Canon EOS 6D Mark II Talk [CR1]

[Tugela]

What i'm hoping for:

22-24 mpx.
5.5 fps
wifi/gps
1080p@60fps
no 4k.
Dual SD.
No improvement over DR
Hoping for a 6D like noise levels.
-4 EV
Improved AF (a little bit better than the 5D3).

It is more likely to be a FF version of the EOS-M5 in terms of specs.

So, single Digic7 processor
1080p60 recording at 35 mbps as mp4 files
Single SD slot
7fps
Touchscreen, articulated
Wifi with Bluetooth
Around 30-35 mpixel sensor

 

[Zv]

Is it just me or does anyone else think te 6DII would be better off without 4K video?

I understand at this point a DSLR needs to have some video features and that's cool an all but just leave the 4K out if it's gonna be half arsed and increase the cost and complexity of the design.

So sick of hearing about 4K. Next person who shouts about lack of 4K better post a link to all their wonderful 4K videos they're making or I call BS that they even have the capability to do anything with it. (Excluding broadcast and movie industry)

 

[M_S]

It would be so nice to see a 5ds/r II with all recently introduced goodies in 2017... Yes, I know - dream on

THIS!! Since the Mark IV is not the replacement of my trusted Mark III I was hoping for, I have my eyes now on a future 5DSR II....or sony. Which comes first.

 

[Tugela]

4K video, which I don't want, need or will ever use. When will Canon realize that there is a sizable market out there for a still's only camera ?

They won't, because there isn't, Nikon are rumoured to have sold less than 20 Df's.

Now I am not saying people will use 4k in their DSLR's but for some stupid reason they believe they need it, little realising the hassle, time, storage space, processing power, workflow etc it is to deal with.

That is an ignorant thing to say. People who want 4K capable products, and buy them, know why they want it, even if it is a mystery to you. Just because you don't have a use for it or understand why it is usefull does not mean that someone else does not have a use for it. In case you are not up to speed with these things, most mid to high end TVs for sale nowdays are 4K sets, and the people who buy them will want to be able to shoot home video that will show off the high resolution. They will not want HD cameras because most HD footage looks like crap on a large 4K panel. They get the big 4K TV, then most understand why they want a 4K camera because it is obvious. This is where the world is heading, 4K as the standard is inevitable in spite of the tears of the Luddites.

It is a feature. If your camera has it, and you don't want to use it, then don't use it. It doesn't detract from the capability of the rest of the camera.

Don't try to screw those who do want to use it just because you want to be bloody minded for no good reason.

 

[Tugela]

Is it just me or does anyone else think te 6DII would be better off without 4K video?

I understand at this point a DSLR needs to have some video features and that's cool an all but just leave the 4K out if it's gonna be half arsed and increase the cost and complexity of the design.

So sick of hearing about 4K. Next person who shouts about lack of 4K better post a link to all their wonderful 4K videos they're making or I call BS that they even have the capability to do anything with it. (Excluding broadcast and movie industry)

I doubt it will have 4K video. It will probably be a FF version of the 80D and M5.

Speaking personally, I made the decision in mid 2014 that going forward I would not buy a camera that did not have 4K capabilities, or could not function as a fully featured hybrid camera. The only exception I made to that rule was the P900, but that camera I bought specifically for the extreme reach it has in a reasonably portable size.

Canon have decided that they don't want my business, which is fine. Other companies have received it instead because those companies have a vision for the future that matches my own.

 

[bitm2007]

Is it just me or does anyone else think te 6DII would be better off without 4K video?

I understand at this point a DSLR needs to have some video features and that's cool an all but just leave the 4K out if it's gonna be half arsed and increase the cost and complexity of the design.

So sick of hearing about 4K. Next person who shouts about lack of 4K better post a link to all their wonderful 4K videos they're making or I call BS that they even have the capability to do anything with it. (Excluding broadcast and movie industry)

Me, I don't want, need or am ever likely to use, the video features on my camera's (see four post above)

I have just started a poll that is related to this subject (link below)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30944.0

 

[Tugela]

Is it just me or does anyone else think te 6DII would be better off without 4K video?

I understand at this point a DSLR needs to have some video features and that's cool an all but just leave the 4K out if it's gonna be half arsed and increase the cost and complexity of the design.

So sick of hearing about 4K. Next person who shouts about lack of 4K better post a link to all their wonderful 4K videos they're making or I call BS that they even have the capability to do anything with it. (Excluding broadcast and movie industry)

Me, I don't want, need or am ever likely to use, the video features on my camera's (see four post above)

I have just started a poll that is related to this subject (link below)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30944.0

So you don't record video of your kids, vacations and other memorable events for when you are old and grey?

Maybe that is you, but a lot of people do record that sort of video, and there is no good reason why all cameras should not be able to do this well.

