DXO: Canon EOS 6D Mark II Sensor Review: Great Color and ISO Performance

[9VIII]

...Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).

I’m sorry but no matter how many times people try to say this is an advantage, in practical reality the Crop body always loses that scenario.
135f2 vs 200f2.8? Full Frame costs half as much and probably gives better IQ.
85f1.4 vs 135f2? Same thing, you’re looking at a more expensive lens on crop and the wide open performance at 85f1.4 isn’t anywhere as good as 135f2 on Full Frame.
50f1.0 vs 85f1.4 is an almost impossible scenario to achieve just based on the lack of f1.0 lenses, and of course moving to 50f1.4 pits the crop body against the inexpensive 85f1.8, which isn’t even a full stop disadvantage anymore.
35f1.4 vs 50f1.8, again, crop sensors lose horribly in all three metrics of Light Gathering, IQ and Cost (the smaller Crop sensor produces an extra 1 stop worth of noise and must be run at 1 stop lower ISO for equivalence, and “technically” it should be 1.3 stops to offset the sensor noise).

I’m probably going to get the Mitakon 35mm f0.95 for Fuji mount because “somehow” it’s actually sharp in the middle wide open, and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. I’m just calling it The Chinese Miracle for now though because I don’t think anything else on the market comes that close to giving a crop sensor full equivalence for a half-decent price.

 

[AlanF]

...Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).

I’m sorry but no matter how many times people try to say this is an advantage, in practical reality the Crop body always loses that scenario.

I did not say "this is an advantage", I was pointing out why the DxO figures for sports iso should not be taken literally and can be misleading.

 

[Don Haines]

Last night I was shooting night skies with a 20mmF1.4 lens on a 6D2. There is no crop equivalence for field of view and Fstop, and the 6D2 vastly outperforms crop cameras at high ISO. This is why I bought it.

 

[scyrene]

The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens

As a 3 year owner who loved the 6D and sold it recently, I don't agree at all. Even just the transition to 26 MP would be a blessing for me cropping my tele shots not to mention the other niceties, including F8 AF. It all depends on usage. At the moment I don't really need the camera and so I'm waiting for a lower price.

Based on price alone I might concur that the person who bought my 6D for $1100 is getting a better deal than buying the 6D2 at this moment.

Jack

I still have mine. It's light, versatile and perfect in low light. The 5dIV is a huge step up and I was very much looking forward to the 6d II but Canon took of in a different direction than I hoped. I was hoping for little to no bump in resolution but a huge bump in low light performance a few more was placed focus points, not a jumbled mess in the center. I like the flip out screen, the dual pixel auto focus, would love to be able to use a camera like this with a nice fast prime like the 35 1.4 II but would like a fast shutter speed of 8000 instead of 4000. I guess to many wedding photographers where willing to work with the limits of the original 6d over the 5d III and Canon didn't want a repeat. It's a good camera I am sure, but it's just not making me want to run out and buy it over what I already own.

A couple of points of order, because these are the sorts of commonly-held assumptions that can spoil discussions here as well as confusing casual readers: first, there is not much more high ISO capability to be squeezed out of current technology (standard silicon Bayer filtered sensor etc). The quality of noise has been improved a little, and the useability of in-camera high ISO jpegs seems to be getting better, but all the top cameras have been within a stop, stop and a half of each other for years now (compare DPR's studio scene for e.g. 6D with the D5 for example), so that "huge bump" was just wishful thinking, sorry (unless possibly you go for a very low res sensor, like the ME20F-SH).

And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But they cannot be much more spread out. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.

 

[cpsico]

The original 6d is from a pure IQ standpoint better. AF was never a problem for portraits, dual card slots and lack of a pic port were. Skip this camera and save up for a 5dIV or just get the original 6d and a great lens

As a 3 year owner who loved the 6D and sold it recently, I don't agree at all. Even just the transition to 26 MP would be a blessing for me cropping my tele shots not to mention the other niceties, including F8 AF. It all depends on usage. At the moment I don't really need the camera and so I'm waiting for a lower price.

Based on price alone I might concur that the person who bought my 6D for $1100 is getting a better deal than buying the 6D2 at this moment.

