Updated Canon EOS 6D Mark II Specifications [CR2]

sanj said:
Zv said:
cerealito said:
Pixel said:
I don't believe adding 4K is as simple as people claim it to be. I would think it would take a more heavy duty processor, bigger buffer and more robust heat protection, no? All of these would significantly add to the cost of the camera. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Considering that my iphone 6s from 2015 does it no-problem... i would say no.

And just what size is the sensor on the 6s? I bet it doesn't take much processing power to run 4K from a piddly little sensor from a smartphone. It's a whole 'nuther story when dealing with the massive amounts of data produced by a FF sensor every second.

Same argument as why smaller sensors can do faster FPS burst.

However, in this day and age I would expect the processing power issue to have been licked. So, this does seem a little disappointing it doesn't have 4K of some sort.

I believe 1dc, 1dx2 or 5d4 all do not use full frame.

Ah! My limited knowledge of video is showing! You are quite correct of course.
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 378664

Guest
Besisika said:
For me it is a big fail.


Many says "I don't care, because I never do video". How about "never say never"?
You have trouble in life and will have to sell some of you gear. You lost already half of buyers because your 6D II doesn't do 4K. Your son wants to enter photography and you want to give to him your 6D - he says no because he wants 4K.

One can't forsee the future. For me it is important to buy something I have a need or wish for today and not what will be in the future. I buy the camera at first for me and my pleasure and not for the one who will get it used after I've sold it.

By the way:
I don 't think that the typicall 6D2 user will be the one to take 4k footage for professional usage. Someone who has to look on ones purse will happily buy a 6D2 and will be ok with filming his familiy footage in1080p which in most cases will be shown to an audience once in a lifetime because for other people such footage is mostly boring, is shakened, a lot of zooming and panning goes on, has poor audio and so on.
There is more to good looking footage than having 4k with the ability to crop it down to 1080p and deshaking possibilities. Quality is not only manifested in the number of pixels but also in the content of ones footage.
Professional footage needs more than one person doing all the stuff. Director, cameraman, cutter,... These are all skills that are needed which seldon are found in one person to take good video footage. Where is the need to show this mostly crappy kind of familiy event footage in 4k?

Why some people do complain that even smart phones does have 4k? Why just don't use the smart phone for the 4k footage? Most probably you will have it with you more often then a DSLR body. It should be sufficient at least for all this lousy family event footage. A DSLR is also not the best (in ergonomic means) body shape for taking video footage.

Ah wait, the smart phone is not comfortable to hold to do video footage or the 4k capabilities are crippled somehow. Than these people are comparing apples and pears when they expect fully functioning 4k in a DSLR which is build for stills as main purpose. These DSLR are only happen to have a video record button accidentally.
Just for having the possibilitiy to take some footage as padding. I think it was never ment to replace real video cameras. But a lot of people expect exactly this.

best regards
Frank
 
Upvote 0
cerealito said:
No 4K video means that no serious videographer will be buying this for 2000+ dollars, specially in 2017.

Some will say that "this is a stills camera" :p, ok fine, but then why won't they give us maximum stills IQ by removing the Antialiasing filter?... "Oh! that's in case you are shooting video".

see?

LMAO


fanboys here are the most strangest thing on earth.

EVERY CAMERA they beg for Canon like "less function! more function we will die. " , while Canon respond them every time with a "higher price with less functions" on their face.

Oh, maybe they are not Canon fanboys, might from some other companies ::)
 
Upvote 0
One has to accept that the technology of DSLRs have reached a niveau from where it is really hard to improve. As an Example, I own the more than 5 years old 1DX and feel little to none need to upgrade to the mark 2. Just compare that to the difference between the 1dmk3 and the 1dmk4.

As the improvement of the top-of-the line bodies is stagnating there is little room for 3 FF Cameras, all three priced at very different niveaus.

If the specs are correct, the 6Dmk2 will be ~very~ strong for non-action non-sports still-shooters who care mainly about image quality. If one needs the fast framerate they can get a used 1dx or new 1dx2. Little place for the 5dmk4 here. If high-Mpx is your thing, there is already the 5dsR.

