Home for the 6D Mark II Debate

tiggy@mac.com

Pentax K-1000
Jan 20, 2014
468
142
Thetford, VT
www.ForestMetrix.com
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.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
958
130
Davidson, NC
My perspective differs from that of most posters here, apparently, both lovers and haters of the 6D2. I've never shot a 6D, and I certainly wasn't expecting a sensor leap forward from the 5D IV. I don't take a lot of pictures at ISO 100, and I don't underexpose four stops if I can help it. I'm not usually interested in bringing out the spider webs in the dark corners of a room. If I want them to be the subject rather than a distraction, I'll focus on them and expose for them. If I want both the dark interior of a cathedral and its stained glass windows to look good in a picture, I'll take at least two shots and stack them in Photoshop. That works fine with handheld pictures even with my G7X II. I'm not aware of a camera with the kind of dynamic range to handle that in one shot.

In the months after the 80D came out, I began to think about upgrading from my T3i. I had taken fine pictures with that camera, but then I had taken fine pictures with my Yashica rangefinder camera in the '60s before I got my first SLR. By the time I got around to thinking seriously about buying it, rumors were floating about an upgrade to the 6D, so I decided to wait and consider going to full frame. As noted above, that introduction came many moons after we were expecting. By the time the 6D2 came out, I had photographed a total solar eclipse with the T3i, and had become more convinced I needed a flippy screen on whatever I bought. I used my crappy EF 75 to 300mm lens for that. At f/11, it wasn't so bad after all. Photoshop could tame the remaining chromatic aberration that is so blatant at wider openings, and the depth of field helped in the difficult task of focusing on the sun through a nearly opaque filter. I got pictures I could be proud of, and began to wonder why it was that I wanted a new camera. (OK, I was still going to replace the telephoto zoom I had bought for $100 with my first Rebel.)

Then as my October birthday approached, and the 6D2 was available, I bought it with the cheaper kit lens, which seemed to have more bang for the buck than the L version for my purposes. And maybe the STM version would have some advantages for video, I thought. When I got it, I went outside that night and photographed bushes in front of the house in no direct light at all, handheld at ISO 40,000. The shots were of course noisy and the colors were subdued, but less so than it looked in person. I was impressed.

An older neighbor whose birthday comes a few days before mine invited me to go with them when her family took her to see a Chinese lantern exhibit at gardens about 30 miles from here. I took the camera, and took photos and videos in daylight, dusk, and night of the lanterns. Since I was learning, I pretty much used just automatic settings. The pictures were stunning in all of those lighting situations, including the impossible seeming ones.

So with that as my first impression of the camera, there should be no surprise that my reaction to all the fulminations and bloviations about poor dynamic range has been, "Say, whut?"

Also, so far, I have not had people point at me and laugh derisively because my camera doesn't have on-chip ADC. Maybe I'm just lucky or don't travel in sophisticated circles.

I started coming to this site to follow the 6D2 rumors, and I've stayed around out of general interest in photography, and have received some good advice. Since my EF-S 10-22mm lens doesn't work on the 6D2, and since my telephoto zoom was not so hot, I have bought the 16-35mm f/4 and the 100-400mm II, in part based on recommendations here. I even read a lot of the R camera posts, though I don't anticipate buying anything without an OVF unless maybe a G7X III. I do still plan to rent a TS lens for a week some time, probably the 24mm, in spite of my fear that I will want one to keep once I've used it.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
This thread will only be useful if only those who have actually used the 6D II are allowed to post. Otherwise, I 'm afraid, it will just be a repeat of every other thread on this forum and degenerate into Canon bashing and Canon defending.

Without trying to stir the pot, I ask, "Why do we judge the sensor by the amount of DR?" Is more DR really an improvement at this point in sensor development? Or are we at the point where more DR is just giving us more photos that are flatter and need more post-processing to restore the amount of contrast that is needed to make a good image?

