Canon EOS 6D Mark II Not Coming Until Spring? [CR2]

[reef58]

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.

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

One thing to keep in mind is, just because a 5d4 costs $1000 or more than a 6d2 does not mean it is more profitable.

 

[ahsanford]

One thing to keep in mind is, just because a 5d4 costs $1000 or more than a 6d2 does not mean it is more profitable.

Sure, if you just look at the camera body units. But who is more likely to buy a second FF body in a reasonable timeframe after buying their first? Who is more likely to slap more expensive L lenses on their camera because it is thought to be a finer instrument?

Pullthrough of other bigger ticket Canon hardware has got to be better for 5D4 and 5DS owners than (future) 6D2 owners. Same goes for 1DX2 owners buying even pricier things yet than the 5D4 or 5DS camp will.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

One thing to keep in mind is, just because a 5d4 costs $1000 or more than a 6d2 does not mean it is more profitable.

Sure, if you just look at the camera body units. But who is more likely to buy a second FF body in a reasonable timeframe after buying their first? Who is more likely to slap more expensive L lenses on their camera because it is thought to be a finer instrument?

Pullthrough of other bigger ticket Canon hardware has got to be better for 5D4 and 5DS owners than (future) 6D2 owners. Same goes for 1DX2 owners buying even pricier things yet than the 5D4 or 5DS camp will.

- A

There is no such thing as an average customer any longer. Workshops we have organised for non-professionals give you an insight into the money some people will spend on their hobby. Contra to that are professionals that have more bssic but high quality kits and produce amazing results. Then you can flip the above on its head.
The 6D has to grow or it will die.

 

[Kwwund]

Will there come a time when we buy cameras like we buy PC's? I can imagine going to the manufacturer's website, selecting a body, a sensor, memory, speed, AF capability, etc. from drop-down menus. Price is set accordingly.

This level of choice and customization is available in many technologically complex product categories, and has been for many years. If possible for autos, computers, and new home construction, why not for cameras?

It may simplify the problem of categorizing products by user-type. Users can define their own needs and can fine tune the product to meet them. No more arguing hypotheticals on CR. Build what makes you happy.

What think?

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.

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

 

[ahsanford]

There is no such thing as an average customer any longer. Workshops we have organised for non-professionals give you an insight into the money some people will spend on their hobby. Contra to that are professionals that have more bssic but high quality kits and produce amazing results. Then you can flip the above on its head.
The 6D has to grow or it will die.

Whoa. I don't believe I said the 6D line should go away, or that it is not a high quality tool.

I'm saying the 5D line (in its two main forms) needs to appear sexier in comparison to substantiate its higher price, that's all. Canon can do that by making the 5D line much much better than the 6D line, it can hold back the 5D tech/cost of items they pipe into the 6D line, or -- what they will surely do -- is a little bit of both.

Agree the 6D line has to live on its own and succeed, but Canon won't let that project team run riot with blinders on to the rest of the portfolio. It needs to hit a price target, cost target, and feature set target. That feature set target can't jeopardize pricier product sales -- that's why a 5D4 isn't packing 10+ fps, and that's why a 6D2 will absolutely be nerfed in some meaningful and targeted way to tip those 'I'm a 5D4 or 6D2 guy, I'm going to wait for the 6D2 announcement' people into choosing the pricier model.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Will there come a time when we buy cameras like we buy PC's? I can imagine going to the manufacturer's website, selecting a body, a sensor, memory, speed, AF capability, etc. from drop-down menus. Price is set accordingly.

This level of choice and customization is available in many technologically complex product categories, and has been for many years. If possible for autos, computers, and new home construction, why not for cameras?

It may simplify the problem of categorizing products by user-type. Users can define their own needs and can fine tune the product to meet them. No more arguing hypotheticals on CR. Build what makes you happy.

What think?

Component by component? No. Even if there was a 'universal camera motherboard' you could plug everything into, even with just a few different variables to tweak -- sensor / CPU / LCD / buffer / grip -- you're staring at 32 models to inventory and carry. The prices would have to skyrocket to cover the excess / obsolescence of 32 discrete versions of a camera.

