First Images & More Specifications for the Canon EOS 6D Mark II Leak

[Mikehit]

By the way- by calling us "trolls," you're doing a disservice to everyone on here who legitimately loves Canon products and wants them to beef up their video specs. Something to think about.

"I would like to have FF 4k video and I don't understand why they have not done it" = an unfulfilled wishlist

"I would like to have FF 4k video and Canon refuse to do despite it being possible because they want to protect their [name you choice] line and they are doomed because everyone thinks it is important and will switch Sony cameras instead by mid 2018" = egotistical troll

 

[Keith_Reeder]

By the way- by calling us "trolls," you're doing a disservice to everyone on here who legitimately loves Canon products and wants them to beef up their video specs. Something to think about.

Something else to think about is where, and how often, you argue your case.

Hint: here, interminably, won't make blind bit of difference to Canon, but it will guarantee a certain reaction from other forum users...

 

[BillB]

I'm getting more and more convinced each day that folks that use video will never ever be happy with their video specs in a non-video-dedicated rig like an SLR / mirrorless setup.

With all the speculation in the (seemingly endless) run-up to the 5D4 announcement, some were dead set we'd get 4K, others thought Canon might withhold it to keep folks buying much pricier options up the line, etc. I had a nutty theory it would have 4K good to go from day one but Canon would only announce it as a 1080 rig, secretly firmware locking out 4K to protect pricier products. Then, if the 5D masses revolted from no 4K on the 5D4, Canon could unlock it as a gift from the firmware gods.

But the 5D4 got 4K and everyone lived happily ever after.

I kid. Canon conjured up a fourth route we hadn't seriously considered: 4K made the spec list so the villagers won't come at them with torches and pitchforks, but the specifics of the 4K let some folks down. How did people respond? People just found the next level deeper of unreasonable expectations to be upset about.

By the time a FF readout / 1:1 crop 4K rig comes out for Canon at a $2-3k price point, I'd imagine the developments in smaller sensored space (the GH line comes to mind) will have video folks wondering where the 6k/8k is, let alone what they wanted last year.

Hence, my argument: they will never ever be happy with their specs. (Not from Canon at least.) I don't personally have a problem with that -- unreasonable expectations folks are fine -- until they imply their position/logic/worldview is the only position/logic/worldview. Then I tune out.

- A

Canon has to figure out who is out there who cares about 4K video, how much they are willing to pay for it, figure out what kind of camera can meet that need, and then build that camera. Whatever Canon does in 4K video, it seems a fair bet that it will be based on dual pixel technology, which they have been rolling out for a couple of years. While they were rolling out dual pixel technology, they haven't exactly been pushing the envelope on video implementation.

I am wondering whether the next Canon move in 4K will be with an APS-C camera, rather than full frame. That was where they made their first push in dual pixel implementation. Not that I know anything, I suspect that some of the technical issues may be easier to deal with using an APS-C sensor. There is some pretty expensive equipment out there that uses much smaller than full frame sensors.

 

[ahsanford]

"I would like to have FF 4k video and I don't understand why they have not done it" = an unfulfilled wishlist

"I would like to have FF 4k video and Canon refuse to do despite it being possible because they want to protect their [name you choice] line and they are doomed because everyone thinks it is important and will switch Sony cameras instead by mid 2018" = egotistical troll

The latter is more delusional than a troll, but I hear you. Nothing makes you lose more credibility than implying there is a horde of people that agree with you that don't seem to be taking part in the conversation.

Or that all Canon needs is an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM and millions would buy it.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I am wondering whether the next Canon move in 4K will be with an APS-C camera, rather than full frame.

You are not crazy at all for thinking that. I can't speak to pixel binning mathematical mojo, processing needs, etc. of crop vs. full frame, but something as simple as release timing may see a crop rig -- 90D, I'm looking at you -- get 4K before another FF rig does.

Consider: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32819.msg669658#msg669658

- A

 

[Loswr]

By the way- by calling us "trolls," you're doing a disservice to everyone on here who legitimately loves Canon products and wants them to beef up their video specs. Something to think about.

Something else to think about is where, and how often, you argue your case.

Hint: here, interminably, won't make blind bit of difference to Canon, but it will guarantee a certain reaction from other forum users...

+1

 

[brad-man]

"I would like to have FF 4k video and I don't understand why they have not done it" = an unfulfilled wishlist

"I would like to have FF 4k video and Canon refuse to do despite it being possible because they want to protect their [name you choice] line and they are doomed because everyone thinks it is important and will switch Sony cameras instead by mid 2018" = egotistical troll

The latter is more delusional than a troll, but I hear you. Nothing makes you lose more credibility than implying there is a horde of people that agree with you that don't seem to be taking part in the conversation.

Or that all Canon needs is an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM and millions would buy it.

