Canon EOS M6 Mark II full specifications

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,543
1,978
You're the second person to try to use this logic on me today.
Yes, and you’re still not getting it despite multiple attempts.

Sorry, but your argument tries to draw connections that just aren't there and can't be substantiated.

Their best selling model has the very feature you claim is unimportant. The majority of their models have the feature you claim is unimportant. Yet, you use their sales to suggest that the feature being omitted from new models hasn't impacted sales. That's quite the logical leap you've made there. It's totally flawed and has no absolutely evidence to support it. But, by your own logic and argument their declining sales after removing said feature will prove that removing it was the wrong decision.
The current best-selling camera has it. The best-selling camera didn’t for most of the 16 years Canon has dominated the ILC market.

I’d try again to explain that Canon has always used feature inclusion/exclusion to differentiate models, and that they’ve certainly done so for the last 16 years, and remained dominant. I tried an erudite explanation, and I tried really dumbing it down for you, but you just don’t get it. It’s painfully obvious that simple logic and abstraction are beyond your mental grasp.
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
152
61
USB 2.0 instead of 3.0 probably saved them $5 on a $1000 camera. I agree its ridiculous, and probably done so some future model has something to lure users to upgrade. As for transferring files, I haven't connected a camera to a computer in 15 years since most cameras stopped supporting USB mass storage mode ( where the storage operated just like files on an external drive). A card reader is much more convenient these days.
I once read that the problem Canon had with moving to new connection types, was that Digic is (was?) fabbed by Texas Instruments and that it was their tech that was was the problem. I'm not sure if they still do the digic, but it seems digic is way behind the times in the last 4-5 years. They no longer have the throughput of their competitors, or the cpu grunt. EXPEED and BionZ seem much more advanced nowadays, a complete turnaround.
 

Stereodude

EOS 80D
Jul 8, 2019
149
130
Yes, and you’re still not getting it despite multiple attempts.
Yes, it's amazing that no matter how many times you post the same wrong information it's still wrong isn't it?

The current best-selling camera has it. The best-selling camera didn’t for most of the 16 years Canon has dominated the ILC market.
And markets aren't static. 16 years ago no one had it. You've made quite the concession from claiming that lack of the features hasn't hurt their sales when nearly all the models have had the feature.

I’d try again to explain that Canon has always used feature inclusion/exclusion to differentiate models, and that they’ve certainly done so for the last 16 years, and remained dominant. I tried an erudite explanation, and I tried really dumbing it down for you, but you just don’t get it. It’s painfully obvious that simple logic and abstraction are beyond your mental grasp.
Yes, it's rather intriquing how you just can't convince some people of things that aren't true no matter how you explain them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ashmadux

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,543
1,978
And markets aren't static. 16 years ago no one had it. You've made quite the concession from claiming that lack of the features hasn't hurt their sales when nearly all the models have had the feature.
I guess you have “1080p24” tattooed across your butt, because clearly you want to keep that one feature on your mind. Literally.

Try to broaden your mind, really stretch, and consider camera features. In general. Canon puts some features n some models and not in others. The 1-series bodies have AF point-linked spot metering, other cameras don’t. The 1-series bodies don’t have in-camera HDR, other cameras do (including some P&S). Canon has been making these decisions for years. They’ve remained dominant in the ILC market for years. Logically, they’re good at making those decisions in a way that keeps people buying more Canon ILCs than other manufacturers (who offer many features Canon doesn’t in comparable models).

You don’t make cameras. You don’t conduct and/or pay for ILC market research. Canon does. But you claim to know more about which features in which cameras will drive majority buying decisions that the company that dominates the ILC market. Sure, that’s logical.
 
Aug 20, 2019
5
1
External Flash Compatibility:EL series Speedlites

no EX Speedlites compatibility?
Is there more than the EL100 spedlite currently available?

Another step back in Features? Aren't the current EOS M are all compatible with EX Speedlites?

I tend to agree that this leak is totally fake.
ACCESSORIES
AllOptional Electronic Viewfinder EVF-DC1, EVF-DC2 External Flash: EX and EL series Speedlites Speedlite Transmitter: ST-E3-RT/ ST-E2
 
  • Like
Reactions: ashmadux
Aug 20, 2019
5
1
Type C - charge
Micro USB (2.0) - transfer :ROFLMAO:...

We have 2019
What the hell is USB 2.0 doing here?
With a large number of images and huge files?
Miserable
Leaving space for an upgrade M5 mk II, just a hope that Canon could release with some better spec !!!!
 
Aug 20, 2019
5
1
Hope an M5 mk II with USB 3.x, IBIS, 24p no crop, weather seal, full articulated screen ... and good battery life
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,694
793
119
Hope an M5 mk II with USB 3.x, IBIS, 24p no crop, weather seal, full articulated screen ... and good battery life
Its funny, I absolutely don't want full articulating screen, I much refer the various angle and noticed the M6 MkII seems to have a very basic hinge. I also don't care for IBIS.
 

