable upgrade for 5 years of progress. So, of course, the specs of the cameras were less the debate than the individual's perception of what was an appropriate update for 5 years, combined with their impression of what the 6 series positioning was supposed to be.
6- The 6D2 issue becomes a topic on various threads, and seems to act as a bit of a litmus test for a user's skepticism/fanboyism of Canon.
My hope is by having a thread summing up the 6D2's "interpretation" will shine light on that topic and reduce shade thrown on other topics.
By way of example the recent RF low-end body's likely use of the 6D2's sensor (Canon will, of course, claim every sensor is "all new") caused a 150-post thread on an exciting topic to a 450-post thread. I personally think posts referencing the 6D2 in regards to that new RF camera are great for that thread, but rabbit hole discussions on the history and technical qualities of the 6D2 that aren't directly linked to RF discussions would likely be better placed here.
-tig
PS: My own opinion, which isn't really important, is that the 6D2 is a fine camera. I owned one briefly, selling it a few days later due to its price versus autofocus capabilities, and the sensor not being up to par with other Canon full frame offerings, which perhaps, in retrospect, was an unreasonable hope. Some 6D2 defenders don't agree or acknowledge that the positioning of the 6 series sank with the Mark II in terms of relative value, which seems to enrage people more critical of the Mark II. I perceive that both sides can be acting completely reasonably, just with different initial expectations, and accusations of trolling are almost always incorrect.
