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

[hmatthes]

If the 6Dii is sort of a FF 80d, then I will instantly buy it.

In the meanwhile my 1.5 year old 70d is still giving me amazing results 8), take your time canon

Exactly! Love my 70D but want FF. Don't like the AF on the current 6D -- Gimme a FF 80D (6D2)

 

[The Flasher]

I'd like for the 6D to have an articulating screen and dual SD card slots.

FIGHT!

 

[Loswr]

I don't know if this tech is out yet but I'm sure we will see it soon (unless I'm missing some fundamental issue with it): FF 50mpix sensor with the option to 'skip' pixels and generate a 25mpix FF image. We've seen higher speed crop modes so this is essentially the same idea. The issue probably comes down to pixel density being high enough where skipping pixels won't destroy the IQ.

Typically, you'd bin four pixels together rather that 'skip', yielding a 12.5 MP image without need for color interpolation.

 

[j-nord]

I don't know if this tech is out yet but I'm sure we will see it soon (unless I'm missing some fundamental issue with it): FF 50mpix sensor with the option to 'skip' pixels and generate a 25mpix FF image. We've seen higher speed crop modes so this is essentially the same idea. The issue probably comes down to pixel density being high enough where skipping pixels won't destroy the IQ.

Typically, you'd bin four pixels together rather that 'skip', yielding a 12.5 MP image without need for color interpolation.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess we need to see about 80 mpix sensors before this feature would make sense, yielding a 20mpix image. I don't think the market would be interested in a mode much less than that.

 

[timcz]

Just a question for everyone that wants the articulated screen - does this reduce the ability for the camera to be weather sealed as a result?

 

[TheJock]

Hmmm, so the last time this thread was on topic was waaaaaay back on page 6!!!
5 pages later and we might be squeezing it back in to relevant again ;D

 

[privatebydesign]

Just a question for everyone that wants the articulated screen - does this reduce the ability for the camera to be weather sealed as a result?

No!

Whatever the naysayers might try to say, Olympus make a fully waterproof camera, as in warrantied for use in water, with an articulated screen. Oh, and it isn't a costly process, the entire camera costs $129..........

 

[j-nord]

Just a question for everyone that wants the articulated screen - does this reduce the ability for the camera to be weather sealed as a result?

No!

Whatever the naysayers might try to say, Olympus make a fully waterproof camera, as in warrantied for use in water, with an articulated screen. Oh, and it isn't a costly process, the entire camera costs $129..........

I think we could see it on the 6DII. The top of their class and action shooting capable bodies: 1Dxii, 5Div and possibly the 7Diii will remain without. I could see the 5DS/R replacement with one since its a favorite for architecture, landscape, product photography.

 

[verysimplejason]

Just a question for everyone that wants the articulated screen - does this reduce the ability for the camera to be weather sealed as a result?

No!

Whatever the naysayers might try to say, Olympus make a fully waterproof camera, as in warrantied for use in water, with an articulated screen. Oh, and it isn't a costly process, the entire camera costs $129..........

I think we could see it on the 6DII. The top of their class and action shooting capable bodies: 1Dxii, 5Div and possibly the 7Diii will remain without. I could see the 5DS/R replacement with one since its a favorite for architecture, landscape, product photography.

Articulated screen + DPAF. I can find a lot of uses already...

 

[slclick]

An articulated 6D2 would be my dedicated macro rig

 

[dak723]

Looks like the 5Ds/r will have a very short lifespan, IMO it will be more difficult to sell once the 5D4 is available. An old sensor technology in a 5d3 body won't do any more.

Plus 24 Mpx only in the 5D4 will be disappointing for some (me included), one could have hoped for a slight increase, I still think that Sony or Nikon are right in making a stronger sensor differentiation within their range. In the end, once again, all Canon full frame will have the same resolution again (20-24mpx) except the 5DS/R and its old(er) sensor tech.

I am fearing that the 5D4 resolution looks very old school in 3-4 years, and am really hoping they go around 30Mpx.

I fail to see how a 24-30MP 5D4 is going to displace or grossly affect the 5DS models - their sensors are perfectly fine for their intended purposes.

Likewise you're splitting hairs worrying about a 5D4 having 24MP instead of 30MP - that's a tiny difference in practical terms, and either would likely seem "archaic" in four years time, if that's the perspective you take.

d.

What I meant is the 5D4, if it actually comes with a 24Mpx sensor, falls already in the "low res" for a full frame sensor in 2016, I am afraid it's not a very future proof choice. It's the perspective I take since considering Canon's refresh pace, the 5D5 shouldn't appear until 2019-20.

