Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?

[bvukich]

You know Canon could throw a spanner in the works and announce this as a 70D instead of a 6D.

Im guessing if they did that a lot of people would stop bitching about this camera being an xD series.
Would also make sense as an entry platform for FF that isn't a "rebel".

Then the xD series can stay as the "Pro" cameras and keep everyone happy.

I've always thought they should split the xxD line into a x0D APS-C and x5D FF. Release (for example) the 70D and the 75D at the same time, put about a $400 difference in the price, have the only significant difference be the sensor, and keep it on a strict two year cycle.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

You know Canon could throw a spanner in the works and announce this as a 70D instead of a 6D.

Im guessing if they did that a lot of people would stop bitching about this camera being an xD series.
Would also make sense as an entry platform for FF that isn't a "rebel".

Then the xD series can stay as the "Pro" cameras and keep everyone happy.

i've been thinking this as well. If these were the specs of a crop camera, I'd say the price would be $1200 max. Make it FF, and still, it's $1500 max price and yeah, that would make this a 70D, which is appropriate.

 

[Wahoowa]

Looks like more than one leaked picture. So, this could be real, but the specs are really disappointing.

 

[EOBeav]

Im guessing if they did that a lot of people would stop bitching about this camera being an xD series.
Would also make sense as an entry platform for FF that isn't a "rebel".

Then the xD series can stay as the "Pro" cameras and keep everyone happy.

I don't have a problem with them introducing a camera like this and calling it a xxD. But let's not dilute the xD series just because it happens to be FF.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I love Canon. Always loved!.... I don't like Nikon cameras but...... if the 6D it will be so, the D600 Nikon is more and more BETTER!!!

COME ON!!! CANON WE ARE IN THE 2012!!!! A built in TIME LAPSE AT LEAST!!! SOMETHING NEW PLEASE!!!!! WE DON'T NEED ABOUT A STUPID TOUCH SCREEN!!! WE LOVE PHOTOS AND VIDEO!!!!

For NOW Nikon is BETTER... :-[

I don't see Nikon as a threat for what I do because until now their camera sensors don't know what real people look like (Nikon skin tones, yuck). Canon does. I think that's their only real advantage to me now, the way their lenses and sensors make people look. It's like switching a pinto with a full tank of gas for a ferrari with an empty tank (pretend like you're in the middle of nowhere and gas doesn't exist for miles). Nice specs but... will it do what you want it to do? Nikon is useless to me even if they had 1 billion AF points and ISO 10 stops better as long as they keep making photos look the way they do, and I've shot full frame and pro bodies on both sides. I won't even begin with ergonomics or interface. Nikon is a joke to me. The reasons why I switched to Canon are still the reasons I intend to stay now. So no, Nikon is not better. It's better on paper, perhaps. But not in real world true-to-life photography.

 

[verysimplejason]

I think everything will depend on its price. For this specs, if priced between 1500 and 1700, it's acceptable but 2100? Canon is just kicked assed by Nikon.

 

[verysimplejason]

I love Canon. Always loved!.... I don't like Nikon cameras but...... if the 6D it will be so, the D600 Nikon is more and more BETTER!!!

COME ON!!! CANON WE ARE IN THE 2012!!!! A built in TIME LAPSE AT LEAST!!! SOMETHING NEW PLEASE!!!!! WE DON'T NEED ABOUT A STUPID TOUCH SCREEN!!! WE LOVE PHOTOS AND VIDEO!!!!

For NOW Nikon is BETTER... :-[

I don't see Nikon as a threat for what I do because until now their camera sensors don't know what real people look like (Nikon skin tones, yuck). Canon does. I think that's their only real advantage to me now, the way their lenses and sensors make people look. It's like switching a pinto with a full tank of gas for a ferrari with an empty tank (pretend like you're in the middle of nowhere and gas doesn't exist for miles). Nice specs but... will it do what you want it to do? Nikon is useless to me even if they had 1 billion AF points and ISO 10 stops better as long as they keep making photos look the way they do, and I've shot full frame and pro bodies on both sides. I won't even begin with ergonomics or interface. Nikon is a joke to me. The reasons why I switched to Canon are still the reasons I intend to stay now. So no, Nikon is not better. It's better on paper, perhaps. But not in real world true-to-life photography.

Yup, that's the only thing Canon now has but it's always doable in post-processing. You can change the hue, the contrast, the saturation. But you can't add details lost because of your inferior sensor. Ok, photographers with your requirements might be satisfied by Canon but there are a whole lot of other type of photography. Canon won't survive just by catering to your requirements.

