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

[jd7]

For sure. I know this is the "Full Frame 80D" but I've never shot an 80D. However, I did own a 70D for close to 2 years and that was my "action camera" and I felt confident shooting (action) with it. Just the little bit I used the 6D2 yesterday gave me that same feel and level of confidence.

I'm going to attempt to upload a shot and a 1:1 crop. I don't think I've done this before so I apologize if I screw this up.

Looks good to me Luds34!

 

[jd7]

I am working on that, but it is a slow process as time and weather has been against me.
Brian

Thank you for your understanding and time!

PS: is it ok if I post some edits of your photos?

Sure, I would like everyone to see them.

Brian

PS - I am loving this camera more every day and I am hoping a lot of people who are afraid to purchase it because of all the DR talk will enjoy the photos I am putting on that site and be able to make a good decision by looking at real photos. Not all the photos will be good photos as I am trying to learn the limitations of the camera and I am purposely taking some bad shots so that people can see the good, the bad and the ugly.
Just make mention of me in your postings so that everyone knows where the photos came from.
Thanks,

Brian

Thanks very much for uploading the files Brian. I've downloaded a couple and am looking forward to having a play with them as soon as I get a chance.

 

[reef58]

I would say this convinces me more than ever that Canon has too many camera models. At least because they appear to have a strong desire to differentiate them for various reasons, such that certain models get certain handicaps. Presumably they opted to hamstring the 6D II in some ways so as not to cannibalize 5D IV sales. I'm a 5DsR owner, so I hope this worse than usual choice results in them learning a lesson for the II version there, and in general.

I'm sick to death of the excuses for lack of progress or innovation being cannibalizing sales of other cameras! The goal should be to make a crap ton of money by putting out products that people want to use! I just don't buy the theory that selling 2 6d ii's for every 1 5d iv is a bad thing. I'm no math genius but 1 5d iv =$3,300...2 6d ii's = $4,000. How can that be a bad thing? The more likely scenario if Canon continues on this path is not more sales of more expensive camera's, it's lost customer confidence and market share that will be very difficult to regain.

I am certainly no economics professor, but there are only so many DSLR sales to be had to matter what you put in the camera. If Canon put in the best of everything and offered it at $1500 they are not going to sell that many more units than they will already. Someone sitting at home who hasn't bought a DSLR isn't suddenly going to rush the camera stores because he heard a 6D2 has 50 stops of dynamic range. There is a large percentage of one time dslr buyers, so they are not upgrading. They probably haven't changed the dial from the little green square. There is just not a huge amount of untapped sales to be had from an innovative camera.

 

[tcmatthews]

I would say this convinces me more than ever that Canon has too many camera models. At least because they appear to have a strong desire to differentiate them for various reasons, such that certain models get certain handicaps. Presumably they opted to hamstring the 6D II in some ways so as not to cannibalize 5D IV sales. I'm a 5DsR owner, so I hope this worse than usual choice results in them learning a lesson for the II version there, and in general.

I'm sick to death of the excuses for lack of progress or innovation being cannibalizing sales of other cameras! The goal should be to make a crap ton of money by putting out products that people want to use! I just don't buy the theory that selling 2 6d ii's for every 1 5d iv is a bad thing. I'm no math genius but 1 5d iv =$3,300...2 6d ii's = $4,000. How can that be a bad thing? The more likely scenario if Canon continues on this path is not more sales of more expensive camera's, it's lost customer confidence and market share that will be very difficult to regain.

I am certainly no economics professor, but there are only so many DSLR sales to be had to matter what you put in the camera. If Canon put in the best of everything and offered it at $1500 they are not going to sell that many more units than they will already. Someone sitting at home who hasn't bought a DSLR isn't suddenly going to rush the camera stores because he heard a 6D2 has 50 stops of dynamic range. There is a large percentage of one time dslr buyers, so they are not upgrading. They probably haven't changed the dial from the little green square. There is just not a huge amount of untapped sales to be had from an innovative camera.

I agree they seem to be making too many camera models for a shrinking market. All these different models have associated R&D cost. I think that there would be far more savings in the R&D if they were making fewer camera models. For this reason I think no more than 3-4 Crop DSLR Canon Models. One Rebel one XXD, and one semi-pro XD. I would also argue that it is time to drop the yearly Rebel and start providing fewer but more substantial releases.

