A Bit More About the EOS 6D Mark II [CR2]

[hbr]

Sometimes I do a bit of street photography or model photography in the city where the dark shadows of the buildings require a fast lens and all the low light abilities of the 6D. I want to put my focus point on the subjects eyes instead of putting it in the center of the model's chin or chest.
I have shot a couple of weddings with the 6D and found that focus - recompose is often hit or miss with the 6D.

 

[dak723]

The 6D is showing its age, so I will list the things that would cause me to purchase the 6D Mark II:

1) More AF points that are spread out more towards the edges of the sensor. Since the camera won't be a speed demon, it doesn't need as many focus points as the 80D or the 7D Mark II, but I think it needs to have more than 19 AF points.

Just curious to those that want or use more focus points. Since this camera is mainly used by most for non-action photography. what is the advantage to more focus points? I use and need only the center point for all my photography since I don't do any moving subjects. I see that folks want more and more focus points. but I don't see the advantage. In fact, whenever I get a new camera, I turn off all the other focus points to make sure that I am not inadvertently focusing on something other than my subject.

The key point is having them closer to the edge of the frame. Most of us don't want our subjects dead center in the image all the time. If you are shooting with a slow lens, or a fast lens stopped down, focus-recompose is fine. But if you're shooting with a fast prime wide open, you should understand why focus-recompose sucks.

OK, thought there might be more to it. I have no fast primes and focus-recompose has worked fine for me for 20 years or more.

 

[ricky_005]

Sometimes I do a bit of street photography or model photography in the city where the dark shadows of the buildings require a fast lens and all the low light abilities of the 6D. I want to put my focus point on the subjects eyes instead of putting it in the center of the model's chin or chest.
I have shot a couple of weddings with the 6D and found that focus - recompose is often hit or miss with the 6D.

No excuse for canon not to put focus point where needed for rule of one/third portraiture this time. If they screw users again over focus points, I'm done with Canon ..... Selling it all, and will go with another camera manufacturer.

 

[ricky_005]

The 6D is showing its age, so I will list the things that would cause me to purchase the 6D Mark II:

1) More AF points that are spread out more towards the edges of the sensor. Since the camera won't be a speed demon, it doesn't need as many focus points as the 80D or the 7D Mark II, but I think it needs to have more than 19 AF points.

Just curious to those that want or use more focus points. Since this camera is mainly used by most for non-action photography. what is the advantage to more focus points? I use and need only the center point for all my photography since I don't do any moving subjects. I see that folks want more and more focus points. but I don't see the advantage. In fact, whenever I get a new camera, I turn off all the other focus points to make sure that I am not inadvertently focusing on something other than my subject.

The key point is having them closer to the edge of the frame. Most of us don't want our subjects dead center in the image all the time. If you are shooting with a slow lens, or a fast lens stopped down, focus-recompose is fine. But if you're shooting with a fast prime wide open, you should understand why focus-recompose sucks.

OK, thought there might be more to it. I have no fast primes and focus-recompose has worked fine for me for 20 years or more.

A sharp Fast lenses using focus-recompose technique for portraiture will loose focus on a LOT of shots, it's unacceptable, and should be common knowledge it's a big No No. Their are exceptions like if you own a 6D it will limit your compositions, and Many Many Many times users will resort to focus-recompose technique to get the best composition and take multiple shoots of the same hoping to get like maybe 1 out of 6 shoots tac sharp. It can be a very frustrating/disappointing experience. The reason photographers use focus-recompose technique is that the auto focus points are not located where needed!

If you're shooting a slow f/stop its not going to hurt as much because DOF.... there again if you're not a serious photographer, maybe you need a point and shoot camera.

 

[hbr]

What worries me is that the rumored specs for the 6D II say that the camera will probably have a 19 point AF system. Does that mean that are still trying to milk more money out of an outdated system? 19 points spread out more in the frame would be an improvement over the current 11 points, but if the rumor is correct, it will be a no go for me regardless of the other specs. If they can put a decent AF system in the $1200 80D I surely won't pay $2000 or more for an inferior AF system due to the type of photography that I do. Unfortunately I can't justify the 5D IV - my wife would make me go out and live in the dog house!

Just saying...

 

[Loswr]

If they can put a decent AF system in the $1200 80D I surely won't pay $2000 or more for an inferior AF system due to the type of photography that I do.

