6D Mark II

[CarlTN]

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.

True, and the 6D1's AF sensor should have been similar to what you describe, obviously they didn't want it to cut into 5D3 sales. No doubt the sensor will be new and improved, but the one it has now is very hard to beat.

 

[Marsu42]

I just want the 6D Mark II to have the same AF with all double cross-points and sensitivity up to -3 EV.

This probably won't work with all lenses, look at the 5d3 specs - but simple cross point should be doable, and this is one of the points Canon really screwed up at. Not that the current 6d af doesn't work, but the non-cross points are noticeable to me.

11 is more than enough.

It's not about the number, but what you can do with them - af point expansion is a great feature, but requires dense af points.

Also, a dual SD card would be good.

Won't happen since seems to be reserved for the premium cameras - but how about one *good* sd slot that isn't crippled to 40mb/s like just now? The current 6d is not able to shoot 1080p/raw for this reason.

 

[DRR]

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.

Here's the part that people, including me, are disagreeing with - it's not a mistake. Unlike Auto ISO, which introduces noise which is not correctable, AWB is fully adjustable after the fact. What's the point in taking time away from shooting, in order to set a setting that is fully adjustable with no difference or loss of quality?

That's a rhetorical question, because there is none.

Now, you would be correct if you're shooting JPEG, in that case, you do want your white balance to be as close as possible because you don't have the same flexibility to correct after the fact. Or, if you're shooting a landscape or tabletop, and you want to draw on your knowledge and ability of white balance in order to have complete control over the shot when you hit shutter release. By all means, set it if you want to - but for those who shoot RAW there is very little compelling reason to set it because it does not affect exposure, does not introduce noise, etc.

 

[Marsu42]

Unlike Auto ISO, which introduces noise which is not correctable

Um, noise, what noise? On my 6d, I don't see any noise between 100 and 800, hardly up to 1600 - so if the scene isn't dr-limited I don't care about the iso setting. I do agree that on crop auto-iso is less useful because the sane iso range is smaller, but never the less there it is.

I usually use auto-iso with flash, shutter set to max. x-sync, select the dof I want and let the camera select the iso ... there's no other way to do this unless you want to end up with flash hss.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Unlike Auto ISO, which introduces noise which is not correctable

Um, noise, what noise? On my 6d, I don't see any noise between 100 and 800, hardly up to 1600 - so if the scene isn't dr-limited I don't care about the iso setting. I do agree that on crop auto-iso is less useful because the sane iso range is smaller, but never the less there it is.

I usually use auto-iso with flash, shutter set to max. x-sync, select the dof I want and let the camera select the iso ... there's no other way to do this unless you want to end up with flash hss.

Glad you are pleased with your 6D, and can not see any noise between ISO 100 and 800. Remember: What the eyes do not see, the heart does not feel. Cheers, brother.

 

[unfocused]

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

Why is it that someone is a troll the minute that one person does not have the same thought as the next.

It's not the disagreement that leads people to consider someone a troll. It's using a broad-brush, insulting statement that anyone who doesn't do it your way is a novice.

I get so tired of people making outlandish statements and then acting offended when they get called on it. Why can't people just admit they engaged keyboard before engaging brain? Everyone does it occasionally. Trolls just don't admit it.

 

[Loswr]

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

Why is it that someone is a troll the minute that one person does not have the same thought as the next.

It's not the disagreement that leads people to consider someone a troll. It's using a broad-brush, insulting statement that anyone who doesn't do it your way is a novice.

I get so tired of people making outlandish statements and then acting offended when they get called on it. Why can't people just admit they engaged keyboard before engaging brain? Everyone does it occasionally. Trolls just don't admit it.

+1

Or, we could as easily say mkabi must be a novice because s/he's apparently concerned about the in-camera WB setting, given that it doesn't matter when one is shooting RAW.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is one thing to say "I use this setting because the results work for me and my style of shooting" it is quite another to state "anybody that doesn't use this technique or setting is a novice".

Joe Buissink, who is a truly world class wedding photographer and charges >$10,000 per wedding, oh and is a Canon Explorer of Light (I doubt if mkabi is) uses AWB and P mode virtually 100% of the time. He is not a novice. It works for him.

 

[Janbo Makimbo]

It is one thing to say "I use this setting because the results work for me and my style of shooting" it is quite another to state "anybody that doesn't use this technique or setting is a novice".

Joe Buissink, who is a truly world class wedding photographer and charges >$10,000 per wedding, oh and is a Canon Explorer of Light (I doubt if mkabi is) uses AWB and P mode virtually 100% of the time. He is not a novice. It works for him.

Yes, but it made his hair fall out!!

 

[verysimplejason]

It is one thing to say "I use this setting because the results work for me and my style of shooting" it is quite another to state "anybody that doesn't use this technique or setting is a novice".

Joe Buissink, who is a truly world class wedding photographer and charges >$10,000 per wedding, oh and is a Canon Explorer of Light (I doubt if mkabi is) uses AWB and P mode virtually 100% of the time. He is not a novice. It works for him.

Yes, but it made his hair fall out!!

At least he's earning 10K+ per wedding. How much those so-called pros earn from photography? :

 

[Zv]

I find this AWB and Auto ISO debate interesting so I'm gonna jump right in and offer my two pennies worth.

Everyone has a their own shooting style and preferences and if AWB works for one guy and not for another then so be it. Neither one would be considered a novice as long as they KNEW WHY they were using that particular setting.

