EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]

[dufflover]

Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales. It shoots slower than a Rebel FFS. Not sure where they get the 7D2 IQ is being pitched as similar either. A lot of people still reckon 6D smashes the 70D (I'd say about 1 to 1.5 stops in my usage) and 70D ~= 7D2 so ... it's not suddenly unappealing on the IQ front.

I'll echo the prev poster though; who is really saying the 6D's sales are crap? I mean you get people defending the fact it's non-cross AF and FPS are slower than a Rebel! Can't be doing too badly if people do that lol

 

[Marsu42]

Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.

I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->

 

[x-vision]

All Canon would have to do to a 6DMKII for it to sell like hotcakes is to upgrade the AF system on it.

Of course Canon are aware of that - but why would they want to do such a thing?

So that people buy the 6DII and not the D750 ??? ??

 

[lopicma]

Wasn't there just an article posted on how Canon was disappointed with sales of the 6D? So... to combat this, they RAISE the price? Is this a marketing "reverse psychology" play?

 

[dstppy]

Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.

I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->

Like the 70D was crippled with no MFA (60D was a re-position to make room for the 7D)?

Are base BMWs crippled for having no leather seats?

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW. Comments like these don't make sense at all.

 

[Marsu42]

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW. Comments like these don't make sense at all.

Your sensible opinion is very much appreciated - I should have amended a to the above comment. That doesn't affect the gist of my argument though, but please do feel free to elaborate your thoughts in your own, well placed words.

All Canon would have to do to a 6DMKII for it to sell like hotcakes is to upgrade the AF system on it.

Of course Canon are aware of that - but why would they want to do such a thing?

So that people buy the 6DII and not the D750 ???

Won't happen, see the initial 5d3 pricing vs. the high-mp d800 and the d610 vs. the current 6d1. Except pros with special requirements few people are volatile enough to switch brands, meaning new usability and exchanging all brand gear for a lot of hassle and loss of money.

What people do is complain in the forums, but those who wanted to switch to exmor/high mp/d6x0 are already gone. The bulk of the Canon shooters left either doesn't know, doesn't care or will take a lot of punishment by crippled cameras or high prices.

 

[YuengLinger]

Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.

I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->

Like the 70D was crippled with no MFA (60D was a re-position to make room for the 7D)?

Are base BMWs crippled for having no leather seats?

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW. Comments like these don't make sense at all.

You mean the 60D had no MFA. Feature returned in the 70D! (pg 377, user manual)

 

[dstppy]

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW. Comments like these don't make sense at all.

Your sensible opinion is very much appreciated - I should have amended a to the above comment. That doesn't affect the gist of my argument though, but please do feel free to elaborate your thoughts in your own, well placed words.

I see no crippling. I also see no mass-exodus, nor do I feel people using their (already very good) gear are uninformed about it. What's wrong with a 7D? A 5Dmk2 (slow AF obviously)? The 5Dmk3 was everything we wanted except price; I paid $500 more than for my mk2 and have been happy with it.

The lady I sold my 5Dmk2 to seemed exceptionally happy with it, and the price.

Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.

I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->

Like the 70D was crippled with no MFA (60D was a re-position to make room for the 7D)?

Are base BMWs crippled for having no leather seats?

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW. Comments like these don't make sense at all.

You mean the 60D had no MFA. Feature returned in the 70D! (pg 377, user manual)

That was my point, I don't see any intentional crippling. People griped about it and it got re-added.

When a new battery comes out, you see people immediately jump to the "They're screwing us on accessories" posts . . . except the existing battery had been used in tons of other cameras.

I see no conspiracy.

 

[silat shooters]

Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales. It shoots slower than a Rebel FFS. Not sure where they get the 7D2 IQ is being pitched as similar either. A lot of people still reckon 6D smashes the 70D (I'd say about 1 to 1.5 stops in my usage) and 70D ~= 7D2 so ... it's not suddenly unappealing on the IQ front.

I'll echo the prev poster though; who is really saying the 6D's sales are crap? I mean you get people defending the fact it's non-cross AF and FPS are slower than a Rebel! Can't be doing too badly if people do that lol

Well Said!

