6dmk2 with 5dmk4 sensor; should we pay more for it?

[dak723]

If Canon want to survive in the entry-full-size camera market, Canon must make version of the 6 dmk2 with the sensor from the 5 dmk4 including 4K video and high DR, not in 4 years , but next year/ ASAP.

Would you pay more for this camera and how much?

I think Canon should lower the price right now for the current 6 dmk2 by 200 $ and ask $2250 for the <6 D mk2R> version, I would willingly pay for it.

Garret, the Netherlands

Would I pay more? - No.

Do I care that the 6D II does not have the 5D IV sensor? - No. The original 6D took great pics, and the vast majority (if not all) of those that have bought the camera and posted their opinions report that the 6D II's IQ is better and the images are far easier to clean up and work with in post processing than the original 6D. There is no reason not to get this camera, in my opinion.

 

[stevelee]

Putting 1080P on a 4k TV is not a "dead end", any more than the fact that when I get my next TV it will have 4k and... mostly display 1080p, or less, because that's most of what's available. For example, all football games. It might be nice to make your videos be 4k, but are you prepared for the rest of 4k video production? I've never done it (or any video, really), but my understanding is it requires a ferociously powerful desktop and isn't really something you just pick up on a whim.

4k TVs scale 1080p, 1080i, and 720p quite nicely. They need to, since as you say most programming we watch is in one of those forms. For a lot of us, much of what we watch is 1080i that has been compressed for cable. It can look surprisingly good, especially at normal viewing distances. DVD video is 720x480 compressed for data rate. The pixels are interpreted by the player to stretch the picture back out to 16x9 ratio. Blu-Ray discs can do 1080p and have a much higher bitrate. Internet streaming is still rather compressed, whether 1080i or 4K. So, overall, it is a wonder that video looks as good as it does most of the time. That is a triumph of technology.

I have shot 4K video only with my iPhone. Nothing else I have will shoot it. I've never tried to produce a 4K end product from it, and I don't know what I would do with it if I had it, other than have it on my computer. The one project I shot with my phone was of pick-up basketball games last summer. Since the iPhone doesn't have optical zoom, I used the extra resolution to allow cropping that amounted to what I would have zoomed in for if I used more sophisticated equipment. It came out looking pretty good, and still not too bad after YouTube mangled, er processed, it for their system.

As for hardware and software, I have an almost-3-year-old 5K iMac with an i7 processor and a lot of memory and SSD space. I use Final Cut Pro X for editing, just because I'm more familiar with it than with Premiere. (I do better color correction with Premiere, though, because it is more Adobeish.) The iMac hands the 4K material quite well. I leave all the options on for background processing. By the time I have finished a small project, it has filled up almost the whole free space on my SSD with work files (almost half a terabyte). Those are promptly deleted when I'm done. I don't know how the performance might be with a slower processor, less memory, and maybe more important, a mechanical hard drive instead of a large SSD. I don't want to find out.

Anyhow, when done editing, I produced 720p video rendered in Compressor. It does that in less time than the video duration. With my old Mac Pro, I used to go to bed after I put Compressor to work. Now I just get some water or take a bathroom break. The audience for that video project is more interested in seeing ASAP how well the players did, rather than how well I corrected colors, etc. So then I can send the video on to YouTube for them to ticker with, and the video is available on line some time during the night while I sleep.

So my point is that 4K video editing is not beyond the means of a person of comfortable middle-class income (the sort of folk who debate the merits of $2,000-$3,500 cameras). But for home and hobbyist use, lack of 4K should rarely be a deal breaker. The extra resolution can come in handy for editing in lieu of having a good telephoto lens. But shooting 1080p video can still give you more quality to work with than what you are used to seeing commercially. The photographic advantage the latter will normally have will be in terms of lighting, color, etc., much more so than effective resolution by the time it gets to your TV.

 

[stevelee]

Some of the discussion here seems to assume that Canon's target audience for the 6D2 consists largely of present 6D owners considering an upgrade. Clearly that represents a segment of people posting on the forum, but I doubt that is so huge a concern to Canon marketing. Indeed, they could well be more interested that 6D owners see the 5D4 as the next upgrade.

