Canon EOS 6D Mark II Talk [CR1]

[albron00]

It needs multi-controller (joystick).

 

[Luds34]

The main thing I want to see is:

100% viewfinder!

I hate cropped viewfinders, you can waste so many pixels and have to crop which is a real pain in the workflow. I want to be able to compose accurately through the viewfinder, and would like NOT to have to revisit: the lack of a 100% viewfinder has nearly spoiled a number of my 'tight' shots and wasted a lot of time.

No 100% viewfinder? I won't be upgrading.

Huh, is it that bad on the current 6D? I'll have to look it up now. I guess I've never been too upset that I've ended up getting a bit more in my picture then what I saw through the viewfinder. Worse case if it captures a tiny bit of something I didn't want/expect, a tiny crop in post fixes the issue.

 

[FECHariot]

I am actually considering the Tokina 14-20 f/2 for both FF and Crop. At 20mm it is a full-frame f/2 prime, for dirt cheap. How can you beat that?

The Sigma 20/1.4 Art is a stop faster and is made to cover the FF sensor. Plus even though the crop Tokinas will cover the FF size at the long end of the zoom, sharpness really falls off a cliff in those corners. Plus the Sigma has a proper AF motor with full time override instead of that ancient clutch micro motor drive crap from Tokina. Unless you need filters and don't want to adapt a Lee filter system to the bulbous Sigma, I see little reason to go with the Tokina there.

 

[merefield]

The main thing I want to see is:

100% viewfinder!

I hate cropped viewfinders, you can waste so many pixels and have to crop which is a real pain in the workflow. I want to be able to compose accurately through the viewfinder, and would like NOT to have to revisit: the lack of a 100% viewfinder has nearly spoiled a number of my 'tight' shots and wasted a lot of time.

No 100% viewfinder? I won't be upgrading.

Huh, is it that bad on the current 6D? I'll have to look it up now. I guess I've never been too upset that I've ended up getting a bit more in my picture then what I saw through the viewfinder. Worse case if it captures a tiny bit of something I didn't want/expect, a tiny crop in post fixes the issue.

97%, leaving an annoying 'bezel' around the edge which might include enough distracting extraneous artifacts that you need to crop, or simply not focus on the subject enough. It's enough to be annoying, especially if you are fussy about composition, that's what I've found.

 

[scyrene]

The Tokina lenses are EF mount NOT EF-S.
They are made for APS-C sized sensors, but at the long end of the zoom they cover FF sensor, so people with FF cameras also use them on those cameras.
The EF-S mount itself offers no significant advantage.

I stand corrected (I should have known that as I have tried out a couple of Tokina lenses!)
I still fail to see why you would want to put on a FF body a third party lens that you can only use over part of the range. It just seems a very odd shaped stick with which to beat Canon.

I think the motivation for some is, the 4K mode on these new cameras is ~the same field of view as the APS-C sensor. So mounting an APS-C EF 3rd party lens means you're using the full range of the zoom without vignetting, mostly because they tend to be cheaper than the equivalent (Canon own brand especially) FF EF lenses. As for beating on Canon for producing EF-S lenses at all, that's an odd one. It's a way of making cheaper, lighter amateur lenses for the lower end crop DSLRs, which is a legitimate and apparently lucrative market.

 

[Etienne]

They did this because they designed EF-S lenses to protrude too far into the camera body.

And they did that to enable them to make smaller lenses and take full advantage of the fact that they needed to project a smaller image circle. In fact, APS-C is hobbled by its original need to mount EF lenses, back in the day there were no decent EF-S lenses and the mount had to be big enough to take EF lenses.
So actually you have the history the wrong way round.

The EF-S lenses are not smaller for the same function. I owned the EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The 24-105 performed better on the 5D than the 18-55 did on the 40D in every respect. I never saw any APS-C size or weight advantage once you attached a similarly performing lens.
My meaning was that the design intention of EF-S required the lens to protrude into the body.
Any way ... there's no advantage to the EF-S lenses, and plenty of disadvantages, as noted wrt the Tokina wide zooms.

