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

[dstppy]

....The truth is, if you can't take a good picture with a 6D you're not a good photographer.

+1 ... BUT that statement might make you a DSLR snob unenlightened in the ways of mirrorless and possibly unsympathetic to those who cannot afford the 6D and/or somebody will retort that if you cannot take a good picture with a (pick any one pocket camera made in last 4 years) that you aren't a good photographer ...

Agree: Most post-IS P&S were awesome, the HS ones are for sure, but honestly, once I start farking with the cameras like it's a DSLR (advanced mode etc.) I can't seem to get it right. No problem on DSLRs.

I'm still surprised they do a new set of models every year . . . seems like they could easily skip a year and leapfrog features.

 

[PureClassA]

I can't complain much, if at all, about my 6D. It's a stellar performer for what I need. Mostly portraiture and art. I have shot fast action with it, but I don't rely on tracking AF points. I love the fact at how well it grabs focus in obscenely low light. That's major for me at times.

The once per year I really need a high speed monster to shoot dance recitals I rent a 1DX. Easy.

I agree the 6D as it currently stands was over crippled. 11AF points. Ok. I use the center point and recompose. I've trained myself well enough to pull this off even at f1.4. 20ish would have been nicer (if spread out) and still far below the 6FPS and 61 AF points of the 5D3.

A 6D2 .. hmmm... the sensor of the current 5D3 or the same 20.2MP now but with DPAF and with 20 something plus AF points and maybe 5-6FPS (this of course predicated on the 5D4 maybe multilayer DPAF if even possible) with a small bump in price.

I agree it's critical Canon keep a healthy presence in the low cost FF market. Jumping the 6D up to 2500 would be unwise unless they keep something sub 2k as well. IF Canon is so dissatisfied with 6D sales I'd suggest making a firmware upgrade that can increase the FPS if possible or just slap themselves for deliberately offering a comparably pathetic 11AF points. I think THAT above all is what injured sales for this rig the most, because it seems that has been the biggest and most consistent complaint. Image quality and low light/high ISO performance seems to have been extremely well received

 

[silat shooters]

The 6D, while completely capable of capturing beautiful images, has some serious limitations for certain types of photography. That is not to say it is a bad camera, just better suited to other types of photography.

Sure, a better AF system would be better for sports, but I'd hardly call it seriously limited. I've used a 6D to shoot sports (basketball), birds in flight, landscapes, panos, portrait work, etc., and it did a reasonably good job at all of them.

I may be late to this discussion, but I think what most users including myself have issues with the 6D is that as a consumer you feel Canon is NOT giving you "great value" for your money when they take the AF system back to one center cross-type, while Nikon doesn't seem to cripple their bodies in the same way. It was biggest the complaint about the 5D Mark II, and Canon addressed it well with the Mark III, only to revert back to it with the 6D. My memory is not that short term.

I have read that the 6D is a great low light shooter and that the Center AF point is really quite good. But having experienced the 5D Mark III AF points off-center, it's hard to go back to using center point and recomposing. I'd consider a 6D at under $1400 as a second body. But once the camera approaches $2K, it makes me want to consider other options, even another used 5D Mark III.

What I find perplexing is in a shrinking market, why is Canon not doing more to revitalize Consumer demand/excitement? I go to social events, and in most cases I'm the only with a real camera. Everyone else is happy to be shooting with their phones. That has be an issue they are feeling! So why not make it more tempting for a consumer to desire and spring for one of their bodies and in turn more Canon lenses?

 

[StudentOfLight]

The 6D, while completely capable of capturing beautiful images, has some serious limitations for certain types of photography. That is not to say it is a bad camera, just better suited to other types of photography.

Sure, a better AF system would be better for sports, but I'd hardly call it seriously limited. I've used a 6D to shoot sports (basketball), birds in flight, landscapes, panos, portrait work, etc., and it did a reasonably good job at all of them.

I didn't say the AF system was a serious limitation. Why would you interpreted my comment as referring to the AF system? Anyway, since you brought it up sports photography, why would a professional sports photographer choose the 1D-X to shoot at the Olympics rather than the 6D?

