Canon Officially Announces the EOS 6D Mark II

[Mikehit]

Remarkable.
I have lost count of how many people there are heavily criticising the 6D2, and they have a total number of posts lower than the IQ of the average 2 year old.
So I ask myself what makes them so insecure that they even come onto the Canon forums let alone feel the need to criticise a camera they have no intention of buying and have often bought into competitor's systems.

Insecure....so insecure.

Really? I think the Canon fanboy tendency on this forum to vehemently defend even mild criticism of their favorite company reveals much more insecurity.

And yet again you confuse 'I have no real interest in this but I understand why they did not do it' with 'fanboy' and 'vehemently defend'.
No-one has denied 4k will become much more common (even with Canon) - what many (including myself) have done is ridicule claims that Canon don't know what they are doing and that Canon is doomed. Unfortunately many like yourself are incapable of understanding the subtlety of that position.

 

[transpo1]

Remarkable.
I have lost count of how many people there are heavily criticising the 6D2, and they have a total number of posts lower than the IQ of the average 2 year old.
So I ask myself what makes them so insecure that they even come onto the Canon forums let alone feel the need to criticise a camera they have no intention of buying and have often bought into competitor's systems.

Insecure....so insecure.

Really? I think the Canon fanboy tendency on this forum to vehemently defend even mild criticism of their favorite company reveals much more insecurity.

And yet again you confuse 'I have no real interest in this but I understand why they did not do it' with 'fanboy' and 'vehemently defend'.
No-one has denied 4k will become much more common (even with Canon) - what many (including myself) have done is ridicule claims that Canon don't know what they are doing and that Canon is doomed. Unfortunately many like yourself are incapable of understanding the subtlety of that position.

Your position is not subtle at all- as you said, you and others here "ridicule" those who disagree with you. Actually, I think a lot of the 4Kers have a subtle position that you don't get, which is: rooting for their home team Canon to include a feature that would sell more cameras (yes, even more).

 

[Khalai]

Remarkable.
I have lost count of how many people there are heavily criticising the 6D2, and they have a total number of posts lower than the IQ of the average 2 year old.
So I ask myself what makes them so insecure that they even come onto the Canon forums let alone feel the need to criticise a camera they have no intention of buying and have often bought into competitor's systems.

Insecure....so insecure.

Really? I think the Canon fanboy tendency on this forum to vehemently defend even mild criticism of their favorite company reveals much more insecurity.

And yet again you confuse 'I have no real interest in this but I understand why they did not do it' with 'fanboy' and 'vehemently defend'.
No-one has denied 4k will become much more common (even with Canon) - what many (including myself) have done is ridicule claims that Canon don't know what they are doing and that Canon is doomed. Unfortunately many like yourself are incapable of understanding the subtlety of that position.

Your position is not subtle at all- as you said, you and others here "ridicule" those who disagree with you. Actually, I think a lot of the 4Kers have a subtle position that you don't get, which is: rooting for their home team Canon to include a feature that would sell more cameras (yes, even more).

I don't see any point criticizing lack of 4K in any camera in particular. There are plenty of 4K options elsewhere, anybody can buy those and let the free market decide whether Canon made a mistake or not. No reason of bashing it to the death on the CR forums.

 

[dak723]

Remarkable.
I have lost count of how many people there are heavily criticising the 6D2, and they have a total number of posts lower than the IQ of the average 2 year old.
So I ask myself what makes them so insecure that they even come onto the Canon forums let alone feel the need to criticise a camera they have no intention of buying and have often bought into competitor's systems.

Insecure....so insecure.

Really? I think the Canon fanboy tendency on this forum to vehemently defend even mild criticism of their favorite company reveals much more insecurity.

And yet again you confuse 'I have no real interest in this but I understand why they did not do it' with 'fanboy' and 'vehemently defend'.
No-one has denied 4k will become much more common (even with Canon) - what many (including myself) have done is ridicule claims that Canon don't know what they are doing and that Canon is doomed. Unfortunately many like yourself are incapable of understanding the subtlety of that position.

Your position is not subtle at all- as you said, you and others here "ridicule" those who disagree with you. Actually, I think a lot of the 4Kers have a subtle position that you don't get, which is: rooting for their home team Canon to include a feature that would sell more cameras (yes, even more).

