Billybob said:
If they finally go to UHS-2 cards, it should be able to keep up with a 6fps burst forever.... or at least until the card fills or battery drains.....
Upvote
0
Canon EOS 6D Mark II to Get New 26mp Sensor [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
If they finally go to UHS-2 cards, it should be able to keep up with a 6fps burst forever.... or at least until the card fills or battery drains.....
If Canon will give this decent video specs this could really be a huge seller for them for the amateur video crowd. DPAF is great, the articulating screen is great, and some decent video performance would be icing on the cake. I'm pretty comfortable anticipating this new sensor will be a good one.
I too am really in the crowd wanting to continue to have interchangeable focus screens. I continue to have a 6D in my personal kit for that very reason. I have an EG-S screen in there and it is my go-to platform for all my MF glass.
I too am really in the crowd wanting to continue to have interchangeable focus screens. I continue to have a 6D in my personal kit for that very reason. I have an EG-S screen in there and it is my go-to platform for all my MF glass.
Upvote
0
I expect Canon to nerf it with a 19pt AF system or something weak, along with 1 card slot. Those two things are major points for someone who might be a 5D4 buyer to consider. That's how you retain those customers from "getting it done cheaper" ...
The first rumors are out - and what isn't mentioned? AF. Also slots. What's promoted? New sensor and tilt screen. As I said before, the appeal of this rig will be new sensor and tilt screen.
One card slot and 1 AF point (center) is enough to make many users happy - and that's what Canon is betting on. Those two features are a sort of dividing line between groups of buyers. Better AF and a dual slot is welcome by all, but it isn't a deal breaker for the one group of people, as evident on this forum. This gives Canon the ability to safely nerf the camera and put the squeeze on those needing said features. Forcing an upsell where one isn't mandated by market forces. Meanwhile, the group happy with the nerfed features is saving absolutely nothing for getting stuck with less. It is merely their acceptance of lower specs compared to competitors that makes it possible. The apologists defend this on this forum by essentially arguing their main concern is Canon's profits, not their own interest in obtaining the most bang for their buck. Bizarre.
The 5D4's build quality and weather sealing is NOT the main appeal at all...
I hope I'm wrong about the above, but does anyone seriously believe we're going to see a high performing AF system with dual slots in a 26mp, new sensor FF Canon body at 5-6fps? I assure you would murder 5D4 sales. Especially given that the 5D4 has departed from video losing another angle of appeal - what exactly is the appeal of it then compared to such a theoretically specced 6D2? Nothing.
Given what competitors are putting in cameras at $1,500 - $2,000 ... it's an obvious nerf because Canon is competing with itself and milking its own users.
Again, I eagerly await to be wrong.
The first rumors are out - and what isn't mentioned? AF. Also slots. What's promoted? New sensor and tilt screen. As I said before, the appeal of this rig will be new sensor and tilt screen.
One card slot and 1 AF point (center) is enough to make many users happy - and that's what Canon is betting on. Those two features are a sort of dividing line between groups of buyers. Better AF and a dual slot is welcome by all, but it isn't a deal breaker for the one group of people, as evident on this forum. This gives Canon the ability to safely nerf the camera and put the squeeze on those needing said features. Forcing an upsell where one isn't mandated by market forces. Meanwhile, the group happy with the nerfed features is saving absolutely nothing for getting stuck with less. It is merely their acceptance of lower specs compared to competitors that makes it possible. The apologists defend this on this forum by essentially arguing their main concern is Canon's profits, not their own interest in obtaining the most bang for their buck. Bizarre.
The 5D4's build quality and weather sealing is NOT the main appeal at all...
I hope I'm wrong about the above, but does anyone seriously believe we're going to see a high performing AF system with dual slots in a 26mp, new sensor FF Canon body at 5-6fps? I assure you would murder 5D4 sales. Especially given that the 5D4 has departed from video losing another angle of appeal - what exactly is the appeal of it then compared to such a theoretically specced 6D2? Nothing.
Given what competitors are putting in cameras at $1,500 - $2,000 ... it's an obvious nerf because Canon is competing with itself and milking its own users.
Again, I eagerly await to be wrong.
Upvote
0
I think the price might shock. It's not far off a 5DIV in specs. It Will certainly affect 5DIV sales if there is a price gap. That 6DII looks like all a lot of photographers would ever need.