I for one think they could have stuck the 5D IV sensor in the 6D II and not affected sales. When I compare the 1DX II, 5D IV, and the 6D II I am no longer really looking at the sensor. Other than a check mark for good enough. They could all have the same sensor for all I care. So why did they bother developing 3 sensors when it has to be more efficient to run just one.

Should there be different features sure, but Canon has taken it too far. While Sony in many ways adds to many pro features in the entry level cameras leading to a confusing user interface.

 

[BillB]

I would say this convinces me more than ever that Canon has too many camera models. At least because they appear to have a strong desire to differentiate them for various reasons, such that certain models get certain handicaps. Presumably they opted to hamstring the 6D II in some ways so as not to cannibalize 5D IV sales. I'm a 5DsR owner, so I hope this worse than usual choice results in them learning a lesson for the II version there, and in general.

I'm sick to death of the excuses for lack of progress or innovation being cannibalizing sales of other cameras! The goal should be to make a crap ton of money by putting out products that people want to use! I just don't buy the theory that selling 2 6d ii's for every 1 5d iv is a bad thing. I'm no math genius but 1 5d iv =$3,300...2 6d ii's = $4,000. How can that be a bad thing? The more likely scenario if Canon continues on this path is not more sales of more expensive camera's, it's lost customer confidence and market share that will be very difficult to regain.

I am certainly no economics professor, but there are only so many DSLR sales to be had to matter what you put in the camera. If Canon put in the best of everything and offered it at $1500 they are not going to sell that many more units than they will already. Someone sitting at home who hasn't bought a DSLR isn't suddenly going to rush the camera stores because he heard a 6D2 has 50 stops of dynamic range. There is a large percentage of one time dslr buyers, so they are not upgrading. They probably haven't changed the dial from the little green square. There is just not a huge amount of untapped sales to be had from an innovative camera.

The market for DSLR may not be fully saturated, but it is more saturated than it used to be, so it is harder to generate sales. Part of the reason that it is more saturated than it used to be is that a lot of us have cameras that we are pretty happy with.

There are several ways that Canon can compete for sales, including cost, camera features, service and brand ecosystem, particularly EF lenses. Apparently, the 6DII was designed to compete on price, service, full frame entry into the EF lens ecosystem, and a bundle of features that did not including meeting DPR's standards for shadow lifting at low ISOs. Nor did it include 4K video, which has never been a feature of a FF camera introduced for less than $3000, or a second card slot. It is what it is, and we shall see how it plays out. We will never know whether know how much money Canon left on the table by not putting in a sensor that had an ADC sensor on board.

 

[tencachon]

I am good at finding more bugs. Any existing 6DII user see this circle added on the image? I only get it on 3rd party lens (this is the 35mmf1.4 Sigma art that will turn off my camera if it gets on live view). LR will take care of the circle automatically added by the camera but I thought it was just odd.

 

[Sharlin]

I am good at finding more bugs. Any existing 6DII user see this circle added on the image? I only get it on 3rd party lens (this is the 35mmf1.4 Sigma art that will turn off my camera if it gets on live view). LR will take care of the circle automatically added by the camera but I thought it was just odd.

Turn off peripheral illumination correction. The camera doesn't have data for third-party lenses anyway and they usually fake their identity to the camera, leading to such glitches.

Because PI correction is a JPEG-only thing, it's not that LR takes care of it in any way but that it only exists in the preview embedded in the RAW, so "vanishes" once LR has rendered the actual RAW.

 

[Khalai]

It's not a 6D II bug, it a third party lens bug to be precise

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

I for one think they could have stuck the 5D IV sensor in the 6D II and not affected sales. When I compare the 1DX II, 5D IV, and the 6D II I am no longer really looking at the sensor. Other than a check mark for good enough. They could all have the same sensor for all I care. So why did they bother developing 3 sensors when it has to be more efficient to run just one.

Yes! Thank you! Not sure you could drive 30MP through the 1DX2 at 14 FPS but I can't think of a single reason why the 6D2 and 5D4 couldn't share a sensor. If the sensor isn't obviously deficient, or use-specific, than very few purchasers would chose a camera model on that alone. They would simply buy the camera that has the feature set they need, want or can afford just as they appear to do with other brands.

Say what you will, but Canon is burning through a lot of good will with it's customer base with many of these choices. Good will that many companies would kill for. Even if you believe the criticism is overdone or unwarranted, you would think Canon would make a greater effort to repudiate it.

