Hands on Field Test of the Canon EOS 6D Mark II

[WoodyWindy]

Thanks. In any case, I'm not one of the ones complaining about the specs or positioning of the 6D (Mk I or II), just stating where I see it relative to everything else. I'm also not one who worships at the altar of DR or (as "another website" has coined the phrase) ISO Invariance. If I were in the market for an entry-level FF body, I'm 98% sure the 6D2 would be at the top of my list. I may be there someday - possibly sooner rather than later. For now, I have other priorities in my life, and I'm quite content with my Rebel T6s.

And to be clear, I'm not disparaging the Rebel line. I shot a T2i for a number of years and was plenty happy with what it could do. Trust me, with this guy the tech is very very rarely the shortcoming of the the produced product.
...Edited out words of wisdom...
So I enjoy they forums, sometimes I come for the entertainment alone, but you won't fine me uploading any test charts, or worrying about the "limited" DR at base ISO. I'll just be out shooting.

Cheers!

In full accord here. My first DSLR was an old EOS D60 (that I was on the waiting list for forever, and absolutely loved), from which I played the upgrade game for a couple generations to the EOS 20D before coming to my senses. I had a Rebel XT for years, and (briefly) an XSi, which I gave to my sister when she was getting into photography. Then I shot a T2i almost from its intro until the T6s came out. I only jumped then because I was going on an anniversary trip to Italy, and Canon had finally introduced a successor to their 18MP workhorse sensor. Little did I know that I had jumped a generation early (kinda like getting stuck at the T1i) and missed out on the DPAF and 45-point PD array. On the plus side, I still get to use a grip.

 

[Sporgon]

^
Great shot !

Are you sure? even at the 2048px web res you can see noise.

Seriously though, thanks!

Absolutely. Never even noticed any noise. Do you think that when you look at that image in thirty years time you're gonna think "what a shame about the ISO performance we had in 2014" ?

 

[Yasko]

Right exposure is a must have. The discussion is about what you can save if you fail but more importantly what you can shoot when the scene covers a DR the camera can't naturaly cover.
This is when DR becomes important and enables you to take a shot (exposed for equally u der and over exposed regions or slightly under/overexposed in one direction - depending what the camera can cope with better) that gives you different quality results with different cameras but with the same (or comparable) lens and same or equal settings.

I guess thats what some are bothered with. Especially with some not so common landscape scenes with darker shadows and bright sky... dont steer it solely into the direction of recovering a horrible exposed shot :-/.

 

[andyhewitt]

6d II vs 5D IV @ISO 12,800:

https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EOS-6D-Mark-II-6499/highres/Canon-EOS-6D-II-ISO12800-IMG_9894_1501769013.jpg

https://www.magezinepublishing.com/equipment/images/equipment/EOS-5D-Mark-IV-6184/highres/Canon-EOS-5D-MKIV-ISO12800-7S0A0048_1474037456.jpg

as good as it gets.

According to a lab test I've read, the number they gave is that the 6D2 high ISO performance is better than 5D4 and only slightly behind 1DX mark ii. Which makes it a very capable camera for astrophotography. I don't understand why people call something like spec worrier or sth. Because for me, I always wait for the review/test to come first before I decide to purchase instead of buying whatever they sell you. If the benefits outweigh the bad, I'll go for it.

 

[BeenThere]

I doubt many are shooting Astro at ISO 12,800.

 

[andyhewitt]

I doubt many are shooting Astro at ISO 12,800.

No one says it has to be exactly 12800.

 

[SecureGSM]

some photogs do not care about the IQ and focused on finacial side of the issue: do I get paid fot this shot? No worries then, I will deliver whatever crappy photo the client is happy with.. For these people Low IQ is non-issue. Some wouldn't even understand the problem exist. there are tons of mediocre pros in the trade. this is a norm.
other people put their own vision of photography first and will never ever show an image to their client they are unhappy with. These people are also motivated by outcomes, but put their art above monetary reason. These photographers would rather destroy the image they are unhappy with. Art comes first, income comes second.