 

[Wahoowa]

7D has its specs like this:

- 19-point all cross-type AF (f/2.8 at center: Dual Cross Sensor)

Is it possible that the 6D specs should read:

- 11-point all cross-type AF (f/2.8 at center: Dual Cross Sensor)

If it is, this camera is not too bad after all. But, still, flash sync at 1/180 and highest shutter speed at 1/4000? That leaves to be desired.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I love Canon. Always loved!.... I don't like Nikon cameras but...... if the 6D it will be so, the D600 Nikon is more and more BETTER!!!

COME ON!!! CANON WE ARE IN THE 2012!!!! A built in TIME LAPSE AT LEAST!!! SOMETHING NEW PLEASE!!!!! WE DON'T NEED ABOUT A STUPID TOUCH SCREEN!!! WE LOVE PHOTOS AND VIDEO!!!!

For NOW Nikon is BETTER... :-[

I don't see Nikon as a threat for what I do because until now their camera sensors don't know what real people look like (Nikon skin tones, yuck). Canon does. I think that's their only real advantage to me now, the way their lenses and sensors make people look. It's like switching a pinto with a full tank of gas for a ferrari with an empty tank (pretend like you're in the middle of nowhere and gas doesn't exist for miles). Nice specs but... will it do what you want it to do? Nikon is useless to me even if they had 1 billion AF points and ISO 10 stops better as long as they keep making photos look the way they do, and I've shot full frame and pro bodies on both sides. I won't even begin with ergonomics or interface. Nikon is a joke to me. The reasons why I switched to Canon are still the reasons I intend to stay now. So no, Nikon is not better. It's better on paper, perhaps. But not in real world true-to-life photography.

Yup, that's the only thing Canon now has but it's always doable in post-processing. You can change the hue, the contrast, the saturation. But you can't add details lost because of your inferior sensor. Ok, photographers with your requirements might be satisfied by Canon but there are a whole lot of other type of photography. Canon won't survive just by catering to your requirements.

Wrong. There are gradations in color that can't be recovered or added by processing. Nikon can't get that look, I've processed both to no end to prove this in the past. And if you look at the Nikon forums (which is chaos btw), it's the same complaint going around on why Nikon can't get their photos to look like Canon's. I don't need to be catered to. I'm happy as long as they keep releasing products without sacrificing the way things are supposed to look. In fairness to Nikon, Canon's biggest mistake was riding on Nikon's idea to make cameras more user friendly and have mushy processed jpegs from noise reduction (Nikon supposedly fixed this over time, but I still see it) so that they could cater, and I mean really cater, to the average idiot. They're not going to lose marketshare from real photographers until I see more Nikon users than Canon at the white house. At the moment, all I see are big white lenses and/or red rings.

 

[Verbian]

First time poster, long-time lurker(thanks for letting me eavesdrop these past years).

I currently use a 550D for which I own some nice glass. Just a guy who likes to shoot photos for himself and I've always been looking to go up to Full-Frame, and that time is getting near. The rumors of this camera have really been keeping me enthralled. Under $2k or $2k for a new full-frame! 5D MKII is a great option, but I don't want to buy used, and $2K for a great camera, but I figured a newer camera would allow me to wait longer before I upgraded in the future.

If these specs hold out, I think I'll get get a 5D MKIII. The "silent" shutter release option really appeals to me as I shoot pictures during award presentations at work. The ISO performance would also be a huge selling point of the 5D MKIII.

 

[verysimplejason]

I love Canon. Always loved!.... I don't like Nikon cameras but...... if the 6D it will be so, the D600 Nikon is more and more BETTER!!!

COME ON!!! CANON WE ARE IN THE 2012!!!! A built in TIME LAPSE AT LEAST!!! SOMETHING NEW PLEASE!!!!! WE DON'T NEED ABOUT A STUPID TOUCH SCREEN!!! WE LOVE PHOTOS AND VIDEO!!!!

For NOW Nikon is BETTER... :-[

I don't see Nikon as a threat for what I do because until now their camera sensors don't know what real people look like (Nikon skin tones, yuck). Canon does. I think that's their only real advantage to me now, the way their lenses and sensors make people look. It's like switching a pinto with a full tank of gas for a ferrari with an empty tank (pretend like you're in the middle of nowhere and gas doesn't exist for miles). Nice specs but... will it do what you want it to do? Nikon is useless to me even if they had 1 billion AF points and ISO 10 stops better as long as they keep making photos look the way they do, and I've shot full frame and pro bodies on both sides. I won't even begin with ergonomics or interface. Nikon is a joke to me. The reasons why I switched to Canon are still the reasons I intend to stay now. So no, Nikon is not better. It's better on paper, perhaps. But not in real world true-to-life photography.

