Canon EOS M6 Mark II full specifications

[Tugela]

The 90D can't do p24 either. It's the Canon cripple hammer at work. They're protecting their Cinema cameras. They're not going to let their ILC cameras shoot 4K footage that's competitive with their Cinema cameras or shoot p24. Market demands/expectations have basically dictated that Canon can't sell 4K with a crop anymore or just omit 4K so they're offering full frame 4K but crippling it in different ways. Prior models have omitted it, disabled dual pixel AF in 4K, had a substantial 4K crop, had horrible rolling shutter in 4K, or had other ways to keep a clear distinction in 4K footage quality and usability between the ILCs and their Cinema cameras.

Canon operates in a delusional fantasy land where you will either buy a Cinema camera from them if they don't offer good 4K and/or p24 in their P&S cameras or ILCs or just buy them anyway and just accept the limitations. In reality you will likely buy a camera from someone other than Canon instead if you want competent video.

It has nothing to do with protecting anything. People who would buy a cinema camera would not buy these cameras irrespective of whether 24p was included or not.

All of the things you mention are actually hardware limitations which result from cost saving measures necessary to make an affordable consumer camera with the technology available to Canon, not "crippling". The hardware in Canon's cinema cameras is a lot more sophisticated than that included in consumer cameras, so of course there are going to be compromises. EOS-C cameras have specialized processors and sensors, both optimized for video, plus a lot of other dedicated hardware intended to facilitate video. Consumer stills cameras are far less capable in that respect. It is not just a case of flipping a switch, the cheaper cameras are literally missing a whole bunch of hardware required to implement those things.

 

[Otara]

Im wondering if its something to do with research on what framerate phone users prefer to use for 4k video or the like.

I find the cinema camera protection idea unlikely, Im more inclined to think its about 24p being less vital than some people might think for the intended user base.

 

[Proscribo]

Nope. Digic 8 is used in the EOS-R and that has USB 3.1

But it could technically use a separate chip for that.

Or maybe all Digic 8s are not the same? Do we actually know a Digic 8 in camera A is the same as in camera B?

 

[Stereodude]

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.

I didn't say it was free. I said it was as close to free as any feature could be. Which is it. How do you know that the market segment that buys camera like the M6 II / 90D don't use p24? If true, why did Canon only come to this conclusion after putting p24 in virtually every ILC they made for 9 years? They're just really slow learners?

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).

Except that's not how H.264 license fees work. Removing p24 doesn't reduce licensing fees.

It has nothing to do with protecting anything.

Of course it does. They made the decision because they think it will make them more profit. The only way it makes them more profit is resulting in more sales of higher profit cameras that more than offset the loss of sales of the 6D II / 90D by excluding it. The cost of the feature is insignificant, so excluding it doesn't change the BoM cost of the camera. It doesn't make the 90D / M6 II more profitable in any statistically significant way. So, the only way Canon makes more profit by removing a "free" feature is if they have some sort of analysis that shows including that feature will cost them more profit in reduced sales of a higher profit margin camera than will be offset by additional profit in additional the sales of the 90D & M6 II. That's the very definition of protecting higher end models.

People who would buy a cinema camera would not buy these cameras irrespective of whether 24p was included or not.

I completely agree on this. Which is why I've repeated mocked Canon for doing so. But they have a multi year history of slow-rolling video features into their ILCs to protect their Cinema cameras. They went from market leaders of video in ILCs with the 5D II and the 7D to market laggers. The only significant thing that changed during the span was the introduction of their Cinema camera line-up. We know it's not technical because the Cinema cameras have the features that are missing from the ILCs.

All of the things you mention are actually hardware limitations which result from cost saving measures necessary to make an affordable consumer camera with the technology available to Canon, not "crippling". The hardware in Canon's cinema cameras is a lot more sophisticated than that included in consumer cameras, so of course there are going to be compromises. EOS-C cameras have specialized processors and sensors, both optimized for video, plus a lot of other dedicated hardware intended to facilitate video. Consumer stills cameras are far less capable in that respect. It is not just a case of flipping a switch, the cheaper cameras are literally missing a whole bunch of hardware required to implement those things.

So how come their competitors can offer those features in similarly priced cameras? Are you saying that the company with the largest marketshare selling the most cameras and thereby having the largest base to spread development costs across can't afford to include them? How can their competitors who have smaller marketshare and are at a distinct disadvantage do so then?

 

[privatebydesign]

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 also shows that for the last 15+ years they did a better job than any other camera company, so it does show that the mistakes they inevitably made were less severe than anybody else's.

 

[Richard CR]

Nope. Digic 8 is used in the EOS-R and that has USB 3.1

good call.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

It is a Rumour, not a release.

This so-called spec sheet is full of omissions and errors.

They have the image size wrong in the 1 to 1 aspect ratio
They don’t list the 120 video
They don’t mention flicker detection
And that’s just a few.....

I don’t understand how you (and others) can get so worked up about this? Right now, the odds are heavy on that it is in the camera, but they missed it in the partial spec sheet. 1080p120 is much more in consumer demand and despite it being in the video, they missed it in the partial spec sheet. Be patient and wait for the real release info.

It is a rumour that is rife with errors and omissions!

 

[melgross]

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.