Tyroop

EOS 80D
Jun 30, 2013
123
12
Presumably EX and not EL series Speedlites. The effects and filters are still a little disappointing. My old Powershot S90 had some really useful features - Color Swap, Stitch Assist and others. I've never found the toy camera effect, miniature effect, etc on EOS M cameras to be very useful. Not a big issue, but it's something that could have been improved. The focus bracketing that was previously rumored doesn't seem to have made it. That's a shame. Nonetheless, it should be a really nice camera even though I am still satisfied with my M6 Mk1.
 
Aug 20, 2019
5
1
Its funny, I absolutely don't want full articulating screen, I much refer the various angle and noticed the M6 MkII seems to have a very basic hinge. I also don't care for IBIS.
I agree with you that probably the customer type of M6 aren't concerned by these features, and this is why I mentionned M5 mk II, for some photographers their style didn't request these features, but many others like to take old lens non-IS and convert them in IS, often these lens are more sharper than the IS version. Very useful for video also. This is a standard for Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Nikon, just missing Canon which promise to give us it in near future. For the screen, this is useful for many type of photography (macro in the grass, over the water and hard to reach place, and of course video). M6 is not a popular option for video as the M50 is, and I will not be surprised that M5 mk II will pick up some feature on the new version.
 

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
727
56
or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.
And the controller must process more inputs/outputs (9 vs 4) on the cable at 10 times the rate (5Gbps vs 480Mbps) and provide nearly twice as much power (900mA vs 500mA). While USB 2 is a one way communication (send or receive, not both), USB3 supports both simultaneously. It isn't a trivial change to integrate all of this with the other functions on chip or in the firmware while not affecting other high bandwidth functions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
200
122
You feel they are failing to provide what your market wants, we are just saying maybe they know what they are doing and your market isn't worth the cost to them and the last 50 years of data has shown them to be good judges.
You can't really say that without knowing what would have happened in alternative universes, though. For example, in Universe #2281 they introduced the 7D3 in early 2019 and sold more cameras in that quarter than any previous.

All we can say is that 50 years of data shows that Canon can keep selling. But it doesn't show that they achieved all the sales they could have done, with a little more effort.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: shunsai

Tugela

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 12, 2014
853
13
You can't really say that without knowing what would have happened in alternative universes, though. For example, in Universe #2281 they introduced the 7D3 in early 2019 and sold more cameras in that quarter than any previous.

All we can say is that 50 years of data shows that Canon can keep selling. But it doesn't show that they achieved all the sales they could have done, with a little more effort.
It isn't about maximizing sales, it is about maximizing profit. They can add all sorts of features for relatively little cost, but if those features only appeal to a very small segment of the market then adding them will result in the company likely losing profit. The reason is that the extra revenue from additional sales due to the feature may be less than what it costs to implement them, resulting in a net loss as a result of the feature being added.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heart+eyes

Tugela

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 12, 2014
853
13
You have data to support this? You love to brag that Canon has the #1 marketshare and that their marketshare is growing very slowly. Of course this is not causation. It's not even correlation. The majority of the cameras Canon does sell have p24. It's mostly just the newly released ones that don't. Maybe the lack of p24 in their new models is going to meaningfully impact their sales. When they sell less cameras in 2019 vs. 2018 will that be proof that p24 mattered to potential buyers?

Further, borrowing your game of twisting things out of context as argument support... Canon's best selling camera, the Rebel T7, has 1080p24. So clearly the feature is important to buyers and has driven the Rebel T7 to the top of Canon's sales chart.


As usual, your argument makes no sense. People who really want p24 aren't going to buy it, so they wouldn't be buyers. As such talking about desires of buyers of the model makes no sense in the context of a feature that's missing. It would be more useful to talk about a survey of potential buyers on what caused them to not buy it. I'm sure you don't have that data though, so just more opinionating by you that you try to disguise as a "fact" behind incredibly poorly reasoned arguments.
There are costs associated with every feature in the camera, it costs development resources, it will require some specific hardware capability to implement (which adds to manufacturing cost) and it will require a license. The fact that older cameras have 24p is irrelevant, it does not mean that newer models have to have it as well. Old features few people use are prime candidates for the chopping block when it comes time reduce costs for a low margin product. The market segment that buys cameras like this by and large never use 24p. Canon almost certainly knows this and have left it out to save money. Sure, they may lose a few hundred sales as a result, but the cost of implementing the feature is likely more than the profit those sales would generate, hence Canon actually loses money by including it.

By not having 24p in the camera they don't have to spend development resources in implementing it, they can minimize the hardware they need to make the camera thus saving a few cents in manufacturing costs, and they likely have negotiated a reduced license fee for the H.264 codec as a result of leaving the framerate out of the spec. It is not a big sum of money spread out over all of the cameras they may sell, but because it very few people actually want it, they make more money as a result of that small increase in margin in the individual camera times 500,000 (or however many copies they sell).

All of the little compromises you see in cameras like this may be a few cents here, a few cents there, which may seem trivial to you but it all adds up and can contribute a lot of money to their bottom line when all is said and done.