Alas, you prove the point you argue against. I think we all understand that some folks "root' for Canon. A mature adult does not "root" for a company as if it were a sports team. A mature adult chooses the products that work best for them. As long as the company is succesful, a mature adult doesn't care if Canon, Nikon or Sony sells more cameras. A mature adult says things like, "I wish this camera had 4K and since it doesn't I will look elsewhere." The anti-Canon trolls write, "Canon is doomed and anyone getting this crippled piece if crap with 4 year old technology is just being duped." Someone on one of the recent threads wrote that he wanted the low pass filter removed from the 6D, otherwise his buddies will be able boast greater sharpness on their Sonys and Nikons. Talk about a juvenile reason to want a particular spec!

It's funny, but my brother is a pretty good photographer, and when we discuss photo related matters, we never discuss DR, Sharpness, AF points, Noise, or any camera spec. We discuss composition, atmosphere, lighting, subject matter. In other words, the things that matter.

 

[Aglet]

I'm sofa-king happy I made the move (to Anything But Canon) years ago.

And yet you're still here, being a trolling PITA.

OMG! Someone cloned Neuro!
Or, more likely, programmed a less-bombastic AI-bot emulator.

I'm here to bring an experienced and differently-biased perspective to those who value it.
Obviously not YOU, Mr. Reeder.

here, distract yourself with this bit of Canon marketing theme music.

https://youtu.be/Gcj34XixuYg?t=64

 

[Aglet]

I'm sofa-king happy I made the move (to Anything But Canon) years ago.
I really don't know why people have such an irrational emotional attachment to the current under-performing overlords of imaging when the whole litter of underdogs outperforms them by a considerable margin.
If you need better raw files, ABC cameras provide that.
Canon still does make good-enough, fun-to-use, overpriced, optical toys tho.

Those who are so proud of themselves for learning their ABCs sometimes seem to believe it's AATS. Meanwhile, most people understand that it's not all about the sensor, it's about the capabilities of the imaging system.

The fact is, people generally buy what best meets their needs. It's not an 'irrational emotional attachment', it's a thoroughly rational choice to buy the system that best meets one's needs. Apparently, you cannot seem to grasp the simple fact that your own personal needs differ from others. In other words, what you really don't understand is reality.

That's ok, though...reality will go on about its business even if you fail to grasp it.

Apparently, you missed the point.
I bet that's the first time that's happened, eh?

The POINT, Neuro, is to encourage others who don't like Canon's IQ, or other features or lack thereof, to try any other body or system that better suits what they want.

I did, and couldn't be happier to be rid of those noisy, stripey raw files.
Maybe someone wants 4k or different AF features.
Canon's "system" is not so superior that they're gonna lose out if they change systems. FWIW, I can only recommend Canon's service works well when needed.
Otherwise the rest of the hardware; flashes, lenses, etc., is NOT superior to other options. It's just different and it does have a pretty wide range so if your NEED a TS17mm AND the best IQ, buy the Canon lens and put it on a Sony A7.
The heart of Canon's system, the sensor... IMO. SUCKS. That's my gripe. I kept a whole bucket of 580EXIIs cuz they work great for me.

Shoot with something else and see what you're missing... unless you're lacking in neuro-plasticity.
If there's no difference to you I'm not forcing you to relinquish your mediocre gear choice if you're comfortable with the compromises.

 

[Aglet]

I am not really sure what you mean irrational emotional attachment. I use Canon because it does what I need it to do. I like the selection of lenses.

I shoot landscape usually on a tripod. What will I gain buy switching to a "better" system? I don't shoot video, I don't shoot weddings. Although it seems to be depised my favorite lens is the Canon 24-105 F4mk1. It just works. My second favorite lens is my 16-35 F4. So if you convince me to sell my Canon bodies (2) Canon lenses (7). What do I buy and how will it make my pictures look better? What will I gain by going through the trouble? It must be something special, but I cannot envision. Please advise.

if you're content with your Canon gear, my suggestion does not apply to you.
Some seem very DIScontent with Canon bodies.. To those I'm saying, "Try something else!"
I did. I missed nothing about the "Canon system."
In fact, I discovered a lot of other features and benefits in other systems that are missing in the "Canon system."

 

[Aglet]

I am not really sure what you mean irrational emotional attachment. I use Canon because it does what I need it to do. I like the selection of lenses.

I shoot landscape usually on a tripod. What will I gain buy switching to a "better" system? I don't shoot video, I don't shoot weddings. Although it seems to be depised my favorite lens is the Canon 24-105 F4mk1. It just works. My second favorite lens is my 16-35 F4. So if you convince me to sell my Canon bodies (2) Canon lenses (7). What do I buy and how will it make my pictures look better? What will I gain by going through the trouble? It must be something special, but I cannot envision. Please advise.