I have asked this type of question before on this forum and usually not a single person gets the connection between IQ and contrast as opposed to the connection between IQ and DR that is the rage on the internet in these times. I understand that more DR is useful in some extreme lighting conditions, but how many folks actually encounter those situations compared to the number of situations where the camera is giving you plenty (or even too much) DR?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
506
171
The fact is, when the 6D came out it was a formidable alternative to the 5D Mark III in terms of image quality while being much cheaper. But since then the Mark IV has gained more to keep more in line with the competion while the 6D Mark II got left behind (and marketed differently because of the flip-screen). And that was almost two years ago and it's not going to change in this generation of sensors.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that in Canon's world, but others are definitely ahead in this department, and the difference is clearer than the 5D IV and its competitors. Of course it may not be relevant to its users, but it is definitely there.
I use a 6DII I don't push files too much and yet I can still see that sometimes, but of course there are plenty of examples where it makes no difference at all.

I am personally more annoyed by the combination of useful video-related features like flip-screen with an easy to use touch interface with Dual-Pixel AF, good Picture Profiles, good AWB, but the 1080p video quality is probably the mushiest out there (and now we have a camera that is even smaller, lighter but probably still has these exact limitations in 2019, makes it even more annoying)
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,871
1,187
Canada
We have many cameras at work, including the 6D and the 6D2. To make a long story short, I liked the 6D2 so much I got one for home.

If you want to compare the two cameras, the first thing that stood out was the AF system. The 2 has a better spread of AF points and 4 times as many of them. It seems to focus better in poor light, and it seems to focus faster in poor light. I can’t tell the difference in good light. As well, the setup of the AF system is far more adjustable in the 2.

The next big difference seems to be lost to most people. I shoot a lot under fluorescent light, and the anti flicker option is absolutely fantastic. I will never get another camera which does not have it. For me, the lack of it is now a deal breaker.

The articulated touchscreen is the same. This is such a useful function in confined or awkward areas that it is now a must! The touchscreen interface is very well done, and has also made it into my list of must have features.

The WiFi interface is great. I tried To get it to work on the mark 1, but it was a royal pain in the ass! It would not work reliably, and every time you tried to connect it you had to start almost from scratch. Eye-Fi cards should be buried in an undisclosed location on a moonless night. On the Mark 2, it works! No surprises, just easy solid interfaces, time after time.

The images from the Mark 2 look better, not by very much, but they are better. I know that tests show that the pixels on the Mark 1 are slightly better than on the Mark 2, but you have to consider that the Mark 2 has more of them. When you re-sample an image to a usable size, the Mark 2 looks better, as it has more information to work with in the resampling process.

Then we have video. The Mark 2 is easier to use (yay touchscreen!), and everything about it works better.

Remember, I had experience with the 1 and the 2, could have bought the 1 for half the price, and bought the 2
 
Last edited:

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
694
79
I owned a 6D for years, and I switched to a 6DII in April last year.

I've been shooting DSLRs for 15 years (never professionally though) and hard though it may be for some people to accept, if I was offered any Canon camera I liked for free, right now, I would seriously consider taking the 6DII ... and it wouldn't necessarily change even if i considered other brands. All gear involves compromises, and the 6DII offers possibly the best set of compromises for my use. Once you factor in price too, I'm pretty happy with the 6DII.

The things I like about the 6DII are the size and weight (about same as 6D), pretty good ergonomics (no different from the 6D of course, and yes I wish it had a joystick), tilt flip screen (a surprise to me - I wasn't excited about it when I bought the camera but now I've had it for a while I'm a fan), reasonably good AF (compared with the 6D the big difference is not just the number of AF points but the fact the non-centre points are all cross type in the 6DII, compared with line sensor in the 6D), DPAF, good battery life, the anti-flicker feature. And I prefer OVF to EVF. And I get to use Canon lenses (albeit not the new RF ones of course).

Sure, I wish it had the 5DIV sensor technology, but DR at low ISO isn't the only measure of a sensor's quality and the 6DII is good (eg skin tones) even it isn't the top of the tree for DR. Most of the time I can lift shadows as much as I want to lift them without causing a problem - and if I lifted the shadows more, often the image would look too unrealistic / HDR-like for my taste. And I can still use exposure bracketing and blending if I'm really worried about DR. Whenever I've played around with Sony/Nikon raw files or 5DIV files, I've felt like the practical difference in comparison to the 6DII is blown out of proportion, at least generally speaking. (Yes, there is an advantage if you seriously underexpose an image and want to recover it, and there can be some advantage in other situations. I just don't see it being that big a deal for me most of the time. And once the ISO starts to climb, any difference reduces substantially anyway.)