The 40D and its successors had better AF than the 5-series until the 5DIII, and at that point the 6D took over for the 5DII. So it won't surprise me if that continues. The choice of a FF sensor vs. better AF is not new, but what's changed is the ability to get both for less than 1-series cost.

 

[hbr]

Neuroanatomist, unfortunately, I believe that you are correct and I am going to be greatly disappointed. What I don't get is that the number one complaint about the original 6D was the poor autofocus - otherwise it was/is a great camera, so imho, if Canon seriously addressed this issue they would have a real winner. But Canon will be Canon. Since I am on a limited camera budget the choice between the 6DII and a 5D Mk III will be a difficult choice to make. :'(

 

[Loswr]

Neuroanatomist, unfortunately, I believe that you are correct and I am going to be greatly disappointed. What I don't get is that the number one complaint about the original 6D was the poor autofocus - otherwise it was/is a great camera, so imho, if Canon seriously addressed this issue they would have a real winner. But Canon will be Canon. Since I am on a limited camera budget the choice between the 6DII and a 5D Mk III will be a difficult choice to make. :'(

Well, I bashed the idea that the 5DIII would get 1-series AF, and I was totally wrong. So hopefully I'm wrong again!

 

[dak723]

The 6D is showing its age, so I will list the things that would cause me to purchase the 6D Mark II:

1) More AF points that are spread out more towards the edges of the sensor. Since the camera won't be a speed demon, it doesn't need as many focus points as the 80D or the 7D Mark II, but I think it needs to have more than 19 AF points.

Just curious to those that want or use more focus points. Since this camera is mainly used by most for non-action photography. what is the advantage to more focus points? I use and need only the center point for all my photography since I don't do any moving subjects. I see that folks want more and more focus points. but I don't see the advantage. In fact, whenever I get a new camera, I turn off all the other focus points to make sure that I am not inadvertently focusing on something other than my subject.

The key point is having them closer to the edge of the frame. Most of us don't want our subjects dead center in the image all the time. If you are shooting with a slow lens, or a fast lens stopped down, focus-recompose is fine. But if you're shooting with a fast prime wide open, you should understand why focus-recompose sucks.

OK, thought there might be more to it. I have no fast primes and focus-recompose has worked fine for me for 20 years or more.

A sharp Fast lenses using focus-recompose technique for portraiture will loose focus on a LOT of shots, it's unacceptable, and should be common knowledge it's a big No No. Their are exceptions like if you own a 6D it will limit your compositions, and Many Many Many times users will resort to focus-recompose technique to get the best composition and take multiple shoots of the same hoping to get like maybe 1 out of 6 shoots tac sharp. It can be a very frustrating/disappointing experience. The reason photographers use focus-recompose technique is that the auto focus points are not located where needed!

If you're shooting a slow f/stop its not going to hurt as much because DOF.... there again if you're not a serious photographer, maybe you need a point and shoot camera.

Funny how you feel the need to insult me and all other photographers that use focus and recompose. Many of us are either pros or serious photographers - perhaps more serious than you. If I were you, I would keep the insults to yourself - especially since you can only get 1 in 6 shots in focus when using this technique.

 

[Loswr]

The 6D is showing its age, so I will list the things that would cause me to purchase the 6D Mark II:

1) More AF points that are spread out more towards the edges of the sensor. Since the camera won't be a speed demon, it doesn't need as many focus points as the 80D or the 7D Mark II, but I think it needs to have more than 19 AF points.

Just curious to those that want or use more focus points. Since this camera is mainly used by most for non-action photography. what is the advantage to more focus points? I use and need only the center point for all my photography since I don't do any moving subjects. I see that folks want more and more focus points. but I don't see the advantage. In fact, whenever I get a new camera, I turn off all the other focus points to make sure that I am not inadvertently focusing on something other than my subject.

The key point is having them closer to the edge of the frame. Most of us don't want our subjects dead center in the image all the time. If you are shooting with a slow lens, or a fast lens stopped down, focus-recompose is fine. But if you're shooting with a fast prime wide open, you should understand why focus-recompose sucks.

OK, thought there might be more to it. I have no fast primes and focus-recompose has worked fine for me for 20 years or more.