But your idea could work on the major fault lines that drive customer interest the most. Right now, the Nikon D5 is in two versions -- depends on the memory card you want. And both the 5DS and D800/D800E/D810 warranted more than one model on decision of an AA filter for slightly different reasons.

So it can and will continue to happen, but only for the very difficult design decisions where two camps of users are in somewhat equal proportion. I've been arguing for a universal back LCD mount for a long time so that people can snap in a tilty-flippy if they want it or leave in a vanilla fixed LCD if they don't.

- A

 

[preppyak]

50% less AF points is enough for marketing.
6MP less is enough for marketing.
As long as Canon can make a similar amount of money off of either camera then the details are all semantics.

Add in 1 SD slot instead of 2 slots, and a 1/4000th shutter speed instead of 1/8000th and you've basically got it.

 

[Billybob]

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.

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.

...

- A

You clearly don't know the Nikon lineup as well as your simplistic characterization suggests. Nikon does have a good FF camera, the D610, and a "flagship'/action camera, the D5, but then it gets murky. The next step up from the D610--at least in price--is the D750, which many argue is based on the D6XX body. Above that--again, in terms of price--is the D810. But there are many--myself and many others--who refute your assertion that the D810 is "better" than the D750.

I'd argue that Nikon's two middle-priced cameras are both all-arounders. The D750 is faster than the D810--6.5 fps to 5 fps,respectively--, has slightly better high-ISO/low-light performance, a better AF system, lower-light sensitivity, WiFi, a tilty screen, and a built-in flash. The D810's advantages are 36MP (however, many don't consider this an advantage), a pro-build and UI consistent with the D5, an unusual ISO 64 base aperture, 1/8000 shutter, higher rated shutter durability, and faster flash sync. The D810 also does away with the AA filter (of course, many consider the missing filter a disadvantage), and can shoot 7fps in 15MP crop-sensor mode. So, unlike the high(er) resolution 5DS, the D810 can be an action camera with some limitations.

A lot of Nikon photographers pick the D750 for its feature set as well as its price. Action photographers prefer the better continuous rate, better AF, and better low-light sensitivity. Those with a moire phobia prefer it as well. The lower price is just a nice bonus. Oh, I haven't even mentioned where the Df fits into this framework.

Nikon was able to include so-many superior features in the less-expensive D750 because the 12MP difference, excluded AA filter, and ISO 64 setting provide the D810 a small but noticeable IQ advantage at base ISO. For most non-landscape and non-base ISO-shooting photographers, the difference is not that meaningful if at all. Hence, these photographers purchase the D810 primarily for its more rugged build and pro-layout that is consistent with Nikon pro-level cameras.

If Canon moves the 6DMII up to 24+MP, Canon won't be able to distinguish the cameras on the basis of IQ, so it will have to rely on other "nerfing" factors to distinguish its cameras. In essence, it really must go with a good (6DMii)/better (5dMIV) distinction to keep the 6D followup from cannibalizing 5DMIV sales.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

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

One thing to keep in mind is, just because a 5d4 costs $1000 or more than a 6d2 does not mean it is more profitable.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!. Absolutely right! Too many times people think the most expensive is the most profitable. Wrong. The sheer volume of the Rebel line sales and non-L glass probably makes them far more profitable.

You are a smart man.

 

[9VIII]

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.

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.

...

- A

I agree that there's no need to change the UI, quite the opposite it would be nice if they would trickle down more of the top tier features into lower level bodies, I assume that the UI isn't a big expense on a per-unit basis.

We already know exactly what performance metrics the 6D2 is aiming for.
Just like the 6D effectively being a "budget 5D2", the only reason the 6D2 exists is to keep selling a body with the same place in the performance spectrum as the 5D3.
Take the 5D3, make it out of plastic, give it a flippy screen and wi-fi, there you go.
Look at the current price of the 5D3 at B&H, $2,499. There's your 6D2 MSRP.

 

[ahsanford]

You clearly don't know the Nikon lineup as well as your simplistic characterization suggests. Nikon does have a good FF camera, the D610, and a "flagship'/action camera, the D5, but then it gets murky. The next step up from the D610--at least in price--is the D750, which many argue is based on the D6XX body. Above that--again, in terms of price--is the D810. But there are many--myself and many others--who refute your assertion that the D810 is "better" than the D750.

