Canon EOS 6D Mark II Talk [CR1]

[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.

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

Okay, fair point (I hadn't noticed that cos I upgraded memory cards when I got the new camera, which meant the overall speed *felt* better).

 

[scyrene]

...

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.

Nobody likes to buy an item that is glaringly deficient in some area when compared to another comparable product by another vendor.

Really? I don't think that applies to everyone at all. I'm a bit of a camera geek so I read stuff about other brands, but even then only up to a point - I reckon a lot of users (even pros!) don't pay much attention to what's going on outside their bubble. And if I don't use or want a feature, why should I care if it's not included? Honestly.

 

[scyrene]

Do you hear anybody whining that smartphones don't have enough features? No, because they already include everything you need.

Actually yes. Read the comments under stories about the latest phone releases. Just as much moaning.

Shameful: yes, this list is shameful for Canon, when you want to be the #1 on the market and charge prices of 4000+ euros for the cameras, while you're behind the competition regarding 20 important points. Historically Canon probably never has been that far behind in modern features, although they have just released their flagship products.

Newsflash: companies get to number one by knowing how to run a good business, not by shoving every possible feature into every product. Sorry! That's just life. And it's certianly not shameful.

Shameful: yes, this list is shameful for Canon, when you want to be the #1 on the market and charge prices of 4000+ euros for the cameras, while you're behind the competition regarding 20 important points. Historically Canon probably never has been that far behind in modern features, although they have just released their flagship products.
Who is their main competitor? Because I don't see 20 points where they are behind against Nikon

APS-C lenses: obviously this is an artificial limitation by Canon they could solve in a second if they like. If Canon full frame cameras had crop modes like Sony or Nikon, of course the use of such lenses would even be broader. With the new 4K crop that has no wide full frame alternative on the 5D4/1DX2, it would have been the right time to stop that stupid limitation!
it's not artificial. Put an EF-S lens on FF camera and the mirror hits the rear element. it is why they designed the EF-S mount the way they did.
What you are talking about is not EF-S lens compatabaility but sensor crop modes


Silent shooting: why not 100% silent? the 5D series are the wedding cameras #1, which photographer or guest enjoys the click noises? Canon simply needs to make a 5D4 mirrorless alternative. They could do, but for years first they try to figure out new camera systems with more different mounted lenses to the people and waste our lifetime.
The 6D is silent mode is very, very quiet. Why are you comparing it to 5D models when we are talking about a 6D v2? Have you even used the 6D?


Pixelshift: Pentax can do it, Canon probably does have a patent problem and want to protect their future high megapixel cameras, which is the main Canon philosophy: if you have 5 tasks, please buy and carry around 5 different cameras instead of 1. Just most people don't want or can do that, even if just a question of logistics and not money.
Nobody that I see has confirmed this is what the Pentax does.


Speedbooster: We can cross that off the list indeed, because unless all Canon full frame cameras don't have a crop shooting mode, it would be pretty useless anyway. And of course technically it's a problem aside from medium format lens adapter options.
The reason speedboosters were invented was to give shallower DOF because of the different characteristics of FF and MFT. A f4 image on MFT printed to the same size as a F picture has DOF of 5.6 on FF. So what you are saying is use APS-C crop mode then use a speed booster to produce a smaller image circle to give shallow DOF again. Why not just shoot at native f4 on FF and cut the expensive crap in the middle?


EVF: Nikon is even way more behind than Canon in many things, which is a problem because these two dinosaur companies havent realized yet it's not them alone anymore since it was decades, when they could slow down the pace as they liked. Unfortunately there is no pressure coming from Nikon, which makes it even more important to speak out as a Canon user.

But I thought Nikon was so far ahead of Canon in so many ways. I don't really see Sony as a competitor in the sense that 'Ooh, they have it so we must have it as well or lose market share'. Everything you mention is damn all to what really matters - image quality. Sony fall behind in one massive, important area - poor range of lenses. Canon gives an integrated system. Sony is not really the opposition to Canon, Nikon is and both companies believe that OVF with quality focus tracking and high quality post-sales support is the way to a successful company. Sony is said to have a great AF system - I dont recall seeing a single one.
If you want to see how Sony fares in traditional photographer working life:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii

So how far ahead is Sony in what matters? A real world-beater, obviously.

