Canon EOS 6D Mark II Talk & Updated Roadmap [CR2]

[d]

Based on the range of cameras and lenses that Canon has been making, based on the reputation that Canon's photography products have, and based on the fact that Canon is continuing to make a fair profit from its DSLR cameras and lenses, I'd say Canon very well knows the market, and knows what will sell, and what sort of person will buy those products.

More power to them, and long may they remain the market leader, and I look forward to seeing what next beauty they tempt me with.

There's no disputing Canon's success...but honestly, being able to spot meter off the current AF point is a no brainer - they should just do this!

 

[jebrady03]

I honestly don't think I'm getting the 5D4, though. It would have to be something comically better on the high ISO noise or low ISO DR side of things -- say two stops. I don't expect that to occur, but who knows?

- A

I think you need to be ready to buy the 5D Mark 4. It may not show a full two stops of improvement via DXO, but in the real world, I think it will. Remember, the 5D Mark 3 shows pattern noise and the character of the noise is pretty offensive. The newer sensors don't show that pattern noise and the character of the noise is much improved. Therefore, I believe you should easily get a two-stop Improvement in image quality. Again, that may not translate to test charts, but in the real world, I think it will.

 

[Loswr]

There's no disputing Canon's success...but honestly, being able to spot meter off the current AF point is a no brainer - they should just do this!

Oh, they do. You just need to buy a 1-series body.

 

[ahsanford]

There's no disputing Canon's success...but honestly, being able to spot meter off the current AF point is a no brainer - they should just do this!

Oh, they do. You just need to buy a 1-series body.

I liken spot metering at any AF point to anti-lock brakes in cars. Decades ago, only one or two companies had this technology. Then everyone had it, but it was a premium option. Now it is everywhere.

Except for Canon, who only sells it on their Rolls Royce. I actually agree with about 90% of what Canon does (I'm usually defending them in this forum), but this one always me scratching my head.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I liken spot metering at any AF point to anti-lock brakes in cars. Decades ago, only one or two companies had this technology. Then everyone had it, but it was a premium option. Now it is everywhere.

Except for Canon, who only sells it on their Rolls Royce. I actually agree with about 90% of what Canon does (I'm usually defending them in this forum), but this one always me scratching my head.

- A

And yes, I appreciate the irony that you can replace 'spot metering at any AF point' in my post above with '4K'.

- A

 

[crashpc]

This forum is always entertaining.

People whine because they can't get 1D features for a 5D price.

100% right, but I'll always whine about the lack of spot metering at the selected AF point on my 5D3. That's not state of the art technology needed to shoot arctic foxes in -50F conditions. Hell, that functionality exists on Rebel-level gear on the Nikon side. That legitimizes my whine, IMHO.

- A

Some people do whine like that, but not all. I am long-term Canon user. Started with EOS 450D.
The problem is, that Canon keeps most of their "class features" the same. Other companies give more. Of course, they have to, because Canon is the leader, but it might not be like that in oncoming decade. After loving Canon, using it more that 10 years (propably 15-17, using their compact cams), I´m finally jumping the ship for no added feature, jut better sensor in that money range. They milked me too much...

 

[j-nord]

I think 24mpix is a mistake unless they go big on IQ improvements and FPS. Some people would prefer this route and others prefer 7-8fps and 30ish mpix. I think Canon could go either way still but it also depends on their plans for the 6D and 5DS/R line.

I think some folks (not necessarily you) are getting hung up on a number bump for MP representing clear progress in a value proposition to substantiate this major purchase & justify how much better it is. Consider: a jump from the current 22 MP to 30 MP isn't very much at all:

5D3 @22 MP = 5760 x 3840
5D4 @ 30 MP ~ 6700 x 4500

I'm not knocking the value of added resolution -- I'm just saying that squares are a b---- to scale.