The D750 is a pure hybrid of the line-leading D810 (poaching the AF in particular) and the budget D610 (resolution, 1/4000 shutter, etc.) with one loud exception -- the 6.5 fps. It's been a very successful camera, no doubt, but the sensor of the D810 is on a clearly different level, even if you don't need the pixels. (Whether you want 24 or 36 MP is a deep spiritual sort of thing for a photographer, so I won't even touch that.)

And many don't argue the D750 is based on the D610. It simply is so. It's an upmarket D610 plain and simple.

I still call the Nikon lineup good/better/best despite that D750 6.5 fps distinction. It is the 'porridge is just right' camera for some who don't want the file weight and fps hit of a high MP rig, while it's also the 2nd best non-gripped camera for others. I stand by my prior assessment, and Nikon's pricing would appear to agree with me.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

I agree that there's no need to change the UI, quite the opposite it would be nice if they would trickle down more of the top tier features into lower level bodies, I assume that the UI isn't a big expense on a per-unit basis.

We already know exactly what performance metrics the 6D2 is aiming for.
Just like the 6D effectively being a "budget 5D2", the only reason the 6D2 exists is to keep selling a body with the same place in the performance spectrum as the 5D3.
Take the 5D3, make it out of plastic, give it a flippy screen and wi-fi, there you go.
Look at the current price of the 5D3 at B&H, $2,499. There's your 6D2 MSRP.

But that changes the raison d'etre of the 6D.
The 6D gave buyers a choice - you can either go sports-oriented APS-C (the 7D) or you could go landscape/portrait-oriented FF (the 6D). Did you want superior tracking or did you want superior image quality? Take your choice.

If the 6D2 comes in at 2,500 it is no longer that FF entry-level, which way do you want your photography to differentiate decision point. It now becomes a 5D3 Mk2 and there is no entry-level FF camera at the price bracket of the 7D2 giving that same option.
Don't forget that the 7D3 on release was the same price as the 5D4 is now so on that logic the 6D2 should be in the 1,500-1,800 bracket.

 

[ahsanford]

We already know exactly what performance metrics the 6D2 is aiming for.
Just like the 6D effectively being a "budget 5D2", the only reason the 6D2 exists is to keep selling a body with the same place in the performance spectrum as the 5D3.
Take the 5D3, make it out of plastic, give it a flippy screen and wi-fi, there you go.
Look at the current price of the 5D3 at B&H, $2,499. There's your 6D2 MSRP.

Largely agree other than the sensor. Canon does not recycle FF sensors like they did in crop for so long. And some actually prefer the 6D sensor over the 5D3 sensor, so a 6D2 with a 5D3 sensor would leave quite a few upset with that offering.

But your basic premise is sound: obsolete the 5D3 and have the 6D2 fill it's current $2,250 spot in the market. Makes perfect sense.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If the 6D2 comes in at 2,500 it is no longer that FF entry-level, which way do you want your photography to differentiate decision point. It now becomes a 5D3 Mk2 and there is no entry-level FF camera at the price bracket of the 7D2 giving that same option.
Don't forget that the 7D3 on release was the same price as the 5D4 is now so on that logic the 6D2 should be in the 1,500-1,800 bracket.

Agree, but there has been a lot of chatter the 6D2 will move upmarket, likely into the spot the 5D3 serves today.

I see Canon offering a maxed out '1DX2-lite' in a future 7D3 in the same price point as an entry-level FF rig, but the 6D2 would appear to be climbing out of the bargain basement spec sheet. Many are expecting a comprehensive AF upgrade (perhaps not 61 points, but surely more than 11!), tilty-flippy, etc. to turn it into a 'full-frame 80D' and then a relatively stripped down new FF entry level might emerge.

- A

 

[Luds34]

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.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, in fact even hear you on the FPS. However, Canon isn't the only player in the market. It's not like they get to build out their own perfect product differentiation where each camera slots in to what they think we deserve and at what price.

