Canon EOS 6D Mark II Not Coming Until Spring? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Billybob said:
Adding a second SD slot shouldn't be that much of a challenge. Nikon's already done it even with their own FF entry-level D610. In terms of storage, that would just be Canon closing the gap with Nikon and leaving behind the basic Sony (now the A7-series I don't know how they can fit much else without first trying to put a bigger battery in there, if at all possible).
There are also other ways of differentiating a consumer and pro model, maybe with something more visible such as if/when Canon puts in a fully articulating screen in the 6D II instead of a fixed screen, like how you can easily distinguish between the 80D and 7D II.
Upvote
0
I have been a broken record on how Canon dropped the ball with only a +1 fps boost to the 5D4 over the 5D3.
Now here comes the 6D2. One could now see the fps of FF rigs looking like:
5DS/R = 5 fps
6D2 = 5.5 to 6 fps
5D4 = 7 fps
1DX2 = four gajillion fps
So Canon will somewhat have to do the 6D2 and 5D4 differentiation with sensor resolution, AF points, and max shutter speed. It would have been much easier to differentiate those two rigs if that 7 fps above was more like 9 fps.
- A
Now here comes the 6D2. One could now see the fps of FF rigs looking like:
5DS/R = 5 fps
6D2 = 5.5 to 6 fps
5D4 = 7 fps
1DX2 = four gajillion fps
So Canon will somewhat have to do the 6D2 and 5D4 differentiation with sensor resolution, AF points, and max shutter speed. It would have been much easier to differentiate those two rigs if that 7 fps above was more like 9 fps.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Fair point but marketing-wise, if Canon were able to push the 5D4 to 9 fps, they might as well have broken the psychological double-digit barrier and gone 10 fps. Now that would've turned a lot more heads, although too close for comfort to the 14 fps 1DX2.
Agreed though that Canon could've bumped the 5D4's burst a bit more, and I'd say to 8 fps. That would've let them say, hey look guys, 33% increase! That would also equal the burst rate of the original 7D, known as a legit action/sports shooter, and made the 5D4 look even more flexible and yet for Canon, for model differentiation, still be a comfortable way behind the 1DX2.
In which case then we can be more optimistic that the 6D2 would indeed go up to 6 fps, as they can say, hey look, 33% increase too from 4.5, with that alternate 5D4 still a couple of fps ahead. Now what might happen instead is that the 5D4's 7 fps might give Canon reason to cap the 6D2 at 5 fps to have that speed gap, similar to that between the Rebel and the 80D.
Also, the 5DS/R "Mark II", if they keep MP not much higher and with the faster dual Digic 6+, they might be able to bump up to 6 fps and thus equal to the 5D3's speed (for those looking for a same speed, high-res 5D3 replacement), with the 5D4 still noticeably faster. Instead, the 5DS/R2 now could just stay at 5 fps.
Upvote
0
As it stands, it may look like this:
6D2: 24 MP x 6 fps + 1/4000 shutter + less than 61 AF points + tilty-flippy
5D4: 30 MP x 7 fps + 1/8000 shutter + 61 AF points + 4K + many f/8 AF points + more silent shutter than 1DX2
1DX2: 20 MP x 14 fps + 1/8000 shutter + 61 AF points + 4K + many f/8 AF points + crazy shutter durability + grip + advanced metering + lots of 1D series goodies
Blue = nerfed deliberately for differentiation
Red = good 5D4 feature that won't be trickled-down to 6D2
Green = unique upside to that price point
I'm less sure about the 1/4000 vs. 1/8000. Two different crop rigs at lower price points than the 6D2 have 1/8000 shutters today.