Fully assignable buttons: Like in a Sony camera, simply allow any function on any button of the camera - not just 2-10 random features like in a Canon camera menu. This way the A7R2 already does have a third wheel for ISO if you like by the way.
Is that really a 'deficiency'? Will that really affect your buying decision?

Too much effort to answer all this - and useless [...]

Too much effort because you spewed out mostly a load of nonsense, and it was carefully picked apart. You've got nothing but a load of ridiculous complaints, some of which are physically impossible within the confines of the system.

 

[scyrene]

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.

ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

All of the complaining about adding video, or 4K, to DSLRs is coming from people who don't understand video, and can't grasp the benefits it brings even for photographers. Probably the same people who said "don't put this amateur auto-focus thing in my camera, I'm a pro I can manual focus" over 30 years ago.

I'm not complaing, and have never complained, about the addition of a feature. I'm also not into complaining all over forums when a feature is *not* included. What we had a few months ago was a few vocal people telling us 4K was a must. Then it started being included in Canon bodies, and all of a sudden it's the wrong kind.

Features are great. Features done well even better. But there is a type of person that will moan regardless of what is included, because that is how they are. Either they can only see the drawbacks and not the opportunities, or else they enjoy whining - some also seem to have a sense of superiority ('stupid Canon, I know much better!').

Personally I find 4K intriguing, mostly for wildlife purposes. But I don't have enough interest or patience or indeed the computer power to deal with it at present. If I *did*, I'd get whatever device suited me best and not complain here (like, why should I care which brand is making the camera that's just right? So long as it's out there!). But that's just me.

Today Pros eek and ooohh over every improvement in AF performance for photography, when not long ago they scoffed-at and mocked anyone who talked about AF.

There's a bit of that, and some people are genuinely Luddite. But try not to confuse poking fun at the perpetually negative types with scoffing at/mocking people with a genuine interest or even need for something. But those people are generally out there finding solutions, not blaming Canon (or whoever) for not providing them with precisely what they want.

 

[hubie]

Dual SD and 4K?

 

[Etienne]

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.

ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

All of the complaining about adding video, or 4K, to DSLRs is coming from people who don't understand video, and can't grasp the benefits it brings even for photographers. Probably the same people who said "don't put this amateur auto-focus thing in my camera, I'm a pro I can manual focus" over 30 years ago.

I'm not complaing, and have never complained, about the addition of a feature. I'm also not into complaining all over forums when a feature is *not* included. What we had a few months ago was a few vocal people telling us 4K was a must. Then it started being included in Canon bodies, and all of a sudden it's the wrong kind.

Features are great. Features done well even better. But there is a type of person that will moan regardless of what is included, because that is how they are. Either they can only see the drawbacks and not the opportunities, or else they enjoy whining - some also seem to have a sense of superiority ('stupid Canon, I know much better!').

Personally I find 4K intriguing, mostly for wildlife purposes. But I don't have enough interest or patience or indeed the computer power to deal with it at present. If I *did*, I'd get whatever device suited me best and not complain here (like, why should I care which brand is making the camera that's just right? So long as it's out there!). But that's just me.

Today Pros eek and ooohh over every improvement in AF performance for photography, when not long ago they scoffed-at and mocked anyone who talked about AF.

There's a bit of that, and some people are genuinely Luddite. But try not to confuse poking fun at the perpetually negative types with scoffing at/mocking people with a genuine interest or even need for something. But those people are generally out there finding solutions, not blaming Canon (or whoever) for not providing them with precisely what they want.

Speaking of 4K in DSLRs ... the photo-4K in the 5D4 should be a welcome gift to photographers who want to capture the precise moment. It is essentially 30 fps of 8MP jpegs, and you can freeze the moment with very high shutter speeds as well ... why aren't photographers jumping for joy at that? Sure it's not RAW (eventually it will be), but that's got to be useful to photographers.

 

[asl]

BTW ... we're seeing the same lame objection to AF in video coming for the video "professionals" today as we did from photographers 30 years ago.