You cannot accept every single opinion on this forum at its face value. Discernment is in order. Read this thread again and you will discover that some people claimed that the noise level has nothing to do with image quality.

Well, let's read this statement:

"...Noise levels are a primary image quality concern and another one of the major benefits of full frame sensors, with their large surface area capturing a larger amount of light than the smaller format options, is the very high signal-to-noise ratio they deliver..."

(c) Bryan Carnathan

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

p.s. I highly recommend this review. It is well balanced and provides valuable opinion about the subject.

According to a lab test I've read, the number they gave is that the 6D2 high ISO performance is better than 5D4 and only slightly behind 1DX mark ii. Which makes it a very capable camera for astrophotography. I don't understand why people call something like spec worrier or sth. Because for me, I always wait for the review/test to come first before I decide to purchase instead of buying whatever they sell you. If the benefits outweigh the bad, I'll go for it.

 

[Talys]

(c) Bryan Carnathan

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Brian's reviews are usually very meticulous. I generally enjoy them, and frankly, I far prefer written reviews than video ones. Plus, he has the best and most consistent photos of cameras. I recommend reading the review too.


There are a few things he's said that I'd like to quote. I couldn't agree more with this:

"...I'm struggling to pick a winner. If you can't easily see a difference in these test chart results, you will not see a difference in real world images."


This is one of the reasons that I really enjoy photography with Canon cameras:

"Showing great maturity and making use of the LCD are Canon's very easy to use and logically laid out menu systems."


And for pixel peepers (I must be too, frequently), this is often lost:

"While the electronic level feature seems minor and insignificant, the small improvement can make a big difference in the quality of your images if pixel-level-destructive image rotation is no longer required during post processing."

 

[SecureGSM]

Talys, I was glued to my 75" screen last night for at least an hour picking up any meaningful diferences in noise characteristics of 6D II and 5D IV at all ISO levels starting with 100 and all the way up to 25,600 that I could find and I found none. hence my conclusion: 6D II sensor is as good as it gets with regards to noise levels. I would not hesitate recommending 6D II to anyone who is looking for a descent FF high ISO capable camera.

(c) Bryan Carnathan

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Brian's reviews are usually very meticulous. I generally enjoy them, and frankly, I far prefer written reviews than video ones. Plus, he has the best and most consistent photos of cameras. I recommend reading the review too.


There are a few things he's said that I'd like to quote. I couldn't agree more with this:

"...I'm struggling to pick a winner. If you can't easily see a difference in these test chart results, you will not see a difference in real world images."


This is one of the reasons that I really enjoy photography with Canon cameras:

"Showing great maturity and making use of the LCD are Canon's very easy to use and logically laid out menu systems."


And for pixel peepers (I must be too, frequently), this is often lost:

"While the electronic level feature seems minor and insignificant, the small improvement can make a big difference in the quality of your images if pixel-level-destructive image rotation is no longer required during post processing."

 

[Mikehit]

Talys, I was glued to my 75" screen last night for at least an hour picking up any meaningful diferences in noise characteristics of 6D II and 5D IV at all ISO levels starting with 100 and all the way up to 25,600 that I could find and I found none. hence my conclusion: 6D II sensor is as good as it gets with regards to noise levels. I would not hesitate recommending 6D II to anyone who is looking for a descent FF high ISO capable camera.

(c) Bryan Carnathan

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Brian's reviews are usually very meticulous. I generally enjoy them, and frankly, I far prefer written reviews than video ones. Plus, he has the best and most consistent photos of cameras. I recommend reading the review too.


There are a few things he's said that I'd like to quote. I couldn't agree more with this:

"...I'm struggling to pick a winner. If you can't easily see a difference in these test chart results, you will not see a difference in real world images."