Take the current 6D's whole 11 focal points. It's obsolete on so many levels, even by Canon's own entry level Rebels now, let alone the competition. And Canon has relatively long product cycles so they need to release something that is not just competitive for a few months at release time, but something that still looks good 2, 3 years out.

Which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see dual SD slots. It hardly costs Canon anything, and Nikon and others have dual slots available on similar market slotted and even much cheaper cameras.

In short, if Canon is going to ask $2k+ for this camera it really need to pack some of the power/features the competition is delivering on bodies they have at similar, even cheaper prices.

 

[NancyP]

Better sensor DR, better low-light performance, 24 MP is fine - incremental changes
Flippy screen. SOOO handy for awkward shooting positions, tripod use, etc.
Keep interchangeable screens, I want the ultrafine screen because I use manual focus a lot.
Keep the small size. I am not sure that I want it shrunk to the EOS 100 microSLR size, because that won't necessarily balance with the lenses I use. But keep current size and weight.

I suppose that I should consider the 5Dsr, but first I upgrade the 6 year old computer...

 

[PCM-madison]

Maybe the 6D MII will be the rumored full frame mirrorless with EVF? It could get smaller and lighter without the mirror mechanism and pentaprism. Gain a built-in flash and be very different than the 5D MIV.

 

[captainkanji]

I hope it has interchangeable focusing screens along with the usual IQ improvements. And no AA filter.

 

[Alex_M]

.. and total lack of weather sealing - this on its own would be a deal breaker for many.

1/4000 max shutter speed
1/180 max x-sync speed.

So if they create '80D with full frame' what do you see as the differentiator between that and the 5DIV?

AF sensor, buffer depth, size, materials, resolution, and MSRP on the 6D2 will probably be around $2500, so it'll be more of a "5D lite" than the current model that's more budget oriented.
They're going to have to release a Full Frame Rebel eventually, and a high price on the 6D2 would be a good indicator of that.

The 80D AF is almost on a par with the 7D2 and not much behind the 5D3/5D4, resolution will be 24MP vs 30MP (little difference really) with arguably a better sensor that will offset any difference that is there, buffer depth is rather 'meh' for most photographers. And at $1,000 less than the 5DIV what you are almost creating is one camera at 2 price points. I would find that strategy hard to understand especially if, as you suggest they also create a Rebel with FF sensor (which is really where the 6D came in). It really doesn't make much sense to me.

50% less AF points is enough for marketing.
6MP less is enough for marketing.
As long as Canon can make a similar amount of money off of either camera then the details are all semantics.

 

[9VIII]

If the 6D2 comes in at 2,500 it is no longer that FF entry-level, which way do you want your photography to differentiate decision point. It now becomes a 5D3 Mk2 and there is no entry-level FF camera at the price bracket of the 7D2 giving that same option.
Don't forget that the 7D3 on release was the same price as the 5D4 is now so on that logic the 6D2 should be in the 1,500-1,800 bracket.

Agree, but there has been a lot of chatter the 6D2 will move upmarket, likely into the spot the 5D3 serves today.

I see Canon offering a maxed out '1DX2-lite' in a future 7D3 in the same price point as an entry-level FF rig, but the 6D2 would appear to be climbing out of the bargain basement spec sheet. Many are expecting a comprehensive AF upgrade (perhaps not 61 points, but surely more than 11!), tilty-flippy, etc. to turn it into a 'full-frame 80D' and then a relatively stripped down new FF entry level might emerge.

- A

I think Canon probably regrets making the 6D, it's a "single digit" camera body, market prices nearing $1,000 does not seem suitable.
It makes sense to keep any Full Frame body with an MSRP under $2,000 in the Rebel line.

Likewise, maybe they might be better off making the 7D more capable and keeping it above $2,000. I don't know how they would differentiate between the entry level full frame and mid tier sports crop body, but it wouldn't be that hard just to launch something new and keep the 90D following the path of the 7D series.
Or they could just kill off the mid tier sports, bump the 800D upmarket, and "finally" bring back the SL series with the SL2 replacing the "upper entry" slot left by the increased price of the 800D.

Most of all I'm just curious to see what they do when they run out of numbers.