Upvote
0
Billybob said:
I'm one of those people who prefers having the AA. It really does cut down on ugly, impossible to fix moire in images. It isn't just the patterns, but also the color distortion that arises.
A lot of folks are so obsessed with sharpness that can only be realized on a computer screen at 1:1, which has almost zero practical use short of some insane crop - at the expense of an occasional (not rare) moire issue which does impact practical IQ (prints and normal sized viewing). Doesn't always arise, but when it does it is nasty.
That whole issue is really about whether or not photographers and those who view images still have a discerning eye. In an age where cell phones are the average standard - I suspect no one notices or even cares about moire anymore. That's Nikon and Sony's bet.
If your images are going to be scrutinized by knowledgeable people - the last thing you'll get a bad mark on is the all-out sharpness. Perfect focus is not the same as total sharpness.
Canon offers no AA in the 5DSR, or at least a "cancelling" effect filter. I think that's as good as it will ever get.
Another thing which is weird is, since forever camera and lens makers have been trying to eliminate or reduce chromatic aberration in an effort to achieve the best possible IQ. Between some of the most advanced lenses and coatings, to internal camera processing to find and eliminate it - it has been an issue in the quest for better IQ since the beginning. YET...all of a sudden, in the modern digital era -- after all the progress as been made on that, people have thrown it all away to accept moire! If people are ok with moire - why not be ok with CA? Again, most society that is ok with cell phone images won't notice or care....
Canon doesn't take a ding for having an AA at the expense of pixel-peeping max sharpness...because at any normal viewing size, whether on a screen or in print -- it simply does not matter. The every so slightly blurred Canon image is completely undetectable at normal print or viewing sizes. The images are razor sharp and great looking.
They only lose out on camera nerds who shoot to view in Lightroom, and that's it. BTW, this is the same crew that obsesses over having massive dynamic range. The dudes who underexpose then do extreme exposure and shadow lifts.
Upvote
0
Is that a problem? Maybe this is a realignment of the Canon range alogn the lines ofHector1970 said:
1Dx - top range camera. Excellent for wildlife and sports, rugged as hell
5D range - a 1Dx for those who don't need the bomb-proof build or the inbuilt portrait grip, and whose shooting is general enough that people don't really need 14FPS and whizz-bang top-of-the-range AF (nice if you can get it but not a dealbreaker)
6D2 - the generalist snapper and professional's back up. AF not quite as the 5D range and build a little less solid
This would mean they are missing an entry-level FF camera, but I am wondering if this is needed. The image quality of the 80D is so damned good, and so few people print anymore do they really need FF? Which means the 80D successor takes the place of the current 7D2, and the 7D2 moves up to just below the 6D2.
Upvote
0
K said:
As I understand it, moire is related to pixel pitch and with increasing pixel density the issue of moire is reduced which reduces the need for the AA filter. I have no idea at what pixel pitch the AA filter becomes less important but I guess whether an AA filter is important to you depends on what you take pictures of.
Upvote
0
I've been yelled at for pointing this out before, but I'll point it out again. The distinction between 1/180 and 1/200 flash sync speed is basically meaningless. It's a sixth of a stop. In the real world the only difference it makes is that a different number is printed on the box for marketing.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
There's some controversy over this. The technology has been out a long time....adoption of it in cameras has been extremely slow. To the point that they still implement card tech that is for the most part obsolete.
Some cite that it is technical issues with reliability. The tech world has no issues with reliability. Could also impact battery life and other factors. I believe this is a legit concern. Given that even with already well established, decade-old tech occasionally these cameras run into card issues. Although, for that I would argue it is poor implementation and QA, not the tech itself.
I think the above is a part truth, part excuse. I think they don't mind dragging their feet on card technology - because fast cards means much faster buffer clearing, which then means longer continuous shooting and/or faster FPS.
When you start talking longer continuous shooting, people then start to pick on buffer size. It also challenges their cheap and easy ability to nerf/cripple cameras for segmentation. Which is the same as keeping FPS down. There's no doubt that certain cameras have shutter mechanisms and processors capable of a least 2-3 more FPS...but it is a choice to keep them down. You see what happens is, if they drop a UHS-II in there, people will then show how 2 different models of camera share the same shutter mechanism and processor they will naturally ask why is one faster than the other. They then have to admit they cripple the camera to separate them out.