 

[Etienne]

I am actually considering the Tokina 14-20 f/2 for both FF and Crop. At 20mm it is a full-frame f/2 prime, for dirt cheap. How can you beat that?

The Sigma 20/1.4 Art is a stop faster and is made to cover the FF sensor. Plus even though the crop Tokinas will cover the FF size at the long end of the zoom, sharpness really falls off a cliff in those corners. Plus the Sigma has a proper AF motor with full time override instead of that ancient clutch micro motor drive crap from Tokina. Unless you need filters and don't want to adapt a Lee filter system to the bulbous Sigma, I see little reason to go with the Tokina there.

It may not be the lens to choose if your primary purpose is 20mm on FF, but it's a free bonus. And it does a great job for wide zoom on APS-C, it's primary purpose, which just happens to be exactly what you need for 4K on the 5D4.
So, one lens on the 5D4 gives 20mm f/2 prime FF performance, and 22-32 mm f/2 zoom for 4K video. Can't do that with the Sigma

 

[scyrene]

They did this because they designed EF-S lenses to protrude too far into the camera body.

And they did that to enable them to make smaller lenses and take full advantage of the fact that they needed to project a smaller image circle. In fact, APS-C is hobbled by its original need to mount EF lenses, back in the day there were no decent EF-S lenses and the mount had to be big enough to take EF lenses.
So actually you have the history the wrong way round.

The EF-S lenses are not smaller for the same function. I owned the EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The 24-105 performed better on the 5D than the 18-55 did on the 40D in every respect. I never saw any APS-C size or weight advantage once you attached a similarly performing lens.
My meaning was that the design intention of EF-S required the lens to protrude into the body.
Any way ... there's no advantage to the EF-S lenses, and plenty of disadvantages, as noted wrt the Tokina wide zooms.

Price?

 

[unfocused]

I've been lurking around this forum for a long, long time, waiting for news, learning new things and admiring people's pictures.

So I just wanted to log in for once and say that the endless, nasty threads like this are why I don't participate. Someone posts a hyperbolic complaint, someone chimes in to say that person is a moron, and on and on it goes for pages. It's really awful.

It's a shame you're put off. I'm afraid that's how internet forums are though...

...should posts that are demonstrably untrue be left unchallenged? ... Is it better to be unfailingly polite whilst letting wrongheadedness prevail? ...

...It's the tone and content of those responses I object to. There's just no need to insult people when you're disabusing them of a misconception, there's no need to be curt and condescending...if the newbies come in screaming at people and calling them names they should be warned and then banned if they keep at it. I also think that there are some people in this forum - some of the more prolific posters - who either get off on condescending to other people or who can't control their own anger because they've had these arguments so many times. And, frankly, I think the moderators could do a better job.

...the newbies and a few of the folks who post constantly are ruining it.

(Emphasis added for later comment.)

First,

This site really represents about five forums.

1) A rumors site. The core purpose of the site is for the founder to share information he receives about upcoming Canon products. That's what draws most people to the site initially. But with a grand total of four full frame bodies and two enthusiast/professional APS-C bodies, combined with typical refresh rates of four years or so, there simply isn't enough material to draw people to the site every day -- which is what it needs to remain a viable business. Right now we are between refresh cycles and people don't have much to talk/speculate about so the discussions tend to get redundant and esoteric;

2) A photo sharing site. This site is hardly unique in that aspect and there are other sites that do it better. I suspect that for most readers, this is the least compelling reason to visit this site.

3) A review site. This is also redundant to what many other sites offer and with no insult meant to reviewers, other sites do it better.

4) An advice site. People come here with questions and are seeking peer-based suggestions. Some of the sites most prolific commenters are also heavy users of technology and, to their credit, are willing to offer advice and share their experience. This is probably one of the most valuable aspects of the site, but like the rumors, most of us aren't in need of constant advice, so while valuable, it's not going to sustain the traffic here.