I had a huge problem with AF in SLRs/lenses 30 years ago – I couldn't afford it!

That's the same problem I have with the Canon cinema series cameras. Which is why I'd love high quality video on their DSLRs.

Imagine as a photographer that Canon builds a new DSLR with 8bit jpeg photos and no raw, no hot shoe for flashes, photos that can only be shot using a 1.7x crop of the sensor while it has a full frame sensor in it. Or it can shoot full frame but only photos that are 1/4th the resolution of your computer monitor. Then they only give you the LCD on the back to see with, no OVF/EVF. They also routinely leave out software features that makes things easier for you as a photographers. Features that pretty much every other manufacturer includes. On top of all that, they're asking $3500 for this new camera.

Meanwhile their competitors are giving you most of the specs you're looking and sometimes at less than half the price Canon is asking. Would you not be like "WTF are you doing Canon?"

Now you begin to understand the frustration that Canon DSLR video shooters face.

Then we come on forums like this and people say "just buy a C series camera" as if we can all just afford $5000+ dollar cameras. That would be like me coming on here and telling you that because you want better IQ you should just spend $9000+ on a new digital medium format camera. Or we get "do you really need resolution that fills your whole monitor?" to which the answer is yes. Yes we do. Some of us already have 4K TVs and computer monitors and even those us that don't, understand we get better looking HD video from downsampled 4K video. It's shaper and more defined than the mushy Canon HD video that comes off most of their DSLRs.

I get that not every photog wants video on their cameras. I get it. But until Canon starts building us dedicated video DSLRs at the same price points as photo DSLRs, you're going to have to put up with us.

Well said.
I hope this discussion will "soon" all be forgotten and more or less all cameras will have 4K and people will just have to deal will it.
Now where is that 8K?

 

[YellowJersey]

I personally don't care about dual card slots or the video features. If this camera brings the sensor improvements of the 1Dx mkII and 5D mkIV and has a better autofocus system than the 6D, then it'll probably be replacing my 5D mkIII. I have to say, I've been eying the A7r II quite a bit lately. But I'll wait until the 6D mkII is out before I make any decisions. I'm in a financial situation where I can't afford to gamble; I'd rather wait until all my options are out, and the reviews are in before making a decision.

Amen! I could care less about video features as well. Sure there a lot of little specs I would like to see improved, max flash sync, FPS, max shutter, etc.

But the most important is the focus sytem. Improve that and I'm in. Sensor improvement would be 2nd on my list and I fully expect to see the 80D/1D/5D improvements so that should be a given.

Someone replying to a comment I make and not telling me I'm wrong? I'm shocked.

If Canon removed the AA filter, that would be a plus, too, but not totally essential. But I don't really see it happening.

In all seriousness, though, the two biggest things that keep me from jumping ship to Sony are the ruggedness that a DSLR offers along with battery life. I most often shoot on hiking or cycling trips, so my gear needs to be able to take a beating, hence why I've stuck with the 5D for so many years. If the rumoured Sony A9 has a more robust body and can bridge the gap between DSLR and the A7 series, then I might very well take the plunge. The A9 wouldn't have to match DSLRs, but if it could improve beyond existing A7 cameras, it would be a plus.

 

[d]

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.

ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

All of the complaining about adding video, or 4K, to DSLRs is coming from people who don't understand video, and can't grasp the benefits it brings even for ***(some)*** photographers.

Emphasis mine.

Likewise all of the complaining about cameras missing 4K is coming from people who don't understand that there is a sizeable contingent of photographers out there (myself included) to whom 4K (or even HD) video adds absolutely no value or benefit whatsoever. I'd rather pay less money for a spartan stills camera than a premium for one chock-full of the latest "must-have" features that I'm never going to use.

 

[d]

Too much effort to answer all this - and useless [...]

Too much effort because you spewed out mostly a load of nonsense, and it was carefully picked apart. You've got nothing but a load of ridiculous complaints, some of which are physically impossible within the confines of the system.

Amen.

 

[IglooEater]

APS-C lenses: obviously this is an artificial limitation by Canon they could solve in a second if they like. If Canon full frame cameras had crop modes like Sony or Nikon, of course the use of such lenses would even be broader. With the new 4K crop that has no wide full frame alternative on the 5D4/1DX2, it would have been the right time to stop that stupid limitation!