Jack

I still have mine. It's light, versatile and perfect in low light. The 5dIV is a huge step up and I was very much looking forward to the 6d II but Canon took of in a different direction than I hoped. I was hoping for little to no bump in resolution but a huge bump in low light performance a few more was placed focus points, not a jumbled mess in the center. I like the flip out screen, the dual pixel auto focus, would love to be able to use a camera like this with a nice fast prime like the 35 1.4 II but would like a fast shutter speed of 8000 instead of 4000. I guess to many wedding photographers where willing to work with the limits of the original 6d over the 5d III and Canon didn't want a repeat. It's a good camera I am sure, but it's just not making me want to run out and buy it over what I already own.

A couple of points of order, because these are the sorts of commonly-held assumptions that can spoil discussions here as well as confusing casual readers: first, there is not much more high ISO capability to be squeezed out of current technology (standard silicon Bayer filtered sensor etc). The quality of noise has been improved a little, and the useability of in-camera high ISO jpegs seems to be getting better, but all the top cameras have been within a stop, stop and a half of each other for years now (compare DPR's studio scene for e.g. 6D with the D5 for example), so that "huge bump" was just wishful thinking, sorry (unless possibly you go for a very low res sensor, like the ME20F-SH).

And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But they cannot be much more spread out. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.

All good points, but the same sensor tech in the 5d IV on a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor is more personally what I would have wanted. It's a nice resolution, decent file size, still room to crop size. I really like dual pixel autofocus, it's fantastic to have in live view. Subtle improvements on a winning formula for a price that left room for other accessories was my wish list. I can't call the new 6dII a bad camera, but it's an odd mix. Aps-c focus system, still no uhs-2 Sd slot, or 2 card slots, what appears to be the same mediocre LCD, even the LCD on the 5d II was better than the 6d. The original 6d offered a top notch sensor in a bargain body. The new 6d offers plenty of resolution but no real improvement. It's never meant to be a sports camera so why the 80d focus system is there seems silly. The old focus points were limited but well placed. Improving the already very good battery life was nice, tilting screen very nice, but at the end of they day it's not for me at 2000 dollars. Canon could easily put 4K video in this camera and leveraged there amazing lens line up to regain lost market, instead we get 1080p. Canon needs to realize it's no longer a market where canon is only competing with canon. Sony, Panasonic,Pentax and Nikon now have serious options to compete in the "first full frame" camera market. They need to end the practice of needlessly hobbling camera features for fear of not selling there own high end cameras.

 

[9VIII]

...Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).

I’m sorry but no matter how many times people try to say this is an advantage, in practical reality the Crop body always loses that scenario.

I did not say "this is an advantage", I was pointing out why the DxO figures for sports iso should not be taken literally and can be misleading.

It is implicit in your sentence that it was intended to say "this is an advantage".
That doesn't make the rest of your post meaningless, but:

...put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense...

This is a fallacy that has been used ad-nauseam over the last 5 years trying to sell smaller sensors to mis-informed consumers. People will use this to say Full Frame is inferior and letting that just casually slip on this forum would be a disservice to everyone.

 

[AlanF]

...Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).

I’m sorry but no matter how many times people try to say this is an advantage, in practical reality the Crop body always loses that scenario.

I did not say "this is an advantage", I was pointing out why the DxO figures for sports iso should not be taken literally and can be misleading.

It is implicit in your sentence that it was intended to say "this is an advantage".
That doesn't make the rest of your post meaningless, but:

...put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense...

This is a fallacy that has been used ad-nauseam over the last 5 years trying to sell smaller sensors to mis-informed consumers. People will use this to say Full Frame is inferior and letting that just casually slip on this forum would be a disservice to everyone.

It was not implicit in any way whatsoever, and there is absolutely no justification for your comment. I did not intend to say what you claim to say and I did not write it. I make no brief for FF vs APS-C - I use both as each has its pros and cons, depending on what your uses are. What I do not appreciate is people rubbishing APS-C because they own a FF and those who rubbish FF because they own APS-C. Respect other peoples choices of gear.