Also I find Auto ISO very useful. If you must keep two factors constant (shutter speed and aperture in this case) then the exposure triangle dictates that ISO is the only variable. So in changing light it would be a lot more convenient to choose (notice I said CHOOSE) to use Auto ISO.

The difference is knowing.

Personally I shoot almost 100% in daylight WB now so I know what am dealing with and can adjust it later. And sometimes I find myself changing ISO way too often wondering later why I didn't just stick with AUTO. These days high ISO noise isn't too much of an issue.

 

[Ruined]

I would like to see a 6D2 with more AF points and an articulating touchscreen.

 

[Marsu42]

they need to, seeing as their cheaper 70d beats it in many respects e.g. autofocus.

That's how they *want* it, the image quality of the 6d at medium-high iso blows the 70d out of the water, so there has to be some product differentiation... and people with deep pockets who wand good af *and* iq are meant to buy the 5d3.

 

[RGF]

Since Nikon is releasing a D610
I bet Canon will release a 6D2 ;D

Any thoughts?

Most likely the 6D will be replaced - not sure it will be called a 6D M2, and will be awhile

 

[thgmuffin]

they definitely need to. shame on Canon for charging so much for a camera with dodgy auto-focus. otherwise a good body.



john mckay
http://www.johnmckayphotography.com
http://500px.com/johnmckayphotography
https://www.facebook.com/JohnMckayPhotography

The AF isn't dodgy, it just isn't the best at certain things. However at everything else it is the best performance/value you can possibly get on the market.

 

[Marsu42]

The AF isn't dodgy, it just isn't the best at certain things.

This really depends on a) what you expect (I compare the 6D to my 60D) and b) what you shoot. Today I repeated some handheld macros - and the 6d af again and again failed to af on dragonfly eyes with the f2.8 line, and the fallback f5.6 cross af was all over the place given the thin macro dof... the 60d center double-cross manages to af better.

So as a proud 6d owner I hereby announce: Yes, if someone labels the af as "dodgy" I at least cannot deny it, I really wish it'd be otherwise.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The AF isn't dodgy, it just isn't the best at certain things.

This really depends on a) what you expect (I compare the 6D to my 60D) and b) what you shoot. Today I repeated some handheld macros - and the 6d af again and again failed to af on dragonfly eyes with the f2.8 line, and the fallback f5.6 cross af was all over the place given the thin macro dof... the 60d center double-cross manages to af better.

So as a proud 6d owner I hereby announce: Yes, if someone labels the af as "dodgy" I at least cannot deny it, I really wish it'd be otherwise.

You concluded that the central focus point of 6D is worse than 60D in good light? :-[ Is that a side effect of the increased sensitivity of the central point for low light? ???

 

[Marsu42]

You concluded that the central focus point of 6D is worse than 60D in good light? :-[

Absolutely, that's why a lot of people (including me) are so unimpressed with the 6d af - the 7d/60d/650d/700d, ... central point is *double* cross, meaning it's cross f2.8 sensitive and overlay cross f5.6 sensitive. The 6d is non-cross @f2.8, so with a fast lens you'll have no precise enough cross point at all.

The 6d af is more precise as in *consistent*, meaning it's "better" than 60d if it locks on ... *if* :-\

Is that a side effect of the increased sensitivity of the central point for low light? ???

It might be or not, only Canon knows. Most likely it's just Canon being cheap, they took the existing 15pt 5d2 af system design, reducted it to 11 points and put it in the 6d... just enhancing the low-light sensitivity of the center point.

 

[CarlTN]

You concluded that the central focus point of 6D is worse than 60D in good light? :-[

Absolutely, that's why a lot of people (including me) are so unimpressed with the 6d af - the 7d/60d/650d/700d, ... central point is *double* cross, meaning it's cross f2.8 sensitive and overlay cross f5.6 sensitive. The 6d is non-cross @f2.8, so with a fast lens you'll have no precise enough cross point at all.

The 6d af is more precise as in *consistent*, meaning it's "better" than 60d if it locks on ... *if* :-\

Is that a side effect of the increased sensitivity of the central point for low light? ???

It might be or not, only Canon knows. Most likely it's just Canon being cheap, they took the existing 15pt 5d2 af system design, reducted it to 11 points and put it in the 6d... just enhancing the low-light sensitivity of the center point.

I mostly agree.

The more interesting question is, what will the 5D4 be like? Will it be close to, or over 30 MP (and thus be an even worse camera for low light than the 5D3 is)? Or will they go for speed, say 8fps, and stick with a sensor similar to the 5D3's existing one? How much more will it cost? $4000? Or will the 5D4 be a "do it all camera" that gets close to 1DX speed, because the new (slow) studio camera will be medium format, or an otherwise very pricey ($10k+) 1 series "full frame" with a lot of pixels?

 

[Marsu42]

Or will the 5D4 be a "do it all camera" that gets close to 1DX speed, because the new (slow) studio camera will be medium format, or an otherwise very pricey ($10k+) 1 series "full frame" with a lot of pixels?

Imho the 5d will never be a 1dx "do it all" due to product differentiation, there will be a pro-sports camera on top. Canon has a lot of options to separate cameras, hardware or software, and they'll use them. But the 5d4 has to make a serious splash because the current 5d3 is a very competent and complete all-around camera.

It's different with the 6d and the 5d2-style af system though... it seems Canon put it here to have something to upgrade on the 6d2, just like they removed afma from 50d->60d and now have it there again in the 70d as a great new feature