EF-S bodies have a shorter mirror so Canon makes EF-S lenses sit further back in the mount, thus it would break your Full Frame body if you put an EF-S lens on it.

Are you questioning the knowledge douglaurent has gained by attending the Dilbertland School of Factoids and Other Stuff? :-X

Just did check it again. No Canon APS-C lens bottom could touch a Canon FF sensor. If Canon would like to do it, they could easily build it differently. Unfortunately long years ago some Canon marketing guru might have decided they sell more cameras and lenses with this limitation, and since then they have found no way out of it.

Who said it would touch the sensor? I'm not sure if the problem is your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of knowledge.

Certain EF-S lenses (the -S originally referred to short back focus) protrude sufficiently into the mirror box that the mirror of a Canon FF camera will hit the back of the lens when if flips up to take a shot.

Why don't you check it one more time - pop out the baffle on the back of an EF-S 10-22mm (set lens to 22mm, hook your finger into the hole, and pull), then mount the lens on one of your 1DX II bodies, set the lens to 10mm, and hold down the shutter for a nice, long 14 fps burst. I'm sure Canon will be able to install a new mirror assembly for you.

DogLaurent is making Dilbert look smart. Well I'll be dogged. The bar is set low indeed. In the words of Eisntein, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."

 

[douglaurent]

APS-C lenses: obviously this is an artificial limitation by Canon they could solve in a second if they like. If Canon full frame cameras had crop modes like Sony or Nikon, of course the use of such lenses would even be broader. With the new 4K crop that has no wide full frame alternative on the 5D4/1DX2, it would have been the right time to stop that stupid limitation!

EF-S bodies have a shorter mirror so Canon makes EF-S lenses sit further back in the mount, thus it would break your Full Frame body if you put an EF-S lens on it.

Are you questioning the knowledge douglaurent has gained by attending the Dilbertland School of Factoids and Other Stuff? :-X

Just did check it again. No Canon APS-C lens bottom could touch a Canon FF sensor. If Canon would like to do it, they could easily build it differently. Unfortunately long years ago some Canon marketing guru might have decided they sell more cameras and lenses with this limitation, and since then they have found no way out of it.

Who said it would touch the sensor? I'm not sure if the problem is your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of knowledge.

Certain EF-S lenses (the -S originally referred to short back focus) protrude sufficiently into the mirror box that the mirror of a Canon FF camera will hit the back of the lens when if flips up to take a shot.

Why don't you check it one more time - pop out the baffle on the back of an EF-S 10-22mm (set lens to 22mm, hook your finger into the hole, and pull), then mount the lens on one of your 1DX II bodies, set the lens to 10mm, and hold down the shutter for a nice, long 14 fps burst. I'm sure Canon will be able to install a new mirror assembly for you.

DUDE; YES CANON APS-C LENSES CAN'T BE ATTACHED BECAUSE OF THIS; AND THIS IS WHY CANON SHOULD CHANGE THE MECHANICS OF NEW CAMERAS AND LENSES, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!

All other camera and lens manufacturers show it's possible to build it differently!!!

 

[Etienne]

...
Speaking of 4K in DSLRs ... the photo-4K in the 5D4 should be a welcome gift to photographers who want to capture the precise moment. It is essentially 30 fps of 8MP jpegs, and you can freeze the moment with very high shutter speeds as well ... why aren't photographers jumping for joy at that? Sure it's not RAW (eventually it will be), but that's got to be useful to photographers.

You are completely right and more to the point, that's what some did with film too - took reels of film on safari and then shot it all and extracted single frames from that spool with the right moment. There are two problems with this: with an OVF, you can't look through the eyepiece at the target while filming and second, the searching for the right moment with twice as many frames to search through.

The 5D4 photo-4K is much bigger than shooting reels of film to extract single frames. Those reels are shot at slow shutter speeds. The 5D4 can shoot 30 fps photo-4K at 1/4000 sec, delivering 8 MP JPEGS throughout the burst. That is a big deal. And so called dedicated photographers barely mention it so far.