Other things I wish the 6DII had: joystick, faster FPS (but generally I'd rather just try to time the shot - I realise that's not always practical though), 1/8000 shutter time, faster flash sync. And of course I'll always take "better AF tracking" but I would say that about any camera I had. I would also be happy to have a second memory card slot, although it's not critical to me.

As for the other options - Canon or otherwise - I would consider:

5DIV - no doubt a great camera and would give me pretty much everything I have mentioned above as something which could be improved in the 6DII, but it would be a bit bigger and heavier, I'd have no tilt flip screen, and it costs significantly more. Overall I'm happy with my bargain with the 6DII, even if I'd like many of the extra things the 5DIV offers.

EOS R - I guess mirrorless and the RF mount will be the future, and the EOS R got my attention due to its focus accuracy with wide aperture lenses and the AF frame coverage, but I am yet to use an EVF I liked as much as an OVF, I gather the EVF slows down in low light conditions(?), the ergonomics are some of the best I've seen on a mirrorless but I'm still not convinced (eg not sure the touch bar is a good use of space), battery life seems to be a mixed bag, and the AF tracking seems to be a mixed bag (probably better than the 6DII in some conditions but not in all). It seems mirrorless offers the potential for better AF because the image sensor is seeing the whole scene all of the time but equally it seems you need a lot of processor power to translate that to good AF, so faster processors (which don't overheat and are affordable) will make a lot of difference there. And by the time you throw in an adapter for EF lenses, the EOS R is over 50% more expensive than a 6DII in my neck of the woods. All in all, I think it won't be too long before there is a significantly improved version on the market so even assuming I end up with an RF mount camera one day, I'm not expecting to buy an EOS R.

Nikon Z6 - seems to get generally good reviews but like the EOS R, but has a number of similar issues to the EOS R and I think it won't be too long before there is a significantly improved version on the market. (As for the Z7, it doesn't offer enough for the money to tempt me, albeit I get why some people like the very high resolution sensors.)

Nikon D750 - seems to be a good camera I would look at it closely if I was starting from scratch, but in practical terms I think it's comparable to a 6DII (some pros and some cons). However given the EF mount lenses I already have, I won't be switching now.

Not interested in any of the Sony A7 series cameras so far. Every time I've tried one, I haven't enjoyed using it. The ergonomics and EVF were not for me. (OK to be fair, I've had limited time with any of the Sony A series cameras so I suppose I might get used to one if I had it. From what I've read though, I'd be very surprised if I did.)

I wouldn't be quick to go back to an APS-C sensor camera (except if I bought a second body specifically for travel). I got bitten by the full-frame bug when I got a 6D (after owing a 300D, a 40D and a 7D).

I have two 45" by 30" prints (both landscapes taken in NZ) framed in my lounge room taken with my old 6D. I'm very happy with them. I've now got an even better camera in the 6DII. And once you start printing, there's a whole bunch of other factors which come into play anyway such as printers, inks and papers. I'd rather get out and shoot with what I have - and perhaps put money towards travelling to places which offer great shooting opportunities - than be quick to spend more money on gear which offers at best only incremental benefits for my use.

I think the comments which sometimes get to the owners of a 6D or 6DII are the ones which make it sound like the camera is terrible and only someone who has no idea what they are doing would buy one let alone be happy with one. If another camera is better for your purposes and preferences, then buy a different camera, but saying the 6DII is simply a poor camera in general terms just isn't right.
 
Last edited:

Joules

EOS 80D
Jul 16, 2017
132
53
Hamburg, Germany
they were expecting a sensor as good as the current 5 series, or at least quite a leap from the old one.
That's how I felt. Although I would rather say many were expecting a sensor a good as the then current 80D and 77D. I was looking at upgrading my T3i and a full frame 80D would have been nice.