My guess is that somewhat more of the potential market consists of those of us among the great unwashed who are looking for some nudge to consider buying our first non-film full-frame camera.

 

[Loswr]

Some of the discussion here seems to assume that Canon's target audience for the 6D2 consists largely of present 6D owners considering an upgrade. Clearly that represents a segment of people posting on the forum, but I doubt that is so huge a concern to Canon marketing. Indeed, they could well be more interested that 6D owners see the 5D4 as the next upgrade.

My guess is that somewhat more of the potential market consists of those of us among the great unwashed who are looking for some nudge to consider buying our first non-film full-frame camera.

Exactly. Thus the lower price point.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Don't forget I'm asking a question: should we pay more for a 6 dmk2 with 5 dmk4 sensor? just asking, nothing more.

That's like asking, "Should we pay more for a unicorn than a horse?" :

Unless you're a virgin female, what would you even do with a unicorn?

Pretty sexist comment.

Honestly, who wouldn't want a horse with a badass pointy horn?

By legend, only a virgin female can approach/ tame/ ride a unicorn. Everyone else can't. Therefor, a unicorn is useless to anyone else. And go ahead, argue with me about whether that's accurate.

Be careful throwing around accusations of sexism.

 

[Loswr]

By legend, only a virgin female can approach/ tame/ ride a unicorn. Everyone else can't. Therefor, a unicorn is useless to anyone else. And go ahead, argue with me about whether that's accurate.

Voldemort found a use for unicorns. Are you suggesting that Tom Riddle was a virgin female?

 

[Larsskv]

Would I pay more for a 6D II with a 5D IV sensor? Yes - absolutely. How much more? No idea - I've gone a different direction and moved away from considering the 6D II.

I had an original 6D which I used and loved. It was a great camera and took great photos for my needs. I take photos of almost exclusively landscapes and nearly always on a tripod. My biggest desires for improvement on the 6D were increased base ISO dynamic range, improved weather sealing, increased resolution, and maybe further improvements in low light capabilities (in that order). I certainly understand that these are not what everyone else needs, and I concede that the discussions on DR are splitting hairs for the most part. However, I did find myself lifting shadows on maybe 50% of the photos I took, and I almost always used ND grads or bracketing to overcome the challenge.

When the 6D II was announced I was thinking I would see maybe 3 of my 4 desired improvements over the 6D, and while this seemed to be true, it was not the 3 I expected! In the end I weighed my options and felt the 5D IV was a better fit, so I picked one up last week.

Since I sold my 6D to pick up the 5D IV I couldn't do direct comparisons, but I will say that my initial reactions for the 5D IV have been extremely positive! I have found the files produced suit my need very well and I have no complaints. Anecdotally, I have found that the 5D IV handled scenes where I had expected dynamic range challenges much better than I expected, so I'm happy.

If the 6D II had the 5D IV sensor I probably would have picked one up instead and saved some money. In the end, however, the 5D IV is a more robust camera which satisfies all my needs and gives me loads of room to grow as a photographer - although there can be no doubt that my skill needs more improvement than my camera does . Regardless, I'm a happy camper!

I am glad you enjoy your 5DIV. But, picture yourself this. You paid up for the 5DIV 6 months ago, and when the 6DII came, it could give you all you wanted and needed. Wouldn't´t you feel a bit cheated for paying the premium for the 5DIV?

Holding "back" on the 6DII is sort of fair towards the 5DIV buyers...

Maybe my new cheap laptop can go back to a 386 processor so I don't feel cheated about the $4000 laptop I bought 10 years ago. I am not sure why people feel retroactively cheated on products especially ones that are obsolete in short order. That is part of the deal. If you feel comfortable with your purchase when you bought it don't worry about what happens in 6 months. If you do then you will forever be living in fear of the next product announcement.

You seem to overlook the fact that the 5DIV is a higher end model, that it is newly released, and is expected to be the main 5D model for another 4 years.

Canons price policy and upgrade strategy worked on me. When the 1DXII was released, I maxed out on my credit card because I knew the 5DIV and 6DII would not outperform it in any significant matter, and it would be the best Canon FF till 2020. Why should I wait and see how the next model would look like?

