More About the EOS 6D Mark II Shows Up for Certification

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
privatebydesign said:
rrcphoto said:
privatebydesign said:
I don't believe for a second Canon couldn't. If they can put focus peaking in a Poweshot and a wide range of C line cameras they could put it in the EOS firmware, for goodness sake ML do it, you are talking nonesense.
if you look in the past and through history, features that have come out in powershot have never or hardly made it into EOS DSLR's.

there's a reason why canon shifted from EOS to power shot in the M3 or do you think they did it just because it seemed like a good thing to do on friday?

the DIGIC DV's do alot of cool things, far more than simply focus peaking - again, they are entirely different chips alltogether.

Canon does 12+ cameras in it's line, not including patches - the assumption made by most is that they have alot of time to work with one camera. they probably don't.
My problem is that people state outright Canon can't implement a feature for some technical reason when Magic Lantern do implement that feature, I find the suggestion that a couple of spare time coders can do things Canon coders can't laughable, and the proof that there is no technical barrier to the feature is there for all to see.

You can get focus peaking, wave forms, zebras, etc etc on EOS cameras, if ML can do it then Canon can do it, that they don't means it is a decision not to rather than a technical limitation.

I don't have a clue why Canon switched the M firmware to Powershot from EOS, and neither do you.
I don't believe in coincidences. Maybe you do.

the G7X got focus peaking first, and then lo and behold 6 months later, the M3 switched to powershot firmware and got focus peaking / external EVF .. all of which came out of powershot development. (G1x Mark II, G3x, G7x) and none of those features have made it into an EOS DSLR camera since then.

ML btw, doesn't have to worry about performance envelopes, heat and reliability - most of their implementations are rudimentary at best, and they actually most likely have more free time to implement features than canon does - considering that canon's firmware engineers are primarily working with the hardware implementation.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,563
2,096
120
rrcphoto said:
privatebydesign said:
rrcphoto said:
privatebydesign said:
I don't believe for a second Canon couldn't. If they can put focus peaking in a Poweshot and a wide range of C line cameras they could put it in the EOS firmware, for goodness sake ML do it, you are talking nonesense.
if you look in the past and through history, features that have come out in powershot have never or hardly made it into EOS DSLR's.

there's a reason why canon shifted from EOS to power shot in the M3 or do you think they did it just because it seemed like a good thing to do on friday?

the DIGIC DV's do alot of cool things, far more than simply focus peaking - again, they are entirely different chips alltogether.

Canon does 12+ cameras in it's line, not including patches - the assumption made by most is that they have alot of time to work with one camera. they probably don't.
My problem is that people state outright Canon can't implement a feature for some technical reason when Magic Lantern do implement that feature, I find the suggestion that a couple of spare time coders can do things Canon coders can't laughable, and the proof that there is no technical barrier to the feature is there for all to see.

You can get focus peaking, wave forms, zebras, etc etc on EOS cameras, if ML can do it then Canon can do it, that they don't means it is a decision not to rather than a technical limitation.

I don't have a clue why Canon switched the M firmware to Powershot from EOS, and neither do you.
I don't believe in coincidences. Maybe you do.

the G7X got focus peaking first, and then lo and behold 6 months later, the M3 switched to powershot firmware and got focus peaking / external EVF .. all of which came out of powershot development. (G1x Mark II, G3x, G7x) and none of those features have made it into an EOS DSLR camera since then.

ML btw, doesn't have to worry about performance envelopes, heat and reliability - most of their implementations are rudimentary at best, and they actually most likely have more free time to implement features than canon does - considering that canon's firmware engineers are primarily working with the hardware implementation.
Sure, Canon software engineers are so hard at work crippling lower order models they don't have the time or ability to perfect a feature a couple of hobbyists get to work perfectly well while having to reverse engineer the firmware! Hmm, yes, that sounds logical to me ::)

I have run ML and have had zero stability, overheating or any other issues, I simply don't believe the people that wrote the EOS firmware can't implement said features if others can.

If nobody had ever done it then there might be some truth to your conspiracy theory, but it has been done so you are the one trying to make incidental 'facts' conform your bias.

Canon obviously take their firmware very seriously and make very conscious decisions on what features to put on what cameras, for instance the 1DX MkII doesn't get an intervalometer, 'lower' models do, I don't know their reasoning for that but they obviously made a conscious decision to not enable it, some with focus peaking, et al.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,423
231
Ottawa Ontario
privatebydesign said:
rrcphoto said:
privatebydesign said:
You miss my point. I'm not saying you, and potentially many others, don't have good use for a killer crossover stills/video DSLR's, what I am saying is Canon clearly don't want to make one. I don't know why, but they very clearly don't, so bearing that in mind if I was in the market for a crossover I'd look somewhere else.
in alot of cases, canon can't. for instance, video features such as peaking are in the powershot firmware, which doesn't translate to the EOS DSLR cameras - if it does, it's *VERY* slow. it's nothing to see features in the powershots that simply do not exist in the EOS DSLR's. they have a quicker turn around to market, and I don't know why, but it seems nearly impossible to see canon move something from powershot to DSLR.