 

[daniela]

I wrote some weeks ago, that this could come true.
Friends in Japan see the 6D successor priced around 2000-2200€ and the 5DIII successor around 3500-4000€. The lower prices are the most named one, but the higher ones are rumored too...
Latest rumores for 6DII: Better AF system, more AF points, faster (1-2 fps), 1 double cross sensor, but no AF at f8.
MP count is just incremental increasing 20->22, 22-> 24(25) MP. No mention about stunning low light capability. 6DII with better video quality.

All rumors are still rumors, as my friends saw the 7DII with a 24MP sensor. But Canon decided to use the 20MP, not the other tested 24MP.

 

[Lee Jay]

I wrote some weeks ago, that this could come true.
Friends in Japan see the 6D successor priced around 2000-2200€ and the 5DIII successor around 3500-4000€. The lower prices are the most named one, but the higher ones are rumored too...
Latest rumores for 6DII: Better AF system, more AF points, faster (1-2 fps), 1 double cross sensor, but no AF at f8.
MP count is just incremental increasing 20->22, 22-> 24(25) MP. No mention about stunning low light capability. 6DII with better video quality.

All rumors are still rumors, as my friends saw the 7DII with a 24MP sensor. But Canon decided to use the 20MP, not the other tested 24MP.

Any idea when?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Surely there is room for improvement in autofocus on a future 6D Mark ii. However, to increase its price point would be necessary to improve many other features.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The 6D doesn't need a complicated AF system like the 1D-X or 5D-III.... no complex tracking capabilities, no expanded AF-assist mode, no autofocus at f/8, just 15 cross-type AF points (see attached)

 

[dufflover]

I may be late to this discussion, but I think what most users including myself have issues with the 6D is that as a consumer you feel Canon is NOT giving you "great value" for your money when they take the AF system back to one center cross-type, while Nikon doesn't seem to cripple their bodies in the same way. It was biggest the complaint about the 5D Mark II, and Canon addressed it well with the Mark III, only to revert back to it with the 6D. My memory is not that short term.

Also late to the topic but this echoes my thoughts too.
Canon not happy with 6D sales? More like their deliberate gimping of the 6D has come back to bite them (FWIW the 6Ds seem to still be quite highly recommended, including excuses of "no body needs more than 3fps ).

So all I can really say is the same thing as before. If they made them all cross-type at say 5fps, it probably would've sold a lot more without costing 5D3 sales.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I many people want to shoot landscapes and architecture? I don't and none of my friends do.

I don't shoot "landscapes and architecture" either. Neither do my friends. YMMV.

One of my friends doesn't shoot any of the above.... or anything else either ;D. He still has a 0 shutter count Canon 30D sitting on his shelf.

More seriously, although the above is a true story, I know a lot who shot sports, wildlife, landscapes and people.

 

[brad-man]

I may be late to this discussion, but I think what most users including myself have issues with the 6D is that as a consumer you feel Canon is NOT giving you "great value" for your money when they take the AF system back to one center cross-type, while Nikon doesn't seem to cripple their bodies in the same way. It was biggest the complaint about the 5D Mark II, and Canon addressed it well with the Mark III, only to revert back to it with the 6D. My memory is not that short term.

Also late to the topic but this echoes my thoughts too.
Canon not happy with 6D sales? More like their deliberate gimping of the 6D has come back to bite them (FWIW the 6Ds seem to still be quite highly recommended, including excuses of "no body needs more than 3fps ).

So all I can really say is the same thing as before. If they made them all cross-type at say 5fps, it probably would've sold a lot more without costing 5D3 sales.

I think this is the problem. Canon made the same mistake with the 6D as they did with the EOS M, a seriously underwhelming focus system. The cameras work well for portrait, landscape and architecture. For any other use, the photographer does the work. I say this as someone who owns both and likes both, but would have greatly enjoyed a focus system commensurate with the quality of the photos the cameras are able to produce.

 

[c.d.embrey]

What I find perplexing is in a shrinking market, why is Canon not doing more to revitalize Consumer demand/excitement? I go to social events, and in most cases I'm the only with a real camera. Everyone else is happy to be shooting with their phones. That has be an issue they are feeling! So why not make it more tempting for a consumer to desire and spring for one of their bodies and in turn more Canon lenses?

As I've said before, times change and people change. Now-a-days not everyone wants/needs a "real camera." Many people wouldn't take a DSLR as a gift, because they don't want/need a DSLR. As you said: "Everyone else is happy to be shooting with their phones."