Personally, I would have preferred something in the 32-36Mpx range, leaving a place for a 5DS/R2 with 50-60Mpx.

My point of view is that I would have loved to replace my ageing 5D2s with something with more resolution AND a more modern sensor. Looks like I'll have to wait for the 5Ds/r2.

The 5Ds is fine considering Canon's offering now, but it is supposed to be the camera that offers the best image quality for Canon. Once the whole line up will have been refreshed with the newer tech sensors, it will become some kind of oddity.

Now that Canon finally uses the on chip ADC, best image quality doesn't mean more pixels only, it also means better DR and as little noise as possible on their top image quality camera.

What is going on with all the megapixel talk/love around here lately? I feel like I just time wharped to a number of years ago.

18, 24, 30, ehhhh it's all about the same, especially keeping in mind it's not a linear relationship in regards to resolution. I enjoy this forum, but sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone actually gets out and shoots anymore. I mean com'on, your 18mp sensor can't capture a good picture?

You forget. This is a gear-head forum. A higher number MUST be better. So, even though I can get a nice print well over 24" with my 20 MP camera, I really need to see Canon "compete" with Sony and go higher with the MPs. Even though there have probably been hundreds of posts explaining how more MPs are a NEGATIVE for photographers who don't need the extreme resolution, since lower MPs means lower noise, the gear heads will never get it. After all, how can you brag to your gear-head friends when your camera only has 24 MP?

And the old 'more MP will harm image quality' - can we lay that one to rest once and for all? If you are viewing at the same size, whether on screen or in print, increasing MP will not harm image quality. Noise per pixel might go up, but image noise does not. Sharpness is not harmed, and may be helped. Diffraction and camera shake are again only affected viewed at 100%. The only objective downsides are lower frame rates (compared to a camera of lower resolution from the same era) and higher file sizes. They are not insignificant, but they don't affect image quality.

We can not lay it to rest because physics will not let it lay. The 5Ds & r have IQ (noise, DR) closer to a crop body because they have the same smaller pixels and greater pixel density compared to a 20 something MP FF body. Camera shake is real and Canon spent time and money redesigning their mirror system trying to reduce shake for the 5Ds and r exactly because it has high MPs. Numerous photographers have recommended using faster shutter speeds because they are necessary to avoid the blur. These things are real - not just at the pixel level. The 50 MP 5Ds and r have given us real life examples of both the positive (higher resolution and sharpness) and the negative (more noise, lower DR, more camera shake blur). That's why some of us don't want more than 20 something MPs in their FF cameras.

 

[geekpower]

Looks like the 5Ds/r will have a very short lifespan, IMO it will be more difficult to sell once the 5D4 is available. An old sensor technology in a 5d3 body won't do any more.

Plus 24 Mpx only in the 5D4 will be disappointing for some (me included), one could have hoped for a slight increase, I still think that Sony or Nikon are right in making a stronger sensor differentiation within their range. In the end, once again, all Canon full frame will have the same resolution again (20-24mpx) except the 5DS/R and its old(er) sensor tech.

I am fearing that the 5D4 resolution looks very old school in 3-4 years, and am really hoping they go around 30Mpx.

I fail to see how a 24-30MP 5D4 is going to displace or grossly affect the 5DS models - their sensors are perfectly fine for their intended purposes.

Likewise you're splitting hairs worrying about a 5D4 having 24MP instead of 30MP - that's a tiny difference in practical terms, and either would likely seem "archaic" in four years time, if that's the perspective you take.

d.

What I meant is the 5D4, if it actually comes with a 24Mpx sensor, falls already in the "low res" for a full frame sensor in 2016, I am afraid it's not a very future proof choice. It's the perspective I take since considering Canon's refresh pace, the 5D5 shouldn't appear until 2019-20.

Personally, I would have preferred something in the 32-36Mpx range, leaving a place for a 5DS/R2 with 50-60Mpx.

My point of view is that I would have loved to replace my ageing 5D2s with something with more resolution AND a more modern sensor. Looks like I'll have to wait for the 5Ds/r2.

The 5Ds is fine considering Canon's offering now, but it is supposed to be the camera that offers the best image quality for Canon. Once the whole line up will have been refreshed with the newer tech sensors, it will become some kind of oddity.

Now that Canon finally uses the on chip ADC, best image quality doesn't mean more pixels only, it also means better DR and as little noise as possible on their top image quality camera.

What is going on with all the megapixel talk/love around here lately? I feel like I just time wharped to a number of years ago.

18, 24, 30, ehhhh it's all about the same, especially keeping in mind it's not a linear relationship in regards to resolution. I enjoy this forum, but sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone actually gets out and shoots anymore. I mean com'on, your 18mp sensor can't capture a good picture?

