6D owners, are you upgrading?

[candyman]

Well....for landscape I stay on ISO 100. For birdphotography I want to stay between ISO 100 and 640...but...that only happens on sunny days. And I live in a place that has more cloudy and rainy days
So you're right with higher ISO the DR disadvantage is less/gone. But the main use is landscape/city on ISO 100. I don't have enough imagination to translate the DR examples here on the NET and the real situations I face to value the disadvantage. Yes, Canon could deliver better but choose to focus on other features for this upgrade on their entry level. For ME that is okay. Time and the experience will tell me.

Don't get me wrong. I've managed to get satisfying landscape images from my 6D. GNDs and exposure blending helps a ton. The original 6D was praised for its IQ back then. Thing is, that five years later, there is not much apparent improvement, while its peers are evolving. THAT's what bugs me.

But I'm apparently not a target customer. 6D's AF does not limit me (much), sviweling touch screen with DPAF seems really nice, but not 2100€ nice, so there is not much incentive for me to upgrade. But if there were major improvement in sensor like e.g. in 5D IV, I would have had much difficult (and pleasing) decision to make...

It is not that doesn't bug me but it doens't help me to stay upset about it. If Canon decide to wait another 4 to 5 years with updating to a 6D MKIII then there isn't a 'cheap' fullframe option other than the 6D MK II. Unless.....they decide to introduce in 2 years from now a new entry level i.e. 8D. And they let the 6D move up to mid-level FF. There is a huge gap in price between the 6D MK II and 5D MKIV here in Europe: about 2000 euro. So it can be a strategy to position the 6D higher and maybe merge the 5D MK V with the 5DS(r) to a 5Dx, Ha,ha pure speculation here

 

[sunnyVan]

+1


Knowing that Canon can put a sensor comparable to 5dmk4 and decided not to, in order to protect sale of mk4, it bothers me. And honestly we know that even a 5dmk4 sensor isn't a class leader in 2017.


I wonder if 6dmk1 outsold 5dmk3 in number, and so they learned their lesson and decided to widen the gap between 5dmk4 and 6dmk2.

Upgraded from 6d to 5dmk3 about three years ago. Sold the 5d3 a few months ago anticipating 6dmk2. My expectations were a sub$2000 full frame with an updated sensor with dual pixel, touch screen, massively improved AF over mk1, weather sealing. With all the negative news about the new sensor, I'm glad I moved on to fuji. 6dmk2 will still be on my wist list but I am not paying full price for sure. In fact I just ordered sony a7rii with metabone adaptor just to try it out. I really hate leaving canon but apparently I am starting to feel silly for being loyal. In the mean time a Sony body with canon lenses is a viable compromise.

That's four bodies north of $1k / three bodies north of $2k in 5 years from 3 different brands.

I really hope you find what you are looking for, but I'd consider renting before buying to save a few bucks!

- A

Over time, I've rented Sony A72, Fuji XPro2 and XT2, Nikon D610 and D750. And eventually always came back to Canon. While I really despise the decision of worse sensor of 6D II that other current Canon cameras, I'm apparently unable to part with Canon excellent glass, ergonomics are spot-on and since I shoot usually on ISO 400-3200, DR is less of an issue for me, because after 400-800 ISO, any advantage of ABC cameras are practically gone.

What bothers me most is that Canon apparently can, but they won't. So unless there is an irresistible price offering for 6D II, I'm staying with my trusty old 6D...

 

[Arty]

I am happy with my 6D and see no need to upgrade. When the 6D was originally released, it was $2,000, so the new 6D II seems to be priced appropriately.
This might be a good time for folks to get the 6D1 as prices are low and may go lower.
I would rather spend the dough on other things, especially if Canon comes out with an upgrade for the 50F1.4 that has IS and image quality that is equal to the 35F2 IS.

 

[rfdesigner]

+1


Knowing that Canon can put a sensor comparable to 5dmk4 and decided not to, in order to protect sale of mk4, it bothers me. And honestly we know that even a 5dmk4 sensor isn't a class leader in 2017.