Im not into Video but from what I heared the 4k modus of the 5d4 is just a joke, so that may not be a main concern if one chooses between the 5d4 and 6d2.
 
Upvote 0
I gather (like most skills) videography is just about knowing how to use the gear you have and a pro could get by with a smartphone and still churn out great work due to their knowledge of lighting, audio and most of all hiring decent actors!

If you gave me a 10 year old DSLR I'd be fairly happy snapping away and would be confident I could get great shots in the right location at the right time. Having a FF camera just makes things a little bit easier for me not to mention a lot of fun. Do I really need 26Mpix? Nah, probably not. 20 would've been just fine.

So I guess 4K is like that. Even if I had a 4K capable camera I would still produce the crappiest, wobbliest, low quality video ever seen because I don't frickin know what I'm doing with video! I would need to study and practice to get the most out of it. A feature is only as good as the person's ability to use it.

So how many are genuinely bummed out that they can't do video at 4K and stills and still have change for the bus? Or are some folk just wanting a feature for the sake of it. You know 4K isn't going to improve your cat videos, right?
 
Upvote 0
Frodo said:
wildwalker said:
I currently use a 5DMk2. I am interested, as you sold your 5DMk2 for the 6D, what you think of the difference between the 6d and 5DMk2 in terms of IQ and operation?

The 5dII annoyed me through banding in shadows that was difficult if not impossible to remove in post-production. This is far less of an issue with the 6D. I feel that dynamic range is better, partly because shadows can be pushed more. And high ISO quality is also better. 6400 is like 3200 on the 5DII. I also like the silent shutter as I do a lot of event photography - the silent 6D shutter is actually quieter than the M3 shutter. Plus I like the lighter, smaller body, especially when paired with the 35/2 and 85/1.8. I got used to the absence of the joystick and the more clumsy review enlarge function. I'd like a slightly higher flash synch for fill flash, but can always use high-speed synch. The centre focus point on the 6D is better than on the 5DII, but the others are just as bad.

The 6D was a lot cheaper than a 5dIII and image quality is equal or better, provided:
- focus is accurate
- there is no motion blur (I tend to shoot aperture priority with auto-ISO - this is okay if I manually set the minimum shutter speed, as the auto function gives me 1/focal length which is often insufficient to stop motion blur).
The 5DIII has undeniably better AF and more flexible auto-ISO. So sometimes I have buyer's remorse in not getting a 5DIII.
But the 6D is, in my view, a better camera than the 5DII.

Thank you Frodo.
 
Upvote 0
Besisika said:
For me it is a big fail.

And that is because of 4K

Many says "I don't care, because I never do video". How about "never say never"?
You have trouble in life and will have to sell some of you gear. You lost already half of buyers because your 6D II doesn't do 4K. Your son wants to enter photography and you want to give to him your 6D - he says no because he wants 4K. Not because you don't need 4K that he doesn't need it either. You do portraiture and you realized that you don't have enough customers and someone suggested behind the scenes in Youtube would be a good idea - but you don't do video. And so on and so on. Simply put, you never know your tomorrow need.

Some says that if you need 4K go to 5D IV. That must be a lack of understanding of the difference between 5D and 6D from a video perspective.
The main attractive feature of the 6D is its size and weight. It is not a stupidity that competitors are trying at all cost to stick to small size (even though they still fail in other domains because of it).
The future of video is camera movement and it brings your footage to the competitors level. The one that is the most popular today is handheld stabilizers. Ignoring the fact that 5D is at the heaviest size when using stabilizers is a big mistake. The issue is the number of good lenses that you can use. The lighter the body the more options you have.
Someone already listed good reasons why 4K is the key to video and I am glad he put at the top of the list the most important one, which is cropping in post, in other words zooming in post.
The approach in videography is "shoot for the edit", something that we photographers do not understand, we desperately want to get it right in camera. 4K gives you that possibility, and yet you remove it from your best camera for the job.
So you will end up with two gears; one is very heavy (shooting 4 hours on a heavier gear is more painful) and the other one without zooming in post.

