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

[Macoose]

Thanks guys,

I've got plenty of time to see what lenses Canon pairs with the camera and then I'll make a decision. I'd like to get an L lens. I love my 70-300L. It's great.
I'm just thinking ahead.
It's always best to get the opinions of people who actually use this stuff on a daily basis rather than rely on some reviewer who may or may not care one way or the other. I trust Brian at TDP more so than DPR. The same can be said for D. Abbott.


Thanks again,

Macoose

 

[BillB]

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.

It seems to me that a troll is someone who makes a statement intended to provoke a response that he (or she) can attack, often in very unpleasant language, with liberal use of trigger words. It is the intent to provoke a response that defines a troll. Simply taking a position, even when counterproductive, repetitive and annoying is not trolling, unless there is an intent to provoke. It therefore follows that one is not trolling unless one knows that he or she is trolling. It also follows that refusing to respond to the provocation is often the best idea, if only to spite the troll.

 

[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:

• 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

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

It seems to me that a troll is someone who makes a statement intended to provoke a response that he (or she) can attack, often in very unpleasant language, with liberal use of trigger words. It is the intent to provoke a response that defines a troll. Simply taking a position, even when counterproductive, repetitive and annoying is not trolling, unless there is an intent to provoke. It therefore follows that one is not trolling unless one knows that he or she is trolling.

It seems clear to me that a person who continues "Simply taking a position, even when counterproductive, repetitive and annoying," after being given hints, corrections, etc. either knows or very much should know that they are provoking a response and, therefore, knows they're trolling. The exception being "the revolutionary" I mentioned above. There are different degrees of intent, and different degrees of trolling. Not all trolls start as trolls.

It also follows that refusing to respond to the provocation is often the best idea, if only to spite the troll.

You'd think so...and I thought so until I ran across a few reports of studies that challenge that. I don't have them at hand or I'd post links.

 

[Zv]

I like how this thread is analyzing the mindset of trolls and trolling behavior, trying to figure out the definition of a troll and why they do the things they do. You could make a decent podcast out of this!

 

[Don Haines]

Sometimes you can learn a lot from a troll. For instance, I have recently learned that the 6D2 is a "piece of s--t"... that it does not have 4K video or dual card slots, that only an idiot will buy one, and that I should sell off all my Canon glass and spare body, flashes, batteries, etc and convert to Nikon because apparently that would be cheaper than upgrading to a used 5D3.

Now that I know all this, when I get my 6D2 and go take nice pictures, despite now knowing how impossible that will be, it will mean that I am "special".... and in a good sort of way.....

 

[Jack Douglas]

Sometimes you can learn a lot from a troll. For instance, I have recently learned that the 6D2 is a "piece of s--t"... that it does not have 4K video or dual card slots, that only an idiot will buy one, and that I should sell off all my Canon glass and spare body, flashes, batteries, etc and convert to Nikon because apparently that would be cheaper than upgrading to a used 5D3.

Now that I know all this, when I get my 6D2 and go take nice pictures, despite now knowing how impossible that will be, it will mean that I am "special".... and in a good sort of way.....

Interesting how you bring the topic back to the 6D2. Remember the threads on the 6D? One major complaint was that it HAD wifi. I actually started to do remote shooting and somehow lost interest because it was clunky and I was on the edge of its range. Now I'm too cheap to buy the 1DX2 unit which I presume would be infinitely better.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

Sometimes you can learn a lot from a troll. For instance, I have recently learned that the 6D2 is a "piece of s--t"... that it does not have 4K video or dual card slots, that only an idiot will buy one, and that I should sell off all my Canon glass and spare body, flashes, batteries, etc and convert to Nikon because apparently that would be cheaper than upgrading to a used 5D3.

Now that I know all this, when I get my 6D2 and go take nice pictures, despite now knowing how impossible that will be, it will mean that I am "special".... and in a good sort of way.....

