6D Mark II

[mkabi]

i can honestly say i never used Auto ISO since i have gone digital.

Opinions are divided on this, but imho auto iso is one of the primary advancements of the digital age, with today's cameras a couple of stops don't show (much) and you can either use m (though Canon lacks ec on m) or Av for changing lighting conditions - but for the latter you either need a 5d3/6d/1dx or Magic Lantern to set the min. shutter speed, or the Canon algorithm will go to low to shoot anything moving.

I have to agree with Lichtgestalt.

I think Auto ISO is for the lazy people or people that don't know anything about photography or video. Even with "today's" cameras... how do you let a camera's logic decide how much noise is acceptable in your pictures or video?

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

 

[sdsr]

The D600 has come to have a bad reputation, and sales are reportedly very slow. When this happens, a manufacturer often releases a minor update, perhaps with fixes for the issues. Since the specifications are reportedly identical, it seems to be a cosmetic change, maybe even some internal redesign to make it cheaper to produce. Canon certainly does that on occasion.

I hope it's more than cosmetic and instead fixes the oil/dirt splatter problem which affects the sensors of so many D600s, even refurbished ones. If they fixed that, even if they didn't remove the drab green tint from the viewfinder (it would be unrealistic to expect them to ditch its typical Nikon ergonomics...) it would be a very appealing camera.

 

[DRR]

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

I don't use Auto ISO but I can't disagree more about Auto white balance. Many styles of shooting do not allow you the additional time it requires to set white balance. Similarly, the same types of shooting may have differing lighting conditions and temperatures. Shooting RAW enables you to have a great variance in white balance after the fact. So much so that it's practically unnecessary to set WB ahead of time.

Now I am not disparaging those who do - if you have the time and the inclination, please do so - but for me, the time I take to set WB makes absolutely no difference to the quality of the photograph because it's a fully reversible setting (unlike ISO.)

 

[rs]

I think Auto ISO is for the lazy people or people that don't know anything about photography or video. Even with "today's" cameras... how do you let a camera's logic decide how much noise is acceptable in your pictures or video?

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

If you shoot raw, setting the white balance during capture time is nothing more than a guide for the raw processor. No second guessing during the decisive moment can produce results as close to your desired look as PP with raw - ignore the WB setting at capture and setting it accurately using a calibrated monitor in controlled conditions.

I don't have meaningful auto ISO on any of my cameras, but I'd love to be able to have that option. The ability to directly control depth of field, have the shutter speed hang around the pre-programmed range I need to stop action, and let the camera control the ISO with me still having exposure compensation would transform my sports event shooting. Its a real pain to use Tv to control shutter speed, and continually move the ISO around to gain indirect DoF control.

As you implied using auto settings is a sign of being a novice, I presume you're not shooting jpeg - so why care about controlling WB in camera when you have full control after the event?

 

[unfocused]

For those of us who waited, and waited, and waited, (and mostly gave up waiting and bought a 5DII), on the 5DIII, I think you're in for a very long wait on the 6DII. FFs don't evolve as quickly and with the economic climate, a firmware update (like the 7D) is more likely in the next 2-3 years before you see a 6DII.

Not sure I agree with that. The 6D is basically a full frame version of a 60/70D and Canon tends to have shorter refresh cycles at the lower end. Of course, since the 6D is the first in the series, no one knows for sure, but I can certainly see Canon deciding to refresh it before they refresh the 5DIII. There is a sufficiently large gap in features between the 5DIII and 6D to allow for small improvements without significantly affecting sales of the 5DIII. Add the 70D's on-sensor focusing, add a few more autofocus points, maybe improve the weather-sealing slightly, GPS or other bells and whistles and call it good.

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

So that's what makes someone a novice? I would think that more novices shoot in JPG and need to adjust the white balance than those who shoot in RAW and generally don't need to worry about the white balance selected by the camera. (Sorry for basically duplicating the comments of others. I see several replies came in while I was typing).