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.

 

[dgatwood]

The 6D, while completely capable of capturing beautiful images, has some serious limitations for certain types of photography. That is not to say it is a bad camera, just better suited to other types of photography.

Sure, a better AF system would be better for sports, but I'd hardly call it seriously limited. I've used a 6D to shoot sports (basketball), birds in flight, landscapes, panos, portrait work, etc., and it did a reasonably good job at all of them.

I didn't say the AF system was a serious limitation. Why would you interpreted my comment as referring to the AF system?

I can only think of two aspects of the 6D that qualify as limitations: the AF system and the frame rate. The frame rate might not be 1DX speed, but it is fast enough to be usable to get great shots, even for sports.

Anyway, since you brought it up sports photography, why would a professional sports photographer choose the 1D-X to shoot at the Olympics rather than the 6D?

The question is not which one is better. There's no question that the 6D is outclassed by the 5D Mark III and the 1D X. The question was whether it has serious limitations—that is, if there are aspects of it that would prevent someone who knew how to use it from being able to get decent shots. Personally, I don't think so.

 

[SummerAutism]

Since you all seem to complain about the 6D auto focus. I have shot a bunch of skateboard with mine. Sure it doesn't have the best auto focus system. But once you learn how it works and you don't make your living shooting sports or wildlife... It is fine. You shouldn't feel that you can't take pictures of your dog running or your kids playing sports.

Examples:
http://www.tuomistopictures.com/skate/

 

[c.d.embrey]

One of my friends doesn't shoot any of the above.... or anything else either ;D. He still has a 0 shutter count Canon 30D sitting on his shelf.

Does he have a camera phone ??? Or just no interest in photography

More seriously, although the above is a true story, I know a lot who shot sports, wildlife, landscapes and people.

This is the interesting part, how much is a lot ??? 1% 0f the photo population, 10% of the photo population ??? I have no idea.

Below is the quote that started the conversation.

Trends and fashions change. It is very possible that after a few years of playing with small mirrorless cameras, Asian customers, especially in China where the economy and middle-class is still growing, will trade in their little mirrorless toys for "big boy and girl" DSLRs. Like customers in Europe and the Americas, they may find that if they want to shoot sports, wildlife and birds it's a lot easier to do that with a DSLR.

Most people tend to stick with what they are familiar with. Few iPhoneographers will step-up to mirrorless. Few mirrorless users will step-up to DSLRs. There are people who successfully shoot sports, wildlife and birds with a mirrorless camera. I doubt that a lot of them will step-up to DSLRs.

His use of " ... little mirrorless toys for "big boy and girl" DSLRs." is telling

 

[Joe M]

..... "but Canon seems to be marketing the EOS 7D Mark II on par with the 6D as far as image quality goes".
Interesting. I don't own either but from what I've seen (such as on IR), I this doesn't quite fly. Yes it's peeping, yes I'm looking at iso over 100 and yes it's darn good (7D2) for a crop. But if Cannon wants to market the 7D image quality as on par with the 6D, they do realize they just kicked the 6D owners in the rear, don't they? Or they've stretched the truth a little. Now, if Canon wants to say that the 7D features balance against the 6D with it's lesser features but higher image quality, that's fine. One excels at one thing while the other at something else. That's nothing new. I just hope when the 6D2 comes out, they don't feel they need to increase the features of the 5D4 so much that a higher pixel count is one of them. I know a lot of people want more and some a lot more but I don't. Well, it doesn't matter what I want cause it's what Canon wants to give me.

 

[dsut4392]

As someone who upgraded from a 60D to a 6D, and from third party lenses to L series zooms, my opinion is that bumping the 6D up a price bracket would be a big mistake. Unless Canon maintains a FF body that is price-competitive, they will bleed sales to Nikon and even more to Sony. I had a few good EF mount primes and legacy Zuiko manual focus lenses that couldn't be adapted to Nikon, but these would worked OK on the Sony A7. The size/weight of the A7 was very tempting, it was mainly my dislike of EVF that pushed me to stick with Canon.

