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

[unfocused]

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

I'm not particularly interested in extending this debate. Especially since your response is so filled with sarcasm in an effort to mask the lack of substance.

But, I will say your last comment really gets to the heart of the matter. First off, camera manufacturers who survive have never remained content to focus on the photograph and ignore the business of photography. My criticism is that they are failing to recognize the changing nature how photographs are used today.

I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fancy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

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?

That's a pretty good start. I've crossed out the phone, because I'm not sure that's necessary, but I would entertain it. But, certainly a usable wifi interface and the ability to do some quick edits in-camera at a minimum.

Once we stuff all of that into our cameras, will it still be simple and ubiquitous?

I don't know. Have you ever used a smart phone? They seem to be quite a bit smaller and most people seem able to manage the apps on the phone. I guess I assume photographers aren't any less smart than the average phone user. Perhaps you disagree. (BTW, I don't think ubiquitous means what you think it does.)

 

[Random Orbits]

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?

That's a pretty good start. I've crossed out the phone, because I'm not sure that's necessary, but I would entertain it. But, certainly a usable wifi interface and the ability to do some quick edits in-camera at a minimum.

That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it? People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access. I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

 

[unfocused]

That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it? People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access. I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

Well, I don't pay extra for my iPad. It's included in my data plan. No reason why a camera couldn't be as well.
But really my main point is quite simple- there are a lot of things camera makers could do to help their professional customers gain an edge in today's highly competitive and interconnected world.

I'm not saying it's for everybody but I don't get why some folks feel threatened by it. Well maybe I do...keeping up with fast changing customer demands means you have to work harder and those who cling to the old ways risk becoming obsolete.

 

[Lee Jay]

I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely. I just skipped the intermediate step.

 

[dstppy]

I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely. I just skipped the intermediate step.

+1

I'm so cutting edge with my tech, I skipped Twitter/Facebook.

People constantly question me about crap that someone further up posted on facebook page but not on our homepage . . . makes my head hurt.

 

[mkabi]

I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely. I just skipped the intermediate step.

I don't think social media is a fad, but its rapidly evolving to other forms.
Its gone from facebook to twitter/instagram to snapchat.
I honestly can't keep up... is it really socializing though? Or narcissism morphing to new levels?
You want to be popular, you want to show off that you've done this and been there?
In my opinion, its raking in a lot of evil eye

But to answer unfocused innate question, may be someday... one day pictures taken from a cell phone will be just as good or better than DSLR/MILC, and when that day comes... no one will hire a photographer at a wedding and people will be able to pick and choose from the multitude of pictures taken from their relative's phones to create an album.

Till that day comes, it doesn't matter if a DSLR/MILC can throw a picture on a social media site. I say this, because... pictures thrown on facebook is for the moment, a present day thing that is easily displaced and forgotten with a hundred other "Whats on your mind" pictures/videos/comments that come to you over the year. Pictures taken by a photographer at a wedding is forever, which if done artfully will be remembered forever especially when made into an album.

 

[Random Orbits]

That gets the heart of the question -- doesn't it? People pay a lot of money for cell phone network/data access. I can't see many people paying a similar fee for a camera in addition to the cell phone that they already have...

Well, I don't pay extra for my iPad. It's included in my data plan. No reason why a camera couldn't be as well.
But really my main point is quite simple- there are a lot of things camera makers could do to help their professional customers gain an edge in today's highly competitive and interconnected world.

I'm not saying it's for everybody but I don't get why some folks feel threatened by it. Well maybe I do...keeping up with fast changing customer demands means you have to work harder and those who cling to the old ways risk becoming obsolete.

Depends where you are. But right now when data plans are in the single to tens of GB and now you want to load raw files to the cloud for processing/social consumption... 22 to 40 MP files are going to eat into that capacity quickly and we're just not there yet where the infrastructure can support that at a reasonable cost. Stuff packaged for iPad/cell phone consumption are low res to save space.

 

[unfocused]

I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely. I just skipped the intermediate step.

Ha! Thanks for catching that, I will correct it.

Facebook is fast becoming institutionalized and commercialized, no doubt about it. But, I study the trends pretty closely and it's definitely a medium that is here to stay. People have incorporated it into their daily lives and routines. Within a few years, it could supplant websites as the primary destination of people using the internet.

 

[unfocused]

...But right now when data plans are in the single to tens of GB and now you want to load raw files to the cloud for processing/social consumption... 22 to 40 MP files are going to eat into that capacity quickly and we're just not there yet where the infrastructure can support that at a reasonable cost. Stuff packaged for iPad/cell phone consumption are low res to save space.