Finally, if you have already a 1DX II or C200, why would you buy a 6D II if it cannot do 4K?
Yes, the bulk of your videography is still tripod, monopod and sliders, but that fluid movement is something that would add 3D illusion to your footage, in particular your B-roll.
I have no doubt in my mind, a 6D II with 4K would attract (or I should say keep your existing) customers a lot more.

More meaningless whining by the video freaks. Let's break it down.

1) I don't buy cameras for resale value.

2) You're probably wildly overestimating the number of secondhand Canon buyers looking for 4k video - plenty of people still buy used bodies without video, or without video anywhere near what even the 6D2 is rumored to supply. It's much harder to do, and do right, and post process, than stills. (Its fans are just very, very loud.)

3) If my hypothetical son doesn't want a free camera, well, he can buy whatever he prefers. When my uncle went to teach English in China and gave me his old Ford Tempo, I didn't throw it back in his face - I was thrilled to have a free car.

4) "Shoot for the edit". Sure that would be nice. That's why when you want to shoot video, you reach for a video camera that's designed for what you want to do.

5) If you have a 1DX2 or C200, you're right, this wouldn't make a great backup video body. Canon didn't intend it for that purpose. Why not complain that the SL2 won't be suitable for that, either?

Why do you video freaks want Canon to fulfill your wish list so bad? If Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic are so much better, why not just use them?
 
Upvote 0
Etienne said:
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 fully agree with the wish Canon would step it up as far as what seems to boneheaded limitations to their new models. That said, the 6Dii will presumably still be the "introductory" full frame in the Canon line. Comparing it to the A7 line from Sony is not exactly apples to apples.

For a person like me, who is wanting to move up from crop to full frame, those specs still look pretty good. Besides, I'm on Windows (no jokes, please), and I can't stand the way Windows looks at 4k resolution. I bought a 4k monitor and had to return it because I couldn't read text on it. There is still a huge percentage of the market that doesn't have monitors higher than 1080p.

That all said, they are really going to have to be careful of the price point on this. Right now, my money's saved and I'm ready to pull the trigger. But if it's priced too close to the 5Div, I might as well save up a few more months and get that.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 18, 2015
139
2
wildwalker said:
I currently use a 5DMk2. I am interested, as you sold your 5DMk2 for the 6D, what you think of the difference between the 6d and 5DMk2 in terms of IQ and operation?

In a nutshell, the 6D gives you around a stop more ISO at the high end (3200 on the 6D is like 1600 on the 5D2).
The main operational difference is that you don't get the joystick at the back.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,183
1,817
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
AA said:
No 4K would be simply unacceptable in H2 2017. This camera will not be replaced until 2021/22. That means, you would be sitting there with this thing in 2021/22 with no 4K video. WTF Canon???

No 4K = no buy.

Next stop Sony?

Luckily you can buy a Sony then. For me. As I travel to places like Antarctica and the Arctic and other remote places where I can not duck into a camera shop I will choose a less specd but more reliable bit of kit. One that won't let me down. Hell. I would take an entry level canon over a Sony every day of the week in that regard.
 
Upvote 0
Bernard said:
wildwalker said:
I currently use a 5DMk2. I am interested, as you sold your 5DMk2 for the 6D, what you think of the difference between the 6d and 5DMk2 in terms of IQ and operation?

In a nutshell, the 6D gives you around a stop more ISO at the high end (3200 on the 6D is like 1600 on the 5D2).
The main operational difference is that you don't get the joystick at the back.

Thanks Bernard, so I should see a good improvement from the 6Dmk2 over my 5DMk2. I use a variety of bodies, the 5DMk2, the 700D, the EOS-M so I don't have the joystick on all of them. But if the 6DMk2 has a touch screen, the rumours are flippy screen, but no one mentioned touch. Anyway, with touch screen the preview of photos is simple and doesn't require the joystick. Setting focus points/area is simple as well.

Does anyone know if touch screen has been muted?

Alan.
 