 

[douglaurent]

Amusingly enough for the Doug Laurents of the world - I actually LIKE shooting manual focus lenses in manual mode. I don't really see myself upgrading from 6D to 6D2 unless the new camera had either 1. signficantly improved DR while maintaining or improving the already good low light performance or 2. that swivel screen - although that may not work so well for me as I thought, because I use an L bracket most of the time, and my ground macro shots are on tripod and I need both portrait and landscape orientation. The L bracket on my 60D constrains the swivel screen so that it opens out 180 degrees but can't be further swiveled. I guess I have to accept muddy knees as the price of making the photos I want.

Dear manual focus photographer lady,
here is the personally for you reduced list of missing features you would love and don't want to miss if you have experienced them:

- Sensor stabilization
- Focus Peaking
- Pixelshift
- EVF reviewing
- Silent Photo Shooting
- Third wheel for ISO (through fully assignable buttons)

Again - the 6D already has a very silent shutter.

A very silent shutter is not a 100% silent shutter. In the future I can call it zero noise shutter, and will ask all mirrorless camera manufacturers to stop calling their noiseless shutter "silent" because it seems to be misleading to some.

 

[douglaurent]

If you read this thread carefully, you will read detailed lists with facts about what's missing.

Yes, the amount of missing knowledge you've displayed in this thread is quite significant.

Big congratulations to you, because If you think that my list of 20 features - from silent shooting to articulating screen etc - is completely irrelevant to you, it means you can already today buy THE perfect camera from Canon that can't be improved at any point in the future, aside from dynamic range and resolution!

I didn't say they are all irrelevant to me, my point is that given that the lack of them has not seemed to affect Canon's market share to date, they are likely not of sufficient importance to the general camera-buying public to make a difference. Get it?

What does it help a photographer or filmmaker out in the field, when an articulating screen is missing, while Canon's marketshare is high? Will a photographer in a wedding church be more happy about a silent shutter or recordbreaking numbers for Canon? Will you be happy if 5 features are removed from your current camera, when you know Canon makes twice as much profit? Is this the Wallstreet Journal forum?

Well, then...just give Canon your list. I'm sure they'll immediately address all 20 of your critically lacking features.

The idea here is that it might help you understand why Canon doesn't feel the need to include the features for which you or any other particular individual are clamoring. Not sure why you can't seem to grasp that features to include/exclude are a business decision, and in the case of Canon cameras, it's Canon's business decision.

All you can decide is whether or not to purchase Canon's products. Given that you've decided to purchase many of them and continue to do so, the message you personally are sending to Canon is that they're meeting your needs. Yes, I know you said you'd have bought more if they had features you wanted...but Canon doesn't give a crap, they have no way of confirming that (other than your word, which isn't even worth the electrons you're using to transmit it). You buy their stuff – along with their millions of other customers – and you confirm their business decisions.

My shopping message to Canon just was: I only bought 1 instead of 2 1DX2 and 1 instead of 3 5D4 - because of their lack of innovation, or better said: lack of including what their competitors already sell.

People like you should finally realize that those missing features are not a favor to customers so they are not confused with too many new functions. The one and only purpose is to spread features over as many new products over the longest possible time, so you spend more money. They try to squeeze as much out of it as possible, so it's fair that customers give the pressure back and demand as many realistic features as possible.

 

[douglaurent]

For many the current offerings of Canon are not going far enough.

But for many, many more the current offerings of Canon are doing just fine. Or people are stupidly buying cameras they believe are crap. Wait, didn't you just buy a 5DIV and a 1D X II?

For many, Donald trump is a nice person who speaks the truth and only wants the best for other people.

And wait, didn't I just buy 5 1DX2 and 5D4 camera units LESS than I would have bought?

 

[douglaurent]

Do you hear anybody whining that smartphones don't have enough features? No, because they already include everything you need.

Actually yes. Read the comments under stories about the latest phone releases. Just as much moaning.

Shameful: yes, this list is shameful for Canon, when you want to be the #1 on the market and charge prices of 4000+ euros for the cameras, while you're behind the competition regarding 20 important points. Historically Canon probably never has been that far behind in modern features, although they have just released their flagship products.