Yeah, I don't see it as a replacement for how we process and save files today. I'm just suggesting that having the ability to edit and upload a few JPEGs in real time could give some photographers a competitive edge.

I know many photographers dread the thought of having to worry about posting images while an event is still going on. But, I don't think the pressure is going to go away; I think it will only get stronger. It's nice to say that clients should just be patient and wait for our brilliantly composed and edited pictures, but the reality is they won't.

All I'm suggesting is that camera manufacturers need to make it easier for photographers to deliver some of those brilliantly composed and edited pictures sooner.

 

[Nethawk]

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.

Your original post, and why my sarcasm is warranted. All I can do is shake my head and LOL.

Carry on.

 

[Lee Jay]

I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely. I just skipped the intermediate step.

Ha! Thanks for catching that, I will correct it.

Facebook is fast becoming institutionalized and commercialized, no doubt about it. But, I study the trends pretty closely and it's definitely a medium that is here to stay. People have incorporated it into their daily lives and routines. Within a few years, it could supplant websites as the primary destination of people using the internet.

You know, there are people around (like myself) that find the less socialization the better. There are also people around that just don't want to use computers or be slaves to the constant noise of communications.

I've never really figured out what facebook is for, since you can't "lurk". So I've never joined. From what I hear from those I know that use it, it's probably a good thing since the signal to noise ratio on facebook is rapidly approaching zero.

I'm not on twitter, google+, snapchat (whatever that is), instagram (whatever that is), reddit (not sure what that is, but I gather it's some sort of free-for-all forum), pinterest (some sort of bookmarking thing, I gather) or any other form of "social" media. I follow certain types of media quite actively, but none of it is what I would consider "social", including this site.

 

[Old Sarge]

You know, there are people around (like myself) that find the less socialization the better. There are also people around that just don't want to use computers or be slaves to the constant noise of communications.

I've never really figured out what facebook is for, since you can't "lurk". So I've never joined. From what I hear from those I know that use it, it's probably a good thing since the signal to noise ratio on facebook is rapidly approaching zero.

I'm not on twitter, google+, snapchat (whatever that is), instagram (whatever that is), reddit (not sure what that is, but I gather it's some sort of free-for-all forum), pinterest (some sort of bookmarking thing, I gather) or any other form of "social" media. I follow certain types of media quite actively, but none of it is what I would consider "social", including this site.

I am also a non-socialization types. But my wife likes to see pictures of the great-grand-kids so we have the grand-daughters log in info I have examined it carefully to see what we might be missing. I can tell you that you aren't missing a thing. The s/n ratio may have surpassed zero....if such is possible.

 

[unfocused]

All I can do is shake my head and LOL.

Carry on.

There is none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[StudentOfLight]

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.

How did they do things at the Winter Olympics earlier this year? There's a proven workflow if you are interested in minimum lead time to publishing of high quality images using equipment that's already available.

 

[Good24]

Interesting discussion. My two cents: wedding photographers already can upload photos quickly - if you do it right and probably spend more money. Photojournalists already get content to (for example) the front page of the NYT within 30 mins or so. You can hire a wedding photographer with 2 assistants (or 4 or 6), with laptops or ipads, you can circulate memory cards from the shooter to the ipad assistants and/or use WiFi at the wedding venue. The 6D and 70D already have WiFi. The technology DOES exist. It's just that like everything in life you have to pay more to make better things happen.

Also, one person who posts to Facebook or Instagram at a wedding from their iphone, while they are editing the shot, adding filters, tagging people -- they are missing lots of other great shots. Whether embedded in a DSLR or on an iphone you don't want your wedding photographer to be wasting time on uploads and cropping and miss great shots in the meantime. Again, the trick is to pay to have more people. And you can already do that.

Yes, the dozens of people at the wedding all have their camera phones and collectively they won't miss much. But any one shooter will. No DSLR technology will stop a bunch of hacks from posting, you'll never stop that. But if you throw enough money at it you can have your pro pictures posted pretty dang quickly. It's not a technological problem.

 

[unfocused]

I think this discussion has about run its course and I'm not interested in becoming the next variation of DRone.

But, just to add to the comments of Good24 and StudentofLight, I think you are actually making my point. Of course, with enough money and labor almost anything is possible. I'm simply suggesting that the camera manufacturers could do a better job of making it easier and much cheaper.

The local newspaper photographer does not have the resources available to those covering the Olympics and not every wedding photographer can hire one or two assistants to help them process and post pictures during a wedding.

I'm not sure how many different ways one can say this, but it seems unfortunate to me that a photographer paying $1,500 to $3,000 for a camera body should not be able to have the same accessibility and usability that others get for a few hundred dollars (or even free with a two-year contract) from a cell phone.