 

[Marsu42]

That was my point, I don't see any intentional crippling. People griped about it and it got re-added

People complaining had nothing to do with it, or they could have simply re-added it with a 60d firmware upgrade. But of course they didn't because they removed it to protect the 7d1 in the first place..

The reason why it has been re-added to the 70d would be because they added other crippling (removal of spot af from the 7d1->70d) and the 7d2 is so much better than the 70d that Canon seems to see no harm in giving afma to the 70d. Of course afma isn't in any Rebel, people griping or not...

 

[Nethawk]

Some reasons.
1. A DSLR won't fit in your pocket/purse.
2. A DSLR won't post a photo to Instagram or Facebook.
3. A DSLR doesn't have apps like Snapseed or Perfectly Clear available.

Nothing can be done about 1, but there is no reason that a DSLR could not do 2 and 3.

A point I've been trying to make as well. Camera manufacturers are behaving like dinosaurs when it comes to social media and connectivity.

Said it before and will say it again – it's pathetic that no manufacturer has produced a DSLR that gives the professional photographer a fighting chance to post pictures from the wedding before the guests do with their iPhones.

We expect brides to pay thousands of dollars for a wedding photographer and then the pictures on her Facebook page are a bunch of shots from camera phones because they can be uploaded instantly.

Until a paid photographer has the tools to post pictures straight to a customer's Facebook from the back of the camera, manufacturers are failing their customers.

Yeah, and a lens on the back for selfies too please?

I do hope this was a post made with sarcasm in mind, if not can I just say : ?

 

[joelmeaders]

Lame. I own the 5D Mark III and the 6D. The 6D makes an amazing second camera. I generally use it with my Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART lens and only use the center point on that body so the lack of focusing features is fine by me.

If the 6D was more expensive I would have bought the 5D Mark II or another Mark III.

 

[unfocused]

Some reasons.
1. A DSLR won't fit in your pocket/purse.
2. A DSLR won't post a photo to Instagram or Facebook.
3. A DSLR doesn't have apps like Snapseed or Perfectly Clear available.

Nothing can be done about 1, but there is no reason that a DSLR could not do 2 and 3.

A point I've been trying to make as well. Camera manufacturers are behaving like dinosaurs when it comes to social media and connectivity.

Said it before and will say it again – it's pathetic that no manufacturer has produced a DSLR that gives the professional photographer a fighting chance to post pictures from the wedding before the guests do with their iPhones.

We expect brides to pay thousands of dollars for a wedding photographer and then the pictures on her Facebook page are a bunch of shots from camera phones because they can be uploaded instantly.

Until a paid photographer has the tools to post pictures straight to a customer's Facebook from the back of the camera, manufacturers are failing their customers.

Yeah, and a lens on the back for selfies too please?

I do hope this was a post made with sarcasm in mind, if not can I just say : ?

Hardly.

Any photographer who hopes to make a living in the business needs to be mindful of what the customers want. Like it or not, many customers want and expect instant gratification. They have grown up with social media being the primary form for sharing photographs.

If you have not met someone who carries their entire family album on their phone, you live a very sheltered life.

I'm merely suggesting that competitive photographers tend to be mindful of their customers desires, and camera manufacturers who hope to serve their customers (photographers) need to make that easier to do.

I used a wedding photographer as an example, but there are many others. A sports photographer shooting a high school game, a photographer covering a breaking news event, almost any situation where the photographer needs to get an image posted (which is today's equivalent of publication) quickly.

Let's imagine a little story: A state legislative committee is conducting a hearing on a controversial measure. The hearing room is packed. The "professional" photographer is clicking away at the person at the witness table. Someone else pulls out an iPhone and snaps a few pictures. The iPhone user then uploads the pictures to his Twitter feed.

The "professional" photographer goes back to the office, where he is met by his editor who says, "never mind, we already posted a picture that some guy took at the hearing and put on his Twitter feed. Oh, and the publisher has decided that it will be cheaper to just give iPhones to the reporters covering these things in the future. That means we don't need the photo staff, so here's your two week's severance pay."