Newsflash: companies get to number one by knowing how to run a good business, not by shoving every possible feature into every product. Sorry! That's just life. And it's certianly not shameful.

Shameful: yes, this list is shameful for Canon, when you want to be the #1 on the market and charge prices of 4000+ euros for the cameras, while you're behind the competition regarding 20 important points. Historically Canon probably never has been that far behind in modern features, although they have just released their flagship products.
Who is their main competitor? Because I don't see 20 points where they are behind against Nikon

APS-C lenses: obviously this is an artificial limitation by Canon they could solve in a second if they like. If Canon full frame cameras had crop modes like Sony or Nikon, of course the use of such lenses would even be broader. With the new 4K crop that has no wide full frame alternative on the 5D4/1DX2, it would have been the right time to stop that stupid limitation!
it's not artificial. Put an EF-S lens on FF camera and the mirror hits the rear element. it is why they designed the EF-S mount the way they did.
What you are talking about is not EF-S lens compatabaility but sensor crop modes


Silent shooting: why not 100% silent? the 5D series are the wedding cameras #1, which photographer or guest enjoys the click noises? Canon simply needs to make a 5D4 mirrorless alternative. They could do, but for years first they try to figure out new camera systems with more different mounted lenses to the people and waste our lifetime.
The 6D is silent mode is very, very quiet. Why are you comparing it to 5D models when we are talking about a 6D v2? Have you even used the 6D?


Pixelshift: Pentax can do it, Canon probably does have a patent problem and want to protect their future high megapixel cameras, which is the main Canon philosophy: if you have 5 tasks, please buy and carry around 5 different cameras instead of 1. Just most people don't want or can do that, even if just a question of logistics and not money.
Nobody that I see has confirmed this is what the Pentax does.


Speedbooster: We can cross that off the list indeed, because unless all Canon full frame cameras don't have a crop shooting mode, it would be pretty useless anyway. And of course technically it's a problem aside from medium format lens adapter options.
The reason speedboosters were invented was to give shallower DOF because of the different characteristics of FF and MFT. A f4 image on MFT printed to the same size as a F picture has DOF of 5.6 on FF. So what you are saying is use APS-C crop mode then use a speed booster to produce a smaller image circle to give shallow DOF again. Why not just shoot at native f4 on FF and cut the expensive crap in the middle?


EVF: Nikon is even way more behind than Canon in many things, which is a problem because these two dinosaur companies havent realized yet it's not them alone anymore since it was decades, when they could slow down the pace as they liked. Unfortunately there is no pressure coming from Nikon, which makes it even more important to speak out as a Canon user.

But I thought Nikon was so far ahead of Canon in so many ways. I don't really see Sony as a competitor in the sense that 'Ooh, they have it so we must have it as well or lose market share'. Everything you mention is damn all to what really matters - image quality. Sony fall behind in one massive, important area - poor range of lenses. Canon gives an integrated system. Sony is not really the opposition to Canon, Nikon is and both companies believe that OVF with quality focus tracking and high quality post-sales support is the way to a successful company. Sony is said to have a great AF system - I dont recall seeing a single one.
If you want to see how Sony fares in traditional photographer working life:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii

So how far ahead is Sony in what matters? A real world-beater, obviously.

Fully assignable buttons: Like in a Sony camera, simply allow any function on any button of the camera - not just 2-10 random features like in a Canon camera menu. This way the A7R2 already does have a third wheel for ISO if you like by the way.
Is that really a 'deficiency'? Will that really affect your buying decision?

Too much effort to answer all this - and useless [...]

Too much effort because you spewed out mostly a load of nonsense, and it was carefully picked apart. You've got nothing but a load of ridiculous complaints, some of which are physically impossible within the confines of the system.

I listed 20 common, convenient features that Canon's competitors already sell - from body stabilization to articulating screen, from focus peaking to electronic viewfinder. That's all nonsense to you? That's all ridiculous complaints? So you basically say tens of thousands of customers who buy these other products because of these features, are idiots like me?