You forget. This is a gear-head forum. A higher number MUST be better. So, even though I can get a nice print well over 24" with my 20 MP camera, I really need to see Canon "compete" with Sony and go higher with the MPs. Even though there have probably been hundreds of posts explaining how more MPs are a NEGATIVE for photographers who don't need the extreme resolution, since lower MPs means lower noise, the gear heads will never get it. After all, how can you brag to your gear-head friends when your camera only has 24 MP?

And the old 'more MP will harm image quality' - can we lay that one to rest once and for all? If you are viewing at the same size, whether on screen or in print, increasing MP will not harm image quality. Noise per pixel might go up, but image noise does not. Sharpness is not harmed, and may be helped. Diffraction and camera shake are again only affected viewed at 100%. The only objective downsides are lower frame rates (compared to a camera of lower resolution from the same era) and higher file sizes. They are not insignificant, but they don't affect image quality.

We can not lay it to rest because physics will not let it lay. The 5Ds & r have IQ (noise, DR) closer to a crop body because they have the same smaller pixels and greater pixel density compared to a 20 something MP FF body. Camera shake is real and Canon spent time and money redesigning their mirror system trying to reduce shake for the 5Ds and r exactly because it has high MPs. Numerous photographers have recommended using faster shutter speeds because they are necessary to avoid the blur. These things are real - not just at the pixel level. The 50 MP 5Ds and r have given us real life examples of both the positive (higher resolution and sharpness) and the negative (more noise, lower DR, more camera shake blur). That's why some of us don't want more than 20 something MPs in their FF cameras.

Facepalm... You can't say you have physic on your side, and then not use any physics.

Obviously a 50 Mpix image cropped to 20 Mpix then printed in the same size as an original 20 Mpix image will look worse, because it is in effect magnifying any problems that are seen at the pixel level. But a 50 Mpix image printed at hig res, or downsampled and properly dithered, will look at least as good, and probably better than a 20 Mpix image printed at the same size, because it will be in effect compressing any pixel level issues.

50 Mpix may not be practical or ideal for everyone, but the claim that more pixels = worse quality is counter to all logic.

 

[scyrene]

And the old 'more MP will harm image quality' - can we lay that one to rest once and for all? If you are viewing at the same size, whether on screen or in print, increasing MP will not harm image quality. Noise per pixel might go up, but image noise does not. Sharpness is not harmed, and may be helped. Diffraction and camera shake are again only affected viewed at 100%. The only objective downsides are lower frame rates (compared to a camera of lower resolution from the same era) and higher file sizes. They are not insignificant, but they don't affect image quality.

We can not lay it to rest because physics will not let it lay. The 5Ds & r have IQ (noise, DR) closer to a crop body because they have the same smaller pixels and greater pixel density compared to a 20 something MP FF body. Camera shake is real and Canon spent time and money redesigning their mirror system trying to reduce shake for the 5Ds and r exactly because it has high MPs. Numerous photographers have recommended using faster shutter speeds because they are necessary to avoid the blur. These things are real - not just at the pixel level. The 50 MP 5Ds and r have given us real life examples of both the positive (higher resolution and sharpness) and the negative (more noise, lower DR, more camera shake blur). That's why some of us don't want more than 20 something MPs in their FF cameras.

Facepalm... You can't say you have physic on your side, and then not use any physics.

Obviously a 50 Mpix image cropped to 20 Mpix then printed in the same size as an original 20 Mpix image will look worse, because it is in effect magnifying any problems that are seen at the pixel level. But a 50 Mpix image printed at hig res, or downsampled and properly dithered, will look at least as good, and probably better than a 20 Mpix image printed at the same size, because it will be in effect compressing any pixel level issues.

50 Mpix may not be practical or ideal for everyone, but the claim that more pixels = worse quality is counter to all logic.

Well said, geekpower. Sorry, dak, but you're just wrong on this one. The *whole captured image*, i.e. the output from the whole sensor, viewed the same size, will show the same amount of shake (the same applies to image-level noise, but that's also dependent on the sensors being from the same generation, using the same technology, the shots taken at the same ISO, processed the same etc). Think of it this way: let's say camera shake is 10 microns. That's the same distance compared to the sensor no matter how the sensor is subdivided into pixels. Higher resolution sensors show it more *at 100%* because they can resolve more detail. But as I clearly said, we're talking about images viewed at the same size, not at 100%.