I wonder if 6dmk1 outsold 5dmk3 in number, and so they learned their lesson and decided to widen the gap between 5dmk4 and 6dmk2.

The 6D Should outsell the 5DIII, the 6DII should outsell the 5DIV.. its normal market economics, there are fewer people with more cash, and many people with a bit of cash, otherwise there'd be as many Bentleys on the road as Fords.

Personally I'm beginning to thnk Canon just doesn't partcularly value dynamic range.. some of us do and therein lies the problem.

 

[Orangutan]

+1


Knowing that Canon can put a sensor comparable to 5dmk4 and decided not to, in order to protect sale of mk4, it bothers me. And honestly we know that even a 5dmk4 sensor isn't a class leader in 2017.


I wonder if 6dmk1 outsold 5dmk3 in number, and so they learned their lesson and decided to widen the gap between 5dmk4 and 6dmk2.

The 6D Should outsell the 5DIII, the 6DII should outsell the 5DIV.. its normal market economics, there are fewer people with more cash, and many people with a bit of cash, otherwise there'd be as many Bentleys on the road as Fords.

Personally I'm beginning to thnk Canon just doesn't partcularly value dynamic range.. some of us do and therein lies the problem.

Canon values what its customers are willing to pay for. My guess is that Canon does value DR, but not as much as other qualities. Notice that SoNikon have also not increased their DR. If Sony were able to produce a FF sensor with 16 stops of DR would they steal some of Canon's market share? Among a select group of buyers the answer is yes; however, most DSLR buyers will not notice this.

 

[dak723]

+1


Knowing that Canon can put a sensor comparable to 5dmk4 and decided not to, in order to protect sale of mk4, it bothers me. And honestly we know that even a 5dmk4 sensor isn't a class leader in 2017.


I wonder if 6dmk1 outsold 5dmk3 in number, and so they learned their lesson and decided to widen the gap between 5dmk4 and 6dmk2.

The 6D Should outsell the 5DIII, the 6DII should outsell the 5DIV.. its normal market economics, there are fewer people with more cash, and many people with a bit of cash, otherwise there'd be as many Bentleys on the road as Fords.

Personally I'm beginning to thnk Canon just doesn't partcularly value dynamic range.. some of us do and therein lies the problem.

It's funny. Almost every comment about the original 6D was that it had great IQ, but lousy AF. Now, the 6D II arrives, and suddenly the IQ is not good enough.

Perhaps Canon understands that many folks don't do much if any post processing. For many of those, out-of-camera contrast is more important that DR. In layman's talk, they like the "punch" that Canon images are known for, rather than the more flat, lower contrast images that occur as you add DR. Just a thought.

Or perhaps they decided that holding down the cost was the number one priority for the 6D II. There may be a lot that needs to be done to reduce the noise and add DR, but everyone here just assumes that is is cheap and easy. I wonder how many folks would pay $2499 or so to get those 2 extra stops of base level DR.

 

[Khalai]

It's funny. Almost every comment about the original 6D was that it had great IQ, but lousy AF. Now, the 6D II arrives, and suddenly the IQ is not good enough.

IQ of 6D is good. In fact, it is so good, that I traded that for a crude AF and saved a lot of €, when I chose 6D over 5D III back then. But it has been five years since it was released. After five years, is it so unreasonable to expect some noticeable improvement? And Canon CAN produce better sensors. It's not that 6D II is a bad camera, not at all. But is producing a better sensor (such as in 5D IV) really that expensive, that Canon had to develop another worse sensor for 6D II? Would it not be perhaps more efficient to give 6D II the same sensor as is in 5D IV. Canon does this in their crop cameras for a long time. So why this change now? It is really cost optimizing and nothing more? That is what bothers me...

 

[rfdesigner]

IQ of 6D is good. In fact, it is so good, that I traded that for a crude AF and saved a lot of €, when I chose 6D over 5D III back then. But it has been five years since it was released. After five years, is it so unreasonable to expect some noticeable improvement? And Canon CAN produce better sensors. It's not that 6D II is a bad camera, not at all. But is producing a better sensor (such as in 5D IV) really that expensive, that Canon had to develop another worse sensor for 6D II? Would it not be perhaps more efficient to give 6D II the same sensor as is in 5D IV. Canon does this in their crop cameras for a long time. So why this change now? It is really cost optimizing and nothing more? That is what bothers me...