Also people crying for better 4k implementations that simply isn't happening until canon solves what is different between the DIGIC DV's and the DIGIC's for cameras - and the heat envelope. the DIGIC DV's need venting and fans. maybe they'll get there with the next generation of DIGIC .. ie: 8. it's not there in 7. if it's not there in 7, then it's not going to be there for at least the next full go-around.

In alot of cases, it's not a case of canon - won't, it's more canon can't.

however I still don't get the fitting the square peg into the round hole approach of wanting a DSLR as a hybrid. Get a mirrorless and just .. go. really. why bother waste energy in complaining about something that simply will never work as well as some other brand?

Seems stupid to me. there's so many other things in the world we can't control or fix, and it's blindingly obvious that other brands simply do the hybrid better, and will, period. So why bitch and moan?

it's impossible for me to care less about video in a DSLR or even a stills camera. I tried it once with the 7D, I went. hey that's cool. Haven't used it since.

I'm not sure, but given the fact that the market hasn't rolled up and dumped canon (and nikon really for that matter) for not having credible video solutions probably means it means sweet f all to the majority of camera purchasers.

Otherwise we'd see more of a shift.
I don't believe for a second Canon couldn't. If they can put focus peaking in a Poweshot and a wide range of C line cameras they could put it in the EOS firmware, for goodness sake ML do it, you are talking nonesense.

Now as I asked Etienne, and he agreed nobody does, who is making this mythical camera that leaves Canon in the dust? It seems to me there are smaller cameras, like the GH5 which don't compare to FF DSLR's (just listen to the bitching over the 5D MkIV 4K crop factor which is still much bigger than the GH5) or Sony that have all kinds of caveats and limitations on each and every headline feature they list.

Nobody makes this camera that the cross over dreamers want and that Canon is so far behind! They should stop bitching that Canon is so far behind and just say nobody makes a camera with the feature set they personally want at this time.
Magic Lantern adds focus peaking AND a whole lot more to Canon cameras, for free and without the benefit of Canon's in-house expertise. The decision to leave some of these things out is inexplicably stingy.

As I have mentioned several times already, although no-one currently makes that great do-everything camera (I'm not fond of the micro 4/3 results, and they still fall short on video AF), Canon's 5D4 is so very close that it is frustrating that they chose not to run that last 100m of the marathon. In my opinion, the 5D4 could have, and should have been, a one-of-a-kind unbeatable all-around media gathering device. The 5D5 is years away, and I suspect Sony will fill that gap before then, possibly within the next year.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,563
2,096
120
That is quite the change from....



Etienne said:
Who's asking for perfect? Canon's feature sets are bested by Cameras half the price ::)
 
Sep 4, 2014
33
1
coolajami said:
No more GPS? Τhat is my favourite extra :(
+1 No idea how people manage without GPS tagging - but then I can't see how people manage without a tilty-flippy screen on a tripod, and most people seem to okay.

I think this thread relates to the radio (other?) testing of the device. My guess would be that it would therefore only detail electrical emission from the camera (i.e. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth). Since GPS is passive (the device listens to the GPS signals it doesn't send them) it wouldn't get mentioned here.

Personally, I'm waiting for the first 'sighting' thread of the 6D mark 2. You know, the thread where we work out its detailed internal specs from an out-of-focus image, of a corner of the case, from a range of 100m :)
 

LonelyBoy

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 18, 2015
745
0
Etienne said:
I suspect Sony will fill that gap before then, possibly within the next year.
Don't hold your breath. This reminds me a great deal of AvTvM's insistence that short-flange mirrorless with great image quality and no compromises is totally possible... just no one has bothered to do it yet.

It's really, really hard to make the perfect product. They almost don't exist, in any industry. You take what you can get.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,423
231
Ottawa Ontario
privatebydesign said:
That is quite the change from....



Etienne said:
Who's asking for perfect? Canon's feature sets are bested by Cameras half the price ::)
No, it's not different. Many less expensive cameras offer 4K, focus peaking etc etc. That doesn't mean they are necessarily better cameras, just that the features set is better. Ergonomics and other quality issues (like stills quality or rolling shutter) may not be as good.

I have a lot of Canon gear for a reason, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship Canon and defend them as if I own the company. I believe they can, and should, do better.
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
Etienne said:
privatebydesign said:
That is quite the change from....

Etienne said:
Who's asking for perfect? Canon's feature sets are bested by Cameras half the price ::)
No, it's not different. Many less expensive cameras offer 4K, focus peaking etc etc. That doesn't mean they are necessarily better cameras, just that the features set is better. Ergonomics and other quality issues (like stills quality or rolling shutter) may not be as good.

I have a lot of Canon gear for a reason, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship Canon and defend them as if I own the company. I believe they can, and should, do better.
I don't think anyone here worships Canon, we simply acknowledge reality: Canon will cram in extra features when they think it's profitable to do so (or unprofitable not to do so). So long as Canon gives customers what they're willing pay for -- what you have said that you're willing to pay for -- why should they add features? Adding features increases costs and reduces profits. I don't like that it is so, but it is so. I'd love to have all those nice video features, even for stills; I'd like to have great new sensor tech with 16 stops of DR and an electronic shutter. Complaining on a discussion forum won't make it happen any faster.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,563
2,096
120
Re: More About the EOS 6D Mark II Shows Up for Certificatio

Etienne said:
privatebydesign said:
That is quite the change from....