Perhaps you are so successful and confident that your customers will gladly and patiently wait for the pictures you shoot, but I strongly suspect that there are many photographers out there that need the competitive edge that having the ability to edit a few shots in camera and post them to a client's social media in real time would give them.

Obviously, there is nothing that compels anyone to use the features if they become available, but manufacturers are not serving their professional base if they can't offer this simple and ubiquitous technology to their customers.

 

[dufflover]

I think people need to take their brand-glasses off if they can't see how the 6D was intentionally crippled.

 

[Lee Jay]

Any photographer who hopes to make a living in the business needs to be mindful of what the customers want. Like it or not, many customers want and expect instant gratification. They have grown up with social media being the primary form for sharing photographs.

If you have not met someone who carries their entire family album on their phone, you live a very sheltered life.

I don't know which is worse - that you think this is true, or that you might be right for some customers.

 

[BozillaNZ]

I think people need to take their brand-glasses off if they can't see how the 6D was intentionally crippled.

Exactly, if they didn't put the old ass 1 cross point AF in 6D, the sales wouldn't be so bad. Even the AF from 600D where you can rely on a outer cross point is far better.

Canon should learn from Nikon in this aspect. Put the 61-pt AF on next 6D and 65-pt all cross AF on next 5D, you will sell more and there is nothing to cannibalize.

If next round of FF from Canon still has the lame 11-bit DR sensors and 11-pt AF for entry models, consider me a goner. My faith in Canon is at 15% now.

 

[Khalai]

I think people need to take their brand-glasses off if they can't see how the 6D was intentionally crippled.

It was crippled, no doubt about that. But it's AF is actually not so bad, yes the point are rather clustered in the middle (like 5D or 5D2), but they are actually quite reliable in normal light conditions and center point is just simply awesome, superfast and very accurate. If you don't shoot action too much, it can suffice (this sold me 6D, I couldn't justify another 1500 USD for better AF alone, also WiFi and GPS are nice bonuses).

So 6D would be just fine if it was alone in the market, it is not alas.

(BTW, Nikon D6xx have very similar AF array, basically same spread (i.e. very clustered) and X-type only in the middle of the frame, they are just dense, that's all, but apart from that, quite comparable, it just seems better on paper, 39 vs. 11)

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Despite the 'entry level' moniker, the 6D is still a $2K camera.
And at that price, I'm expecting a fully featured camera - not one with a single cross-type AF point.

The not-low-enough cost of the 6D is entirely due to the cost of the sensor, though how much is manufacturing cost and how much is a marketing-driven differential I'm not sure. The 6D is perfect for people who would be happy with a 60D (which is a fine camera) but who for whatever reason want a full-frame sensor. If you then start adding/upgrading other features you defeat the object.

But this is Canon's dilemma - if you pare back the specification to 'entry level' almost everyone will want something which has been left out. For me, I'd want a swivel screen which would be perfect for use with a TS-E lens. I'd also prefer a return to a 50D-style body. But I don't want to pay any more!

 

[Nethawk]

Some reasons.
1. A DSLR won't fit in your pocket/purse.
2. A DSLR won't post a photo to Instagram or Facebook.
3. A DSLR doesn't have apps like Snapseed or Perfectly Clear available.

Nothing can be done about 1, but there is no reason that a DSLR could not do 2 and 3.

A point I've been trying to make as well. Camera manufacturers are behaving like dinosaurs when it comes to social media and connectivity.

Said it before and will say it again – it's pathetic that no manufacturer has produced a DSLR that gives the professional photographer a fighting chance to post pictures from the wedding before the guests do with their iPhones.

We expect brides to pay thousands of dollars for a wedding photographer and then the pictures on her Facebook page are a bunch of shots from camera phones because they can be uploaded instantly.

Until a paid photographer has the tools to post pictures straight to a customer's Facebook from the back of the camera, manufacturers are failing their customers.

Yeah, and a lens on the back for selfies too please?