 

[rrcphoto]

If Canon want to survive in the entry-full-size camera market, Canon must make version of the 6 dmk2 with the sensor from the 5 dmk4 including 4K video and high DR, not in 4 years , but next year/ ASAP.

LOL.
and you know this.. how?

you're probably right that it would have cost more, but it's really not happening.

and no, canon doesn't need it to survive.

 

[Talys]

By legend, only a virgin female can approach/ tame/ ride a unicorn. Everyone else can't. Therefor, a unicorn is useless to anyone else. And go ahead, argue with me about whether that's accurate.

Voldemort found a use for unicorns. Are you suggesting that Tom Riddle was a virgin female?

Well, obviously.

 

[LonelyBoy]

By legend, only a virgin female can approach/ tame/ ride a unicorn. Everyone else can't. Therefor, a unicorn is useless to anyone else. And go ahead, argue with me about whether that's accurate.

Voldemort found a use for unicorns. Are you suggesting that Tom Riddle was a virgin female?

I have paid zero attention to that franchise, so other than the name Voldemort I have no idea what you're on about. I'm talking tradition legend, which did hold that unicorns were only available to virgin females. Whatever interpretation modern writers choose to put on tradition is fine for them, but I'm not going to hold them on par with traditional legends.

When I think vampires, I don't think sparkly skin, either.

 

[BillB]

hypothetically? i may have bought a 6dii for a couple hundred dollars more if it had the best sensor tech canon has available.

i would have bought a 5dsr if it had a real crop mode too.

this segmentation/crippling is irritating. i keep saying that i am never buying another canon dslr but now i am thinking about buying a idxii.

i may not like canon's market strategy with their camera bodies but it seems to be working for them.

Every company segments the market and if they didn't they would have one model to do everything.

i realize that camera manufacturers make different models for different purposes but what canon is doing seems different than sony. the a9, a7rii, a6500, a99 and rx100 all seem to be the best product that sony could put out for their intended purposes.

canon seems to intentionally limit the capabilities of their camera bodies to force you to buy several or a more expensive one.

And how many Sony cameras that you listed were at the $2000 price point, or anywhere near it?

 

[tcmatthews]

I do not like the size of the 5 series bodies. But I think that if the 5D iV had a flip screen and true 4K support it would look much more attractive to me. But I would still have a hard time pulling the trigger on a camera that truly does not fit my hands.

If they put all the features of the 5D IV, true 4K, minus the dual cards support, and a flip screen in a 6D body next year. I would likely pay the going price of the 5D IV. I would prefer it around $2500-$2800. Which is all I would ever consider buying the 5D IV for.

That said it would need to have SD UHSII or something simular to support 4K adequately.

As to pay more for the IV sensor sure $200-$400 with SD UHSII .

So what you're saying is you'd like a better camera for less money. Shocking.

Yes shocking. But you miss the fact I think the 5D IV is over priced for its features. It feels like i am hyperextending my thumb when using my 7D II so i really do not like the Ergos. I have no problem with the thumb stick it is just in a bad position for my hand. The 5D IV is a good camera but if i had anything to criticise it on is the lack of flip screen and 4K H.264 with full sensor readout. Just 4k H.264 would have shut many of the haters up. But I am not its target market. So what do I know.

For me the show stopper for the 6D II was the lack SD UHSII. Not even a Magic lantern hack will improve the 6D II video. I shoot Canon and Sony DR is not why i sold my 6D. I never felt lacking with the DR of the 6D compared to the Sony.

 

[Talys]

Yes shocking. But you miss the fact I think the 5D IV is over priced for its features.

When the market agrees with you and stops buying 5DIV, Canon will lower its price. As long as it's the best-selling full frame camera, at any price point, the price will remain about where it is.

Of course, the 5DIV isn't even a year old. I'm sure there will be sales and instant rebates around Black Friday/Christmas, but I doubt to the degree that would entice you, seeing that there are things you don't like about 5DIV anyways. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not really fond of 5DIV's ergonomics (just a little too big for my hands), and I would like a flippy screen too. However, that just makes me think that the 5DIV isn't the right camera for me, not that it's overpriced.