5) A debating society. I have no doubt that this is what attracts most people and keeps people interested. Like academia, the arguments are so vicious because the stakes are so low. Nothing that is debated here is of any real consequence and it's important to keep that in mind. I suspect that many of those who argue the most know they are at times being ridiculous. But, this is a safe place to act out aggression and spar with one another. Occasionally, we get someone who has serious mental health issues and that soon becomes apparent. In those cases, I strongly urge others to dial it back a few notches. There have been cases where that did not occur, but I believe in recent years, people have generally been on better behavior when we realize that someone has serious, rather than the mild and manageable mental illness that afflicts most of us.



In reference to the "emphasis added" points in your post. I am absolutely opposed to heavy-handed censorship by moderators attempting to force everyone to play nicey, nice with one another. Over the course of human history censorship has been invoked in far too many situations and the end result is always bad. We have had overzealous moderators in the past and I am pleased that the current set of moderators are willing to let most of these debates play out without excessive interference. Everyone here is an adult and if the relatively mild tone of the debates here offends someone, they probably don't belong on the internet. Let's leave the relentless squashing of perceived micro-agression to academia.

 

[FECHariot]

I am actually considering the Tokina 14-20 f/2 for both FF and Crop. At 20mm it is a full-frame f/2 prime, for dirt cheap. How can you beat that?

The Sigma 20/1.4 Art is a stop faster and is made to cover the FF sensor. Plus even though the crop Tokinas will cover the FF size at the long end of the zoom, sharpness really falls off a cliff in those corners. Plus the Sigma has a proper AF motor with full time override instead of that ancient clutch micro motor drive crap from Tokina. Unless you need filters and don't want to adapt a Lee filter system to the bulbous Sigma, I see little reason to go with the Tokina there.

It may not be the lens to choose if your primary purpose is 20mm on FF, but it's a free bonus. And it does a great job for wide zoom on APS-C, it's primary purpose, which just happens to be exactly what you need for 4K on the 5D4.
So, one lens on the 5D4 gives 20mm f/2 prime FF performance, and 22-32 mm f/2 zoom for 4K video. Can't do that with the Sigma

If 4K is important to you and are using the 5D4, then that is a valid point. Still given how crippled the 5D4s 4K system is, I think I would personally just grab the 20mm Siggy and shoot 1080P.

However since this is a 6D2 thread and it is much more likely that I'll own a 6D2 than a 5D4 at some point, I hope that the 6D2's 4K system is a better implementation than the 5D4 where you don't need to buy crop lenses from third party just to get reasonably priced wide angles for video. Then again, if the 6D2 doesn't have 4K at all, it won't stop me from buying one as long as the other specs and pricing checks off my needs.

 

[Etienne]

They did this because they designed EF-S lenses to protrude too far into the camera body.

And they did that to enable them to make smaller lenses and take full advantage of the fact that they needed to project a smaller image circle. In fact, APS-C is hobbled by its original need to mount EF lenses, back in the day there were no decent EF-S lenses and the mount had to be big enough to take EF lenses.
So actually you have the history the wrong way round.

The EF-S lenses are not smaller for the same function. I owned the EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The 24-105 performed better on the 5D than the 18-55 did on the 40D in every respect. I never saw any APS-C size or weight advantage once you attached a similarly performing lens.
My meaning was that the design intention of EF-S required the lens to protrude into the body.
Any way ... there's no advantage to the EF-S lenses, and plenty of disadvantages, as noted wrt the Tokina wide zooms.

Price?

Not for lenses in my experience. The closest two comparable lenses are the EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS and the original 24-105 f/4L IS. They were around the same price when I had them both, but the 24-105 was better in every way.

 

[scyrene]

They did this because they designed EF-S lenses to protrude too far into the camera body.

And they did that to enable them to make smaller lenses and take full advantage of the fact that they needed to project a smaller image circle. In fact, APS-C is hobbled by its original need to mount EF lenses, back in the day there were no decent EF-S lenses and the mount had to be big enough to take EF lenses.
So actually you have the history the wrong way round.