I do hope this was a post made with sarcasm in mind, if not can I just say : ?

Hardly.

Any photographer who hopes to make a living in the business needs to be mindful of what the customers want. Like it or not, many customers want and expect instant gratification. They have grown up with social media being the primary form for sharing photographs.

I suspect that when customers hire professional photographers they want something slightly better than shoot and post, just a bit more than what guests are going to be doing with their iPhones (ok, maybe not Apple fanboys). Despite all those great shots on Facebook, people still hire photographers. Imagine that.

I don't have any thoughts either way, other than being grateful that my own wedding photos were not done by a hack who presumes because of social media I might accept mediocrity.

If you have not met someone who carries their entire family album on their phone, you live a very sheltered life.

Sure, I have lots of 14 year old friends. I'm not sure why this is relevant though.

I'm merely suggesting that competitive photographers tend to be mindful of their customers desires, and camera manufacturers who hope to serve their customers (photographers) need to make that easier to do.

I used a wedding photographer as an example, but there are many others. A sports photographer shooting a high school game, a photographer covering a breaking news event, almost any situation where the photographer needs to get an image posted (which is today's equivalent of publication) quickly.

It's already easier. Do you remember that stuff we once called film? There are multiple methods of getting photography to print that work today. More on this later, when I try to get just what it is you want camera manufacturers to do.

Let's imagine a little story: A state legislative committee is conducting a hearing on a controversial measure. The hearing room is packed. The "professional" photographer is clicking away at the person at the witness table. Someone else pulls out an iPhone and snaps a few pictures. The iPhone user then uploads the pictures to his Twitter feed.

The "professional" photographer goes back to the office, where he is met by his editor who says, "never mind, we already posted a picture that some guy took at the hearing and put on his Twitter feed. Oh, and the publisher has decided that it will be cheaper to just give iPhones to the reporters covering these things in the future. That means we don't need the photo staff, so here's your two week's severance pay."

That was a fun little trip down fantasy lane, now back to reality. What you describe is illegal, not to mention ridiculously melodramatic.

Perhaps you are so successful and confident that your customers will gladly and patiently wait for the pictures you shoot, but I strongly suspect that there are many photographers out there that need the competitive edge that having the ability to edit a few shots in camera and post them to a client's social media in real time would give them.

Oh, wait just a minute! Edit a few shots? But, but, the twitter guy could beat me to the punch! Your real time argument just went to hell, just sayin'

I suspect you suspect correctly, but if those photographers haven't figured it out yet without overburdening our camera bodies then they should probably just get an iPhone and an Instagram account.

Obviously, there is nothing that compels anyone to use the features if they become available, but manufacturers are not serving their professional base if they can't offer this simple and ubiquitous technology to their customers.

So what is it exactly that you want, what needs to be added to a camera to compete with Hello Kitty? A cellular 4G radio? Should it also make phone calls, perhaps to call our editors and beg forgiveness for the few minutes delay? Instant cloud upload? A Facebook, Twitter, Instagram app, a contacts list complete with social media addresses of all customers? Once we stuff all of that into our cameras, will it still be simple and ubiquitous?

Maybe you should think this one through, and get back to us just how this instant social media gratification can become reality for the Facebook age. Personally, I'm really hoping your vision also includes the aforementioned selfie cam.

I'd much rather manufacturers continue to stay focused on the photograph and not the business of photography.

 

[dstppy]

That was my point, I don't see any intentional crippling. People griped about it and it got re-added

People complaining had nothing to do with it, or they could have simply re-added it with a 60d firmware upgrade. But of course they didn't because they removed it to protect the 7d1 in the first place..

The reason why it has been re-added to the 70d would be because they added other crippling (removal of spot af from the 7d1->70d) and the 7d2 is so much better than the 70d that Canon seems to see no harm in giving afma to the 70d. Of course afma isn't in any Rebel, people griping or not...

Two completely different animals. The only people that cross-shopped these two (after trying them) were those that needed a 60D and had way too much money on their hands.

If you think that adding MFA would have endangered the 7D sales . . . I think you've made my point.