It simply become less attractive to me since I have to give up one aspect of image quality over another - while paying quite a bit more! It goes without saying that you shouldn't expect to get more of everything for the same price - But the 6D II was and still is over 50% more expensive than the 80D. So some disappointment on the side of many users seems reasonable too me. Especially now, seeing that

Endlessly complaining about it is annoying for sure though. As it is too hear that you can still buy a 6DII and take great shots with it. Duh! You could take great images with film back in the day. My Pentax ME super is a ton of fun to use and I'm really happy with some of the pictures I got from it. But it's ergonomic is rediculous and the shutter doesn't open sometimes. It's great fun but not a great camera for modern standards. Obviously different people are happy with different cameras. I'm sure most Sony users don't agonize over their cameras lackluster Ergonomics on a daily bases - so why do we hear Canon users complain about it?
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,151
431
* People obsess over "sensor quality", DxO scores, and other such nonsense thinking that tech and not skill will be the difference between amateur and professional images.

* At this point in sensor development there are few situations which can separate one sensor from another of the same format, roughly the same MP count, and roughly the same generation.

* The 6D2: matches the competition on resolution; is better than some but worse than others on high ISO; has better color than most; has worse base ISO DR than most.

* On high ISO FF sensors are all within a stop of each other any way so it's hardly worth worrying about whether the 6D2 is 1/2 stop better than competition X or 1/3 stop worse than competition Y. Your skill with exposure and post processing matters so much more.

* So whether it's a great sensor or a disappointment depends entirely on your use of one single metric: DR. I say "use of" because a lot of people talk about DR, but very few have a portfolio of single frame scenes that truly push DR. And the 'dirty little secret' of the professionals dealing in HDR scenes (landscape and architecture; large prints or high rez files for commercial clients) is that they are often blending exposures even when they could handle the scene in one shot. That's because even with Sony sensors...even with 100 MP Phase One MF systems...if you push hard you sacrifice some detail and tonality.

The 6D2 is capable of excellent 16x24" prints, very good 20x30" prints, and still pretty darn good 24x36" prints. And that's assuming very demanding subject matter with lots of fine detail. Its sensor is literally better than drum scanned ISO 50-100 E6 slide film used to be in 645 format, in every respect, and that's when the sensor is set to ISO 800.

The 6D2 is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,534
234
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
The fact is, when the 6D came out it was a formidable alternative to the 5D Mark III in terms of image quality while being much cheaper. But since then the Mark IV has gained more to keep more in line with the competion while the 6D Mark II got left behind (and marketed differently because of the flip-screen). And that was almost two years ago and it's not going to change in this generation of sensors.
Nothing necessarily wrong with that in Canon's world, but others are definitely ahead in this department, and the difference is clearer than the 5D IV and its competitors. Of course it may not be relevant to its users, but it is definitely there.
I use a 6DII I don't push files too much and yet I can still see that sometimes, but of course there are plenty of examples where it makes no difference at all.
I think from Canon's marketing point of view...the 6DII had every thing to do with the 5DIII and 5D4. Canon doesn't make any money on the sale of S/H 5DIII cameras. So Canon needed to bring a camera to the market that effectively under cut the sale of the S/H 5DIII cameras with a slightly better spec (plus the flippy screen) and cheaper price point...and oh...it's brand new versus slightly used / heavily used S/H 5DIII models around.
IF I was in the market for a used 5DIII or a 6DII...I would jump on a 6DII in an instant. To upgraders from 1.6x crop cameras, the spec is a little less important, the price point is the key feature and that it's full frame.
So I recon a 6DIII (if anything think this will ever come down the pipe in the post Eos R world) will probably be very similar spec to the 5D4. I think we'll always see a new 6D series to be feature / spec matched to the previous / outgoing 5D series.
With the advent of the Rf mount, Canon gets to rebody and reuse the same sensors of the previous gen DSLR's and claim it's a whole new paradigm. The Eos R is pretty much a 5D4 sensor and the Eos Rp is pretty much using a 6DII's sensor. I suspect the reason we haven't see a better body than the Eos R from Canon is due to the limitations of the dual Pixel AF system. I suspect that the Eos R is as fast as Canon can currently make it focus in Servo / tracking mode....even with their dedicated Digic 8 processor.
 

Joules

EOS 80D
Jul 16, 2017
132
53
Hamburg, Germany
The 6D2 is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it.
Do you use it?

As I said, this argumend is just plain annoying. No offence, but that can be said about every ILC sold today. The Sony A7 III is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it. The Canon SL2 is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it. And like I said, the Pentax ME super is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it.