- A

Is that a cheap shot at the "I want faster EF-M lenses" crowd? If so, you're liable to piss off two or three dozen people...

 

[ahsanford]

Or that all Canon needs is an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM and millions would buy it.

- A

Is that a cheap shot at the "I want faster EF-M lenses" crowd? If so, you're liable to piss off two or three dozen people...

Not at all -- I'd love faster EF-M glass, with USM to boot.

The dig was aimed at one specific event -- bit of an inside joke / running gag, sorry.

- A

 

[brad-man]

Or that all Canon needs is an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM and millions would buy it.

- A

Is that a cheap shot at the "I want faster EF-M lenses" crowd? If so, you're liable to piss off two or three dozen people...

Not at all -- I'd love faster EF-M glass, with USM to boot.

The dig was aimed at one specific event -- bit of an inside joke / running gag, sorry.

- A

Mine too.

 

[LonelyBoy]

I'm getting more and more convinced each day that folks that use video will never ever be happy with their video specs in a non-video-dedicated rig like an SLR / mirrorless setup.

With all the speculation in the (seemingly endless) run-up to the 5D4 announcement, some were dead set we'd get 4K, others thought Canon might withhold it to keep folks buying much pricier options up the line, etc. I had a nutty theory it would have 4K good to go from day one but Canon would only announce it as a 1080 rig, secretly firmware locking out 4K to protect pricier products. Then, if the 5D masses revolted from no 4K on the 5D4, Canon could unlock it as a gift from the firmware gods.

But the 5D4 got 4K and everyone lived happily ever after.

I kid. Canon conjured up a fourth route we hadn't seriously considered: 4K made the spec list so the villagers won't come at them with torches and pitchforks, but the specifics of the 4K let some folks down. How did people respond? People just found the next level deeper of unreasonable expectations to be upset about.

By the time a FF readout / 1:1 crop 4K rig comes out for Canon at a $2-3k price point, I'd imagine the developments in smaller sensored space (the GH line comes to mind) will have video folks wondering where the 6k/8k is, let alone what they wanted last year.

Hence, my argument: they will never ever be happy with their specs. (Not from Canon at least.) I don't personally have a problem with that -- unreasonable expectations folks are fine -- until they imply their position/logic/worldview is the only position/logic/worldview. Then I tune out.

- A

That last thread had people already talking about having 6k and 8k screens meaning that obviously they'd need 6k and 8k video before the 6D3 came out. This is why I've said putting video on a DSLR at all in the first place was a mistake - all it does is create unrealistic expectations that will never be met for a full-featured video camera. And for cheap, of course.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

+1

On the same page for the most part - works for me...

 

[Macoose]

I saw a rumor somewhere (I don't remember where though) about the lens kits that may be available and I am wondering what may be the best one for me.

They were the:
1. EF 24-70 f4 L IS USM
2. EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS STM
3. EF 24-105 f4 L IS II USM.


If Canon discounts either of the L lenses with the kit, I may consider one or the other. If they don't, I'll probably get the less expensive 24-105. The problem with this lens is that I don't know much about it other than I've read some reviews which are generally good. Brian at TDP likes it.

As far as I know I haven't seen one. And I haven't talked to anyone who owns one.

If it's the same quality and has the equivalent IQ as the 18-135 STM that came on my 7DII, I'd be happy.
I understand nothing's perfect but am looking for some advice.


Thanks,

Macoose

 

[Pippan]

Never really used Green Box mode myself. When I upgraded from 6D to 1DX2 I didn't miss it at all. I started with a Canon A-1 when they introduced P mode to the industry (before green box). P mode always been sufficient for me when I hand a camera off - I still can dial in ISO, exposure compensation, metering mode, etc. and flip the lock on. I sometimes use P mode when I need a quick shot or flash, but most of the time I'm in M or Av modes.

The problem with handing over your camera in P mode is that it'll still be on back-button focus and the person will wonder why they can't focus it. Green box returns focus to the shutter button.

 

[Zv]

I saw a rumor somewhere (I don't remember where though) about the lens kits that may be available and I am wondering what may be the best one for me.

They were the:
1. EF 24-70 f4 L IS USM
2. EF 24-105 f3.5-5.6 IS STM
3. EF 24-105 f4 L IS II USM.


If Canon discounts either of the L lenses with the kit, I may consider one or the other. If they don't, I'll probably get the less expensive 24-105. The problem with this lens is that I don't know much about it other than I've read some reviews which are generally good. Brian at TDP likes it.

As far as I know I haven't seen one. And I haven't talked to anyone who owns one.

If it's the same quality and has the equivalent IQ as the 18-135 STM that came on my 7DII, I'd be happy.
I understand nothing's perfect but am looking for some advice.


Thanks,

Macoose

You can't go wrong with either one of those lenses. They're all better than than the 18-135 STM. The choice would depend mainly on what you like to shoot.