No camera is gong to have a big boost in sensor quality over the 6D. Sensor technology has pretty much stalled in the last 5 years and it is all about compromises.

I shoot the A7RII. Yes, it *does* have a big boost in sensor quality over anything Canon. Sorry dude, but I shoot both systems. No speculation here.

I know 2 pro photogs who have convinced themselves their next body is a FF Sony ML a7-something unless the 6d2 IQs like a 5d4 or better.
With the Sony they can continue to use the Canon glass they're comfortable with and have invested in while greatly improving overall IQ ability over Canon FF.

I'm sofa-king happy I made the move (to Anything But Canon) years ago.
I really don't know why people have such an irrational emotional attachment to the current under-performing overlords of imaging when the whole litter of underdogs outperforms them by a considerable margin.
If you need better raw files, ABC cameras provide that.
Canon still does make good-enough, fun-to-use, overpriced, optical toys tho.

The irony is that so much of your type of photography (and mine) is down to post processing anyway. As long as the camera system can capture the required data your good to go. And let's face it, most "serious" camera systems have been able to deal with this since around 2005. The rest is just agonising over minutiae.

Mostly true, Sporgon.
See above.

 

[Aglet]

You made the move yet still post on a canon forum.
Why?

see above

 

[Aglet]

...

I'm sofa-king happy I made the move (to Anything But Canon) years ago.

Yes! I hear that this brand ("Anything But Canon") is a very good one. Very qood in low and high iso, fps, ergonomics and with a great selection of lenses. ;D

you're catching on, but the irony's on you

 

[Deleted member 379512]

I am not really sure what you mean irrational emotional attachment. I use Canon because it does what I need it to do. I like the selection of lenses.

I shoot landscape usually on a tripod. What will I gain buy switching to a "better" system? I don't shoot video, I don't shoot weddings. Although it seems to be depised my favorite lens is the Canon 24-105 F4mk1. It just works. My second favorite lens is my 16-35 F4. So if you convince me to sell my Canon bodies (2) Canon lenses (7). What do I buy and how will it make my pictures look better? What will I gain by going through the trouble? It must be something special, but I cannot envision. Please advise.

No camera is gong to have a big boost in sensor quality over the 6D. Sensor technology has pretty much stalled in the last 5 years and it is all about compromises.

I shoot the A7RII. Yes, it *does* have a big boost in sensor quality over anything Canon. Sorry dude, but I shoot both systems. No speculation here.

I know 2 pro photogs who have convinced themselves their next body is a FF Sony ML a7-something unless the 6d2 IQs like a 5d4 or better.
With the Sony they can continue to use the Canon glass they're comfortable with and have invested in while greatly improving overall IQ ability over Canon FF.

I'm sofa-king happy I made the move (to Anything But Canon) years ago.
I really don't know why people have such an irrational emotional attachment to the current under-performing overlords of imaging when the whole litter of underdogs outperforms them by a considerable margin.
If you need better raw files, ABC cameras provide that.
Canon still does make good-enough, fun-to-use, overpriced, optical toys tho.

The irony is that so much of your type of photography (and mine) is down to post processing anyway. As long as the camera system can capture the required data your good to go. And let's face it, most "serious" camera systems have been able to deal with this since around 2005. The rest is just agonising over minutiae.

Haven't looked through all the posts (cause lots of back and forth) - with this camera not being able to capture 4k at all, where do you stand with this compared to say the a7r2 that can? I feel this statement kinda vindicates a lot of the complaints about this camera from others. Apologies if I have a mis-interpreted your meaning

 

[transpo1]

Remarkable.
I have lost count of how many people there are heavily criticising the 6D2, and they have a total number of posts lower than the IQ of the average 2 year old.
So I ask myself what makes them so insecure that they even come onto the Canon forums let alone feel the need to criticise a camera they have no intention of buying and have often bought into competitor's systems.

Insecure....so insecure.

Really? I think the Canon fanboy tendency on this forum to vehemently defend even mild criticism of their favorite company reveals much more insecurity.

And yet again you confuse 'I have no real interest in this but I understand why they did not do it' with 'fanboy' and 'vehemently defend'.
No-one has denied 4k will become much more common (even with Canon) - what many (including myself) have done is ridicule claims that Canon don't know what they are doing and that Canon is doomed. Unfortunately many like yourself are incapable of understanding the subtlety of that position.

