Updated Canon EOS 6D Mark II Specifications [CR2]

[CanonLITA]

You should gone visit Canada.... we have enough area without phone coverage that you could fit Europe into it......

One more reason to love Canada

 

[CanonLITA]

Question to CR experts: Is there any way to authomatically hide any post that includes the word "4K"?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Why would they not look at the 6d2? It is pretty much the starting line for a full frame camera. What are they looking at in a full frame?

Because most people simply do not enter the DSLR world with a newly-released FF camera. The "gateway drug" for most is the xxxD/Rebel line.

Not to say that some folk won't go straight into FF, but most new DSLR users won't know anything about the relevance of sensor size to image quality, high ISO noise etc. and will simply buy whatever they're offered by the salesman.

 

[dak723]

Why would they not look at the 6d2? It is pretty much the starting line for a full frame camera. What are they looking at in a full frame?

Because most people simply do not enter the DSLR world with a newly-released FF camera. The "gateway drug" for most is the xxxD/Rebel line.

Not to say that some folk won't go straight into FF, but most new DSLR users won't know anything about the relevance of sensor size to image quality, high ISO noise etc. and will simply buy whatever they're offered by the salesman.

Or more likely, most folks start with the rebel line because:
A) It is much cheaper.
B) There is no reason to buy FF because crop will give you virtually identical image quality for most photo situations (daylight shots, vacation pics, family gathering snapshots, photos not printed over 8"x 10", etc.).

 

[reef58]

I guess you are missing my point completely. Someone must be looking at the 6d2 or otherwise it would have 0 sales. Those looking at the 6d2 are likely new to full frame cameras. When they are comparing full frame camera and making a decision to buy one whether or not the camera has 4k is likely to be a consideration.

Why would they not look at the 6d2? It is pretty much the starting line for a full frame camera. What are they looking at in a full frame?

Because most people simply do not enter the DSLR world with a newly-released FF camera. The "gateway drug" for most is the xxxD/Rebel line.

Not to say that some folk won't go straight into FF, but most new DSLR users won't know anything about the relevance of sensor size to image quality, high ISO noise etc. and will simply buy whatever they're offered by the salesman.

Or more likely, most folks start with the rebel line because:
A) It is much cheaper.
B) There is no reason to buy FF because crop will give you virtually identical image quality for most photo situations (daylight shots, vacation pics, family gathering snapshots, photos not printed over 8"x 10", etc.).

 

[BillB]

Why would they not look at the 6d2? It is pretty much the starting line for a full frame camera. What are they looking at in a full frame?

Because most people simply do not enter the DSLR world with a newly-released FF camera. The "gateway drug" for most is the xxxD/Rebel line.

Not to say that some folk won't go straight into FF, but most new DSLR users won't know anything about the relevance of sensor size to image quality, high ISO noise etc. and will simply buy whatever they're offered by the salesman.

Or more likely, most folks start with the rebel line because:
A) It is much cheaper.
B) There is no reason to buy FF because crop will give you virtually identical image quality for most photo situations (daylight shots, vacation pics, family gathering snapshots, photos not printed over 8"x 10", etc.).

Interesting point. How far into photography is the typical 6DII buyer going to be? Crop DSLR owner? Skilled in post processing? FF DSLR owner? None of the above?

 

[Hornet]

I am amazed at difficulty Canon has offering 4K compared to other manufacturers.
It doesn't rule this camera out for me, but 4K is expected today, it's not a headline feature.
Within a year the third iteration of the Sony A7s and A7r will likely be out, and they will both likely feature:

On sensor AF to rival Canon's DPAF
IBIS
Really good 4K
High frame rate 1080p
Amazing low light performance
and much more

The A7S II and A7R II are highly praised, and version III will of course be better. Canon should have something to line up against this, but they don't seem interested. Sure the 6D2 isn't intended to go up against the A7's, but omitting 4K signals disdain for the reality of todays expectations... expectations of which the other manufacturers seem more attuned toward.