The 24-70 has, arguably, the best IQ of the three. It also has the added bonus of some macro range. It's small and compact, very useful for general purpose, landscapes and travel. The IS on this lens is really good. IQ is particularly good at the wide end. Paired up with a 70-200 lens like the f/4L IS makes a great combination.

The 24-105 STM is lighter and cheaper but doesn't have a constant f/4 aperture like the other two which can be a little annoying if you reframe shots a lot by zooming in and out. However if you park it at f/5.6 or narrower it's not an issue which is fine if shallow DOF isn't your primary concern. The slower aperture might be an issue when light levels get low so if you shoot in the dark a lot this might not be the best choice. This lens is more of a general use lens like the 18-135. Personally variable aperture lenses drive me nuts, I prefer the constant aperture.

The 24-105LII has more range than 24-70 so it's more useful if you also like to shoot in the portrait range (85mm ish). The added range is good if you don't like switching lenses too often. The IQ is similar to the 24-70 though it may not be quite as good at the wide end. The IS is also really good on this lens. Another good one for general purpose and travel. This would be my choice as I like to shoot a variety of subjects.

 

[Macoose]

Thanks, Zv.

I use the 18-135 for just about all short shooting (static displays at airshows, in the pits at the drag races, etc).
It works well for my purposes.

That's mainly how I would use the 6DII with a kits lens.

Thanks for the advice.

Macoose

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The 24-70 also has the least amount of distortion (at 24mm) of the three. A big deal if shooting buildings, etc. However, the 24-105L (version I at least) is the better performer in the 50-70mm range.

 

[transpo1]

By the way- by calling us "trolls," you're doing a disservice to everyone on here who legitimately loves Canon products and wants them to beef up their video specs. Something to think about.

Something else to think about is where, and how often, you argue your case.

Hint: here, interminably, won't make blind bit of difference to Canon, but it will guarantee a certain reaction from other forum users...

+1

Being the squeaky wheel still doesn't make one a troll. That was wishful thinking

 

[ahsanford]

Macoose,

Zv's and Act's advice is spot on, and I'll echo that all three lenses are a healthy step up from your 18-135. The sharpness will be better for all three of those lenses, and the two L lenses further are weather sealed (with a front filter), have a constant max aperture and will be significantly quicker to focus with USM.

Personally, if you're stepping up to a $2000 rig and principally shoot a standard zoom over standard primes, as much as the 24-105 STM is a good instrument, I would recommend getting one the L lenses.

I personally adore my 24-70 f/4L for landscape work on the 24 end and the stellar 0.7x macro opportunity that lets me leave my 100L at home on informal walkabouts and hikes. It's the perfect hiking lens, IMHO. It's also shorter and lighter than the 24-105L II, in some cases allowing you to walk it in to sporting events (depending on the venue).

But if you've grown accustomed to the 18-135 reach (a 28.8-216mm FF equivalent), you likely will feel quite handcuffed with only a 24-70 zoom. I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, but a 24-105 will better suit you.

And if low cost and/or reach is imperative in a standard zoom for you, there is the old 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's nearly a 20 year old design and the other options on your list poop all over it optically, but it goes to 135mm, has USM and IS, and costs a fraction of the others on your list.

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

By the way- by calling us "trolls," you're doing a disservice to everyone on here who legitimately loves Canon products and wants them to beef up their video specs. Something to think about.

Something else to think about is where, and how often, you argue your case.

Hint: here, interminably, won't make blind bit of difference to Canon, but it will guarantee a certain reaction from other forum users...

+1

Being the squeaky wheel still doesn't make one a troll. That was wishful thinking

actually it kind of does if that's all you do.

there's two or three posters that basically 99% of their posts are about that one topic. they dont' contribute anything else. that makes the poster a troll in my book.

 

[Orangutan]

Being the squeaky wheel still doesn't make one a troll. That was wishful thinking

It depends on how you squeak, and whether you do much else except squeak. As everyone here has said in various ways, it's OK to express your preferences and opinions politely. It is not OK to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being a shill, stupid, sheep, or similar. (I'm not saying you have, I haven't read all of your posts) It's also fruitless and annoying to claim that your particular desire, need, or preferred way of using gear is representative of the majority of photographers, and therefore Canon should do what you want. (Again, I'm not saying you have). There's a third category of "squeaky wheel," the revolutionary: the revolutionary has vain hopes of starting a grass-roots consumer rebellion against "big camera," using their great popular power to compel the giants to release the physics-bending tech they've been keeping from all but the inner circle of their cabal. There will be no popular photographic uprising. You have three paths to provide your feedback to Canon:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Buy a different brand of gear
[*]Write them a letter, explaining what you want or expect, and why
[*]Participate in surveys if you're asked
[/list]

That's it. Any other form of squeaking is just barroom chatter.