Even two images taken with the same camera may be indistinguishable in terms of camera shake until you view them at a high enough magnification. When I upload a batch of images, I can discard ones with major shake-induced blur (or softness due to misfocusing) without zooming in. But for very fine differences, I have to view at full resolution, because the shake is below the level that is detectable when viewed at normalised scale (whatever it happens to be). And indeed, if you downsize an image with blurring below a certain threshold, the blurring is no longer detectable. The principle is the same.

 

[Loswr]

And the old 'more MP will harm image quality' - can we lay that one to rest once and for all? If you are viewing at the same size, whether on screen or in print, increasing MP will not harm image quality. Noise per pixel might go up, but image noise does not. Sharpness is not harmed, and may be helped. Diffraction and camera shake are again only affected viewed at 100%. The only objective downsides are lower frame rates (compared to a camera of lower resolution from the same era) and higher file sizes. They are not insignificant, but they don't affect image quality.

We can not lay it to rest because physics will not let it lay. The 5Ds & r have IQ (noise, DR) closer to a crop body because they have the same smaller pixels and greater pixel density compared to a 20 something MP FF body. Camera shake is real and Canon spent time and money redesigning their mirror system trying to reduce shake for the 5Ds and r exactly because it has high MPs. Numerous photographers have recommended using faster shutter speeds because they are necessary to avoid the blur. These things are real - not just at the pixel level. The 50 MP 5Ds and r have given us real life examples of both the positive (higher resolution and sharpness) and the negative (more noise, lower DR, more camera shake blur). That's why some of us don't want more than 20 something MPs in their FF cameras.

Facepalm... You can't say you have physic on your side, and then not use any physics.

Obviously a 50 Mpix image cropped to 20 Mpix then printed in the same size as an original 20 Mpix image will look worse, because it is in effect magnifying any problems that are seen at the pixel level. But a 50 Mpix image printed at hig res, or downsampled and properly dithered, will look at least as good, and probably better than a 20 Mpix image printed at the same size, because it will be in effect compressing any pixel level issues.

50 Mpix may not be practical or ideal for everyone, but the claim that more pixels = worse quality is counter to all logic.

Well said, geekpower. Sorry, dak, but you're just wrong on this one. The *whole captured image*, i.e. the output from the whole sensor, viewed the same size, will show the same amount of shake (the same applies to image-level noise, but that's also dependent on the sensors being from the same generation, using the same technology, the shots taken at the same ISO, processed the same etc). Think of it this way: let's say camera shake is 10 microns. That's the same distance compared to the sensor no matter how the sensor is subdivided into pixels. Higher resolution sensors show it more *at 100%* because they can resolve more detail. But as I clearly said, we're talking about images viewed at the same size, not at 100%.

Even two images taken with the same camera may be indistinguishable in terms of camera shake until you view them at a high enough magnification. When I upload a batch of images, I can discard ones with major shake-induced blur (or softness due to misfocusing) without zooming in. But for very fine differences, I have to view at full resolution, because the shake is below the level that is detectable when viewed at normalised scale (whatever it happens to be). And indeed, if you downsize an image with blurring below a certain threshold, the blurring is no longer detectable. The principle is the same.

I think your statement highlighted above may be confusing, as it's not true and in fact contradicts your earlier framework. You could, for example, downsample a 5Ds image to 35 MP, and it could show shake and diffraction that you would not see in 'the same image' shot on a 5DIII.

Of course, your overall premise (when viewed at the same output size, smaller pixels have no detriment) is correct.

 

[scyrene]

And the old 'more MP will harm image quality' - can we lay that one to rest once and for all? If you are viewing at the same size, whether on screen or in print, increasing MP will not harm image quality. Noise per pixel might go up, but image noise does not. Sharpness is not harmed, and may be helped. Diffraction and camera shake are again only affected viewed at 100%. The only objective downsides are lower frame rates (compared to a camera of lower resolution from the same era) and higher file sizes. They are not insignificant, but they don't affect image quality.

We can not lay it to rest because physics will not let it lay. The 5Ds & r have IQ (noise, DR) closer to a crop body because they have the same smaller pixels and greater pixel density compared to a 20 something MP FF body. Camera shake is real and Canon spent time and money redesigning their mirror system trying to reduce shake for the 5Ds and r exactly because it has high MPs. Numerous photographers have recommended using faster shutter speeds because they are necessary to avoid the blur. These things are real - not just at the pixel level. The 50 MP 5Ds and r have given us real life examples of both the positive (higher resolution and sharpness) and the negative (more noise, lower DR, more camera shake blur). That's why some of us don't want more than 20 something MPs in their FF cameras.

Facepalm... You can't say you have physic on your side, and then not use any physics.