Interesting how you bring the topic back to the 6D2. Remember the threads on the 6D? One major complaint was that it HAD wifi. I actually started to do remote shooting and somehow lost interest because it was clunky and I was on the edge of its range. Now I'm too cheap to buy the 1DX2 unit which I presume would be infinitely better.

Jack

I think that this camera will be the best "bang-for-the-buck" in the Canon stable.... As good as you can get before the prices start to skyrocket.

WiFi control (at least so far) has been in it's infancy. Obviously, we will not know what the 6D2 version is like until it gets released, but if can turn your phone into the back screen, buttons, and knobs (and a tablet version with more real estate) and also set the camera to auto-transfer files to another device, they will be getting a lot closer to the needs of the remote shooter....

As far as range goes, I have a high gain antenna on my home router....it really extends the range!

 

[jd7]

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.

Well, LensRentals puts the 24-70/4L IS a little in front of the of the 24-105/4L IS at 70mm
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/

As for 50mm, LensRentals does say the 24-70/4L IS is at its weakest at 50mm, where its MTF50 drops to 875 centre and 700 average.

I haven't been able to find directly comparable results for the 24-105/f4L IS at 50mm, but if you look at these results for the 24-105/f4L IS at 50mm (which were run on LensRentals' old Imatest setup)
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/03/a-24-105-comparison/
the centre and average MTF50 were about the same at 50mm as at 24mm. So, if you look at the 24-105/f4L IS MTF50 results at 24 mm in the first post and assume they would be about the same at 50 mm, you would expect the 24-105/f4L IS to be getting about 890 centre and 730 average on the new test setup, versus the 24-70/4L IS at 875 centre and 700 average, giving a slight advantage to the 24-105/f4L IS. I'm not sure that difference is big enough to notice in practice though.

LensRentals' results for the 24-105/4L IS II show the 24-70/4L IS a little in front at 24mm and at 70mm too (no 50mm results though).
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/canon-24-105-f4-is-mk-ii-mtf-results/

I certainly get the attraction of the extra focal length of the 24-105 lenses, but from a resolution point of view it seems the 24-70/4L IS at its weakest point (50mm) is still about the same as the 24-105/4L IS at its strongest point in its zoom range. In the end though, if I was buying now, I think I'd be more influenced by other features (such as size, weight, focal length range v macro, how important distortion (esp at 24mm) is to me, etc) than any difference in sharpness.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

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 am...

From Transpo1:

I find it funny that some photography folks on this site are so threatened by a demanding and vocal video crowd that they themselves can't STFU about it. It's not just about photos anymore and Canon themselves started that trend with the 5DII- that's why the video folks are so vocal. So get over it and/or take your own advice

As always, I'm on here fighting the losing battle to open your minds. Unfortunately, the conservative CanonFanboy mindset cannot at this time comprehend the future of video and stills hybrid shooting.

Maybe us 4K folks just have higher standards than you guys. We understand you'll take everything Canon gives you and like it, but we tend to think a little bit differently.

aybe us 4K folks just have higher standards than you guys. We understand you'll take everything Canon gives you and like it, but we tend to think a little bit differently.

This is Canon blatantly "protecting" their higher-end cameras. It would cost very little R&D to implement 4K in the 6DII.

Now, cue Neuro with how Canon marketing is infallible. :

+1 I'm looking forward to criticizing whatever way they implement and hobble the 4K capabilities of the camera

Rrcphoto, weren't you supposed to eat some crow based on the feature set of the A9, which you said you were impressed with? Or was that only if Canon released this non-existent upgrade?

One can always dream- but I'm afraid that with Canon, it's just a dream

(Continuous Canon-bashing on a Canon forum is trolling too).

And these examples are just from the first couple of pages of his posting history...

 

[foo]

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.

I went from the 18-135 on a crop body to the 24-70F4 on a FF and while I initially thought it was going to be limiting, I actually haven't found it to be so at all. Can't quite put into words why though..

 

[Loswr]

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 am...

From Transpo1:
...
And these examples are just from the first couple of pages of his posting history...