Each camera has its weaknesses. And sure, most of them don't show up in an image where the user has compensated for these with his or her own technique. But using enough technique I could get most of the pictures I take out of my smartphone. It's simply much less FUN.

To me, being disappointed with Canon is not about what you need. It's about what you want. And that's my choice, right? I want to spend my money so that I feel good about it. And paying 50% more than an 80D to get a 6D II to get a sensor that is better in some and worse in some way just doesn't feel right to ME when going FF is supposed to be all about Image Quality.

That's not saying that the 6DII (or RP) are bad cameras, or that they aren't better than the 80D for most people, or that Canon is doomed. But it's saying that I don't want to use the 6DII over the 80D and enjoy it, because I personally enjoy the 80D more. Is that wrong?
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,135
315
Do you use it?

As I said, this argumend is just plain annoying. No offence, but that can be said about every ILC sold today. The Sony A7 III is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it. The Canon SL2 is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it. And like I said, the Pentax ME super is a fine camera. Use it and enjoy it.

Each camera has its weaknesses. And sure, most of them don't show up in an image where the user has compensated for these with his or her own technique. But using enough technique I could get most of the pictures I take out of my smartphone. It's simply much less FUN.

To me, being disappointed with Canon is not about what you need. It's about what you want. And that's my choice, right? I want to spend my money so that I feel good about it. And paying 50% more than an 80D to get a 6D II to get a sensor that is better in some and worse in some way just doesn't feel right to ME when going FF is supposed to be all about Image Quality.

That's not saying that the 6DII (or RP) are bad cameras, or that they aren't better than the 80D for most people, or that Canon is doomed. But it's saying that I don't want to use the 6DII over the 80D and enjoy it, because I personally enjoy the 80D more. Is that wrong?
I think you are over-interpreting dtaylor's comment. You have decided the 6D2 is not for you - fine. But equally if someone decides the 6D2 is the one they want then they will get excellent pictures from it. And I think that is what dtaylor was referring to.

The problem is that when the 6D2 is brought up people even considering it are often ridiculed either directly as an insult or indirectly with comments as to how it is a PoS (yes, I have seen that phrase used), or how shows Canon is 'lazy', or 'the worst at that price point' or 'not worth it over [insert model here]' as a flat statement and not 'this is why I chose [model]'. And often you find that many making those comments have not even picked it up let alone used it.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,365
197
UK
www.flickr.com
Endlessly complaining about it is annoying for sure though. As it is too hear that you can still buy a 6DII and take great shots with it. Duh! You could take great images with film back in the day.
I think the riposte to 'it's out of date' is subtly different to what you suggest here, or at least it should be - it's that there are very few shots you can take on newer/competitors' bodies that you can't take on the 6D2 (though I take your point about making postprocessing easier in some circumstances). The pace of change has slowed, and the differences between modern sensors are nothing like as great as the complainers claim - and certainly are nothing like the difference between film and modern digital sensors.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
Since I'm a 6D2 shooter I may as well chime in on this thread.
I purchased the 6D2 right when it was released and probably have approx 20,000 clicks on it so far. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with this camera and some of the best images I've ever taken have been captured with this "6D2 Tool".
I've also been using the 80D since it was released and carry both these cameras together daily and use them both almost on a daily basis (I'm an obsessed photographer who loves to take photos of everything!).
These camera's pair together in an AWESOME WAY!
The 80D and 6D2 are very similar in many aspects, the 6D2 is the better camera for sure in my opinion and that is NOT to say that the 80D isn't a great camera. I love them both and have no desire to upgrade either anytime soon.
I do wish the 80D performed as good as the 6D2 at higher ISO's as I use my 80D with a Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife photography much of the time and have to keep the ISO under 1000 to restrict too much noise (for my taste). If the 7D3 shows itself I may replace my 80D with it; I'll continue shooting the FF 6D2 for a long time as it just works for me for what I do in a wonderful way. If I drop and break my 6D2 I'll replace it with another 6D2....
Very seldom have I ever had a "Dynamic Range" issue with the 6D2 like so many complain about with this camera. But I 99.9% of the time try to get my shots right in camera to begin with and find it totally ridiculous to shoot any camera 5 or 8 stops under-exposed, or just wing it and rely totally on post processing to "fix" poorly taken images in the field.
If I was a pro I'd likely be shooting with the 5D4 just for the 2 card slots, but not having the 6D2 flip screen on a 5D4 would suck!!!!
In my opinion, the 6D2 is a well built and awesome camera, a joy to use.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,871
1,187
Canada
Since I'm a 6D2 shooter I may as well chime in on this thread.
I purchased the 6D2 right when it was released and probably have approx 20,000 clicks on it so far. In my opinion there is absolutely nothing wrong with this camera and some of the best images I've ever taken have been captured with this "6D2 Tool".
I've also been using the 80D since it was released and carry both these cameras together daily and use them both almost on a daily basis (I'm an obsessed photographer who loves to take photos of everything!).
These camera's pair together in an AWESOME WAY!
The 80D and 6D2 are very similar in many aspects, the 6D2 is the better camera for sure in my opinion and that is NOT to say that the 80D isn't a great camera. I love them both and have no desire to upgrade either anytime soon.
I do wish the 80D performed as good as the 6D2 at higher ISO's as I use my 80D with a Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife photography much of the time and have to keep the ISO under 1000 to restrict too much noise (for my taste). If the 7D3 shows itself I may replace my 80D with it; I'll continue shooting the FF 6D2 for a long time as it just works for me for what I do in a wonderful way. If I drop and break my 6D2 I'll replace it with another 6D2....
Very seldom have I ever had a "Dynamic Range" issue with the 6D2 like so many complain about with this camera. But I 99.9% of the time try to get my shots right in camera to begin with and find it totally ridiculous to shoot any camera 5 or 8 stops under-exposed, or just wing it and rely totally on post processing to "fix" poorly taken images in the field.
If I was a pro I'd likely be shooting with the 5D4 just for the 2 card slots, but not having the 6D2 flip screen on a 5D4 would suck!!!!
In my opinion, the 6D2 is a well built and awesome camera, a joy to use.
My standard kit when out shooting from the canoe is a pelican case with a 6D2/24-70 and a 7D2/150-600. This gives me fast access to both wide and long without changing lenses, a combo that is hard to beat without getting crazy expensive.
 