- A
6D2: 24 MP x 6 fps + 1/4000 shutter + less than 61 AF points + tilty-flippy
5D4: 30 MP x 7 fps + 1/8000 shutter + 61 AF points + 4K + many f/8 AF points + more silent shutter than 1DX2
1DX2: 20 MP x 14 fps + 1/8000 shutter + 61 AF points + 4K + many f/8 AF points + crazy shutter durability + grip + advanced metering + lots of 1D series goodies
Blue = nerfed deliberately for differentiation
Red = good 5D4 feature that won't be trickled-down to 6D2
Green = unique upside to that price point
I'm less sure about the 1/4000 vs. 1/8000. Two different crop rigs at lower price points than the 6D2 have 1/8000 shutters today.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
With 4K, initially I thought that Canon would limit the 6D2 to 1080p but more recently I've been thinking that they won't leave 4K out of the 6D2. What a waste of possibly a "tilty-flippy" screen with expected dual pixel AF when you limit yourself to 1080p as your competitors move on to 4K from 2017 onwards. It would also give Canon a full-frame product at its price point in the 4K market currently owned by M4/3 and APS-C cameras.
I see 4K differentation still possible between the 5D4 and 6D2 with the codec. 5D4 and 1DX2 have already gone with MJPEG's massive files but they do get 8MP 4K frame grabs -- marketed as 4K for stills pros -- while the 6D2 could go with a different codec such as H.264 or another -- no 8MP grabs but smaller, more compressed video files. It would still be 30p max and 1.7X crop as with the 5D4.
Upvote
0
Why is 1080p a waste of a tilty-flippy screen? Most photographers don't shoot video and wold use it to get different angles.
Having quality screen grabs is much more appealing in a stills-oriented camera than having better video codecs.
The 6D will NOT be a video -oriented machine. It will be for stills photographers to take video if they want to do so on occasion.
Upvote
0
4K's getting on everywhere from phones to cameras to dedicated video cameras, whether or not people actually use them now. I expect Canon to do 4K on most its products from 2017 onwards, including from the 6D2 price point and also the future 90D, 7D3, etc. My point was why would Canon waste the advantage of having a tilty-flippy screen if it sticks to old HD.Mikehit said:
If it was only photos, then a "tilty" screen would do but "tilty-flippy" I think would be a desired feature to shoot stills and also to monitor video, shoot vlogs, do selfies and holiday twofies for many consumers targeted in the 6D2's price point.
Mikehit said:
Sure, that's one way of looking at it and what the 5D4 and 1DX2 currently offer with MJPEG 4K grabs at the cost of massive files but like I said, I'd speculate the 6D2 will be Canon's way of appealing to that section of the market who would like to take photos but also deal with more manageable video files and not that interested in doing 4K stills grabs.
Mikehit said:
Canon could actually have a nice full-frame alternative for the GH4 market here if the 6D2 comes with a tilty-flippy screen and a 4K codec for more manageable video files.
Upvote
0
nightscape123 said:
I've been using the 5DIII for years and it has been banging out great photo after great photo. I never see this alleged "terrible banding noise". The dynamic range is perfect for at least 99% of the photos I make at weddings. The 5DIII is my do-everything-camera because it does everything well. I use a 6D too and have never noticed that it "fixed" anything about the 5DIII.
Upvote
0
ExodistPhotography
Photographer, Artist & Youtuber
Canon Rumors said:
I still firmly believe it will have the exact same specs as the 80D, but full frame, alloy body and if we are really lucky a tiltty flippy screen. If it does turn out to be 25MP, then thats just marketing to make it really appear more then the 80D to newbs from a numbers standpoint. If it does have dual card slots I would be shocked, but pleased at the same time. Am hoping for a slightly smaller/lighter body that everyone keeps mentioning. Likely closer to that of the 80D.
Upvote
0
As I read these discussions that center around product differentiation, I see a lot of logical hypotheses for how one might space out specs between models. They make sense...on paper...when comparing one feature set to the next.
One thing that doesn't seem to enter the conversation very often is that for many features, relative differentiation can be irrelevant if/when specs meet a certain functional capability. In other words, there comes a point when the capability of a camera meets enough needs in the overall market that it doesn't make much difference what the higher-level cameras can do. This, I would suspect, is a significant factor in the product line-up and differentiation discussions at Canon.
For pros/enthusiasts that want to squeeze out the very best/fastest from a camera, it might not be as relevant, but the more technology advances, the more relevant it will be. For the rest, that point of functional sufficiency for needs will be met much earlier.