This is one of the reasons that I really enjoy photography with Canon cameras:

"Showing great maturity and making use of the LCD are Canon's very easy to use and logically laid out menu systems."


And for pixel peepers (I must be too, frequently), this is often lost:

"While the electronic level feature seems minor and insignificant, the small improvement can make a big difference in the quality of your images if pixel-level-destructive image rotation is no longer required during post processing."

That is really good to know.
Do you have any comments on AF tracking? Or do you not do enough of that to comment?

 

[hbr]

Talys, I was glued to my 75" screen last night for at least an hour picking up any meaningful diferences in noise characteristics of 6D II and 5D IV at all ISO levels starting with 100 and all the way up to 25,600 that I could find and I found none. hence my conclusion: 6D II sensor is as good as it gets with regards to noise levels. I would not hesitate recommending 6D II to anyone who is looking for a descent FF high ISO capable camera.

(c) Bryan Carnathan

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Brian's reviews are usually very meticulous. I generally enjoy them, and frankly, I far prefer written reviews than video ones. Plus, he has the best and most consistent photos of cameras. I recommend reading the review too.


There are a few things he's said that I'd like to quote. I couldn't agree more with this:

"...I'm struggling to pick a winner. If you can't easily see a difference in these test chart results, you will not see a difference in real world images."


This is one of the reasons that I really enjoy photography with Canon cameras:

"Showing great maturity and making use of the LCD are Canon's very easy to use and logically laid out menu systems."


And for pixel peepers (I must be too, frequently), this is often lost:

"While the electronic level feature seems minor and insignificant, the small improvement can make a big difference in the quality of your images if pixel-level-destructive image rotation is no longer required during post processing."

I haven't done any "scientific" thests with my 6D2 versus my 6D1 but I feel that the 6D2 image quality is quite a bit improved over the original and I would recommend the new camera to anyone.

Brian

P.S. Plus it is a lot more fun to use.

 

[scyrene]

[M]y FT-QL film camera that served me well from 1969 to the early part of this century, when I used it to make pictures of the moon and Jupiter through an old telescope.

That's commitment! I'd genuinely love to see what sort of shots were possible back then, if you have digital versions?

Yes, I did some scans and posted them linked from http://www.stevelee.name/astro/index.html. Today I would just put the pictures on the same web page and not mess with the buttons, but back then there were folks still using dialup.

Don't take these as an indication of what was possible in those days. People were doing much better stuff even then. I didn't know what I was doing, and just trying it out for fun. The clock drive wasn't very accurate, and I'm sure I didn't have the polar alignment just right or anything, so Jupiter is much fuzzier in the pictures than it looked to the eye through the telescope. It was too dark for me to see to focus, anyway. I had just focused on something distant during the day, and hoped that the temperature change at night didn't alter the focus too much. I could see the moon through the camera eyepiece, I think, since it was so much brighter and I was using less optics. I guess the moon shots are overexposed. Maybe the film's lack of DR was preparing me for my future 6DII purchase.

I was given the telescope by a friend who said it could gather dust in my garage just as well as it did in his. It really is more trouble than it is worth to use, but fun to play with when I lived in a darker environment. A modern 'scope would have much more sophisticated tracking, and maybe I'd use it more. But my not having the old one out of its trunk in over 10 years suggests to me that I would just have more expensive stuff gathering dust if I bought a new one.

My one more recent astronomical foray was right after I got the Canon S120. It has star trail and time-lapse movie modes. So I tried out the latter just setting up a tripod on my deck and pointing the camera above the trees behind the house. Even though I was facing away from the lights of Charlotte, I maybe could see one star with my naked eyes. But this is what I got: http://www.stevelee.name/startrails/MVI_0012.MP4

You can see Cassiopeia as a sideways W that moves up. Right at the end of the video, the Pleiades pop up in the lower-right corner.

Thanks very much!