 

[bereninga]

i can honestly say i never used Auto ISO since i have gone digital.

Opinions are divided on this, but imho auto iso is one of the primary advancements of the digital age, with today's cameras a couple of stops don't show (much) and you can either use m (though Canon lacks ec on m) or Av for changing lighting conditions - but for the latter you either need a 5d3/6d/1dx or Magic Lantern to set the min. shutter speed, or the Canon algorithm will go to low to shoot anything moving.

I have to agree with Lichtgestalt.

I think Auto ISO is for the lazy people or people that don't know anything about photography or video. Even with "today's" cameras... how do you let a camera's logic decide how much noise is acceptable in your pictures or video?

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

This is seriously just a troll post. Only a novice in digital thinks that you have to set your white balance. Shoot RAW and you don't even have to think about it until PP.

And Auto-ISO is helpful when the light conditions change drastically in a short amount of time and you don't want to miss some good opportunities for good shots.

As a 6D owner, I think the AF points is the only thing that I would change. One cross-type is pretty ridiculous. Even the T4i, announced in June 2012, had 9 cross-type AF points! There's no way the 6DII would omit a new AF system. But I agree it will be 2-3 years until it shows up. It has the IQ of the 5DIII and you save a lot more money. IQ is a top priority.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

They wont replace it while it is outselling its bigger brothers!!

 

[Botts]

I have to agree with Lichtgestalt.

I think Auto ISO is for the lazy people or people that don't know anything about photography or video. Even with "today's" cameras... how do you let a camera's logic decide how much noise is acceptable in your pictures or video?

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

Really? I don't think I've turned off AWB since I got my 6D!

If you shoot RAW, I don't see the value of taking the time to set AWB. Just do it as a batch in post!

 

[duydaniel]

D610 is coming very soon with probably the new expeed 4 chip.
Canon should respond

 

[Marsu42]

D610 is coming very soon with probably the new expeed 4 chip. Canon should respond

Nah, Nikon will probably find another bug in the d610 and release the d620 soon, Canon should wait for that

 

[Botts]

I think the assumption that a 6D poaching 5D3 sales is a bad thing may be misplaced.

To make this assumption, you'd have to know the profit margin of each, and total adoption rates.

If the 6D was for all intents and purposes a 5D3 for example, and retailed for $1,500, you may sell 3-4x as many as you would with a crippled 6D and 5D3. This would likely make up for the difference in profit margin.

This may not be in the Canon culture, but everyone thought that about Apple as well with the iPad mini. Now the iPad mini way outsells the iPad, and likely increased total revenue and profits for Apple. Maybe Canon should do the same.

I think Canon could also have the entire video community adopt their cameras if they simply stole what MagicLantern has working and built it in to factory firmware.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

I think the assumption that a 6D poaching 5D3 sales is a bad thing may be misplaced.

To make this assumption, you'd have to know the profit margin of each, and total adoption rates.

If the 6D was for all intents and purposes a 5D3 for example, and retailed for $1,500, you may sell 3-4x as many as you would with a crippled 6D and 5D3. This would likely make up for the difference in profit margin.

This may not be in the Canon culture, but everyone thought that about Apple as well with the iPad mini. Now the iPad mini way outsells the iPad, and likely increased total revenue and profits for Apple. Maybe Canon should do the same.

I think Canon could also have the entire video community adopt their cameras if they simply stole what MagicLantern has working and built it in to factory firmware.

Of course you would want to sell 3 or 4 times more 6Ds as you will then sell 3 or 4 times more lens !!

 

[mkabi]

i can honestly say i never used Auto ISO since i have gone digital.

Opinions are divided on this, but imho auto iso is one of the primary advancements of the digital age, with today's cameras a couple of stops don't show (much) and you can either use m (though Canon lacks ec on m) or Av for changing lighting conditions - but for the latter you either need a 5d3/6d/1dx or Magic Lantern to set the min. shutter speed, or the Canon algorithm will go to low to shoot anything moving.