I see purchasing my next rig if it demonstrably improves a limit of my current camera that I often run into. Resolution simply isn't one of those limits. Sure, I'd like more detail, but my biggest frustrations with my 5D3 are a mix of common comments you'd see here sprinkled in with some personal peculiarities:

• Shockingly, very high ISO leads to noise -- I need cleaner shots at ISO > 6400 as I shoot what's around me as it happens and I can't bring a flash or wait for better lighting in many instances.
• AFMA is annoying, not super repeatable and frustrating. I'd love that to be automated.
• I want spot metering at any AF point. Why? Because it's 2016. $500 Nikon crop SLRs have this feature.
• I often am stuck with a handheld landscape shot (say on walkabout, a hike, etc.) -- a nonscripted landscape opportunity -- that has more dynamic range that I can reel in with one exposure. I fully recognize the gulf between what a sensor can reel in vs. what our eyes can see, but any improvement would be appreciated.
• Occasionally, when shooting something of immense detail -- a city landscape for instance -- I naturally want to peer deeper into the shot and see what I can see. That is one fairly rare circumstance in which more pixels would help me.

I honestly don't think I'm getting the 5D4, though. It would have to be something comically better on the high ISO noise or low ISO DR side of things -- say two stops. I don't expect that to occur, but who knows?

- A

I agree with most of what you said but for me, with a 6D, 30mpix 7-8fps better AF and a better sensor is a pretty huge jump. I crop liberally and want to be able to produce large prints. When I do upgrade ill probably go 5DSR not 5DIV.

 

[hne]

March 2017? Oh my... On reading this, I gave up waiting for an affordable FF body with DPAF and bought a used 70D for video. I guess I'll be carrying around two bodies for the foreseeable future :-\

 

[Sporgon]

There's no disputing Canon's success...but honestly, being able to spot meter off the current AF point is a no brainer - they should just do this!

Oh, they do. You just need to buy a 1-series body.

I liken spot metering at any AF point to anti-lock brakes in cars. Decades ago, only one or two companies had this technology. Then everyone had it, but it was a premium option. Now it is everywhere.

Except for Canon, who only sells it on their Rolls Royce. I actually agree with about 90% of what Canon does (I'm usually defending them in this forum), but this one always me scratching my head.

- A

There is probably a reason why Canon only offer spot meter around AF point on 1 series: they would assume that those users are aware of the dangers.

Nowadays people seem to have completely forgotten that spot meters were intended for taking multiple spot readings and then choosing where you wanted to make the exposure. Taking a shot based upon one spot meter reading is really risky. OK, much less so with digital, but then so is any other form of metering or exposure.

 

[d]

There is probably a reason why Canon only offer spot meter around AF point on 1 series: they would assume that those users are aware of the dangers.

Nowadays people seem to have completely forgotten that spot meters were intended for taking multiple spot readings and then choosing where you wanted to make the exposure. Taking a shot based upon one spot meter reading is really risky. OK, much less so with digital, but then so is any other form of metering or exposure.

Canon should remove the 'M' setting from the mode dial of lower model cameras - it's quite a risky setting as well. They wouldn't want uninformed photographers compromising their images with it.

d.

 

[Loswr]

There's no disputing Canon's success...but honestly, being able to spot meter off the current AF point is a no brainer - they should just do this!

Oh, they do. You just need to buy a 1-series body.

I liken spot metering at any AF point to anti-lock brakes in cars. Decades ago, only one or two companies had this technology. Then everyone had it, but it was a premium option. Now it is everywhere.

Except for Canon, who only sells it on their Rolls Royce. I actually agree with about 90% of what Canon does (I'm usually defending them in this forum), but this one always me scratching my head.

- A

Of course, Canon should include every possible feature in all their cameras. It's totally unacceptable that the 1D X cannot do in-camera HDR like even a little PowerShot. And now they've totally crippled the 1D X II in the exact same way.

 

[Sporgon]

There is probably a reason why Canon only offer spot meter around AF point on 1 series: they would assume that those users are aware of the dangers.