Yes I know, they're still #1 and they're competitors all have problems of their own but that can change quicker than many people on this forum would like to believe.

Don't want to seem overly dramatic about it. I can probably work around the 6D2's unnecessarily high noise floor for my intended use. It appears to be a bit better than the 5D3 which I used for years. But every time I end up with an image that's obviously less than it could have been with the on-chip ADC sensors Canon has available right now, I'm going to withdraw a little good will from Canon's piggy bank.

edit: I have owned each of the 5D, 5D2 and 5D3 but have been using a 1DX2 as my primary body since it launched last year. In my experience that sensor has neutral shadows, less mid-tone noise in unedited RAWs as well as dramatic improvements in the ability to edit in post without hitting the noise floor. I spend way less time in photoshop blending images or having to create masks. Not sure I've ever shot a jpeg with it so I can't speak to that. And no, I'm not talking about fixing underexposed images. It appears that the 5D4 sensor received similar benefits but I don't own one of those.

 

[Aglet]

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.

good enuf...

not only are general exposure and WB quite different but even the lighting angle could be different as it seems to have added glare to the 5d4 shot visible in the colorchecker outer frame (upper R) and some of the color patches.

if I'd present this kind of incosistent comparison data here I'm sure a few here would be cr*ppin all over it!

Still, have a closer look at the darker tones in the non-glare areas. The 6d2 seems to use a more contrasty tone curve that pushes the low tones darker to help hide the noise. I mean, to appeal to the customer base this camera is aimed at.
Or is there too much DR on a paper target scene for the camera to handle?


apples-to-crabapples comparison

5d4 is in a whole different league, overall, but the 6d2 is plenty good enuf for most things at hi iso.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...the 6d2 is plenty good enuf for most things at hi iso.

That sounds just like what DPR said about the Nikon D5 and Sony a9.

 

[SecureGSM]

Not sure what you are on about. The only purpose of my post was to see how high ISO noise characteristics of 6D II stack up against the same of 5D IV and at the same ISO level.
See if you can cut back on the number of coffees daily. You seems overreacting a lot.
For the record, I do not see these cameras being in the same league but am curious about high ISO performance of the new camera.

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.

good enuf...

not only are general exposure and WB quite different but even the lighting angle could be different as it seems to have added glare to the 5d4 shot visible in the colorchecker outer frame (upper R) and some of the color patches.

if I'd present this kind of incosistent comparison data here I'm sure a few here would be cr*ppin all over it!

Still, have a closer look at the darker tones in the non-glare areas. The 6d2 seems to use a more contrasty tone curve that pushes the low tones darker to help hide the noise. I mean, to appeal to the customer base this camera is aimed at.
Or is there too much DR on a paper target scene for the camera to handle?


apples-to-crabapples comparison

5d4 is in a whole different league, overall, but the 6d2 is plenty good enuf for most things at hi iso.

 

[Aglet]

Not sure what you are on about. The only purpose of my post was to see how high ISO noise characteristics of 6D II stack up against the same of 5D IV and at the same ISO level.
See if you can cut back on the number of coffees daily. You seems overreacting a lot.
For the record, I do not see these cameras being in the same league but am curious about high ISO performance of the new camera.

I understood what you wanted to compare.
I pointed out that the examples from that site were not well suited for that purpose but even tho, you can see the difference in tone curves applied between the 2 systems and how one could end up thinking the 6d2 was really good because, subjectively, it appears cleaner due to that difference in output processing and sample lighting.

 

[Cthulhu]

...the 6d2 is plenty good enuf for most things at hi iso.

That sounds just like what DPR said about the Nikon D5 and Sony a9.

If true they wouldn't be wrong.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I don't understand the locking of "Anything shot with a 6D2". My thought is that we now are moving to a thread where CR members will simply be posting their pics and describing their experiences. If anything the more gear oriented 6D2 threads should have been locked considering the unlimited nonsense that we've endured.

There was an "anything shot with a 6D, 1Dx ... , why not 6D2?

Jack

 

[Aglet]

I don't understand the locking of "Anything shot with a 6D2". My thought is that we now are moving to a thread where CR members will simply be posting their pics and describing their experiences. If anything the more gear oriented 6D2 threads should have been locked considering the unlimited nonsense that we've endured.

There was an "anything shot with a 6D, 1Dx ... , why not 6D2?

Jack

+1
seemed like a most logical location

 

[Billybob]

...