 

[9VIII]

...Further, sometimes you can put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense (or use a Metabones speed booster).

I’m sorry but no matter how many times people try to say this is an advantage, in practical reality the Crop body always loses that scenario.

I did not say "this is an advantage", I was pointing out why the DxO figures for sports iso should not be taken literally and can be misleading.

It is implicit in your sentence that it was intended to say "this is an advantage".
That doesn't make the rest of your post meaningless, but:

...put a ~1.6x shorter focal length but wider lens with a better f-number on the APS-C to give the same resolution as a longer lens on FF but with the light on the sensor more intense...

This is a fallacy that has been used ad-nauseam over the last 5 years trying to sell smaller sensors to mis-informed consumers. People will use this to say Full Frame is inferior and letting that just casually slip on this forum would be a disservice to everyone.

It was not implicit in any way whatsoever, and there is absolutely no justification for your comment. I did not intend to say what you claim to say and I did not write it. I make no brief for FF vs APS-C - I use both as each has its pros and cons, depending on what your uses are. What I do not appreciate is people rubbishing APS-C because they own a FF and those who rubbish FF because they own APS-C. Respect other peoples choices of gear.

I’m glad that you’re not confused about sensor equivalence, but it is still implicit in the words regardless of whether or not that was the intention. I guarantee casual observers would have taken it the wrong way.

 

[SecureGSM]

Scyrene,

yes AF points can be spread out and considerably so. see the image attached. 5D IV vs 6D II.
I love my Canon system, but the 6D II AF spread was a BUSINESS decision by Canon rather than a technical issue. I hope common sense prevails.

And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But they cannot be much more spread out. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.

 

[BillB]

Scyrene,

yes AF points can be spread out and considerably so. see the image attached. 5D IV vs 6D II.
I love my Canon system, but the 6D II AF spread was a BUSINESS decision by Canon rather than a technical issue. I hope common sense prevails.

And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But they cannot be much more spread out. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.

Well, the point spread of the 6D is somewhat smaller than the 5DIV, but whether it is considerably so is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that it is considerable, others think not. Both cover the central ninth of the screen. Neither provides much coverage of the remaining eight ninths of the screen, and that would seem to reflect the state of the art.

 

[SecureGSM]

The argument was that AF points cannot be much more spread out. I have proven the statement wrong
The AF point area coverage of 5D IV is 40% (fourty) larger than the same of 6D II
This number is considerable to me and after giving it much consideration, I purchased 5D IV

Scyrene,

yes AF points can be spread out and considerably so. see the image attached. 5D IV vs 6D II.
I love my Canon system, but the 6D II AF spread was a BUSINESS decision by Canon rather than a technical issue. I hope common sense prevails.

And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But they cannot be much more spread out. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.

Well, the point spread of the 6D is somewhat smaller than the 5DIV, but whether it is considerably so is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that it is considerable, others think not. Both cover the central ninth of the screen. Neither provides much coverage of the remaining eight ninths of the screen, and that would seem to reflect the state of the art.

 

[scyrene]

The argument was that AF points cannot be much more spread out. I have proven the statement wrong
The AF point area coverage of 5D IV is 40% (fourty) larger than the same of 6D II
This number is considerable to me and after giving it much consideration, I purchased 5D IV

Scyrene,

yes AF points can be spread out and considerably so. see the image attached. 5D IV vs 6D II.
I love my Canon system, but the 6D II AF spread was a BUSINESS decision by Canon rather than a technical issue. I hope common sense prevails.

And the AF point thing: just no. People complained that there were too few on the 6D, and that only the central one was any good (at least I've seen that expressed a few times). So more were added. But they cannot be much more spread out. That's just how non-Live View FF DSLR AF systems work. See the discussions elsewhere on these forums. Please stop perpetuating the myth that the 6D2 is somehow odd in this regard. It is not.

Well, the point spread of the 6D is somewhat smaller than the 5DIV, but whether it is considerably so is a matter of opinion. Your opinion is that it is considerable, others think not. Both cover the central ninth of the screen. Neither provides much coverage of the remaining eight ninths of the screen, and that would seem to reflect the state of the art.