I have to agree with Lichtgestalt.

I think Auto ISO is for the lazy people or people that don't know anything about photography or video. Even with "today's" cameras... how do you let a camera's logic decide how much noise is acceptable in your pictures or video?

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

This is seriously just a troll post. Only a novice in digital thinks that you have to set your white balance. Shoot RAW and you don't even have to think about it until PP.

And Auto-ISO is helpful when the light conditions change drastically in a short amount of time and you don't want to miss some good opportunities for good shots.

As a 6D owner, I think the AF points is the only thing that I would change. One cross-type is pretty ridiculous. Even the T4i, announced in June 2012, had 9 cross-type AF points! There's no way the 6DII would omit a new AF system. But I agree it will be 2-3 years until it shows up. It has the IQ of the 5DIII and you save a lot more money. IQ is a top priority.

Why is it that someone is a troll the minute that one person does not have the same thought as the next. I think you're a troll cause you don't agree with me (yeah.... it sounds as stupid as it sounds to me too).

So lightroom has the ability to correct your mistakes, but don't you want to correct your mistake before making the mistake?

Now, we all make mistakes.... but, rhetorically... How about setting the white balance and even if it is good for one shot, but not good for another shot, then using lightroom? Come on... go outside your comfort zone.

 

[madmailman]

Why is it that someone is a troll the minute that one person does not have the same thought as the next. I think you're a troll cause you don't agree with me (yeah.... it sounds as stupid as it sounds to me too).

So lightroom has the ability to correct your mistakes, but don't you want to correct your mistake before making the mistake?

Now, we all make mistakes.... but, rhetorically... How about setting the white balance and even if it is good for one shot, but not good for another shot, then using lightroom? Come on... go outside your comfort zone.

I think what the other guys are saying is just use AWB and shoot in RAW and then there is no "mistake" you are just waiting until PP to actual make your choice of WB. Auto WB just means you'll make your choice later and at trigger time you can worry about things that can't be changed later. No trolling.

 

[Marsu42]

I think what the other guys are saying is just use AWB and shoot in RAW and then there is no "mistake" you are just waiting until PP to actual make your choice of WB. Auto WB just means you'll make your choice later and at trigger time you can worry about things that can't be changed later.

My thinking exactly - though it really doesn't hurt to know about color temperature and to be *able* to set wb manually if quick jpeg results or previews are required - but it's not necessary to apply every knowledge in every situation. I'm a big fan of my camera taking tasks off my hand I can do later, but I know there's the "real photogs never crop & shoot in m flash, m camera, m wb, m focus" crowd, I wonder why they use a digital eos at all

If you've got time on your hands though doing things before postprocessing might be a good idea, it really depends where the time or work pressure is.

 

[verysimplejason]

Why is it that someone is a troll the minute that one person does not have the same thought as the next. I think you're a troll cause you don't agree with me (yeah.... it sounds as stupid as it sounds to me too).

So lightroom has the ability to correct your mistakes, but don't you want to correct your mistake before making the mistake?

Now, we all make mistakes.... but, rhetorically... How about setting the white balance and even if it is good for one shot, but not good for another shot, then using lightroom? Come on... go outside your comfort zone.

I think what the other guys are saying is just use AWB and shoot in RAW and then there is no "mistake" you are just waiting until PP to actual make your choice of WB. Auto WB just means you'll make your choice later and at trigger time you can worry about things that can't be changed later. No trolling.

+1. Unless you're shooting JPEGS, AWB (or sunny WB depending on your preference) is the best way to go. That way, you worry more on your composition rather some extra technicalities. Well, it's a kind of choice really. For me, I almost always adjust the white balance anyway in PP. Sometimes I want it warmer, sometimes colder, sometimes I want it as accurate as possible depending on what fits the scene (very subjective). For video, of course, you have to set your white balance properly as soon as possible unless you're shooting in video raw.