For me the show stopper for the 6D II was the lack SD UHSII. Not even a Magic lantern hack will improve the 6D II video. I shoot Canon and Sony DR is not why i sold my 6D. I never felt lacking with the DR of the 6D compared to the Sony.

I don't think the 6DII will appeal to people who want to shoot a lot of video. The feature set is clearly not targeted to them. Should Canon have a Full Frame, entry-level videographer's DSLR offering? Maybe, but it's not 6DII.

 

[Mikehit]

Yes shocking. But you miss the fact I think the 5D IV is over priced for its features.

As Taly says, price is set by what people are willing to pay, and by the market in general, not whether you can afford it.

I'd like a 600mm f4mkII but I am not willing to pay that - it doesn't mean its overpriced. Am I being pedantic? Yes. But given that this is an internet forum where we can only see what you write, with no non-verbal cues, this sort of comment jut makes someone sound petty.

 

[jolyonralph]

Yes shocking. But you miss the fact I think the 5D IV is over priced for its features.

As Taly says, price is set by what people are willing to pay, and by the market in general, not whether you can afford it.

He was saying that "he thinks" the 5DIV is overpriced, and everyone is entitled to their opinion - that's how we all make judgements about what to buy. For me the 5DIV was an uninspiring camera that offered nothing that I needed to upgrade from my 5DSR. That doesn't mean it is a bad camera, it just means it wasn't the right camera for me.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I do not like the size of the 5 series bodies. But I think that if the 5D iV had a flip screen and true 4K support it would look much more attractive to me. But I would still have a hard time pulling the trigger on a camera that truly does not fit my hands.

If they put all the features of the 5D IV, true 4K, minus the dual cards support, and a flip screen in a 6D body next year. I would likely pay the going price of the 5D IV. I would prefer it around $2500-$2800. Which is all I would ever consider buying the 5D IV for.

That said it would need to have SD UHSII or something simular to support 4K adequately.

As to pay more for the IV sensor sure $200-$400 with SD UHSII .

So what you're saying is you'd like a better camera for less money. Shocking.

Yes shocking. But you miss the fact I think the 5D IV is over priced for its features. It feels like i am hyperextending my thumb when using my 7D II so i really do not like the Ergos. I have no problem with the thumb stick it is just in a bad position for my hand. The 5D IV is a good camera but if i had anything to criticise it on is the lack of flip screen and 4K H.264 with full sensor readout. Just 4k H.264 would have shut many of the haters up. But I am not its target market. So what do I know.

For me the show stopper for the 6D II was the lack SD UHSII. Not even a Magic lantern hack will improve the 6D II video. I shoot Canon and Sony DR is not why i sold my 6D. I never felt lacking with the DR of the 6D compared to the Sony.

Ok? So the 5D4 doesn't work for you. I haven't bought one yet either, but you can take literally any product ever and say it should be nicer for less money. Cameras, cars, TVs, laptops, phones, anything. Literally. Everyone always says it's a little overpriced and should also be better. It's meaningless blather from people who have unrealistic notions of what things cost.

 

[tron]

Which amount is considered overpriced for 5D4? The 4K of the official price or the 3K of grey import models? I am talking about European prices. I see that in US/Canada the prices are much more reasonable (both official and grey import).

 

[johnhenry]

The specs on the 6D II are a bit mixed and disappointing in others.

No large increase in pixels, no 4K video. Frame rate is still MUCH less than even the 7D I

 

[Mikehit]

The specs on the 6D II are a bit mixed and disappointing in others.

No large increase in pixels, no 4K video. Frame rate is still MUCH less than even the 7D I

The 6D was created as an alternative to the 7D series to give photographers the choice of going either sports/ action (AF and high frame rate) or landscape (FF and image quality). Now you expect it to be a FF 7D. I suggest you get a dose of reality.

And do you really consider 6.5 fps to be 'MUCH' (especially capitalised) lower than 8 fps.

Hyperbole makes you look like a fool.

 

[LonelyBoy]

New member here. Frustrated with my 6dm2. Only posting this so I can start my own topic. Nothing to see here. Move along...

Another user registering to complain? Color me surprised... :