Reactions: stevelee

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
My standard kit when out shooting from the canoe is a pelican case with a 6D2/24-70 and a 7D2/150-600. This gives me fast access to both wide and long without changing lenses, a combo that is hard to beat without getting crazy expensive.
That's a great combo! great to have both those at your quick grab and shoot arms length....
I most often have the 6D2 with the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 or the 16-35mm f/4 L and the 80D with the 70-300mm L version or the Sigma 150-600 within arms reach. (set up depends on my mood and what I'm shooting).
I personally prefer to always have 2 cameras with me set up like this during most adventures......

I've never shot the 7D2 and have always wondered how it would shoot compared to the 80D....(love my 80D!!!)

I personally think the 6D2 is a much better camera than most claim. I've owned it since it was released and absolutely love it. It works perfect for me and what I do....
 
Reactions: stevelee

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,871
1,187
Canada
That's a great combo! great to have both those at your quick grab and shoot arms length....
I most often have the 6D2 with the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 or the 16-35mm f/4 L and the 80D with the 70-300mm L version or the Sigma 150-600 within arms reach. (set up depends on my mood and what I'm shooting).
I personally prefer to always have 2 cameras with me set up like this during most adventures......

I've never shot the 7D2 and have always wondered how it would shoot compared to the 80D....(love my 80D!!!)

I personally think the 6D2 is a much better camera than most claim. I've owned it since it was released and absolutely love it. It works perfect for me and what I do....
Quite frankly, if you have an 80D, unless you need the finest in weather sealing, I would not upgrade to a 7D2. The 7D2 has a better AF system, but the 80D has a newer sensor and the articulated touchscreen and wifi…. Now if they combined the best of both in a 7D3, that would be worth considering!

I find that the AF system on the 7D2 is much better on tracking moving objects than the 6D2, and like all current crop DSLRs, has a better spread of AF points than any current FF DSLR. The 6D2 is way better in poor light, at landscapes, and the high ISO performance is superb. The touchscreen interface is in many ways superior to the joystick, but rather than pick one or the other, having both seems to me like the right solution.

The combo of a crop and a FF camera seems to be perfect for me.....
 
Reactions: stevelee and Durf