Well, I wasn't specifically referring to him by using the term 'troll', yet he assumed that it applied to him. Seems he was correct.

 

[ahsanford]

I trust Brian at TDP more so than DPR. The same can be said for D. Abbott.

You are wise for thinking that. PhotoZone and LensTip also have a lot of useful data to consider. However, avoid DXO like the plague when it comes to lens reviews.

LensRentals.com is also your best friend if you are stumped choosing between two lenses. Renting both lenses for a weekend of real-use-case shooting will almost always settle the matter for you. You'll appreciate things other than 'horsepower specs' of sharpness / FL range / what the max aperture is / if it has IS. A good weekend rental will tell you:

• How quickly / accurately / consistently it focuses, especially with large aperture primes
• If it has an annoying hood attachment, or if reversing the hood blocks any lens switches or buttons
• If it's overly heavy or cumbersome to carry, it's its awkwardly unbalanced on your chosen body, if you need to shoot with monopod perhaps, etc.
• If you shoot with a teleconverter, you can not only see the output of using it (which TDP posts as well), but you also get a feel for what the AF experience with the teleconverter will be like
• What's up with any weird photographic minutiae that might not be at the top of the normal reviewers' lists but might be a really big deal for you: coma, focus shift, AF or IS noise during video recording, etc.
• How easy third party AF calibration is with Sigma and Tamron glass (if you are considering a recent lens from them that's f/2.8 or quicker, I'd 100% get the dock to try out)

I cannot recommend renting highly enough if there is any doubt in your mind.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

It seems clear to me that a person who continues "Simply taking a position, even when counterproductive, repetitive and annoying," after being given hints, corrections, etc. either knows or very much should know that they are provoking a response and, therefore, knows they're trolling. The exception being "the revolutionary" I mentioned above. There are different degrees of intent, and different degrees of trolling. Not all trolls start as trolls.

I am certainly not a troll, but I sure am a broken record on what I'd like to see:

• Please update the 50 f/1.4 USM and keep it small
• No fast USM lenses for EF-M = I will never buy an EF-M rig
• Healthcare Spot metering at any AF point is a human right fair expectation for a rig that costs north of $2000

But I don't tantrum about it, imply those who disagree are bad people / unintelligent, etc., and I certainly post helpful / positive / chatty / fuel the discussion sort of content when I am not going to those wells above.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Sometimes you can learn a lot from a troll. For instance, I have recently learned that the 6D2 is a "piece of s--t"... that it does not have 4K video or dual card slots, that only an idiot will buy one, and that I should sell off all my Canon glass and spare body, flashes, batteries, etc and convert to Nikon because apparently that would be cheaper than upgrading to a used 5D3.

Now that I know all this, when I get my 6D2 and go take nice pictures, despite now knowing how impossible that will be, it will mean that I am "special".... and in a good sort of way.....

I am so mad they took away the like button right now, Don. Spot on.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I certainly get the attraction of the extra focal length of the 24-105 lenses, but from a resolution point of view it seems the 24-70/4L IS at its weakest point (50mm) is still about the same as the 24-105/4L IS at its strongest point in its zoom range. In the end though, if I was buying now, I think I'd be more influenced by other features (such as size, weight, focal length range v macro, how important distortion (esp at 24mm) is to me, etc) than any difference in sharpness.

I think the tradeoff is pretty simple:

24-70 (f/4) generally is a sharper instrument (especially at the two ends 24 and 70, where I'm guessing a zoom is used most), is lighter, takes up less space in your bag and has a macro mode.

24-105 has reach, which might let you leave a longer lens at home.

As a rough peg, in this forum at least, there must be a good 2-3x the number of 24-105 devotees than the 24-70 f/4. Reach, it would appear, is more useful/popular than a sharpness bump and the (quite wonderful IMHO) macro mode. Also, putting a 24-105L in a jillion 5D2, 5D3, and 6D kits didn't hurt its popularity -- I'm guessing it's the first L lens a lot of people have ever used, and in many cases, it's probably the most widely used.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, in fairness.