It's one thing to risk a lower-tier model cannibalizing sales of a higher-tier model because the specs were "too close" relative to one another. It's another matter entirely when the lower-tier model cannibalizes sales of the higher-tier model because the specs meet the practical needs of most shooters across the target markets for the two tiers.
For these reasons, I suspect some features, like resolution, frame rate and AF system will plateau in order to maintain differentiation-by-user-need rather than just differentiation-by-relative-difference-to-another-model.
Does that makes sense?
One thing that doesn't seem to enter the conversation very often is that for many features, relative differentiation can be irrelevant if/when specs meet a certain functional capability. In other words, there comes a point when the capability of a camera meets enough needs in the overall market that it doesn't make much difference what the higher-level cameras can do. This, I would suspect, is a significant factor in the product line-up and differentiation discussions at Canon.
For pros/enthusiasts that want to squeeze out the very best/fastest from a camera, it might not be as relevant, but the more technology advances, the more relevant it will be. For the rest, that point of functional sufficiency for needs will be met much earlier.
It's one thing to risk a lower-tier model cannibalizing sales of a higher-tier model because the specs were "too close" relative to one another. It's another matter entirely when the lower-tier model cannibalizes sales of the higher-tier model because the specs meet the practical needs of most shooters across the target markets for the two tiers.
For these reasons, I suspect some features, like resolution, frame rate and AF system will plateau in order to maintain differentiation-by-user-need rather than just differentiation-by-relative-difference-to-another-model.
Does that makes sense?
Upvote
0
Famateur said:
Canon is not a good/better/best/flagship FF lineup like Nikon is. Nor are they the specialized video/very good/best setup of the Sony lineup. Canon is Canon. Right now (and leaving out the aging 5D3), they are good (6D1) / all-arounder (5D4) / detail (5DS) / flagship (1DX2). It's a fairly unique portfolio in that regard.
So I'm not sure how user-specfic their FF line will be once the 6D2 drops. But they are currently on a trajectory where the 6D camp and the 5D# camp do indeed overlap in users (folks waffled on 5D3 vs. 6D just as they do now on 5D4 vs. 6D2 later), so Canon must be careful to not sex up the 6D2 too much for fear of spiking the punch for the 5D4. I see an aggressive nerfing of the 6D2 feature set in ways I outlined earlier -- they simply will not roll out a camera that does 95% as much as the 5D4 for half the price.
- A
Upvote
0
Famateur said:
But I firmly get your idea that there may be a future state where we don't roughly rank/peg the cameras being offered by their 'horsepower' specs like MP count, AF points, fps, etc.
Someday we could have the same sensor (or perhaps two) that go into a plurality of bodies laser-targeted for specific groups:
Standard sensor + warlike build + grip + extra CPU for high throughput and high FPS --> sports/wildlife
Standard sensor + tilty-flippy + 4K --> the video rig
Standard sensor + best possible silent shutter + onboard wireless flash controller --> the wedding rig
High res sensor + LiveView workflow streamlined for landscape/astro + astro cooler --> the tripod landscape rig
That said, I personally don't think Canon will go this far in specializing their rigs as new use-cases for photography evolve faster than they can make products for them. Also, rehashing sensor X in a $6k and a $2k body makes selling a $6k body pretty damn difficult, IMHO.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I agree.
I think my main point is that people can't assume a spec will increase from one model version to the next (e.g. 6D to 6DII) just because there's functionality headroom between it and the next tier. For example, I would bet that the FPS won't move much in a 6D series body for the foreseeable future because it's already at a level that satisfies the intended market. I also highly doubt we'd see a second card slot, as one slot is all most entry-level people think they need.
Unless Canon is bold enough to move the 6D series functionally close to the 5D series (and that would defeat the purpose of the 6D's introduction as an entry-level full-frame body), I think it's safe to say that there will be much nerfing taking place.
That said, I'd still be thrilled with a full-frame equivalent to the 80D.