The EF-S lenses are not smaller for the same function. I owned the EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS. The 24-105 performed better on the 5D than the 18-55 did on the 40D in every respect. I never saw any APS-C size or weight advantage once you attached a similarly performing lens.
My meaning was that the design intention of EF-S required the lens to protrude into the body.
Any way ... there's no advantage to the EF-S lenses, and plenty of disadvantages, as noted wrt the Tokina wide zooms.

Price?

Not for lenses in my experience. The closest two comparable lenses are the EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 IS and the original 24-105 f/4L IS. They were around the same price when I had them both, but the 24-105 was better in every way.

Oh right. Well, better in every way except it's a stop wider. It definitely beats the 24-105 at f/2.8!

 

[Loswr]

Oh right. Well, better in every way except it's a stop wider. It definitely beats the 24-105 at f/2.8!

Not really, at least when comparing the 17-55/2.8 on APS-C with the 24-105/4 on FF. The former is equivalent to a 27-88mm f/4.5 focal length and DoF, and the 1.3-stop ISO advantage of FF more than counters the 1-stop wider aperture. So, all you really gain with the 17-55/2.8 is activation of the center f/2.8 high-precision AF point.

But compare the EF-S 10-22mm with the 17-40L, similar in price but the 10-22 is optically far better.

 

[douglaurent]

That's the whole point, without some positive surprise and logical acting by Canon it would take until the next decade until they offer features that many already consider basics for their work.

The best thing would be if Canon NEVER does release a camera with mirror again, as it hardly makes sense anymore. They should simply start by releasing mirrorless versions of the 5D4 and 1DX2, with - most important - the same old mount and no stupid new mount! This is something Canon could release next year, and they would be everyone's darling again.

Is mirrorless really 'basic for your work' or just that you like the way it works?

How many times does this need repeating before you understand it instead of merely repeating what you have already said. Every manufacturer has a target market and Canon's key market is action, sports and wildlife.Pperformance of mirrorless autofocus systems is not yet as good as DSLRs and Canon will turn 1DX and 5D into mirrorless cameras as and when they have mirrorless AF technology to match that of DSLRs.
No amount of wishful bleating by your or anyone else will change that.

Why shouldn't mirrorless autofocus be as good? It's just a question of time that Sony will merge their A99II technology with the A7RII. Nobody has build a large body mirrorless camera with the right processing power yet, but one can assume from recent years that Sony will release it 3 years earlier than Canon, which again brings us to the year 2020 unless Canon wakes up.

If you ask why mirrorless is basic, you are probably shooting photos only and never did work with a mirrorless camera. There is an endless list of advantages even for photo people, from zero noise shooting to checking your results through the viewfinder in bright sunlight, instead of the monitor.

 

[douglaurent]

Personally I don't even complain about the prices, and would pay $1000 more if a 5D4 had an articulating screen. I would pay lots more if it was mirrorless. They just need to release it.

Simple question: do you think Canon would gain more customers than it loses if they charged $1000 more having released the 5D4 as a mirrorless camera? Take a step back, calm down, and *think*. One of the biggest complaints on these forums and elsewhere has been the 5D4's high introductory price. I've seen no complaints about the presence of a mirror. Do you think there's such a huge unspoken groundswell of desire for a mirrorless equivalent that all those people would pay that much more for it?

Or can you actually see that your needs are not mainstream? That doesn't make them wrong. But releasing a camera that doesn't sell well because *most* people don't want to pay that much for what it is would be a poor business decision. Can you see that?

It is funny when consumers argue as if they were the company and defend everything the company didn't achieve or did wrong as if the company was a relative, and don't seem to be interested in getting products with better features themselves - while the company shows no compassion for the consumer at all when it comes to prices, strategic feature limitations etc.

And yes, people who didn't work with and understood a well adjusted mirrorless camera will mostly not complain that Canon doesn't have a serious offer yet. That's why it takes years until the obvious progress happens, and Canon is happy to sell you 3 cameras over the next 8 years, instead of one you could use now and keep for 8 years.

 

[douglaurent]

Wow... Dougs requests borders on ridiculous.. Why someone want to put a crop lens on a FF body is beyond me.