- A

P.S. Nikon has a 24-120 f/4 VR, and I believe it has a similar following. Optically, it's a bigger step behind the 24-70 than with the Canon pair we've been discussing, but some folks tenaciously cling to their 24-120s for reach reasons.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Every experience in life is a learning experience. It's just a matter of degree. I would not purposely submit myself to many experiences when the time is essentially wasted relative to the payback and that's why I almost exited from CR when the 7D2 nonsense was in full swing and Dilbert was arguing against practically every post.

I see no solution other than the sane ones simply ignoring that which is over the top. Ignore the nonsense, and it's no fun for them. Also no fun those who like to argue, which might explain why they are not ignored.

I have my most loved 6D for sale at this moment and am anticipating replacing it with, you guessed it. No fool like an old fool.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

I certainly get the attraction of the extra focal length of the 24-105 lenses, but from a resolution point of view it seems the 24-70/4L IS at its weakest point (50mm) is still about the same as the 24-105/4L IS at its strongest point in its zoom range. In the end though, if I was buying now, I think I'd be more influenced by other features (such as size, weight, focal length range v macro, how important distortion (esp at 24mm) is to me, etc) than any difference in sharpness.

I think the tradeoff is pretty simple:

24-70 (f/4) generally is a sharper instrument (especially at the two ends 24 and 70, where I'm guessing a zoom is used most), is lighter, takes up less space in your bag and has a macro mode.

24-105 has reach, which might let you leave a longer lens at home.

As a rough peg, in this forum at least, there must be a good 2-3x the number of 24-105 devotees than the 24-70 f/4. Reach, it would appear, is more useful/popular than a sharpness bump and the (quite wonderful IMHO) macro mode. Also, putting a 24-105L in a jillion 5D2, 5D3, and 6D kits didn't hurt it's popularity -- I'm guessing it's the first L lens a lot of people have ever used, and in many cases, it's probably the most widely used.

I don't think you can go wrong with either, in fairness.

- A

P.S. Nikon has a 24-120 f/4 VR, and I believe it has a similar following. Optically, it's a bigger step behind the 24-70 than with the Canon pair we've been discussing, but some folks tenaciously cling to their 24-120s for reach reasons.

I opted for the 24-70 and feel it was the best choice for me but also acknowledge that occasionally 105 would eliminate the need to have the 70-200 handy. The macro is not 100mm quality but really nice to have especially for someone who is simply recording something they saw that was personally interesting. 6D with 24-70 F4 is a nice walk around size/weight. The 24-105 had a large following before the newer lens so of course the faithful supported it and criticized the 24-70; I read all the knocks and today have no regrets.

Jack

 

[LonelyBoy]

I am certainly not a troll, but I sure am a broken record on what I'd like to see:

• Please update the 50 f/1.4 USM and keep it small
• No fast USM lenses for EF-M = I will never buy an EF-M rig
• Healthcare Spot metering at any AF point is a human right fair expectation for a rig that costs north of $2000

But I don't tantrum about it, imply those who disagree are bad people / unintelligent, etc., and I certainly post helpful / positive / chatty / fuel the discussion sort of content when I am not going to those wells above.

- A

The bolded bit makes all the difference...

 

[LonelyBoy]

It's also fascinating how the trolls always have something.

First it was DR. Now it's 4k. Next it'll be... ? But there's always something that Canon doesn't do that means their products suck, are crippled and nerfed, and Canon is doomed and losing to Sony, Nikon, Fuji, and Pana, even though they aren't.

 

[ahsanford]

It's also fascinating how the trolls always have something.

First it was DR. Now it's 4k. Next it'll be... ?

IBIS and Eye AF should now top the list, but in the near future it will be 6K and disproportionately higher fps. Sony is dramatically overspec'ing their fps vs the market right now: 12 fps in the D810/5D space, 20 fps in the D5/1DX space, etc.

- A