I'm not sure you've "proven" anything. Can you provide a less confusing diagram? These arguments have been had elsewhere and I thought the conclusion was the spread wasn't much tighter on the 6D2 than the 5D4 or other FF cameras? Where is this 40% figure coming from?

 

[scyrene]

All good points, but the same sensor tech in the 5d IV on a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor is more personally what I would have wanted. It's a nice resolution, decent file size, still room to crop size. I really like dual pixel autofocus, it's fantastic to have in live view. Subtle improvements on a winning formula for a price that left room for other accessories was my wish list. I can't call the new 6dII a bad camera, but it's an odd mix. Aps-c focus system, still no uhs-2 Sd slot, or 2 card slots, what appears to be the same mediocre LCD, even the LCD on the 5d II was better than the 6d. The original 6d offered a top notch sensor in a bargain body. The new 6d offers plenty of resolution but no real improvement. It's never meant to be a sports camera so why the 80d focus system is there seems silly. The old focus points were limited but well placed. Improving the already very good battery life was nice, tilting screen very nice, but at the end of they day it's not for me at 2000 dollars. Canon could easily put 4K video in this camera and leveraged there amazing lens line up to regain lost market, instead we get 1080p. Canon needs to realize it's no longer a market where canon is only competing with canon. Sony, Panasonic,Pentax and Nikon now have serious options to compete in the "first full frame" camera market. They need to end the practice of needlessly hobbling camera features for fear of not selling there own high end cameras.

Sure, some of your points are fine and it is of course right to choose a camera (or anything else) that seems good value to you, and which offers the features you want. Although I would say it's easy to dismiss things other people consider crucial as just 'nice' - some people were adamant that without a mobile screen, for instance, it would be DOA to them. 4K? The question is whether this is the body to bring it to the DSLR masses (given it's supposedly 'entry-level' and nobody else is offering 4K at this price point in DSLRs yet, perhaps not). As for the market analysis, well that's best left to the experts

 

[SecureGSM]

Red lines - 6D II AF points coverage
Blue lines - 5D IV area coverage.

Can you say that blue area is larger than red area? Great! It means that AF points can be spread out wider than with 6D II. Contrary to your statement that AF points cannot be spread out any wider. Yes they technically can be spread out wider, but Canon choose not to. That’s is fine with me, but let’s admit the fact and stop the argument.
And I am sure that you know how to calculate and compare area coverage.
I am not in a position to argue Canon business decisions. They obviously know how to build good cameras and sell them too. I also know that they did a good job in differentiating 6D and 5D product lines. It makes sense but let’s stop kidding ourselves: 6D is no 5D. I am sorry to rain on your day.

I'm not sure you've "proven" anything. Can you provide a less confusing diagram? These arguments have been had elsewhere and I thought the conclusion was the spread wasn't much tighter on the 6D2 than the 5D4 or other FF cameras? Where is this 40% figure coming from?

 

[cpsico]

All good points, but the same sensor tech in the 5d IV on a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor is more personally what I would have wanted. It's a nice resolution, decent file size, still room to crop size. I really like dual pixel autofocus, it's fantastic to have in live view. Subtle improvements on a winning formula for a price that left room for other accessories was my wish list. I can't call the new 6dII a bad camera, but it's an odd mix. Aps-c focus system, still no uhs-2 Sd slot, or 2 card slots, what appears to be the same mediocre LCD, even the LCD on the 5d II was better than the 6d. The original 6d offered a top notch sensor in a bargain body. The new 6d offers plenty of resolution but no real improvement. It's never meant to be a sports camera so why the 80d focus system is there seems silly. The old focus points were limited but well placed. Improving the already very good battery life was nice, tilting screen very nice, but at the end of they day it's not for me at 2000 dollars. Canon could easily put 4K video in this camera and leveraged there amazing lens line up to regain lost market, instead we get 1080p. Canon needs to realize it's no longer a market where canon is only competing with canon. Sony, Panasonic,Pentax and Nikon now have serious options to compete in the "first full frame" camera market. They need to end the practice of needlessly hobbling camera features for fear of not selling there own high end cameras.