The reality of a world with competition is that Canon can't expect to sit still on spec & pricepoint without losing market share. They either increase the spec at the same price point, or maintain the spec and reduce the price point...or they lose market share. The potential to maintain equal profitability while losing market share (by increasing price) is typically limited to companies/products with a significant 'intangible benefit', like the magic fairies that live inside the red dot and improve images in ways that can be neither measured nor articulated;-P. Although Canon has massive brand recognition that brings in sales at the lower end of the market, it doesn't have the 'exclusivity' at the upper end of the market to enable charging a luxury premium for FF bodies - it increasingly has to compete on features & measurable IQ. As long as investment in lenses was a barrier to switching, the loss in market share was mainly restricted to new customers, but now that deserters to Sony can keep using their Canon lenses the trend can only keep accelerating (unless Canon maintains a legitimately price & feature competitive lineup of bodies). Of the 4 friends I have who are avid photographers, three were long-time Canon shooters (with 5DII, 5DIII and 5DII & 6D respectively), and one Nikon shooter. The Nikon shooter has stayed loyal, the 5DII user now has dumped it for an A7s & Leica film body, the 5DIII user has added an A7r, the 5DII and 6D user has sold the 5DII and accidentally dropped and broken the 6D, and replaced it with an A7. None of them have bought any more L-series glass, but all of them have bought Zeiss, Sony/Zeiss and/or Sigma art (including the Nikon shooter).

When it's my time to upgrade in a few years, the FF camera I'm looking for will be at the same or lower price point, but with (in order of importance):
- a flip + tilt screen
- usable AF and MF focus peaking in live view (without having to run magic lantern!) Obviously this would come with no reduction in Ev for the centre focus point (one of the great things about the 6D)
- touch screen to select focus point in live view

It may also have:
- better DR
- better spread of usable AF points (having more doesn't really bother me, but putting some out a bit further where composition guidelines actually suggest we place the subject would be handy).
- pop-up flash

An FF 70D would mostly cover these bases, but a Sony A8 might equally well, and with continued improvement in adapters the barrier of investing in new lenses is minimal.

 

[BPLOL]

I can only think of two aspects of the 6D that qualify as limitations: the AF system and the frame rate. The frame rate might not be 1DX speed, but it is fast enough to be usable to get great shots, even for sports.

The question is not which one is better. There's no question that the 6D is outclassed by the 5D Mark III and the 1D X. The question was whether it has serious limitations—that is, if there are aspects of it that would prevent someone who knew how to use it from being able to get decent shots. Personally, I don't think so.

+1

 

[skoobey]

It's good business when you're a monopoly. lol

With advances from Sony and Nikon in pro and consumer markets, and Pentax in mid format market, they will find themselves chasing the customers away, and towards the competition.

Point and shoot is dead, but pro grade game is only beginning, starting with video, 3d, high ISO, wireless, rugged casings, resolution etc.

 

[dsut4392]

I don't know why everyone just ignored my earlier point. If a 6D mark-II comes to market it doesn't mean the 6D needs to be discontinued immediately. They could sell side by side, just as the 5D-II sold (for more than a year in some places) side-by-side with the 5D-III.

Canon could later introduce a full frame mirrorless product (at an even lower price point than the 6D is at currently) when they want to withdraw the 6D, i.e. when the required technologies are in place. For those who are only interested in full frame from an IQ perspective that would be a viable upgrade path.

There are a few reasons. Marketing 101 will tell you nobody wants to buy a superseded model, even if there is nothing wrong with it. To sell a superseded model you have to drop the price, which is the opposite of what Canon wants. Even if the model is not superseded in name, and even if there is no competing product, we all expect prices to keep dropping as time since release increases. Canon is also faced with the reality that many of us (landscape shooters mainly) don't need anything more "pro" than the 'crippled' 6D - a full frame 70D is what I want, not a marginally cheaper 5DIII. The 6DII with AF & frame-rate of the 7DII, and priced between existing 6D & 5DIII would poach far more users from 5DIII/5DIV than it would upsell from the 6D. FF mirrorless is dangerous territory for Canon. Unless they have dual-pixel pdaf completely sorted, full compatibility with EF lenses without compromise and can compete on features & price with Sony it wouldn't be a very tempting offer for many, even at a slightly lower price point. Canon may do this, but only if their analysis shows that they would lose these customers to another brand if they didn't - I believe it was Steve Jobs who said "if you don't cannibalize yourself, somebody else will".