I understand that there are Canon users who were hoping respectable 4K would make it into the 6Dii and 5Div. It didn't, but these cameras will still sell, and sell well. I honestly don't have that many clients who even have the ability to display 4K, and by the time I do have clients clamoring for 4K then 8K and better displays will be available. My clients won't have those latest and greatest displays even then though. 4K has not taken hold in large enough numbers for it to be a worrisome point. Yes, there are people that would like Canon to put 4K in every single model they sell, but they would argue that they have a Cinema line for that.

4K is not only about delivering in 4K. I thought all videographers would understand that by now. 4K allows so many more options:

The ability to crop, and still have excellent 1080p
The ability to stabilize footage and still render in 1080p
Downsizing from 4K to 1080p results in a superior image than shooting in 1080p
Green screen delivers better edges
The ability to shoot a two person interview with one camera and still get the two-shot, and close ups on both individuals as necessary.
Extracting usable photos from 4K footage. They can be good enough to use in promo material.

Downplaying the importance of 4K because you don't deliver in 4K is missing the point. BTW ... most photographers buying these 25-50 MP stills camera rarely look at the image larger than about 2 MP. I even remember old dinosaurs saying things like "a real photographer doesn't need more than 8MP because he can frame it right when he takes the shot." Or better still ... "who needs autofocus, a real photographer can do a better job."

The omission of 4K stands out, and not in a good way.

This. +1

And- the new Playstation Pro and Xbox consoles will push consumer 4K viewing farther into the mainstream. It's not a fad. I know the usual Canonrumors crowd here will disagree, but given the shelf life for Canon hardware, this is really a huge mistake for video and hybrid shooters out there.

Not shooting 4K just because it's not mainstream makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't you want to preserve special moments at the highest possible quality for enjoyment in the future?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I guess you are missing my point completely. Someone must be looking at the 6d2 or otherwise it would have 0 sales. Those looking at the 6d2 are likely new to full frame cameras. When they are comparing full frame camera and making a decision to buy one whether or not the camera has 4k is likely to be a consideration.

Those looking at the 6DII are quite likely to be new to full frame cameras. But, they are quite likely not new to dSLRs, rather they are likely APS-C dSLR owners looking to upgrade. But that wasn't your point – it was your contention that the 6DII — a $2900 camera + lens kit — would appeal to first-time dSLR buyers.

I was looking at this from the perspective of someone buying their first DSLR and the 6d2 being a contender.

So it seems like you're completely missing your own point…

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not shooting 4K just because it's not mainstream makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't you want to preserve special moments at the highest possible quality for enjoyment in the future?

Perhaps because you lack access to sufficient computing power to edit 4K video. Perhaps because you lack sufficient storage space for the increased file size.

Since 'the highest possible quality' is important to you, I presume you're shooting your home movies on a Red Weapon 8K. Otherwise, you're sacrificing your future enjoyment of those special moments.

 

[ethanz]

Not shooting 4K just because it's not mainstream makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't you want to preserve special moments at the highest possible quality for enjoyment in the future?

Perhaps because you lack access to sufficient computing power to edit 4K video. Perhaps because you lack sufficient storage space for the increased file size.

Since 'the highest possible quality' is important to you, I presume you're shooting your home movies on a Red Weapon 8K. Otherwise, you're sacrificing your future enjoyment of those special moments.

Yeah, 4K video files, at least the ones from my 1DX are massive. I delete them as soon as I'm done with them. Only store 1080 files.

 

[ScottyP]

Good FF stills camera. They met my main requirement with the AF improvement. Assuming it has at least as good high ISO performance I am a buyer.

 

[scyrene]

Ok, here's a question.

All of you complaining that it won't do 4K, well, that would no doubt have added to the cost, who knows how much, but let's do a quick poll.

Would you pay $50 more for 4k? $100 more? $200 more?