The way I see it I just don't get where it wins, I don't even see where it comes second or third.

It already loses to the D750 as that is a lens cheaper than the 6DII.

 

[Khalai]

IQ of 6D is good. In fact, it is so good, that I traded that for a crude AF and saved a lot of €, when I chose 6D over 5D III back then. But it has been five years since it was released. After five years, is it so unreasonable to expect some noticeable improvement? And Canon CAN produce better sensors. It's not that 6D II is a bad camera, not at all. But is producing a better sensor (such as in 5D IV) really that expensive, that Canon had to develop another worse sensor for 6D II? Would it not be perhaps more efficient to give 6D II the same sensor as is in 5D IV. Canon does this in their crop cameras for a long time. So why this change now? It is really cost optimizing and nothing more? That is what bothers me...

The way I see it I just don't get where it wins, I don't even see where it comes second or third.

It already loses to the D750 as that is a lens cheaper than the 6DII.

Truth be told, Nikon's LiveView and LV autofocus is a joke compared to DPAF. It's really night and day difference. And I can't mount any of my lenses on D750 either

 

[rfdesigner]

IQ of 6D is good. In fact, it is so good, that I traded that for a crude AF and saved a lot of €, when I chose 6D over 5D III back then. But it has been five years since it was released. After five years, is it so unreasonable to expect some noticeable improvement? And Canon CAN produce better sensors. It's not that 6D II is a bad camera, not at all. But is producing a better sensor (such as in 5D IV) really that expensive, that Canon had to develop another worse sensor for 6D II? Would it not be perhaps more efficient to give 6D II the same sensor as is in 5D IV. Canon does this in their crop cameras for a long time. So why this change now? It is really cost optimizing and nothing more? That is what bothers me...

The way I see it I just don't get where it wins, I don't even see where it comes second or third.

It already loses to the D750 as that is a lens cheaper than the 6DII.

Truth be told, Nikon's LiveView and LV autofocus is a joke compared to DPAF. It's really night and day difference. And I can't mount any of my lenses on D750 either

That's something I tend not to think about as I don't use liveview that much.. in fact I can't think of a single "keeper" I have that was taken with liveview.

 

[ahsanford]

That's something I tend not to think about as I don't use liveview that much.. in fact I can't think of a single "keeper" I have that was taken with liveview.

Every landscaper in this forum just farted in your general direction. ;D

- A

 

[mistaspeedy]

There really isn't that much difference between the 5D mark IV sensor and the original 6D... hopefully there will be some improvements in other areas that dxomark measures like:
SNR (noise levels)
Tonal Range
Color sensitivity << this one seems to have the biggest difference at the moment

 

[Sporgon]

There really isn't that much difference between the 5D mark IV sensor and the original 6D... hopefully there will be some improvements in other areas that dxomark measures like:
SNR (noise levels)
Tonal Range
Color sensitivity << this one seems to have the biggest difference at the moment

What ? The original 6D, just like the 6DII, achieves acceptable shadow IQ in a strong lift through NR, and all that that does to damage detail. The 5DIV achieves this with no NR at all.

 

[GaryUK]

I’ve been very happy with my 6D, so am disappointed that the 6D2 doesn’t appear worth it.

My 2nd camera was a 7D Mk1, but due to the IQ difference it hardly got used; instead I settled for the single centre point on the 6D, even when I could have done with the 7D’s focus

So today, I gave Canon my cash. Not 2K for a 6D2, but 1K for an M5, kit lens + adaptor.

Once I had it up and running I fitted my 35mm F2 IS, all was well, so then I tried my 100-400 II, and yes it focussed pdq. I was impressed. I have a Mk1 1.4X Extender, so for a laugh fitted that too.. and yes again it happy focussed. It may look like a toy, but it’s pretty capable.