It all seems a bit absurd. Camera manufacturers have seen their market absolutely crushed by devices that offer instant editing and instant connectivity to the internet, yet they have almost universally been painfully slow on the uptake. It's as though they are incapable of comprehending that the features that have caused an exodus from their devices might actually be features they should consider improving upon.

 

[quod]

It all seems a bit absurd. Camera manufacturers have seen their market absolutely crushed by devices that offer instant editing and instant connectivity to the internet, yet they have almost universally been painfully slow on the uptake. It's as though they are incapable of comprehending that the features that have caused an exodus from their devices might actually be features they should consider improving upon.

I think the interface between a non-phone camera and the Internet will occur, but it will be a mirrorless camera manufacturer (or a creative software developer), not Canon or Nikon, that does it. I keep thinking about Kelby blabbing on about how a DSLR like the 7D2 cannot do this. That's BS. It can be done.

 

[mrcorsari]

So basically making entry level FF in the canon camp less accessible… Yet you can buy FF mirrorless cameras for less than £1000… Should be coming down not up.

I'm Canon enthusiast. I already own an old EOS 500D and want to move to FF. But I'm disappointed... I have EF-s and EF lenses. I know it is an investment so I will lose the EF-S lenses when I move to FF. But.. even 6D is good I have experience with 600€ Sony mirroless cameras. They are very good! Outstanding photos, 20 Mp, all cointrol features you can expect from a reflex.... The successor of 6D cannot be much expensive and must be far better compared to mirrorless. If they do not make the proper move, why should I be buying a very expensive FF canon? I'm just waiting to a reasonable price FF that it's much better than teh one they're offering?.
I know photo enthusiast that star feeling fine with small cameras, they are now cheap, and provide great photos...

Regards

 

[dstppy]

It all seems a bit absurd. Camera manufacturers have seen their market absolutely crushed by devices that offer instant editing and instant connectivity to the internet, yet they have almost universally been painfully slow on the uptake. It's as though they are incapable of comprehending that the features that have caused an exodus from their devices might actually be features they should consider improving upon.

I think the interface between a non-phone camera and the Internet will occur, but it will be a mirrorless camera manufacturer (or a creative software developer), not Canon or Nikon, that does it. I keep thinking about Kelby blabbing on about how a DSLR like the 7D2 cannot do this. That's BS. It can be done.

Seems more a question of usability.

I'm by no means anywhere near a pro, but my pride won't let me release ANYTHING that hasn't been looked at up-close on a large monitor. Further, if I put up more than one shot of an event, it really needs to "tell a story", the pictures need to give each other context. Self-consciousness won't allow me to 'just put what you have up there' as I've been begged, because their perception of my photographic skills are really a combination of not just what I take and how I take it, but my post-processing skills and visualization of the event in my mind.

If "the bride" desperately needs facebook photos ASAP, then what's to stop the photog putting up the same crappy pictures (somewhat less crappy) with their iPhone? That's not what he's there for. If that's what she wants, maybe "Uncle Bob" with the DSLR should have shot the wedding.

I just don't see the specific need in-camera. Like the people that don't want a touch screen or flip screen etc. to drive the price up, why do we need that?

--------------------------

Bit of a tech-rant here now, at least in the US, "Getting to the internet" isn't exactly as ubiquitous as it reportedly is:
Cellular companies are capping data/playing games with streaming and charge a lot, coverage isn't always great.
WiFi really depends on someone having a GOOD connection and then offering it to you. If it's free & open, it's usually slammed by tons of people connecting. Uploading any decent content is complicated.
Home/Business (non-peering) connections are starting to preference their traffic. If you download too much, you suddenly see yourself slowing down . . . sometimes you're told so overtly.

That aside, Cameras are hardware; most of us shoot RAW who are serious about what we take (professional or not) and don't even use the in-camera JPEG rendering. Why require a software solution in-camera?

MiFi Card or just a card Reader and a powerful laptop with your choice of softare, if you have an internet connection, you can do this.

-----------------------

In closing (maybe I should have led with this and skipped the rest), if "Pro"s are being 'crushed' by my iPhone 6+ (which could crush a squirrel if I dropped it!), then "Pro"s are not needed. Someone who wants a 'selfie wedding' shouldn't get a Photographer, and we should be grateful for that.

 

[Lee Jay]

...my pride won't let me release ANYTHING that hasn't been looked at up-close on a large monitor. Further, if I put up more than one shot of an event, it really needs to "tell a story", the pictures need to give each other context.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnd.............we have a winner!