Upvote
0
With the 5D3 and 6D, the differentiator was certainly not video. They both shot 1080p HD at 30p. That could be the case again with the 5D4 and 6D2 with 4K at 30p at 1.7X crop. I'd speculate on an eventual difference in codecs but who knows, maybe Canon just sticks with the current one.
Upvote
0
My biggest hope for this camera is a change to how I see Canon marketing their cameras. At the moment it seems, as others have pointed out, that they set the specs for the 'pros' and then create other models for consumers by cutting the specs down from there.
I really hope that 5D/4 & 6D/2 can be very close in specs and differentiated in other ways. I think the tilty-flippy screen + new OS (with a more modern UI) would be perfect.
As others have pointed out, this approach also opens up room for a FF below the 6D, again for consumers. I think this would make perfect sense.
This approach would also allow Canon to start taking advantage of the millions of people getting into photography by using their camera phones. Instead of seeing this as threat, this approach would see this as the phones 'seeding the camera market'. What people will want is the much better sensor in a dedicated camera device - something I assume is physically impossible on a camera because of the camera sensor's small size. The trick is to make a modern camera as easy to use as a camera phone. Touchscreens would help here.
As far as 4K is concerned. Consumers have 4K televisions now. They would be looking for a 4K camera also. Especially if the reason to go for a dedicated camera is IQ.
So basically the feature set should focus on migrating people to dedicated camera and I believe that will create a device, the 6D2, different enough from the 5D4 so as not to need to cut the specs too much.
I really hope that 5D/4 & 6D/2 can be very close in specs and differentiated in other ways. I think the tilty-flippy screen + new OS (with a more modern UI) would be perfect.
As others have pointed out, this approach also opens up room for a FF below the 6D, again for consumers. I think this would make perfect sense.
This approach would also allow Canon to start taking advantage of the millions of people getting into photography by using their camera phones. Instead of seeing this as threat, this approach would see this as the phones 'seeding the camera market'. What people will want is the much better sensor in a dedicated camera device - something I assume is physically impossible on a camera because of the camera sensor's small size. The trick is to make a modern camera as easy to use as a camera phone. Touchscreens would help here.
As far as 4K is concerned. Consumers have 4K televisions now. They would be looking for a 4K camera also. Especially if the reason to go for a dedicated camera is IQ.
So basically the feature set should focus on migrating people to dedicated camera and I believe that will create a device, the 6D2, different enough from the 5D4 so as not to need to cut the specs too much.
Upvote
0
AdjustedInCamera said:
Not happening, at least not at this level. Canon wants all of its SLRs to function in a similar manner (even if the specs / knobs / etc. are different from model to model):
- Pros need a second body that doesn't operate/handle wildly differently from their primary body.
- Lower level users with many years logged on a Rebel, 60D, etc. should not face a steep cliff learning-wise when they want to step up to a nicer camera
So I see zero chance in Canon pushing the TNT plunger on their current SLR UI -- instead, they'll favor slick functionality to add to it (use touchscreen to change AF point while camera's OVF is up against your eye, customize the 'blocks' of the back LCD display of settings, more user customizable options, etc.
AdjustedInCamera said:
I've heard this as well: a point and shoot FF rig in auto mode with a cell-phone like simple interface. But as much as we see this (as SLR fans) sitting at a price point below a 6D2, I don't think that camera is an SLR at all:
- The instagram social-media masses without photography experience (and without the patience to learn how to use one) do not want to change lenses, pay for lenses, etc. --> this points to a fixed lens camera.
- Those same folks want to take these cameras into places that score huge numbers on social media, like concerts, sporting events, etc., so these cameras cannot be big --> this speaks to minimizing the size of the lens --> this again points to a fixed lens camera and possibly a camera without a mirror altogether.
- Those same folks covet small DOF and bokeh because their cell phone cannot do that.
So, yes, there is a huge potential for a large sensored point and shoot, but it won't be an SLR, IMHO. A big Sony RX100 or grossly simplified RX1R would seem to be a more likely outcome.
- A
Upvote
0
Similar threads