 

[candyman]

<snip>

I haven't done any "scientific" thests with my 6D2 versus my 6D1 but I feel that the 6D2 image quality is quite a bit improved over the original and I would recommend the new camera to anyone.

Brian

P.S. Plus it is a lot more fun to use.

I agree. The vari-angle touchscreen is just great. I used it yesterday night when taking photos of the moon in Liveview. Good response from the screen and easy to adjust settings (aperture, shutterspeed, iso and other) including zooming.

 

[SecureGSM]

Mike,

I cannot comment on the AF performance as I was going by the x-rite colorchecker sample photos taken at various iso levels provided by ephotozine. see links below:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-expert-review-29771/performance

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-sample-photos-31251

I saved all photos of the colourchecker card to my computer and then was inspecting 6d II and 5D IV sample photos side by side at all iso levels. colour uniformity is also very good to my eye. I hope it helps.

That is really good to know.
Do you have any comments on AF tracking? Or do you not do enough of that to comment?

 

[tcmatthews]

A FF Rebel is not the best comparison. Right now, there is a 6D2, a 5D2, a 7D2, and a 60D sitting on top of the desk. The similarities between the 60D and the 6D2 are striking! Size, controls, shoulder display, tilt/swivel screen, and build are pretty well the same..... the 6D2 is a FF 80D.

I think that is my main complaint. It is too much a FF 80D. It has the exact same autofocus sensor. So it does not have good coverage for full frame. There have been no improvement in the Video Codec side and the 6D2 has (supposedly worst video than the 6D.) I find the lack of USB3 and SD-UHS II a continuation of a disturbing trend. Is Canon simple coasting on their good brand recognition? Is the DIGIC processor group not innovating fast enough or are they technically incompetent? Is there marketing group tonedeff and overly cautious?

Regardless I expected more from the moving up market comment. Without SD UHS II there is no chance of 4K. I really wanted to see some kind of general improvement over the 80D beside the larger sensor. I think that the 6D II was a good response to the Sony A7II it is just late. It is not a bad camera it is just lackluster for 2017. It would have been fine if they released it in 2016. It is going to look really dated when Sony releases the followup to the 7DII.

Sadly perception is often more important than reality. The collective blogosphere criticism of Canon cameras is likely going to have an eventual effect. Sooner or later if you use Canon you're a Dinosaur. Or at least that will likely be the perception.

Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D. I hate the 5D/7D body ergonomics they are just too big for my hands. So upgrading to a 5D IV just is not going to happen. So do I just continue buying Sony equipment because it is a better fit?

I have been thinking of getting a vlogning camera. Canon has a better Camera for this than Sony. It would have been nice to get a replacement for the 6D I sold at the same time. I really see little reason to buy the 6D II over the 80D. On paper it looks like the 80D is better at video and has better DR. Sure the 6DII has better ISO performance but I find the 7DII good and the 80D is reported as being better. I already have a full frame Sony camera so I can get the full frame look so that is not important.

I think I will just buy a 80D out of the refurb store on black friday and call it good.

 

[stevelee]

I carefully read the Carnathan review and found it very helpful in a variety of ways. I'll refer to it again after I buy the camera.

I had about decided that for my purposes the non-L kit lens was the better choice. I had not thought about the focus tracking advantage, so his comment reinforced that decision.

 

[Mikehit]

I think that is my main complaint. It is too much a FF 80D.

Jeez!
Before the 6D2 was announced the most common request was to have 'a full frame 80D' Now we have that people are complaining. What exactly did you want?

It has the exact same autofocus sensor. So it does not have good coverage for full frame.

It has pretty much the same AF coverage as the 5DIV and the 1Dx2.
AF is limited by the vignetting of lenses and that is the same for all bodies. The fact is that that area is a greater % of the APS-C sensor and there's nothing you can do about it.

There have been no improvement in the Video Codec side and the 6D2 has (supposedly worst video than the 6D.)

That's been done to death so often its hardly worth resurrecting. Tough.