Upvote 0
I don't do video, so I don't really care about video specs, however the lack of 4k would be pretty odd. I am not a marketing guru, but understand it some. You have a lot of talented folks out there making very good content with phones. A logical step up is a 6d. Many younger folks may not have the money to buy many tools to have the right tool for the job. They can afford one camera. This camera would likely not sell well to the above described market with no 4k. Sure it is nice for us more mature people to have several bodies or a separate video camera if need be. For a talented starving artist that is not an option likely. People don't like to switch brands. You want to get them while they are young.

That being said the camera will work fine for me, but I have 2 other bodies to fill voids.

LonelyBoy said:
Besisika said:
For me it is a big fail.

And that is because of 4K

Many says "I don't care, because I never do video". How about "never say never"?
You have trouble in life and will have to sell some of you gear. You lost already half of buyers because your 6D II doesn't do 4K. Your son wants to enter photography and you want to give to him your 6D - he says no because he wants 4K. Not because you don't need 4K that he doesn't need it either. You do portraiture and you realized that you don't have enough customers and someone suggested behind the scenes in Youtube would be a good idea - but you don't do video. And so on and so on. Simply put, you never know your tomorrow need.

Some says that if you need 4K go to 5D IV. That must be a lack of understanding of the difference between 5D and 6D from a video perspective.
The main attractive feature of the 6D is its size and weight. It is not a stupidity that competitors are trying at all cost to stick to small size (even though they still fail in other domains because of it).
The future of video is camera movement and it brings your footage to the competitors level. The one that is the most popular today is handheld stabilizers. Ignoring the fact that 5D is at the heaviest size when using stabilizers is a big mistake. The issue is the number of good lenses that you can use. The lighter the body the more options you have.
Someone already listed good reasons why 4K is the key to video and I am glad he put at the top of the list the most important one, which is cropping in post, in other words zooming in post.
The approach in videography is "shoot for the edit", something that we photographers do not understand, we desperately want to get it right in camera. 4K gives you that possibility, and yet you remove it from your best camera for the job.
So you will end up with two gears; one is very heavy (shooting 4 hours on a heavier gear is more painful) and the other one without zooming in post.

Finally, if you have already a 1DX II or C200, why would you buy a 6D II if it cannot do 4K?
Yes, the bulk of your videography is still tripod, monopod and sliders, but that fluid movement is something that would add 3D illusion to your footage, in particular your B-roll.
I have no doubt in my mind, a 6D II with 4K would attract (or I should say keep your existing) customers a lot more.

More meaningless whining by the video freaks. Let's break it down.

1) I don't buy cameras for resale value.

2) You're probably wildly overestimating the number of secondhand Canon buyers looking for 4k video - plenty of people still buy used bodies without video, or without video anywhere near what even the 6D2 is rumored to supply. It's much harder to do, and do right, and post process, than stills. (Its fans are just very, very loud.)

3) If my hypothetical son doesn't want a free camera, well, he can buy whatever he prefers. When my uncle went to teach English in China and gave me his old Ford Tempo, I didn't throw it back in his face - I was thrilled to have a free car.

4) "Shoot for the edit". Sure that would be nice. That's why when you want to shoot video, you reach for a video camera that's designed for what you want to do.

5) If you have a 1DX2 or C200, you're right, this wouldn't make a great backup video body. Canon didn't intend it for that purpose. Why not complain that the SL2 won't be suitable for that, either?

Why do you video freaks want Canon to fulfill your wish list so bad? If Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic are so much better, why not just use them?
 
Upvote 0
Feb 21, 2013
115
0
If Canon are having to protect the "Higher level" 5d and cinema lines doesn't that say something to you? what this camera does it does very well, It is designed as an ENTRY LEVEL CAMERA so it is not designed for professional level videography, people stating that a camera phone does 4k should then compare the actual output from a phone to output from a pro video cam. There is a reason for the price difference!
 
Upvote 0

AA

Jan 30, 2015
22
7
lightwriter said:
Etienne said:
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 fully agree with the wish Canon would step it up as far as what seems to boneheaded limitations to their new models. That said, the 6Dii will presumably still be the "introductory" full frame in the Canon line. Comparing it to the A7 line from Sony is not exactly apples to apples.