 

[Max ☢]

Just an hypothesis: what if the AWB setting is actually the white balance mode which works best at providing the exact desired color rendition in a given situation? Does this still makes the photographer a noob? should he care about someone's else opinion on this matter? ... I did not think so.

This situation actually happened to me recently when taking street photos at dusk in an environment illuminated with color-corrected high-pressure mercury vapor lamps, sometimes in combination with several sodium vapor lamps. The strong 546 nm line of the mercury source is known to give photos a too strong green hue, which the "fluorescent" mode partly corrects for (in digital cameras that is).

Setting the white balance to this "fluorescent" mode worked great on all my previous APS-C bodies, but not properly on my 6D! I still got way too greenish end-results. I went through all the different WB modes, even the CCT adjustable one, and guess what? the AWB mode is the one which actually gave the most faithful rendering. I don't care if someone believes that only noobs use AWB, I know better and I'll use this mode under mercury light from now on...

 

[CarlTN]

the 6Dmk2 would be built close to 5D3 while retaining its small size and multi-directional dial (whatever you call it).

This sounds like Canon, and would make the 6d2 an excellent camera, just like the 70d (and unlike the 6d1...).

But this is another reason why the 6d2 will take some time to arrive - with a 5d3-type camera you can do just about everything, so either Canon has to cripple the 6d2 (like video with extra moire, 20mb/s sd-card write speed, 1/2000s shutter, 50k shutter cycles :->) or raise the price or less people will get interested in the 5d4.

This has been a quasi-interesting thread, although there's not been any meaningful rumors of a replacement to the 6D. So this thread is kind of baseless. I think this is a case where Nikon is doing something that Canon does not have to do in the slightest...

Certainly there will be a 5D4, perhaps a year before a "6D2". Seems to me a 5D4 announcement would occur sometime in 2014, perhaps Q2 or Q3...??

The solution to giving a 6D replacement more features from the 5D3, is to give the 5D4 even more of the features the 1DX has...and charge even more for it (this strategy of hiking pricepoints of their product lines while also giving them added features and performance, seems to be working for Canon). So I see the initial price for a 5D4 at around $3999 US, body only, and it will never sell below $3300 or so, even from the "big discount ebay" retailers (where the 5D3 has been advertised at around $2500 at these places briefly). A "6D2" would have its initial price in the $2.5k to $2.8k range, body only (not coincidentally the range the 5D2 sold for during almost all of its 5 years)...with the "6D2" having a few more useful features, yet still a bit crippled compared to the current 5D3. Dual card slots seem like a feature they will especially break down and give it...at least one of them being a CF or similar high speed card.

I have a feeling the AF of a "6D2" will still get plenty of mocking jeers from the usual suspects, because Canon has decided their entry level FF camera apparently sells well enough without a high performance AF sensor/processor. I could be wrong, time will tell.

One thing I know for sure. For myself and my photography, I don't feel I am missing all that much having not chosen the 5D3. I do have a feeling the 5D4 will be harder to pass up. Just seems like feature set and image quality will converge on it in a more compelling way. The price of admission will be higher, but it just might be a more full featured show.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

I think that Canon may introduce a sub $1,000 FF DSLR body to their range before upgrading 6D. It would be positioned below 6D. 8D or SL6 anyone?

And why not - sensors are getting cheaper and electronics is getting smaller, cheaper and draws less power. This can be packaged in a small body and manufactured cheaply. There will be market for a small, simple FF DSLR for travel or as a backup.

Do you remember how small were the last models of bottom of the range 35mm film SLRs e.g. Minolta Dynax 3L just 310g?

I, for one would buy a body like that for travel and as a backup. I only have EF lenses, no EF-S lenses, so having another body withe same viewing angle is a bonus for me.

 

[verysimplejason]

I just want the 6D Mark II to have the same AF with all double cross-points and sensitivity up to -3 EV. 11 is more than enough. That would set it apart from 5D3/4 AF. Also, a dual SD card would be good. The other specs are good enough for me though a new and improved sensor wouldn't hurt.