You’re making some pretty big assumptions yourself. You have no idea if anyone who buys a T7 cares in the least about 24fps. They care about a lightweight, small, inexpensive camera with pretty good IQ. That’s why they buy it. 24fps? I doubt it very much. People buying a small, inexpensive camera are most likely shooting for computer display at 30 to 60fps. Even TVs will display at that. No need for 24 for most people.

 

[Etienne]

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.

If you want USB-C you'll have to buy a Sony, because, you know, "it isn't trivial" to add USB-C. Apparently Canon can't handle that

 

[AlexV]

It would really piss me off, if M5 II would have IBIS and USB 3, whereas M6 not. Those are two different body types and I see no reason for such a feature differentiation ....

Agree that some earlier buyer of M6 could have some deception, but if only form factor was the only differentiation, we could expect the press release annoucement at the same time, which could not be the case. Since Canon adopt mk II version, we could expect that some caracteristic not share between line and M5 was the top line until recently. AS the M50 was a little bit lower in the line but some new feature (DIGIC 8, screen variangle, ...) but don't have the control of the M5, this should not be a great surprise to see these feature and other on the new M5 mk II. Also since Canon seem operate a cost separation on these line, recent rumors on this website mentionned a M70 (M50 mk II) and a lower grade new coming M700 (M500) could support the fact the M5 mk II could have some interesting feature not available for the M6. If these features aren't present on the M5 mk II, I expect this should be the case for the mk II, because Canon has to close the gap with the competition in the mirorless area, a quick move sending a strong message over a classic marketing strategy iteration.

 

[serhatakbal]

Yönetici Lütfen, 1dxmk2'de herhangi bir haber olup olmadığını bize bildirin. teşekkür ederim <3

 

[allanP]

or the USB controller is in DIGIC and that requires a new USB controller on the SoC. that may take more time.

More time?
Even the old 7D2 anno 2014 offered USB 3.0

 

[Danglin52]

As others have pointed out, this "spec sheet" is full of errors and there is a lot of angst over details that may change by next week. I wouldn't assume anything until you see an official announcement WITH spec sheet from Canon. I will not be purchasing the M6 II because I do not use a rear screen (bad eyesight), but if the M5 II has even this spec sheet I will be placing an order. I think if most of this early spec sheet is true, I will be a killer camera for travel and place my pre-order once the M5 II is announced. I would like in body IBIS, but most of the lenses I shoot already have IS. I have never bought a camera for the video, so I don't really care about 24p as long as I can get good output to share. My advice is if you can't handle the stress of the unknown, enjoy shooting what you have and stay off of rumor sites - or go to another brand. You never know, the USB & frame rate may not be an issue when the final spec sheet is published.

 

[Yakodzun]

What about Dynamic Range? Is it the same egg from another angle?

 

[Tugela]

It is a Rumour, not a release.

This so-called spec sheet is full of omissions and errors.

They have the image size wrong in the 1 to 1 aspect ratio
They don’t list the 120 video
They don’t mention flicker detection
And that’s just a few.....

I don’t understand how you (and others) can get so worked up about this? Right now, the odds are heavy on that it is in the camera, but they missed it in the partial spec sheet. 1080p120 is much more in consumer demand and despite it being in the video, they missed it in the partial spec sheet. Be patient and wait for the real release info.

It is a rumour that is rife with errors and omissions!

The overall specs with respect to video appear similar to the G5XM2 and G7XM3, and those have very basic options when it comes to video frame rates. There is no 24p in those cameras, just 30 fps in 4K and 30/60 fps in 1080p. That reduced video option set appears to be the new consumer grade video for Canon.

Right now there is no reason to think that 24p will be in these latest cameras.

 

[Act444]

Interesting, although as a legacy M6 owner, I see nothing to warrant an upgrade. I certainly don't need more MP (24 is already stretching it on a crop-sensor).

 

[koenkooi]

Interesting, although as a legacy M6 owner, I see nothing to warrant an upgrade. I certainly don't need more MP (24 is already stretching it on a crop-sensor).

This summer I've attempted to do some more action macro shots, like solitary bees emerging from their burrow and taking off. The RP is comfortable to hold for a long time, but lacks the FPS, the M50 has more FPS and crop-factor advantage. The M6II with the cropped 30FPS RAW burst would likely increase my odds of capturing the right moment.

The M6II might finally be a worthy upgrade of my original M

 

[scottsworld]

it was looking fantastic, right up until the end - when the screen flipped UP (only)!
#bloodycanon I guess they need to sell another model number, later, with a reticulating screen?

So I dunno, do I wait for the M50 mk II?

 

[koenkooi]

it was looking fantastic, right up until the end - when the screen flipped UP (only)!
#bloodycanon I guess they need to sell another model number, later, with a reticulating screen?

So I dunno, do I wait for the M50 mk II?

I really like the flip-out screen for macro, so the tilt-only screen in the video is the only let-down for me. And no IBIS, but I hadn't really expected that yet, I think that will debut in high MP R variant first.

 

[ashmadux]

Neuro - once again you are answering the question noone asked, whereas the question is rather simple - why the there is 24p missing again (if true)? No one needing the feature cares, if it influences Canon's sales or not. Ppl might be well invested into the Canon system already. Playing on their nerves does not win them loyalty. If theirs and your message is - who cares about such users, it's a completly different story.

This, this, this.

No one's buying a camera then magically goes "ooh ohh, gotta get that cinema cam nexT becasue no 24p"

Canon The Crippler just be cripplin'