Etienne said:
Who's asking for perfect? Canon's feature sets are bested by Cameras half the price ::)
No, it's not different. Many less expensive cameras offer 4K, focus peaking etc etc. That doesn't mean they are necessarily better cameras, just that the features set is better. Ergonomics and other quality issues (like stills quality or rolling shutter) may not be as good.

I have a lot of Canon gear for a reason, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship Canon and defend them as if I own the company. I believe they can, and should, do better.
I'm not defending Canon I am trying to point out how half baked your criticism is. What you are saying is nobody makes the camera you want with the features you want and because of that Canon is at fault. You say other cameras offer more features for half the price, but you don't say what they are. Presumably you mean the small sensor cameras like the GH5? If so that argument is as fallacious as moaning about the Hasselblad H1D because it doesn't have half the functionality of a 5D MkIV yet is twice the price!

Nikon Sony and Canon are getting to that place you say you want but none of them are there yet, so how is Canon behind?
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
Re: More About the EOS 6D Mark II Shows Up for Certificatio

privatebydesign said:
Etienne said:
privatebydesign said:
That is quite the change from....



Etienne said:
Who's asking for perfect? Canon's feature sets are bested by Cameras half the price ::)
No, it's not different. Many less expensive cameras offer 4K, focus peaking etc etc. That doesn't mean they are necessarily better cameras, just that the features set is better. Ergonomics and other quality issues (like stills quality or rolling shutter) may not be as good.

I have a lot of Canon gear for a reason, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship Canon and defend them as if I own the company. I believe they can, and should, do better.
I'm not defending Canon I am trying to point out how half baked your criticism is. What you are saying is nobody makes the camera you want with the features you want and because of that Canon is at fault. You say other cameras offer more features for half the price, but you don't say what they are. Presumably you mean the small sensor cameras like the GH5? If so that argument is as fallacious as moaning about the Hasselblad H1D because it doesn't have half the functionality of a 5D MkIV yet is twice the price!

Nikon Sony and Canon are getting to that place you say you want but none of them are there yet, so how is Canon behind?
Not meaning to put words in Etienne's mouth, but the standard reason this criticism is directed at Canon is that Magic Lantern accomplishes these features with a firmware hack, so it should be easy & cheap for Canon to throw them in there out-of-the-box. The presumption is that this proves that Canon is nefarious, not merely that they haven't gotten 'round to it yet. I see it the other way: from Canon's perspective, the ML hack means they don't have to spend the money to implement and support the features because anyone who really wants them can easily get them.
 

JoseB

EOS M50
Aug 16, 2013
32
4
www.facebook.com
I have ML in my 6D. I enjoy a lot of features I allways use while photographing, some of them extensively refered by the people participating in this thread (for example focus peaking).
But... if I do not pay enough attention, the sensor temperature climbs up easily to de forties or even fifties Celcius...
 
May 29, 2017
1
0
Haven't seen mention recently the rumor of the 6Dii being Android based instead of DryOS. That was a really old rumor, so maybe it's not valid now.

That would slow/stop any initial Magic Lantern add-on firmware. Could also open up a whole new possibility of extra features.
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
Etienne said:
privatebydesign said:
That is quite the change from....



Etienne said:
Who's asking for perfect? Canon's feature sets are bested by Cameras half the price ::)
No, it's not different. Many less expensive cameras offer 4K, focus peaking etc etc. That doesn't mean they are necessarily better cameras, just that the features set is better for me.
corrected your statement.
 

rfdesigner

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 12, 2014
876
0
New Forest, UK
sites.google.com
AdjustedInCamera said:
coolajami said:
No more GPS? Τhat is my favourite extra :(
+1 No idea how people manage without GPS tagging - but then I can't see how people manage without a tilty-flippy screen on a tripod, and most people seem to okay.

I think this thread relates to the radio (other?) testing of the device. My guess would be that it would therefore only detail electrical emission from the camera (i.e. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth). Since GPS is passive (the device listens to the GPS signals it doesn't send them) it wouldn't get mentioned here.

Personally, I'm waiting for the first 'sighting' thread of the 6D mark 2. You know, the thread where we work out its detailed internal specs from an out-of-focus image, of a corner of the case, from a range of 100m :)
Correct

A FCC part 15 summary could be: it may only emit what the standard(s) allows.

Receivers still emit energy (i.e. local oscillator leakage), but these days you'd have to do a very poor job to get a receiver to fail an emissions test. A test house will only need to know about intentional emissions, and if they meet the relevant standard. GPS shouldn't emit, so doesn't need explicitly testing, other than to ensure it doesn't radiate, but you don't need to call up a GPS emissions test for that, it's just the same emissions test as any other non-radiating device.