If you are a professional and your job specifically involves only stills or only video, then you might use a specialized camera. But everyone else (even low end "professionals") can get good use from a multi purposed camera.

 

[rfdesigner]

A flippy screen would be awesome, but sound to good to be true. Let's hope not...

No.. what would be truely awsome is a DETACHABLE screen.. sure let it be tip/tilt/swivel.. but let it also be detachable.. then you don't have to muck about with pairing problems to remote control, if it breaks you just buy a new screen and you have no weather sealing issues.

wireless data link of course + wireless charging off the cameras battery.

Hullo...that's called using an iphone via Wifi.

Not everyone has an smartphone, I don't, it would be of extremely limited use for me, I have looked at getting one for pairing to my 6D but frankly 99% of my usage doesn't need it.
If canon expects people to use their phone why do they put articulated screens on any camera?, surely a wifi adapter is the way to go!
A smartphone is another peice of kit to make everything work, and then you're at the whim of the latest OS "update" pulling the rug from under you. Has Canon ever screwed your camera by force feeding un update you didn't want?
Much better to have a dedicated remote screen which doesn't need regular updates, is always charged, and because there's no DC connection can be hermetically sealed if necessary, so IP68 or whatever becomes possible.

It all comes down to how much you value reliability. I strongly suspect Canon places a mucher higher value on reliability than most manufacturers and large software companies.

 

[Mikehit]

and yet most people are happy shooting video on their phone and viewing that on their TV not caring whether the TV is overspecced for what they are viewing.
What the video freaks really don;t get is that if someone is really serious about their video, are they going to buy a 6DII or a 5DIV or a 1DXii or (if it comes out) a 1Dcii? I can imagine the marketing men saying 'people who are serious about video won't be buying the 6Dii for its video so keep costs down by using 1080'.

 

[bitm2007]

So you don't record video of your kids, vacations and other memorable events for when you are old and grey?

I prefer the still format for this

Maybe that is you, but a lot of people do record that sort of video, and there is no good reason why all cameras should not be able to do this well

The video features are factored into the pricing of a camera, so non video users are paying for features we don't want or need, without a viable alternative from Canon.

 

[Mikehit]

The problem for most photographers is going to be that they don't recognise video situations or how to use video, which is to say that once you learn and know how, you appreciate it more.

Precisely. Video has been in cameras for what, 8 years? And still 'most photographers' don't care about video. So the Canon market men seem to have got it right.
The question is, does the lack of top-notch video mean key people move away and have a long-term draining effect? I would say not.

Back in 2009-2010 (?) they shot whole episodes of TV programmes with the 5Dii for goodness' sake, Are you saying that the video quality in those programmes is not good enough for 'most photographers' even now?

 

[Stuart]

Will it be Mirrorless?

 

[scyrene]

I really look forward to replace my 6D with this camera if....
- dual pixe AF with centerpoint AF is sensitive to -4EV
- DR in lower iso improved to level of 5D MKIV
- less noise higher iso (6400) and less color banding
- af system up to minimum of 19 preferable 45 points with wider spread


very welcome double slots, 25mp en articulating screen. I hope also touchscreen

Mostly pretty reasonable requests, and I think you'll get a lot of that. The only one I'd be doubtful about is much improvement at high ISO (in raw images).

 

[scyrene]

The release of the 5DMk4 has really dented my confidence in Canon. Its totally overpriced for what it does, the 4K is lacking, but mostly the price, especially in the UK, how did they convert $3700 USD in to £3600????

$3600 is ~£2850; that is the pre-VAT price, as (and how many times does this have to be said?) US prices are listed without tax. £2850+20% VAT is £3420, which isn't far off £3600 (with a little bump due in part, perhaps, to Canon wanting a bit more space to move the 6D into, perhaps so a budget FF option can be inserted into the lineup). The price will drop after a time, as they always do.

Sorry if I sound really negative, waited a really long time for the 5DMk4 and I am so gutted, its made me feel that Canon have lost the plot, and will screw up all their future products.

:

 

[scyrene]

They need to introduce some kind of image stabilization (I would even be happy if they used the one on the EOS M5)

It could be useful, but just to be clear - that's for video only.

if they want to win back the market they lost to Sony, Olympus, Panasonic.

Um.... citation needed? What market share have they lost? (Hint: look at actual sales data).

 

[scyrene]

I own a 5DsR myself, and it's a camera like a tilt shift lens - extremely good for certain situations, but not a good tool for 95% of the rest of the time or 95% of all users.

Please give an example of a picture better taken with the 5DIII than the 5DS/R.

5DS/R can do any- and everything - the 5DIII can do but mostly better and sometimes far better, except for a slightly lower fps. The three key aspects 5DIII users wanted updated: AF, DR and MPIX; are all three vastly improved in the 5DS/R just as they were prioritized by Canon for the 5DIV.