Sure, some of your points are fine and it is of course right to choose a camera (or anything else) that seems good value to you, and which offers the features you want. Although I would say it's easy to dismiss things other people consider crucial as just 'nice' - some people were adamant that without a mobile screen, for instance, it would be DOA to them. 4K? The question is whether this is the body to bring it to the DSLR masses (given it's supposedly 'entry-level' and nobody else is offering 4K at this price point in DSLRs yet, perhaps not). As for the market analysis, well that's best left to the experts

I will say that any full frame camera is not entry level to photography, but more entry level to emerging professionals or people that are looking for professional quality images without professional features. What I am most disappointed with is camera is clearly not aimed here, it's a social, casual use camera not a value back up camera that will match the image quality of your pro camera. Which I feel was canons intended result. The old 6d sacrificed features and build quality but never image quality, we now have a reversal of that. I despised the image quality of anything less than perfect exposure on the 5d mark II and this camera reminds me of that one.

 

[AlanF]

It was not implicit in any way whatsoever, and there is absolutely no justification for your comment. I did not intend to say what you claim to say and I did not write it. I make no brief for FF vs APS-C - I use both as each has its pros and cons, depending on what your uses are. What I do not appreciate is people rubbishing APS-C because they own a FF and those who rubbish FF because they own APS-C. Respect other peoples choices of gear.

I’m glad that you’re not confused about sensor equivalence, but it is still implicit in the words regardless of whether or not that was the intention. I guarantee casual observers would have taken it the wrong way.
[/quote]

Only observers who who jump to incorrect conclusions because they are casual and not careful.

 

[Alejandro]

I'm curious about low light AF performance compared to the original 6D. Does that -3 EV is "3" EV or ir it more like "-3.5 EV"?

And another thing is the UHS-1 write speeds on the 6D2.

 

[dak723]

I will say that any full frame camera is not entry level to photography, but more entry level to emerging professionals or people that are looking for professional quality images without professional features. What I am most disappointed with is camera is clearly not aimed here, it's a social, casual use camera not a value back up camera that will match the image quality of your pro camera. Which I feel was canons intended result. The old 6d sacrificed features and build quality but never image quality, we now have a reversal of that. I despised the image quality of anything less than perfect exposure on the 5d mark II and this camera reminds me of that one.

If you believe the camera produces non-professional images, and is a "social, casual use camera" I believe you will find yourself in a very small minority. The original 6D produced professional quality images, so, clearly this camera will as well. Since there is virtually no difference in IQ between all the FF cameras in actual usage (as opposed to test results with targets) you could certainly use this camera as both your only pro camera or as a backup to another pro camera. The fact that you are apparently an extremely picky photographer that found the 5D II unacceptable is not Canon's fault - nor is it Canon's fault that you find the 6D II unacceptable. They produced a camera that will give excellent results to those that use it and aren't looking for the "highest possible quality" in a camera that is at the low price point end of the FF alternatives.

 

[scyrene]

Red lines - 6D II AF points coverage
Blue lines - 5D IV area coverage.

Can you say that blue area is larger than red area? Great! It means that AF points can be spread out wider than with 6D II. Contrary to your statement that AF points cannot be spread out any wider. Yes they technically can be spread out wider, but Canon choose not to. That’s is fine with me, but let’s admit the fact and stop the argument.
And I am sure that you know how to calculate and compare area coverage.
I am not in a position to argue Canon business decisions. They obviously know how to build good cameras and sell them too. I also know that they did a good job in differentiating 6D and 5D product lines. It makes sense but let’s stop kidding ourselves: 6D is no 5D. I am sorry to rain on your day.

I'm not sure you've "proven" anything. Can you provide a less confusing diagram? These arguments have been had elsewhere and I thought the conclusion was the spread wasn't much tighter on the 6D2 than the 5D4 or other FF cameras? Where is this 40% figure coming from?

This is getting a little arcane, but fwiw...