I'd be quite ready to pay $100 more. Seriously, and I don't shoot video at all. I'd rather be a bit more out of pocket and have that bragging right. As I said a while back, the notion of not having some form of 4K on a $2,000 camera in 2017 is just insulting. I know it's just a spec sheet thing, but I've still got a little pride. Besides, I'll probably get my $100 back when I sell it in 2022, when 1080 will be looking long in the tooth.

Perhaps the problem isn't with the camera, but with the world you inhabit? I don't mean to be confrontational, but the whole 'bragging rights' thing is bizarre to me. Who are you bragging to about 4K? Who is listening, and who cares? Anyone who knows about it wouldn't just accept that 4K is enough (i.e. they'd know that some devices that 'do' 4K, like phones, do it so poorly that it's not worth the label), and those who don't won't care either way. Sounds like teenage boys comparing the size of their manhood, but even less worthwhile.

Lol fair enough. Bragging right was perhaps not the most astute turn of phrase in this context. I mean that in the same way, when you buy a car, you can show your buddies the sweet features, not as self-inflation, but as in "isn't this cool". Like, do I need a little sprayer to pop out and squirt the headlights? Heck no. Is it way cool? Absolutely.
Who is listening? Who cares? All the dozen or so of photographers I know. Anyone gets absolutely any new piece of gear, and we're all admiring it, examining its features, trying it out, (Incidentally, your teenage boys analogy doesn't actually work in my case ???) etc.
Of course 4K isn't enough, duh. Having CLog, 500 MB/sec, ProRes, etc just make it better. I never said I wanted a crippled, ultracompressed 20mb/sec crappy 4K.
Is it a total waste of money? Yup, but so is coffee, and most of us spend more than that on coffee every year. (me too)
Lack of 4K wouldn't affect my purchase.

Fair enough, that makes more sense

 

[scyrene]

Not shooting 4K just because it's not mainstream makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't you want to preserve special moments at the highest possible quality for enjoyment in the future?

Your point has merit, but it's pretty niche or even beside the point for most people.

It's just my experience, for fwiw, I have never met anyone who looked at an old family photograph or home movie and said 'if only it was higher resolution'. I *think* most people care about the (emotional) content of an image or video than its technical aspects. The conversation 'I love how high res this baby video is, much better than the HD one you took two years ago' just seems utterly implausible - only a tiny subset of device users (namely enthusiasts/geeks) care about or even understand these things. That's not to say that higher resolution is of no value, just that it's only important to a tiny minority.

I persuaded my parents to get a 4K tv when they were upgrading recently, but I couldn't put into terms they'd understand why it was better (the most persuasive argument was, and I think still is, that it's more future-proof, but there's essentially no 4K content here for them to take advantage of, and even when there is, I doubt they will notice - they care what the shows are, not what resolution they're filmed in, and I think this is typical for most consumers).

 

[Random Orbits]

I used to use a dedicated camcorder (Canon HV20) but keeping the DSLR/camcorder that used different media/batteries was a pain. Having a backup camera that can do video as good as a consumer camcorder simplified a lot of things.

I suppose I could use my EOS M2 for video... But my Vixia HF M41 does a great job, is much easier to hand hold, uses SD cards (along with internal flash memory), and for handheld or moving subjects, the AF makes life easy. If I replace my M2 with an M6 (which is looking likely), I may shoot more video on an ILC (not that I shoot all that much video either way).

The HV20 was one of the earlier consumer camcorders that had 1080i. It recorded onto digital tape. When I built my current desktop years ago, I had to get a dedicated firewire card to interface with the HV20 because they no longer made motherboards with that port native, and it could only download the file to the computer at 1x tape speed. I was definitely NOT sad to put that on Ebay.

The M1 took over for a while but has been replaced with the 7DII. I got the camcorder so the wife could take videos of the kids, but that didn't really happen, so now I'm responsible for both video and stills. And, I find, it's much easier to allocate funds for a camcorder for an upgrade of the 2nd body.