Your position is not subtle at all- as you said, you and others here "ridicule" those who disagree with you. Actually, I think a lot of the 4Kers have a subtle position that you don't get, which is: rooting for their home team Canon to include a feature that would sell more cameras (yes, even more).

Alas, you prove the point you argue against. I think we all understand that some folks "root' for Canon. A mature adult does not "root" for a company as if it were a sports team. A mature adult chooses the products that work best for them. As long as the company is succesful, a mature adult doesn't care if Canon, Nikon or Sony sells more cameras. A mature adult says things like, "I wish this camera had 4K and since it doesn't I will look elsewhere." The anti-Canon trolls write, "Canon is doomed and anyone getting this crippled piece if crap with 4 year old technology is just being duped." Someone on one of the recent threads wrote that he wanted the low pass filter removed from the 6D, otherwise his buddies will be able boast greater sharpness on their Sonys and Nikons. Talk about a juvenile reason to want a particular spec!

It's funny, but my brother is a pretty good photographer, and when we discuss photo related matters, we never discuss DR, Sharpness, AF points, Noise, or any camera spec. We discuss composition, atmosphere, lighting, subject matter. In other words, the things that matter.

I agree with you but most of the fanboy posts here are based on things like "Canon sells more cameras" so they don't need x feature. So by your words most of the fanboys are not mature adults.

 

[Loswr]

I agree with you but most of the fanboy posts here are based on things like "Canon sells more cameras" so they don't need x feature. So by your words most of the fanboys are not mature adults.

So it's your contention that stating facts makes one immature? Good luck defending that one...

I will say, the 'fanboy' moniker is rather offensive, but at least you phrased the argument correctly, if your pronoun is applied directly (i.e., Canon sells more cameras so Canon doesn't need feature x). For example, many on CR claimed that the 5DIII needed more low ISO DR to compete against the D800/D810 and a7R/II. But the fact is, Canon didn't need more low ISO DR – the 5DIII outsold all of the competitors' counterparts. I haven't seen people here state, "Canon sells more cameras than anyone else, so individuals don't need feature x." But certainly those who lack proper reading comprehension skills have interpreted statements incorrectly to mean just that.

 

[transpo1]

I agree with you but most of the fanboy posts here are based on things like "Canon sells more cameras" so they don't need x feature. So by your words most of the fanboys are not mature adults.

So it's your contention that stating facts makes one immature? Good luck defending that one...

I will say, the 'fanboy' moniker is rather offensive, but at least you phrased the argument correctly, if your pronoun is applied directly (i.e., Canon sells more cameras so Canon doesn't need feature x). For example, many on CR claimed that the 5DIII needed more low ISO DR to compete against the D800/D810 and a7R/II. But the fact is, Canon didn't need more low ISO DR – the 5DIII outsold all of the competitors' counterparts. I haven't seen people here state, "Canon sells more cameras than anyone else, so individuals don't need feature x." But certainly those who lack proper reading comprehension skills have interpreted statements incorrectly to mean just that.

No more offensive then any of the snide comments you've made. Selling more cameras is a "might makes right" argument- it's like arguing that Imperial Japan had the most powerful Navy in the Pacific so whatever they did was right. One could call it Facist, perhaps.

And I noticed you ignored the post where the correct, higher than 1080p video resolution (fact) on Kai's video was pointed out to you- so either you were being sneaky in choosing the wrong res on purpose or you have serious bandwidth issues. Is that your MO, to ignore points you lose?

 

[Loswr]

No more offensive then any of the snide comments you've made. Selling more cameras is a "might makes right" argument- it's like arguing that Imperial Japan had the most powerful Navy in the Pacific so whatever they did was right. One could call it Facist, perhaps.

Fascist, seriously? Get a grip. One could call you an arrogant ass, perhaps.

No, it's not a 'might makes right' argument. It's a factual argument. Including features – any feature, even 'free' firmware features – costs money. If a manufacturer chooses to omit a feature, and still outsells the relevant competition, they have increased their profits, which for a for-profit company is right. It's sad that you can't grasp these simple concepts, and feel the need to resort to an extremely offensive allusion of fascism.

And I noticed you ignored the post where the correct video resolution on Kai's video was pointed out to you- so either you were being sneaky in choosing the wrong res on purpose or you have serious bandwidth issues. Is that your MO, to ignore points you lose?