Obviously a 50 Mpix image cropped to 20 Mpix then printed in the same size as an original 20 Mpix image will look worse, because it is in effect magnifying any problems that are seen at the pixel level. But a 50 Mpix image printed at hig res, or downsampled and properly dithered, will look at least as good, and probably better than a 20 Mpix image printed at the same size, because it will be in effect compressing any pixel level issues.

50 Mpix may not be practical or ideal for everyone, but the claim that more pixels = worse quality is counter to all logic.

Well said, geekpower. Sorry, dak, but you're just wrong on this one. The *whole captured image*, i.e. the output from the whole sensor, viewed the same size, will show the same amount of shake (the same applies to image-level noise, but that's also dependent on the sensors being from the same generation, using the same technology, the shots taken at the same ISO, processed the same etc). Think of it this way: let's say camera shake is 10 microns. That's the same distance compared to the sensor no matter how the sensor is subdivided into pixels. Higher resolution sensors show it more *at 100%* because they can resolve more detail. But as I clearly said, we're talking about images viewed at the same size, not at 100%.

Even two images taken with the same camera may be indistinguishable in terms of camera shake until you view them at a high enough magnification. When I upload a batch of images, I can discard ones with major shake-induced blur (or softness due to misfocusing) without zooming in. But for very fine differences, I have to view at full resolution, because the shake is below the level that is detectable when viewed at normalised scale (whatever it happens to be). And indeed, if you downsize an image with blurring below a certain threshold, the blurring is no longer detectable. The principle is the same.

I think your statement highlighted above may be confusing, as it's not true and in fact contradicts your earlier framework. You could, for example, downsample a 5Ds image to 35 MP, and it could show shake and diffraction that you would not see in 'the same image' shot on a 5DIII.

Of course, your overall premise (when viewed at the same output size, smaller pixels have no detriment) is correct.

Apologies. I've found wording these very tricky!

Can you explain a little more please? I want to be able to nail this in my head, so I'm not saying things that are incorrect. If you view two uncropped images at the same size (e.g. printed A4) from the same size sensor (e.g. full frame), equal amounts of shake would show the same, whatever the resolution of the two sensors, right? Are you saying downsizing e.g. 50MP to 35MP and printing, it would look different to the unresized 21MP image? :-\

 

[Ozarker]

Dustin stated the 6D has HIGHER DR than the 5D3.

Yeah, but it's still poor. The Internet says so. :

it's not poor.

canon has unusable DR, can't shoot anything with it.. if you can't shoot in one shot a nuclear blast through dappled forest leaves then you may as well punt the thing and get a sony.

+1,000,000

Canon has become a joke, the pathetic DR capabilities of their sensors makes me embarrassed to use them, I'd sell them and get a SoNikon but I can't afford to as the resale value is so poor as everybody knows Canon is a joke.

No DR.
No innovation.
No FF mirrorless.
No clue..........

Here is an example from today that illustrates the woeful performance of Canon cameras and lenses, they suck.

Extremely nice photo! May I ask what filters you used? Thanks!

 

[Ozarker]

So this means at the same...either before or after Canon Announces their Mark Something...Nikon Will introduce D900 80mp. Cuz Sony is about to announce their A9 with 80mp.

Yes, and Nikon / Sony have just the lens lineup to handle all them pixels.

 

[ashmadux]

This update cant come soon enough- the 6d has arguably the worst AF system of any modern camera on the market.

I have no issue with the sensor other than its a bit of a softie.

Cmon Canon, although i'd realistically be looking at a 5d4 anyways.

 

[privatebydesign]

Dustin stated the 6D has HIGHER DR than the 5D3.

Yeah, but it's still poor. The Internet says so. :

it's not poor.

canon has unusable DR, can't shoot anything with it.. if you can't shoot in one shot a nuclear blast through dappled forest leaves then you may as well punt the thing and get a sony.

+1,000,000

Canon has become a joke, the pathetic DR capabilities of their sensors makes me embarrassed to use them, I'd sell them and get a SoNikon but I can't afford to as the resale value is so poor as everybody knows Canon is a joke.

No DR.
No innovation.
No FF mirrorless.
No clue..........

Here is an example from today that illustrates the woeful performance of Canon cameras and lenses, they suck.

Extremely nice photo! May I ask what filters you used? Thanks!

Thanks. I didn't use any filters, just modest tonal adjustments in LightRoom.

 

[slclick]

Been thinking of my personal 6D2 wishlist and there's really not a lot I'd add just:

a few more cross af points
joystick
CF card slot


What I don't want:

new battery
more megapixels

What I wouldn't mind:

articulated screen (for macro)