Yup, that's the only thing Canon now has but it's always doable in post-processing. You can change the hue, the contrast, the saturation. But you can't add details lost because of your inferior sensor. Ok, photographers with your requirements might be satisfied by Canon but there are a whole lot of other type of photography. Canon won't survive just by catering to your requirements.

Wrong. There are gradations in color that can't be recovered or added by processing. Nikon can't get that look, I've processed both to no end to prove this in the past. And if you look at the Nikon forums (which is chaos btw), it's the same complaint going around on why Nikon can't get their photos to look like Canon's. I don't need to be catered to. I'm happy as long as they keep releasing products without sacrificing the way things are supposed to look. In fairness to Nikon, Canon's biggest mistake was riding on Nikon's idea to make cameras more user friendly and have mushy processed jpegs from noise reduction (Nikon supposedly fixed this over time, but I still see it) so that they could cater, and I mean really cater, to the average idiot. They're not going to lose marketshare from real photographers until I see more Nikon users than Canon at the white house. At the moment, all I see are big white lenses and/or red rings.

Ok, you made your point. However, those photographers you are talking of are just the current ones. How about the new and upcoming photographers? Most of the Canon professionals now got into Canon because AF is first introduced successfully by Canon. But things change. Once those new photographers got enticed with the Nikon system, less and less will go to Canon. It may not be now, or in 5 years time but Nikon is certainly building their foundation for the future. Unless Canon fixed it so that new photographers will still prefer Canon, time may come that Canon becomes the new Kodak. I don't want that to happen because I'm already invested in their lenses and is still looking to invest more. I think we're on the same boat at that. Right now, I'm having second thoughts acquiring a new lens (UWA) just because I want a system that will work for me in the future.

 

[hyles]

The only think i really don't understand is the AF, I am not bothered by the 11 poit, but it seems strange to have just central poit cross type, it would be better the 60D 9 cross type point.
But anyway the only think i will focus on is IQ, if it will be great, and i think it will be on pair with 5DIII, i will get it, for my use 20 mp it is enough, 4.5 fps either.
I would like 100% wiefinder, dual card, crop mode in fullHD, all cross type focus point... but i can even live without those if IQ is good.
Diego

 

[Richard8971]

More I learn of the specs of the "new" 6D, I wonder if one should just stay with the 5D2?

It seems like more of what Canon did to the 60D, they "downgraded" it so it wouldn't compete with the 7D, which it would have if they had continued the trend with the XXD series. Seems to me a solid 5D2 would be a better choice over the 6D. Just my opinion. Sorry Canon.

D

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I love Canon. Always loved!.... I don't like Nikon cameras but...... if the 6D it will be so, the D600 Nikon is more and more BETTER!!!

COME ON!!! CANON WE ARE IN THE 2012!!!! A built in TIME LAPSE AT LEAST!!! SOMETHING NEW PLEASE!!!!! WE DON'T NEED ABOUT A STUPID TOUCH SCREEN!!! WE LOVE PHOTOS AND VIDEO!!!!

For NOW Nikon is BETTER... :-[

I don't see Nikon as a threat for what I do because until now their camera sensors don't know what real people look like (Nikon skin tones, yuck). Canon does. I think that's their only real advantage to me now, the way their lenses and sensors make people look. It's like switching a pinto with a full tank of gas for a ferrari with an empty tank (pretend like you're in the middle of nowhere and gas doesn't exist for miles). Nice specs but... will it do what you want it to do? Nikon is useless to me even if they had 1 billion AF points and ISO 10 stops better as long as they keep making photos look the way they do, and I've shot full frame and pro bodies on both sides. I won't even begin with ergonomics or interface. Nikon is a joke to me. The reasons why I switched to Canon are still the reasons I intend to stay now. So no, Nikon is not better. It's better on paper, perhaps. But not in real world true-to-life photography.

Yup, that's the only thing Canon now has but it's always doable in post-processing. You can change the hue, the contrast, the saturation. But you can't add details lost because of your inferior sensor. Ok, photographers with your requirements might be satisfied by Canon but there are a whole lot of other type of photography. Canon won't survive just by catering to your requirements.