I’m pleased, I’ve now satisfied my desire for something smaller, more discreet and lighter for when a 6D + 24-105 is conspicuous; have the crop sensor’s handy extra reach and access to a more modern AF, for half the price of a 6D2.

So now I can happily wait for the 6D3.

 

[Luds34]

I sold my 6D prior to the announcement and still plan on getting the 6D2. I am bothered by the results I've seen so far and I welcome the upgrade to the AF and screen. Honestly I'm really excited and can't wait till and I can finally pick it up next week The only area that limited me with the 6D was the AF, now that it's been improved it will be perfect for me!

+1 That's basically my story. Sold the 6D a couple months ago, pre-ordered as soon as it was announced. The DR "issues" do no concern me.

 

[Luds34]

It's funny. Almost every comment about the original 6D was that it had great IQ, but lousy AF. Now, the 6D II arrives, and suddenly the IQ is not good enough.

Exactly! Same thought has crossed my mind many times.

 

[IglooEater]

It's funny. Almost every comment about the original 6D was that it had great IQ, but lousy AF. Now, the 6D II arrives, and suddenly the IQ is not good enough.

Exactly! Same thought has crossed my mind many times.

I've been thinking the same thing. However to play the devil's advocate, the IQ is almost the same - after 5 years. It's not unreasonable to expect some improvements. There clearly are, but some folks had higher expectations than others.

 

[dak723]

It's funny. Almost every comment about the original 6D was that it had great IQ, but lousy AF. Now, the 6D II arrives, and suddenly the IQ is not good enough.

Exactly! Same thought has crossed my mind many times.

I've been thinking the same thing. However to play the devil's advocate, the IQ is almost the same - after 5 years. It's not unreasonable to expect some improvements. There clearly are, but some folks had higher expectations than others.

Well, if various folks who have reported that lifting shadows is easier and cleaner than before, then that is an improvement - probably a more important improvement than increasing DR, at least for me and the usual post-processing I do.

Again, I, too am surprised that the 6D II did not have the same improvement that the other Canon cameras have had in the past two years. But I seriously wonder what most folks think a 2 stop DR improvement at base ISO would bring. Having briefly owned the Sony A7 II with it's greater DR, I found no visible difference in my images compared to my 6D when used under normal conditions. I guess that is another reason why these test results just don't bother me.

 

[IglooEater]

It's funny. Almost every comment about the original 6D was that it had great IQ, but lousy AF. Now, the 6D II arrives, and suddenly the IQ is not good enough.

Exactly! Same thought has crossed my mind many times.

I've been thinking the same thing. However to play the devil's advocate, the IQ is almost the same - after 5 years. It's not unreasonable to expect some improvements. There clearly are, but some folks had higher expectations than others.

Well, if various folks who have reported that lifting shadows is easier and cleaner than before, then that is an improvement - probably a more important improvement than increasing DR, at least for me and the usual post-processing I do.

Again, I, too am surprised that the 6D II did not have the same improvement that the other Canon cameras have had in the past two years. But I seriously wonder what most folks think a 2 stop DR improvement at base ISO would bring. Having briefly owned the Sony A7 II with it's greater DR, I found no visible difference in my images compared to my 6D when used under normal conditions. I guess that is another reason why these test results just don't bother me.

Agreed. I am more interested in the added pixels in the newer version, and potential high-ISO improvements than low ISO DR. I'm (still) on a 60D which is notoriously bad at low ISO (or so the tell me) yet I rarely find myself needing more DR.

 

[snoke]

There really isn't that much difference between the 5D mark IV sensor and the original 6D... hopefully there will be some improvements in other areas that dxomark measures like:
SNR (noise levels)
Tonal Range
Color sensitivity << this one seems to have the biggest difference at the moment

What ? The original 6D, just like the 6DII, achieves acceptable shadow IQ in a strong lift through NR, and all that that does to damage detail. The 5DIV achieves this with no NR at all.

Why people lift shadows? To get more detail in 'black'. If no more detail because NR, what point?