If these 20 features I listed are so dumb, why don't you ask Canon to remove them from their cheaper cameras or video products, wherever they already have implemented some of it themselves? Let's start and remove all articulating screens from all future Canon camera releases I would say! And let's hope they will never add sensor stabilization, who needs shit like this anyway, right?

 

[douglaurent]

APS-C lenses: obviously this is an artificial limitation by Canon they could solve in a second if they like. If Canon full frame cameras had crop modes like Sony or Nikon, of course the use of such lenses would even be broader. With the new 4K crop that has no wide full frame alternative on the 5D4/1DX2, it would have been the right time to stop that stupid limitation!

EF-S bodies have a shorter mirror so Canon makes EF-S lenses sit further back in the mount, thus it would break your Full Frame body if you put an EF-S lens on it.

Are you questioning the knowledge douglaurent has gained by attending the Dilbertland School of Factoids and Other Stuff? :-X

Just did check it again. No Canon APS-C lens bottom could touch a Canon FF sensor. If Canon would like to do it, they could easily build it differently. Unfortunately long years ago some Canon marketing guru might have decided they sell more cameras and lenses with this limitation, and since then they have found no way out of it.

Who said it would touch the sensor? I'm not sure if the problem is your lack of reading comprehension, or your lack of knowledge.

Certain EF-S lenses (the -S originally referred to short back focus) protrude sufficiently into the mirror box that the mirror of a Canon FF camera will hit the back of the lens when if flips up to take a shot.

Why don't you check it one more time - pop out the baffle on the back of an EF-S 10-22mm (set lens to 22mm, hook your finger into the hole, and pull), then mount the lens on one of your 1DX II bodies, set the lens to 10mm, and hold down the shutter for a nice, long 14 fps burst. I'm sure Canon will be able to install a new mirror assembly for you.

DogLaurent is making Dilbert look smart. Well I'll be dogged. The bar is set low indeed. In the words of Eisntein, "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."

Well said, master engineer. Even when mankind is populating Mars, I am sure that Canon and nobody else on this planet would have found a formula that makes it possible to manufacture new full frame cameras and crop lenses that can be attached to one another. It simply will be impossible. Even more incredible, this combination will only be possible if any other name like "Canon" is displayed on such cameras and lenses. Thank god there are intelligent people like you who clear such things up for me.

 

[Tugela]

...
Speaking of 4K in DSLRs ... the photo-4K in the 5D4 should be a welcome gift to photographers who want to capture the precise moment. It is essentially 30 fps of 8MP jpegs, and you can freeze the moment with very high shutter speeds as well ... why aren't photographers jumping for joy at that? Sure it's not RAW (eventually it will be), but that's got to be useful to photographers.

You are completely right and more to the point, that's what some did with film too - took reels of film on safari and then shot it all and extracted single frames from that spool with the right moment. There are two problems with this: with an OVF, you can't look through the eyepiece at the target while filming and second, the searching for the right moment with twice as many frames to search through.

The 5D4 photo-4K is much bigger than shooting reels of film to extract single frames. Those reels are shot at slow shutter speeds. The 5D4 can shoot 30 fps photo-4K at 1/4000 sec, delivering 8 MP JPEGS throughout the burst. That is a big deal. And so called dedicated photographers barely mention it so far.

Those frames are 2 MP jpeg images however, which most people who take photographs would consider inadequate.

It is a feature that is of very limited use for the sorts of people who would buy this camera.

 

[Tugela]

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.

ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

All of the complaining about adding video, or 4K, to DSLRs is coming from people who don't understand video, and can't grasp the benefits it brings even for ***(some)*** photographers.

Emphasis mine.

Likewise all of the complaining about cameras missing 4K is coming from people who don't understand that there is a sizeable contingent of photographers out there (myself included) to whom 4K (or even HD) video adds absolutely no value or benefit whatsoever. I'd rather pay less money for a spartan stills camera than a premium for one chock-full of the latest "must-have" features that I'm never going to use.

Actually, you will pay more for your camera without those features because those who want them will go to other brands. Canon will increase the price you have to pay to compensate for the loss of those other customers.

It is an economy of scale thing. Even if you don't need it, the presence of it will make your camera cheaper because it will address a wider market than your specific application.