Notice how they only put the newest card tech in the higher end cameras...hmm. That's why it's mostly excuse. You can blame the card for not writing fast enough.
Oh, and no one can cite costs. The PC industry is absurdly hyper competitive battling over the low margins where pennies matter -- and the introduction of UHS-II hasn't come at a price hike for consumers. Sometimes, the latest and greatest is introduced and prices reduce!
Upvote
0
You all seem to be talking about the 6D II competing with the 5D IV, and thinking that the 6D II will have to be sufficiently nerfed to not compete with the 5D IV. Don't forget that there's a very competent Nikon D750 (and soon D760) that the 6D II will be competing directly against, so Canon can't limit the camera too much.
My wish is that the 6D II will go slightly upmarket, with it being an all-round very capable camera, just less so than the 5D IV, and the original 6D will hang around as a base model until replaced by a FF 8D (or mirrorless?).
My wish is that the 6D II will go slightly upmarket, with it being an all-round very capable camera, just less so than the 5D IV, and the original 6D will hang around as a base model until replaced by a FF 8D (or mirrorless?).
Upvote
0
It's funny how the general attitude is that the 5D4 is on the verge of being taken over by the 6D2 with only the talk of a new sensor, which was a given.
The vast majority of specs have not been leaked yet.
Canon is pay to play. The barrier to entry in Canon land is $3,300
Remember that.
Brace for the nerf! **incoming**
8)
The vast majority of specs have not been leaked yet.
Canon is pay to play. The barrier to entry in Canon land is $3,300
Remember that.
Brace for the nerf! **incoming**
8)
Upvote
0
davidj said:
This has been one of my angles for a long time, but apparently Canon doesn't compete with Nikon.
The 6D was much weaker than the D610 in most areas. But but but...it still sold. We've heard this ad nauseam.
D750 hits way above its weight class. Bigtime. That's the best bang for the buck FF on the market, or maybe of all time.
For a new user -- what is better? Dealing with a crippled 6D2? If not, then up selling to a 5D4 for $3,300 ..??
For $3,300 you can get both a D750 AND a D500. The D750 gives you amazing IQ, great AF, dual slots, big dynamic range. You have no shortcomings here, except maybe 1/8000 shutter... lol. And the D500 gives you 10fps, even better AF and the best crop sensor ever made.
And they can't argue that the D820 will be $3,300 also - because that's their high rez model, which is like Canon, to get high rez means a whole other $3,000+ body like the 5DS line.
Canon glass is not that much better to overcome a D500 & D750 body combo for $3,300. Incredible value and capability right there.
I hope that is enough reason for Canon to provide the 6D2 with some more up to date specs.
Upvote
0
K said:
Lol, I'm from the opposite camp. I've been shooting cameras without AA filters since 2012 (yes, Nikon), and find that I have to pixel peep to see the moire. Yes, it's there in a few shots, but it hasn't been bad enough to cause problems. Thus, if I name called, I would probably employ a dismissive epithet to refer to photographers who shun moire and CA (the former, which in the small amounts that I occasionally see in my photography can be removed with a bit of effort, and the latter, which can be removed with almost no effort at all).
But I don't dismiss those concerns because I know that for some types of photography moire can be an abhorrent nuisance that takes the joy out of photography. However, please have the courtesy to appreciate that there is photography for which large DR and sharpness are also highly valued.
Anyway, there's little to suggest that Canon is going to change its practices re AA filters, so you have little to be concerned about.
Upvote
0
K said:
You keep on whining repeatedly about 'nerfing'. Have you ever considered it is 'designing to a price' - every company does it an any company who does not goes bust.
Choice to keep the rice down....certainly.
I would love to understand your knowledge that this camera falls into the bracket of being able to shoot at least 2-3 fps more.
You make a supposition then immediately treat that supposition as fact. Do you have any evidence for this. I am genuinely interested in you level of insight.
Upvote
0
K said:
Good observations.
For the 6D line, Canon doesn't compete with Nikon. Instead the 6D II will need to compete with the 6D. If a flippy screen and a marginally higher-resolution sensor (yes, 26MP especially with an AA filter--I know, I can't get over that--will not produce significantly better results) are the major selling points, there is little reason to upgrade. Improve the AF, increase the burst rate, add the dual pixels, improve video, keep the size small, and the camera becomes an interesting if not compelling upgrade. And it won't have 1/8000 shutter nor a second card shop.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