Nowadays people seem to have completely forgotten that spot meters were intended for taking multiple spot readings and then choosing where you wanted to make the exposure. Taking a shot based upon one spot meter reading is really risky. OK, much less so with digital, but then so is any other form of metering or exposure.

Canon should remove the 'M' setting from the mode dial of lower model cameras - it's quite a risky setting as well. They wouldn't want uninformed photographers compromising their images with it.

d.

No. Manual mode can make use of the meter like any other mode: just centre the needle. That is no different to what's happing in any other mode.

The point with spot metering is that unless you are aware that 'correct' exposure is based on the density of the light falling on the subject - known as incident light - your exposure could be way out depending upon how much light the subject is absorbing and the range of tones within the spot metering area.

So it may be a 'no-brainer' for you, but then you will be aware of how much of an under or over exposure a reflective light meter will give on a white or black subject.

At least I assume you do. But on the other hand if you don't it would explain your strong desire for an AF point spot meter.

 

[d]

Your exposure can be way out on a camera because of a number of different settings - that was my point about manual mode. I don't think Canon leave AF-linked spot metering off the 5D3 to protect its users from its "dangers" - it's just crippling a useful feature to keep it exclusive to the flagship body.

And yes, I'm aware of the variations possible with reflected meter readings.

Cheers,
d.

 

[FECHariot]

There is probably a reason why Canon only offer spot meter around AF point on 1 series: they would assume that those users are aware of the dangers.

Nowadays people seem to have completely forgotten that spot meters were intended for taking multiple spot readings and then choosing where you wanted to make the exposure. Taking a shot based upon one spot meter reading is really risky. OK, much less so with digital, but then so is any other form of metering or exposure.

Canon should remove the 'M' setting from the mode dial of lower model cameras - it's quite a risky setting as well. They wouldn't want uninformed photographers compromising their images with it.

d.

No. Manual mode can make use of the meter like any other mode: just centre the needle. That is no different to what's happing in any other mode.

The point with spot metering is that unless you are aware that 'correct' exposure is based on the density of the light falling on the subject - known as incident light - your exposure could be way out depending upon how much light the subject is absorbing and the range of tones within the spot metering area.

So it may be a 'no-brainer' for you, but then you will be aware of how much of an under or over exposure a reflective light meter will give on a white or black subject.

At least I assume you do. But on the other hand if you don't it would explain your strong desire for an AF point spot meter.

Not sure what your point here is. You can use exposure compensation with any of the current metering modes. It doesn't mean having the ability to lock a spot meter to the active Aaf point wouldn't also at times need exposure compensation too.

 

[unfocused]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

 

[FECHariot]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

 

[unfocused]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

Seems just as easy to dial in some exposure compensation. I guess it's just a difference in working style.

 

[d]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

Seems just as easy to dial in some exposure compensation. I guess it's just a difference in working style.

Depends how fast you're trying to work, and whether or not the light is changing.

 

[Loswr]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out. Or pretty much any time you would use spot metering and don't want your subject dead center of the frame.

Set center spot metering on subject, press AE lock, recompose, shoot.

Personally, I find AF-linked spot metering most useful when using iTR to track a bird in the sky as it moves through the frame.

 

[rrcphoto]

Can someone provide an example of this metering issue that suddenly seems to be so important?

I've always found Canon's default metering to be nothing short of brilliant. Sure, there are lighting conditions where it is necessary to adjust exposure compensation. But why is that a big deal? You just look at the scene and adjust accordingly based on experience. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely curious what the big deal is.

Taking a portrait with a backlit subject. The subject is at the rule of thirds and you want to expose for the face and don't care or even prefer if the sun is blown out.

well, there's no way i'd take a portrait in this case without using some sort of flash or reflective light to start off with. it's the classic I don't know what I'm doing and I just took a picture with zombied dead eyes

secondly evaluative metering will put the emphasis on the focus point. or you AE lock on the face and compose.