I ignored your post. Apparently you failed to notice that you were not the first to correct my error. Apparently you also failed to notice that I acknowledged the correction, and thanked the member who provided it. Your inability to read carefully, and your concomitant failure to notice facts, is not my problem.

Between your inability to apprehend simple concepts, and more importantly your inappropriately offensive attitude, I won't be responding further to your asinine inanities.

 

[Orangutan]

Selling more cameras is a "might makes right" argument

No, I'm afraid you COMPLETELY misunderstand the argument, no one is saying that more sales means an objectively better body. It's more along these lines:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Each camera has a certain set of features, and comes at a certain price
[*]Each style of photography places demands more on some features than on others
[*]There is no objectively "best" camera: each photographer (buyer) must choose which features are important enough to their style of photography spend money on
[*]Because it's so subjective, there's no perfect way to compare; however, there is an imperfect way, and that's to measure how many people choose to spend their money on a particular brand or model
[/list]

Putting that all together, we see that: more people buy Canon ILC's than any other brand. This means that those people have subjectively decided that Canon is a good fit for their particular style of photography. That's all it means.


We would all like the best features of all brands to be combined into one body, but that won't happen. The various sellers offer us their wares, and we can decide how to spend our money. We can accept this reality, or we can live in a fantasy world.

 

[Aglet]

..Putting that all together, we see that: more people buy Canon ILC's than any other brand. This means that those people have subjectively decided that Canon is a good fit for their particular style of photography. That's all it means...

That could also merely mean that Canon does more aggressive marketing.
Canon DOES more aggressive marketing. Talk to a camera store manager.

When's the last time you saw a Pentax ad?
How many Canon ads have you seen in that same period?
Nikon?
Sony?
Olympus?
Fuji?
iPhone?...

one could pretty likely correlate advertising intensity with market share.
... cuz it sure aint related to technical merit in most items... 8-\

FWIW, let's say I had a Canon 60D and a few lenses, maybe one or 2 of their FF EFs...
and someone came along and said, "You can have this 6D2 or this Pentax K-1 or a Nikon D750."
I'd choose the Pentax.
Why?... Cuz I know what it can do and the potential within it available to exploit. I would not be hampered by an attachment to already owning Canon gear. I'd get me some Pentax glass and explore all those things Canon and Nikon don't do with their cameras.

Paradigm shift. It's enlightening.
Paradigm shift. It seems to frighten Canon owners.

r

 

[-pekr-]

I would like to ask something practical, using this forum to get an advice, if you don't mind for a second

Well, when first reviews appear, for any new Canon DSLR, I almost feel buyer's remorse. Later on, when the situation calms down, you get yourself your needs narrowed to looking for a solid workhorse, not a bunch of gadgets, life gets somehow easier

Some 6DII previews led me to sort out, what is really important for our wedding/portrait/newborn/studio photography:

• Good low light performance - that's why we want to move to FF, right? E.g. the ability to shoot wedding ceremonies with less flash usage. Bumping our 70D ISO will not make it. I am bit worried with some initial remarks about the output not being on par with the 5DIV. The same chip size, lower resolution, the photodiodes should be larger and hence more capable of having better characteristics, no?
• Good focusing - in a studio, you can repeat certain situations at your will. Not so during the weddings - things happen just once, and happen fast. I am bit worried, that fpoints spread of the 6DII will require almost constant recomposing. Well, maybe it is just another hyped over-reaction. But that leads me back to the 5DIV - the joystick. I have no direct experience here. Please, do you find it being a useful feature, in a sense, that you can't kind of live without it and/or you changed your way of how you focus, keeping an eye to the viewfinder, quickly changing fpoints? On the 6D II, you could use arrows, but I don't do so on the 70D, as it is kind of slow in practice.
• Dual slot - I am reserved on this one. I once lost my photos. Question marks started to appear instead of image previews. It was not recoverable on a PC either. I can't imagine, something like that happens for a client, e.g. during the wedding. It did NOT happen again to me, but during the long day shoot, I am unconsciously nervous indeed.
  

Now what I think is, that 6DII is going to be a solid workhorse. All our previous APS-C camerawas were, except me hating 60D, not sure why

With the priorities above, I debate myself, if I should eventually up the game and look into the 5DIV instead. I know it costs more, but so do blurred or missed photos for your client.