For a person like me, who is wanting to move up from crop to full frame, those specs still look pretty good. Besides, I'm on Windows (no jokes, please), and I can't stand the way Windows looks at 4k resolution. I bought a 4k monitor and had to return it because I couldn't read text on it. There is still a huge percentage of the market that doesn't have monitors higher than 1080p.

That all said, they are really going to have to be careful of the price point on this. Right now, my money's saved and I'm ready to pull the trigger. But if it's priced too close to the 5Div, I might as well save up a few more months and get that.

I'm on Windows, and run two 27" 4K screens via a surface Pro 4. They are so beautiful I almost died when I upgraded from 1080p. My GF promptly bought the same two 27" 4K screens for her setup. Believe me, once you go 4K, you'll never go back to 1080p. You can now buy 4K screens for $300. (I paid $350 for my 27" IPS screens each six months ago.)

You need to set text to 150% in Windows 10 when you use 4K screens. You won't have any issues reading text that way.That's the recommended setting. That's how it's supposed to scale.

Not having 4K in 2017 in a full frame camera is simply unacceptable. My iPhones have been shooting 4K for years!!!! My DJI Mavic shoots 4K

WTF Canon?!
 
Upvote 0

tomscott

Photographer & Graphic Designer
Its funny how 4k is a deal breaker for so many people. If every person will shoot 4k with entry level cameras where is the evidence? There is still so little 4k content yet its been on the scene for 3 years.

How many entry level FF buyers are going to have A. a 4k or higher display and B. A machine fast enough to edit the footage. Affordable 4k displays have only been available for about 12 months.

Its a small percentage.

January 2017 screen resolution statistics show that 1366x768 which accounts for 35% of consumers.

In second place is 1920x1080 with 17%, 1440x900 6%, 2560x1440 1%

Higher resolutions account for 6%.

This is probably the reason Canon has decided against 4k its just not popular enough in the target audience. The majority of people have 1080 displays. This camera isn't aimed toward pro video shooters its aimed at enthusiast photographers.
 
Upvote 0

K

Jan 29, 2015
371
0
I knew this would happen with the lack of 4K. (all the complaints)

What did you all expect? 4K better than the 5D4? Not happening. The 5D4's 4K is unusable. It's there in name only with the most pathetic codec ever.

I said way back when the 5D4 came out that nothing below it will exceed it on video, so if you're a video guy and unhappy with that, move on.


Canon's 1080 is fantastic. And well produced 1080 video is still relevant and amazing. BUT....it is very very clear now that Canon is evicting serious videographers from their DSLR line. It's now called Cinema EOS . Pay to play boys.

Canon DSLR video, since the big success of the 70D -- is going to be focused around amateur work. People happy with top notch 1080, soccer dads, hobbyists and maybe some semi-pros who do occasional vid but not regular work.

That makes more sense to me, since I've always been anti-DSLR video from the start. DSLR is just a bad platform for video. DPAF and an articulating touch screen goes a long long way of making it reasonable for sure...but it's no where in the realm of a dedicated video camera for features, ease and use.

I GET IT...the video quality coming out of a FF DSLR rig with L glass is amazing, and rivals anything out there at a fraction of the cost. But to get the most out of it requires the camera be stationary mostly, or at least secured in a rig with focus pullers, LCD screen, lighting so forth and so on. It reminds me a little bit like medium format. It's pointless unless the entire system surrounding it is top quality and appropriate.

Sadly, with Canon obviously abandoning serious DSLR video you'd think they would up their game on the stills side but they haven't in terms of the 6D2 - which to compete on specs with Nikon, should have had the 61pt AF. We'll see if they come through with 2 slots (I seriously doubt it), and FPS of 6.

They won't, because the flip screen and 45pt AF that has been for the most part confirmed has already used up the reasoned "available balance of generosity" on Canon's part. Expecting more at this point is unrealistic.....That and the fact that the FPS and slots haven't been leaked yet with the first batch of leaks indicates there's nothing interesting about those areas.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 27, 2013
1,861
1,099
38
Pune
Etienne said:
rwvaughn said:
Etienne said:
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.
+1
 
Upvote 0