I find the lack of USB3 and SD-UHS II a continuation of a disturbing trend. Is Canon simple coasting on their good brand recognition? Is the DIGIC processor group not innovating fast enough or are they technically incompetent? Is there marketing group tonedeff and overly cautious?

No, no, and no. They have decided that the average buyer of the 6D2 does not need UHS-II in the 6D2.

Regardless I expected more from the moving up market comment. Without SD UHS II there is no chance of 4K.

And with no 4K there is no need for UHS-II (see previous comment)

I really wanted to see some kind of general improvement over the 80D beside the larger sensor.

Like?
There is an improvemement - it is called a FF sensor.

I think that the 6D II was a good response to the Sony A7II it is just late. It is not a bad camera it is just lackluster for 2017. It would have been fine if they released it in 2016. It is going to look really dated when Sony releases the followup to the 7DII.

When.....
I suspect you will be sadly disappointed in the lack of mega-technical improvements.

Sadly perception is often more important than reality.

And perception is built on uninformed and unrealistic dreaming.

Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D.

You have the swivel screen, but if that is the only thing you wanted, shy all the complaining?

I have been thinking of getting a vlogning camera.

So why is the 6D2 not a good vlogging camera? Do you know how little ontent in the interet is actually 4K - yet I don;t see reams of people complaining about it only being 1080. Do you?
Or is this for your own personal ego?

Canon has a better Camera for this than Sony. It would have been nice to get a replacement for the 6D I sold at the same time. I really see little reason to buy the 6D II over the 80D. On paper it looks like the 80D is better at video and has better DR.

On paper...so buy the 80D. You will win out and have more money to spend on lighting and lenses for your video. Canon lose on not selling a 6D2 and will listen to the market

Sure the 6DII has better ISO performance but I find the 7DII good and the 80D is reported as being better.

Reported as...on the technical benches. I mark that as 'interesting'and wait to see what real world users can get out of it. But hey, buy on spec sheet and test benches if that floats your boat.

Is this heavy with sarcasm? Yes. Do I apologise for it? No
All these arguments were had on announcement over several threads amounting to a couple of hundred pages. This thread is about real world hands-on testing to see what it is actually capable of so people can actually make their minds up. So pleas forgive my irritation at someone resurrecting old, old arguments in a thread that I hoped would take a different direction and give me some real, practical ideas of whether it is worth buying.

 

[hbr]

I think that is my main complaint. It is too much a FF 80D.

Jeez!
Before the 6D2 was announced the most common request was to have 'a full frame 80D' Now we have that people are complaining. What exactly did you want?

It has the exact same autofocus sensor. So it does not have good coverage for full frame.

It has pretty much the same AF coverage as the 5DIV and the 1Dx2.
AF is limited by the vignetting of lenses and that is the same for all bodies. The fact is that that area is a greater % of the APS-C sensor and there's nothing you can do about it.

There have been no improvement in the Video Codec side and the 6D2 has (supposedly worst video than the 6D.)

That's been done to death so often its hardly worth resurrecting. Tough.

I find the lack of USB3 and SD-UHS II a continuation of a disturbing trend. Is Canon simple coasting on their good brand recognition? Is the DIGIC processor group not innovating fast enough or are they technically incompetent? Is there marketing group tonedeff and overly cautious?

No, no, and no. They have decided that the average buyer of the 6D2 does not need UHS-II in the 6D2.

Regardless I expected more from the moving up market comment. Without SD UHS II there is no chance of 4K.

And with no 4K there is no need for UHS-II (see previous comment)

I really wanted to see some kind of general improvement over the 80D beside the larger sensor.

Like?
There is an improvemement - it is called a FF sensor.

I think that the 6D II was a good response to the Sony A7II it is just late. It is not a bad camera it is just lackluster for 2017. It would have been fine if they released it in 2016. It is going to look really dated when Sony releases the followup to the 7DII.