(sorry for the cross-post from DPR, just trying to get as much advice as possible)

 

[Khalai]

I would like to ask something practical, using this forum to get an advice, if you don't mind for a second

Well, when first reviews appear, for any new Canon DSLR, I almost feel buyer's remorse. Later on, when the situation calms down, you get yourself your needs narrowed to looking for a solid workhorse, not a bunch of gadgets, life gets somehow easier

Some 6DII previews led me to sort out, what is really important for our wedding/portrait/newborn/studio photography:

• Good low light performance - that's why we want to move to FF, right? E.g. the ability to shoot wedding ceremonies with less flash usage. Bumping our 70D ISO will not make it. I am bit worried with some initial remarks about the output not being on par with the 5DIV. The same chip size, lower resolution, the photodiodes should be larger and hence more capable of having better characteristics, no?
• Good focusing - in a studio, you can repeat certain situations at your will. Not so during the weddings - things happen just once, and happen fast. I am bit worried, that fpoints spread of the 6DII will require almost constant recomposing. Well, maybe it is just another hyped over-reaction. But that leads me back to the 5DIV - the joystick. I have no direct experience here. Please, do you find it being a useful feature, in a sense, that you can't kind of live without it and/or you changed your way of how you focus, keeping an eye to the viewfinder, quickly changing fpoints? On the 6D II, you could use arrows, but I don't do so on the 70D, as it is kind of slow in practice.
• Dual slot - I am reserved on this one. I once lost my photos. Question marks started to appear instead of image previews. It was not recoverable on a PC either. I can't imagine, something like that happens for a client, e.g. during the wedding. It did NOT happen again to me, but during the long day shoot, I am unconsciously nervous indeed.
  

Now what I think is, that 6DII is going to be a solid workhorse. All our previous APS-C camerawas were, except me hating 60D, not sure why

With the priorities above, I debate myself, if I should eventually up the game and look into the 5DIV instead. I know it costs more, but so do blurred or missed photos for your client.

(sorry for the cross-post from DPR, just trying to get as much advice as possible)

Seems like 5D4 is just right for you as 6D2 does not meet your demands...

 

[Sporgon]

I am not really sure what you mean irrational emotional attachment. I use Canon because it does what I need it to do. I like the selection of lenses.

I shoot landscape usually on a tripod. What will I gain buy switching to a "better" system? I don't shoot video, I don't shoot weddings. Although it seems to be depised my favorite lens is the Canon 24-105 F4mk1. It just works. My second favorite lens is my 16-35 F4. So if you convince me to sell my Canon bodies (2) Canon lenses (7). What do I buy and how will it make my pictures look better? What will I gain by going through the trouble? It must be something special, but I cannot envision. Please advise.

No camera is gong to have a big boost in sensor quality over the 6D. Sensor technology has pretty much stalled in the last 5 years and it is all about compromises.

I shoot the A7RII. Yes, it *does* have a big boost in sensor quality over anything Canon. Sorry dude, but I shoot both systems. No speculation here.

I know 2 pro photogs who have convinced themselves their next body is a FF Sony ML a7-something unless the 6d2 IQs like a 5d4 or better.
With the Sony they can continue to use the Canon glass they're comfortable with and have invested in while greatly improving overall IQ ability over Canon FF.

I'm sofa-king happy I made the move (to Anything But Canon) years ago.
I really don't know why people have such an irrational emotional attachment to the current under-performing overlords of imaging when the whole litter of underdogs outperforms them by a considerable margin.
If you need better raw files, ABC cameras provide that.
Canon still does make good-enough, fun-to-use, overpriced, optical toys tho.

The irony is that so much of your type of photography (and mine) is down to post processing anyway. As long as the camera system can capture the required data your good to go. And let's face it, most "serious" camera systems have been able to deal with this since around 2005. The rest is just agonising over minutiae.

Haven't looked through all the posts (cause lots of back and forth) - with this camera not being able to capture 4k at all, where do you stand with this compared to say the a7r2 that can? I feel this statement kinda vindicates a lot of the complaints about this camera from others. Apologies if I have a mis-interpreted your meaning

Not sure if you're referring to my post here, and if you are I don't really understand what you mean. Reef58 said he shot landscapes with no interest in video and my post was related to that.

If you mean the a7r2 fits the bill for capturing the still data and can do 4K video as well - it's not of much benefit to someone who does no video !

Regarding 42 mp to 26 - just don't expect anyone else to see the difference in the images !