A sharp Fast lenses using focus-recompose technique for portraiture will loose focus on a LOT of shots, it's unacceptable, and should be common knowledge it's a big No No. Their are exceptions like if you own a 6D it will limit your compositions, and Many Many Many times users will resort to focus-recompose technique to get the best composition and take multiple shoots of the same hoping to get like maybe 1 out of 6 shoots tac sharp. It can be a very frustrating/disappointing experience. The reason photographers use focus-recompose technique is that the auto focus points are not located where needed!

If you're shooting a slow f/stop its not going to hurt as much because DOF.... there again if you're not a serious photographer, maybe you need a point and shoot camera.

Funny how you feel the need to insult me and all other photographers that use focus and recompose. Many of us are either pros or serious photographers - perhaps more serious than you. If I were you, I would keep the insults to yourself - especially since you can only get 1 in 6 shots in focus when using this technique.

ricky_005 is a silly little troll. Your time is yours to spend, but I'd suggest you not waste it giving credence to any of the idiotic tripe he spouts.

 

[hbr]

dak723,
I am new to this forum so there are many things that I still don't know how to do, for example, I see you list the 6D under your nickname. I don't know yet how to list mine there.
Anyway, since you have a 6D - I used my best lens at the time of the weddings and some of my photo shoots which was the 70-200 f/2.8 L USM. Due to poor lighting I had to take most of my photos at f/2.8. I had pretty dismal results with the focus - recompose. It seemed that the 6D had a mind of its own. Very frustrating. I never had this problem with my other cameras using this lens. So kudos to you if your skill and your 6D allowed you to keep a lot of photos using this technique. I did not have this problem with landscape photography, only with people's faces.

 

[Don Haines]

Neuroanatomist, unfortunately, I believe that you are correct and I am going to be greatly disappointed. What I don't get is that the number one complaint about the original 6D was the poor autofocus - otherwise it was/is a great camera, so imho, if Canon seriously addressed this issue they would have a real winner. But Canon will be Canon. Since I am on a limited camera budget the choice between the 6DII and a 5D Mk III will be a difficult choice to make. :'(

The last few years has seen a fantastic jump ahead in AF capabilities. (and not just Canon) I have no doubts that the 6DII will have a superior system to the version 1. A good bet would be roughly comparable to the 5D3.....

 

[MrFotoFool]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[dak723]

dak723,
I am new to this forum so there are many things that I still don't know how to do, for example, I see you list the 6D under your nickname. I don't know yet how to list mine there.

The 6D under my name is not put there by me. I think it is auto-generated by the site to indicate the number of posts.

Anyway, since you have a 6D - I used my best lens at the time of the weddings and some of my photo shoots which was the 70-200 f/2.8 L USM. Due to poor lighting I had to take most of my photos at f/2.8. I had pretty dismal results with the focus - recompose. It seemed that the 6D had a mind of its own. Very frustrating. I never had this problem with my other cameras using this lens. So kudos to you if your skill and your 6D allowed you to keep a lot of photos using this technique. I did not have this problem with landscape photography, only with people's faces.

I can use the technique successfully because I never shoot at 2.8 or near that open. So no kudos for me are necessary.

 

[hbr]

Just for interest sake, on my last wedding of my best friend's daughter's wedding, my wife accompanied me and she shot using a T2i with the EFS 17-55 f/2.8. Since I knew she would have all of the people's frames in her shots, I decided to shoot a lot of close-ups - waist up or closer. That is where I had the problem, but the shots that were in focus were incredible. In the pictures I clearly captured tears welling up in the parent's and daughter's eyes and running down their cheeks.

 

[Luds34]

The 6D is showing its age, so I will list the things that would cause me to purchase the 6D Mark II:

1) More AF points that are spread out more towards the edges of the sensor. Since the camera won't be a speed demon, it doesn't need as many focus points as the 80D or the 7D Mark II, but I think it needs to have more than 19 AF points.

Just curious to those that want or use more focus points. Since this camera is mainly used by most for non-action photography. what is the advantage to more focus points? I use and need only the center point for all my photography since I don't do any moving subjects. I see that folks want more and more focus points. but I don't see the advantage. In fact, whenever I get a new camera, I turn off all the other focus points to make sure that I am not inadvertently focusing on something other than my subject.

The key point is having them closer to the edge of the frame. Most of us don't want our subjects dead center in the image all the time. If you are shooting with a slow lens, or a fast lens stopped down, focus-recompose is fine. But if you're shooting with a fast prime wide open, you should understand why focus-recompose sucks.