Wrong. There are gradations in color that can't be recovered or added by processing. Nikon can't get that look, I've processed both to no end to prove this in the past. And if you look at the Nikon forums (which is chaos btw), it's the same complaint going around on why Nikon can't get their photos to look like Canon's. I don't need to be catered to. I'm happy as long as they keep releasing products without sacrificing the way things are supposed to look. In fairness to Nikon, Canon's biggest mistake was riding on Nikon's idea to make cameras more user friendly and have mushy processed jpegs from noise reduction (Nikon supposedly fixed this over time, but I still see it) so that they could cater, and I mean really cater, to the average idiot. They're not going to lose marketshare from real photographers until I see more Nikon users than Canon at the white house. At the moment, all I see are big white lenses and/or red rings.

Ok, you made your point. However, those photographers you are talking of are just the current ones. How about the new and upcoming photographers? Most of the Canon professionals now got into Canon because AF is first introduced successfully by Canon. But things change. Once those new photographers got enticed with the Nikon system, less and less will go to Canon. It may not be now, or in 5 years time but Nikon is certainly building their foundation for the future. Unless Canon fixed it so that new photographers will still prefer Canon, time may come that Canon becomes the new Kodak. I don't want that to happen because I'm already invested in their lenses and is still looking to invest more. I think we're on the same boat at that. Right now, I'm having second thoughts acquiring a new lens (UWA) just because I want a system that will work for me in the future.

You're right about the market having to cater to the new and upcoming, but I'm disappointed because both Nikon and Canon are now doing this at a higher level than their rebel and semi-pro series (actually, I was unhappy when they did it to the xxd line too). Not too long ago, you could buy a pro level body for a pro level price and get pro features. Now, they're going to sell an amateur level body that has a pro sensor, for a pro level price without pro level features that cater to the up and coming crowd. It made sense at first. But now that I realize how it's going to affect the pro level users (mostly on pricing and what we get for that price) I'm not too happy. And we're all here talking about it now because one way or the other, we're not happy with at least one thing from these "leaked" specs. We all wanted that 2500$'ish 5D successor. Instead, the prices and lines got stretched up and down and we're going to lose a lot of value if these specs are true for the price it's rumored to be.

 

[chrissp]

The specs list indicates specifially that the centre AF point is 2.8 cross type. This doesn't mean that the outer points are not cross-types. If the list is to be true, I am inclined to think it is 11-pts ALL cross-types AF, with the other 10 being normal 5.6 cross-types (D600 has 9 cross types).

Canon gave 9 cross types AF points to 650D, I seriously don't think they will give 6D just 1. Canon is not stupid (i think). All other specs look plausible to me although 1/180 sync looks out of place.

 

[starship]

i won´t buy a 2012 fullframe camera with a sub-par autofocus system...

11 autofocus points? +- like an entry level dslr
1/180 flash-syncro-speed? worse than any other canon-dslr
1/4000 shutter speed? even my VERY old 40d from 2007 has 1/8000s
100.000 shutter durability???

will i spend 2.000 $/euro for such a body?

no way!

i can´t believe, that canon tries to sell THAT as a "semi-pro"-body.

no, thx. i will not be a buyer.

 

[Bosman]

As another poster said, if this is a 6d then the quality should be that of a 7d or better to get closer to how Canon names their cameras. This sounds like an 8d if it takes Sd only. What a joke. If these spec's are true then the thing i do while on the throne could be my contribution. If it takes a cf card and has at least a 7d focus system then i will get back to being curious.

 

[hmmm]

Canon security getting better?

Just time out to say: Canon will probably announce something next week and all we really have is a leaked G15 image. Canon seems to be getting better at keeping a lid on things.

Who knows? -- maybe this CR1 leak is from Canon itself to see how the user base would react to a $2k dumbed down FF camera. Ahem. : Not going over big. Not at all.

 

[Noink Fanb0i]

Really no need for this. Just cut the 5D2 price to ~$1500 and the 5D3 price to ~$2500 to sandwich the new plastic amateur body from Nikon and call it a day.

 

[Aglet]

If this thing comes out as spec'd I won't be surprised.

IMO, the 5Dc and the 5D2 were both just FF Rebels with only the 5D3 really stepping forward in features and performance. Something a tad lower-end, but newer, makes a better setting for the 5D3 to shine in.

Until you compare it to the competition's offering.

I'm sure Canon's marketing guys are getting no sleep this week, trying to figure out which variation of product to announce and what day to make it available to milk the most money from the eager public.

You want performance with that?