Unless you consider the 5DIII to only be a relevant photographic tool for 5% of all photographers, your comment seems highly misguided.

On the contrary, the 5DS/R is the "right" tool for the 95% of all photography.

I agree with Maiaibing. So long as one has a computer capable of dealing with the larger file sizes, it's just as capable as the 5D3 (and indeed you can use the smaller raw modes if the former is a problem). Apart from 1fps and lack of ISO settings above 12800* it does nothing worse than the 5D3, and some things better.

*the better noise quality at high ISO means you can push files a bit more, especially if downsizing, so you can mitigate this a bit by shooting at 12800 and pushing in post.

 

[scyrene]

Is it just me or does anyone else think te 6DII would be better off without 4K video?

I understand at this point a DSLR needs to have some video features and that's cool an all but just leave the 4K out if it's gonna be half arsed and increase the cost and complexity of the design.

So sick of hearing about 4K. Next person who shouts about lack of 4K better post a link to all their wonderful 4K videos they're making or I call BS that they even have the capability to do anything with it. (Excluding broadcast and movie industry)

What's interesting is how before Canon released many cameras with 4K (after the 1DC but before the 1DxII), a lot of forum whining was 'any camera without 4K is DOA'; now they've shifted to 'the 4K is wrong, and camera without [crop/certain codecs/etc] is DOA!'. Shifting goalposts.

I think you're right; a lot of the noise about 4K is from people who are obsessed with ticking boxes on spec sheets, not people who actually use the feature.

 

[tron]

I own a 5DsR myself, and it's a camera like a tilt shift lens - extremely good for certain situations, but not a good tool for 95% of the rest of the time or 95% of all users.

Please give an example of a picture better taken with the 5DIII than the 5DS/R.

5DS/R can do any- and everything - the 5DIII can do but mostly better and sometimes far better, except for a slightly lower fps. The three key aspects 5DIII users wanted updated: AF, DR and MPIX; are all three vastly improved in the 5DS/R just as they were prioritized by Canon for the 5DIV.

Unless you consider the 5DIII to only be a relevant photographic tool for 5% of all photographers, your comment seems highly misguided.

On the contrary, the 5DS/R is the "right" tool for the 95% of all photography.

I agree with Maiaibing. So long as one has a computer capable of dealing with the larger file sizes, it's just as capable as the 5D3 (and indeed you can use the smaller raw modes if the former is a problem). Apart from 1fps and lack of ISO settings above 12800* it does nothing worse than the 5D3, and some things better.

*the better noise quality at high ISO means you can push files a bit more, especially if downsizing, so you can mitigate this a bit by shooting at 12800 and pushing in post.

It also fills tfe buffer much sooner than 5D3 but although I have 5D3 I understand why 5DsR does seem better.

 

[scyrene]

So you don't record video of your kids, vacations and other memorable events for when you are old and grey?

Maybe that is you, but a lot of people do record that sort of video, and there is no good reason why all cameras should not be able to do this well.

Some people want 4K because they will use it, and I respect that. But I think it is true to say that the more the *content* of a video or photograph matters to someone, the less they care about the technical quality of it. So your contention is a little muddled. Top-notch 4K isn't needed in DSLRs for stills photographers who want to catch a few minutes of their kid's birthday party - since that is a meaningful event to them, they'll be glad of it whatever it looks like* (especially given that other key features are likely not to be used, like an external mic). Cf mobile phone use (as menioned above) - for most people, most of the time, it's good enough. Even if you're a nitpicking technical photographer, you value that selfie your kid took, or whatever - who cares if it's noisier or softer than a DSLR shot. It's meaningful.

And the idea that HD footage 'looks crap' on a 4K screen is a bit odd, too. Related to the point above, when I watch old SD tv shows on an HD tv or Retina display, I don't think 'oh how terrible this footage is', I'm involved in the show (if it was good; if not, I'm not watching it!).

The importance of technical quality is in inverse proportion to the meaningfulness of the content of a picture or video.
So by all means, request the best - but home videos are not the motivator for most people wanting super duper video features on their devices.

*glad does not mean they won'twince when it goes out of focus, or whatever. Just that they'll accept that more readily than if it were a piece of footage shot for purely aesthetic or technical reasons.

 

[bitm2007]

What's interesting is how before Canon released many cameras with 4K (after the 1DC but before the 1DxII), a lot of forum whining was 'any camera without 4K is DOA'; now they've shifted to 'the 4K is wrong, and camera without [crop/certain codecs/etc] is DOA!'. Shifting goalposts.

I think you're right; a lot of the noise about 4K is from people who are obsessed with ticking boxes on spec sheets, not people who actually use the feature.

There are clearly two camps, those who find video features a useful addition to a DSLR, and those who don't. Unfortunately Canon caters for one of those camps at the expense of the other.