+1

I'll also add for shooting a better composition of a moving subject. I don't need high frame rate when I'm just rattling off a few shots of one of my kids running around. But I would like to track focus on their face, preferably somewhere around the top third of the frame. Just because the 6D is not an "action camera" doesn't mean it shouldn't have the ability to shoot a moving subject, even if it is as simple as someone walking across the room.

This is by far the biggest weakness of the current 6D, essentially a one/center point only camera.

 

[Luds34]

Neuroanatomist, unfortunately, I believe that you are correct and I am going to be greatly disappointed. What I don't get is that the number one complaint about the original 6D was the poor autofocus - otherwise it was/is a great camera, so imho, if Canon seriously addressed this issue they would have a real winner. But Canon will be Canon. Since I am on a limited camera budget the choice between the 6DII and a 5D Mk III will be a difficult choice to make. :'(

Well, I bashed the idea that the 5DIII would get 1-series AF, and I was totally wrong. So hopefully I'm wrong again!

Here's hoping you're wrong again.

I think the two factors in play here that will push the 6D to have something greater then a 19 point system (thinking one of those 40 something ones) are the following:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The competition has/will push Canon to deliver more focus points
[*]The long life cycle of Canon's xD cameras. Whatever they choose needs to hold up for ~5 years.
[/list]

 

[timmy_650]

Neuroanatomist, unfortunately, I believe that you are correct and I am going to be greatly disappointed. What I don't get is that the number one complaint about the original 6D was the poor autofocus - otherwise it was/is a great camera, so imho, if Canon seriously addressed this issue they would have a real winner. But Canon will be Canon. Since I am on a limited camera budget the choice between the 6DII and a 5D Mk III will be a difficult choice to make. :'(

Well, I bashed the idea that the 5DIII would get 1-series AF, and I was totally wrong. So hopefully I'm wrong again!

Here's hoping you're wrong again.

I think the two factors in play here that will push the 6D to have something greater then a 19 point system (thinking one of those 40 something ones) are the following:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The competition has/will push Canon to deliver more focus points
[*]The long life cycle of Canon's xD cameras. Whatever they choose needs to hold up for ~5 years.
[/list]

I think one of the biggest things will be the 5Dm3 bc that is sitting around $2000 and that is where the 6Dm2 should come in. The 6D competed well with the 5dm2 AF, so I sure hope the 6Dm2 does too.

 

[Luds34]

Neuroanatomist, unfortunately, I believe that you are correct and I am going to be greatly disappointed. What I don't get is that the number one complaint about the original 6D was the poor autofocus - otherwise it was/is a great camera, so imho, if Canon seriously addressed this issue they would have a real winner. But Canon will be Canon. Since I am on a limited camera budget the choice between the 6DII and a 5D Mk III will be a difficult choice to make. :'(

Well, I bashed the idea that the 5DIII would get 1-series AF, and I was totally wrong. So hopefully I'm wrong again!

Here's hoping you're wrong again.

I think the two factors in play here that will push the 6D to have something greater then a 19 point system (thinking one of those 40 something ones) are the following:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The competition has/will push Canon to deliver more focus points
[*]The long life cycle of Canon's xD cameras. Whatever they choose needs to hold up for ~5 years.
[/list]

I think one of the biggest things will be the 5Dm3 bc that is sitting around $2000 and that is where the 6Dm2 should come in. The 6D competed well with the 5dm2 AF, so I sure hope the 6Dm2 does too.

That's a good point! I agree, $2k sounds about right, and at that price you almost have to expect a pretty solid/improved AF system. It's not just the 5D3, but look at Nikon and others and what $2k (or even less) gets you for an AF system.

The other reason I think that the camera will have a better AF system, is due to DPAF. The flexibility and power of DPAF is quite good and leaves a lot of room for picking an AF point where you want it. Does Canon really want the PDAF so limited that for best results, 6D2 owners need to switch to liveview and hold the camera away from the body? I don't think so. And for the record, I think a 19 point system is plenty good enough, as long as they are all cross type and spread out enough on the sensor.

I really think this is the camera that will check a lot of boxes for me and hopefully last a long time. I'm going to hold out for it, although seeing the 5D4 for just under $3k has me intrigued.

 

[hbr]

I think a 19 point system is plenty good enough, as long as they are all cross type and spread out enough on the sensor.

I could live with that but I also need them to be useful at f/8.