When.....
I suspect you will be sadly disappointed in the lack of mega-technical improvements.

Sadly perception is often more important than reality.

And perception is built on uninformed and unrealistic dreaming.

Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D.

You have the swivel screen, but if that is the only thing you wanted, shy all the complaining?

I have been thinking of getting a vlogning camera.

So why is the 6D2 not a good vlogging camera? Do you know how little ontent in the interet is actually 4K - yet I don;t see reams of people complaining about it only being 1080. Do you?
Or is this for your own personal ego?

Canon has a better Camera for this than Sony. It would have been nice to get a replacement for the 6D I sold at the same time. I really see little reason to buy the 6D II over the 80D. On paper it looks like the 80D is better at video and has better DR.

On paper...so buy the 80D. You will win out and have more money to spend on lighting and lenses for your video. Canon lose on not selling a 6D2 and will listen to the market

Sure the 6DII has better ISO performance but I find the 7DII good and the 80D is reported as being better.

Reported as...on the technical benches. I mark that as 'interesting'and wait to see what real world users can get out of it. But hey, buy on spec sheet and test benches if that floats your boat.

Is this heavy with sarcasm? Yes. Do I apologise for it? No
All these arguments were had on announcement over several threads amounting to a couple of hundred pages. This thread is about real world hands-on testing to see what it is actually capable of so people can actually make their minds up. So pleas forgive my irritation at someone resurrecting old, old arguments in a thread that I hoped would take a different direction and give me some real, practical ideas of whether it is worth buying.

I own both the 6D2 and the 7D2 and there is no comparison between the two. With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens. With the 6D2 I just shot a picture early in the morning at ISO 40,00 at f/9.0 and was able to salvage it. If you want to see the link to that picture, it is:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2lFTWTRuXxtcHJlci1tLURMam8?usp=sharing.

Brian

 

[Talys]

Ergonomically I find the cameras like the 6D close to perfect. I always wanted a swivel screen on my 6D. I hate the 5D/7D body ergonomics they are just too big for my hands. So upgrading to a 5D IV just is not going to happen. So do I just continue buying Sony equipment because it is a better fit?

If you think the 6D (and by extension, 6DII, since it's almost identical physically) is close to perfect ergonomically, I'm very surprised that you would enjoy the ergonomics of the Sony ILCs :X

I think I will just buy a 80D out of the refurb store on black friday and call it good.

Save yourself the time and just get it on Amazon now The 80D is a fine camera. If you don't need fully weather sealed and you don't need full frame -- specifically, either being able to shoot wider or at with less noise at high ISO -- the 80D is Canon's best choice in my opinion. It opens up the whole universe of excellent EFS lenses that cost a fraction of what's available on EF and L lenses.

Forget the price of the body: you're going to spend a fortune to get the equivalent of the 10-18 STM for your FF. And you'll need to buy a 24-70/4 at three times the price and one third the focal range to do much better than the nano USM 18-135, which is great in the middle of its focal range. The EFS17-55/2.8 is a pretty awesome deal too. Sure, everyone would prefer the EF24/70/2.8 on a FF, but look at the price difference.

Also, if you don't need all that weather sealing or f/2.8 telephotos, the EFS lenses are just way, way, way lighter. My 70-200/2.8 II weighs like... as much as 3 EFS zoom lenses plus a EF70-300.

The great thing about an 80D is that you can buy the L lens for the one focal range that it's really critical to have awesome glass for, and buy much cheaper lenses that are good enough for everything else. If you buy a FF body, there is a tendency to try to buy L for everything, even if you don't shoot that much in that FL. And then for each of those, you need to agonize between f/4 and the twice-as-expensive f/2.8, because hell, you're already half-way there anyhow.

 

[tomscott]

With the 7D2 I never go above ISO 400 and that is with a f/2.8 lens.

Did you really just say that... LOL!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wheres the ROFL emoji.