BECAUSE THE 5D4 HAS A 1.74x CROP IN 4K VIDEO MODE AND THE ONLY CANON LENS WHO THEN COVERS A 14-20MM FF EQUIVALENCY IS THE HEAVY NO FILTER THREAD 3000$ 11-24/4 LENS.

 

[douglaurent]

The best thing would be if Canon NEVER does release a camera with mirror again, as it hardly makes sense anymore. They should simply start by releasing mirrorless versions of the 5D4 and 1DX2, with - most important - the same old mount and no stupid new mount! This is something Canon could release next year, and they would be everyone's darling again.

This must be the dumbest statement I've read in a long time.

People seem to think that the mirror on a DSLR is some sort of fashion accessory about as photographically useful as a vanity mirror. If you've been using it to put on makeup all this time...it's time someone pulled you aside to tell you it actually serves an important function. It feeds light to a dedicated off-focal plane PDAF sensor.

Mirrorless cameras should really be more honestly called AF-sensorless cameras because they have had this dedicated PDAF sensor ripped out of them. It is the height of foolishness to expect a camera to function as well without that extra AF-sensor.

Now, you can argue for the benefits of a fixed semi-translucent pellicle mirror of a kind Canon pioneered a long time ago, as a means of eliminating mirror shock, but to suggest that the mirror and the dedicated PDAF sensor are just pointless fashion accessories is abject ignorance. The bigger the rant and the more sweeping the certainty of the soapbox opinion, the more you can assured it is based on gross misinformation.

Canon is building mirrorless cameras since ages. The current models are called C100II, C300II and C700. Canon did show their new 8K/36MP mirrorless camera at photokina. All those mentioned cameras do have the best and outstanding autofocus, that is also the first large sensor autofocus you can actually use for face-tracking etc.

So with the state of technology in 2016, please tell me what makes the mirror important and inevitable in the future.

 

[d]

But the problem for others is that if it is indeed isn't the same person again and again then the increasing number of new people upset with Canon upsets their mindset regarding Canon. Since various people want to believe the Sun effectively shines out of Canon's a*** then it is easier to think of a growing number of people that are discontent with Canon to be the one person than accept that multiple people may be disappointed with Canon's products.

I really want to understand what you're trying to say, Dilbert, but my head is hurting trying to understand the statement I've highlighted above!

Let me be clear that I don't necessarily agree with the viewpoints I reported - I was just offering an explanation to Sarpedon as to why some members might react more aggressively to inflammatory "newbies", instead of with a polite, measured response as suggested by Sarpedon.

d.

 

[unfocused]

...
The opinion is held that many of the "newbies" here are likely repeat members reposting under new user names in order to antagonise other members or promote their preferred, alternative branded cameras. The more suspicious might suggest some of them are paid by other camera companies to do so.
...

That is almost ridiculous. Think about it. Because a new poster arrives and posts something that someone who has been here longer doesn't like, it is a new avatar of someone else. Talk about paranoid.

This is rational.

But the problem for others is that if it is indeed isn't the same person again and again then the increasing number of new people upset with Canon upsets their mindset regarding Canon. Since various people want to believe the Sun effectively shines out of Canon's a*** then it is easier to think of a growing number of people that are discontent with Canon to be the one person than accept that multiple people may be disappointed with Canon's products.

This is not.

Being extremely generous, there are maybe 20 people complaining about Canon. There are consistently about a half-dozen regulars, counting you. That's been stable for years. There is no "growing number of people that are discontent." There is some churn among the complainers -- new ones come and old ones drop out, but the total number is pretty stable.

 

[Alex_M]

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening the CR Forum (A.M.) through subversion, obstruction, disruption or destruction. In the CR Forum (A.M.) setting, sabotage is the conscious withdrawal of efficiency generally directed at causing some change in the forum (A.M.) conditions.

One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. Saboteurs typically try to conceal their identities because of the consequences of their actions.

Sabotage is sometimes called tampering, meddling, tinkering, malicious pranks....