For clarity I have created a new diagram as yours arbitrarily separates the focus zones for the 6D2 but not the 5D4 and I still find it needlessly confusing. Here, the 5D4 AF points are in black, 6D2 in red. Measuring on this diagram, the width of the 5D4 is ~560 pixels, the 6D2 424; the heights are 279 and 223 respectively (outer edge of focus points, ignoring the outer lines*; the actual measurements don't matter, it's the ratios that count). So the 6D2's spread is 75% as wide and 80% as tall. The difference is more than I'd realised, so maybe I'll modify my language a touch in future, but the overall difference is not as much as you claim.

I didn't say they couldn't be spread ANY wider. This may sound like splitting hairs, and perhaps this whole discussion is; but I said it couldn't be MUCH wider, and that is the nub of the issue. It is of course to some extent a matter of subjectivity - my much and your much are clearly not the same. But I stand by my original statement: the claims that I've seen repeated on these forums that the 6D2's AF point spread is unusually small or somehow notably bad are wrong. Nobody denies the spread is less than the 5D4's but the differences are minor and it is unfair to claim otherwise. It's also worth noting that the 6D2's AF point spread is a touch less wide horizontally than the 6D's (although many here have claimed that the outer points on that older camera aren't worth using), but no less vertically - and one could well argue that *this* is the key comparison, not that with the 5D4, which is a much more expensive camera.

*I'm not sure what the outer lines represent; note the 6D2's outer line is further from the edge of the outer focus points compared to the 5D4.

 

[scyrene]

All good points, but the same sensor tech in the 5d IV on a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor is more personally what I would have wanted. It's a nice resolution, decent file size, still room to crop size. I really like dual pixel autofocus, it's fantastic to have in live view. Subtle improvements on a winning formula for a price that left room for other accessories was my wish list. I can't call the new 6dII a bad camera, but it's an odd mix. Aps-c focus system, still no uhs-2 Sd slot, or 2 card slots, what appears to be the same mediocre LCD, even the LCD on the 5d II was better than the 6d. The original 6d offered a top notch sensor in a bargain body. The new 6d offers plenty of resolution but no real improvement. It's never meant to be a sports camera so why the 80d focus system is there seems silly. The old focus points were limited but well placed. Improving the already very good battery life was nice, tilting screen very nice, but at the end of they day it's not for me at 2000 dollars. Canon could easily put 4K video in this camera and leveraged there amazing lens line up to regain lost market, instead we get 1080p. Canon needs to realize it's no longer a market where canon is only competing with canon. Sony, Panasonic,Pentax and Nikon now have serious options to compete in the "first full frame" camera market. They need to end the practice of needlessly hobbling camera features for fear of not selling there own high end cameras.

Sure, some of your points are fine and it is of course right to choose a camera (or anything else) that seems good value to you, and which offers the features you want. Although I would say it's easy to dismiss things other people consider crucial as just 'nice' - some people were adamant that without a mobile screen, for instance, it would be DOA to them. 4K? The question is whether this is the body to bring it to the DSLR masses (given it's supposedly 'entry-level' and nobody else is offering 4K at this price point in DSLRs yet, perhaps not). As for the market analysis, well that's best left to the experts

I will say that any full frame camera is not entry level to photography, but more entry level to emerging professionals or people that are looking for professional quality images without professional features. What I am most disappointed with is camera is clearly not aimed here, it's a social, casual use camera not a value back up camera that will match the image quality of your pro camera. Which I feel was canons intended result. The old 6d sacrificed features and build quality but never image quality, we now have a reversal of that. I despised the image quality of anything less than perfect exposure on the 5d mark II and this camera reminds me of that one.

I think it's fair to say that the 6D punched above its weight with regard to IQ in some regards, and the emphasis may well have shifted in its successor. Of course, some have long argued that it was an aberration in that regard; it may also be reasonable to think, when they addressed the complaints of current users (more AF points, a mobile screen etc), they had to cut back elsewhere in order to keep it at this price point - so maybe it was unrealistic that some people expected both.

As for the entry level thing - I'll just agree to disagree. There's no reason a FF camera can't be entry level in its class. The same argument could be made at each sensor size - an APS-C camera can't be entry level because there's 4/3 etc. That would clearly be ridiculous. Entry level just means the lowest tier in a category or range.