Latest rant noted. No need to repeat. Either you are right or Canon is. We shall find out.

Many of us feel same way and want to rant.

I went Canon when I went SLR because they were innovative.. first to bring video to an SLR, many other features etc. It was a leader.

I loved it and invested into their ecosystem and had hoped to work towards full frame, more pro bodies. But I don't make money from it and I can't afford to keep changing glass on each whim, so it's painful watching luke warm release after luke warm release while you see some really good innovation elsewhere.

Still watching the reviews, but looking more and more like I'll be still waiting.. again.

Yes, today Sony and Nikon are vying for the innovation crown. Recent rumors for the D850 release are pretty heady. 45-46MP, a true ISO 50, improved low and high ISO DR, up to 10 fps continuous (not clear if this will be just in 20MP crop-sensor mode), D5 AF, tilty screen, and XQD card slot, and full-frame 4k video. Now, video AF will still pale compared to Canon's, but if true, most of these rumors are true, this will be an amazing camera. Of course this is a whole different category from the 6DMII. What it means though is that Nikon has created enough room below the D850 that it won't have to "nerf" the D750 replacement to create product differentiation. Nikon can release a (D780?) with a 30MP sensor, 8-10FPS, 4k video, dual-card slots and marginally improved sensor (if at all) and still have a far superior camera campared to the 6DMII.

Yes, Nikon has had quality control problems, and yes, Canon's lens portfolio is a bit better. However, between Nikon's offerings and third party lenses, there is nothing that isn't covered from my perspective.

Will this cut into Canon's lead? Probably not. The switching costs are simply too high. But since I'm not invested in Canon stock, their lead in market share does me absolutely no good.

So bye bye Canon. I have a few L lenses in good shape--24-70mm L II, 70-300mm L, 100mm L, 85mm L II, and 100-400mm L II--that are going on the market soon. Selling these lenses should more than cover the purchase of D850 and Nikon 105E lens.

Troll or simply illogical? You do not want to pay for 5DMkIV but you are willing to sell your excellent lenses to pay for ... D850 ?

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=53f3756e83ed21cdae34510ac9750cac&topic=33164.0

So what? D850 will be a 5DsR or 5D4 competitor not a 6D2 competitor! Billybob was disappointed with 6D2 not with 5D4... I insist on "troll or illogical"....

If you define "troll" as anyone critical of your favorite brand, then I guess that includes me. My first DSLR was a Rebel 300D followed by 40D, 7D, and 7DMII. I've also owned all 3 5D FF cameras (yes, I have a bad case of GAS).

But I've been trending towards Nikon since 2009. My first camera was the Nikon 90D and I currently have 4 Nikon bodies (I need to shed two of them). I am now down to just the 80D on the Canon side. I never fully transitioned to Nikon because there are some things that Canon just does better. Canon cameras seem a bit more responsive, and as I said before, I have some amazing Canon glass, so I held out hope that Canon would produce cameras bodies that compete in IQ with the rest of the competition. But Canon doesn't compete with other brands. As long as it produces amazing glass and minimally addresses the needs of its user base, it doesn't need to match the offerings of other companies.

So my illogic was sticking with Canon as long as I have. I foolishly thought that they would do something different even though they were not losing market share. A company that feels no pressure to compete is great for shareholders, but horrible for users. I realize now that Canon has mastered the art of providing modest improvements to its camera bodies. Just enough to keep its user base locked in but not enough to generate any excitement.

I'm fortunate. I already have a foot out the door (actually, much more than a foot). It's just time for me to completely leave.

 

[jeffa4444]

I spent the whole of Sunday on Dartmoor under less than ideal lighting conditions most of the time shooting with the 6D and the 6DMKII. It was grey and bleak for August but ideal conditions to shoot long exposures of the West Dart river. I limited myself to a Big Stopper to freeze the water / or .6 medium ND grad to balance sky to foreground exposure. I deliberately under & over exposed some shots so I could pull them back in Lightroom etc.

My initial impressions are as follows purely subjective and not particularly scientific based on using the 6D for landscape since early 2013. Scientific tests will follow when its less manic at work.

The cameras were set at 100 iso and 400 iso, apertures were f5.6 and f11 and once in Lightroom I played with my normal go to settings for sharpening and exposure adjustment, saturation etc.
The 6D shots showed less noise in the shadow detail of underexposed shots recovered by 2 stops but it was marginal. The 6D MKII shots as to be expected looked sharper and I will need to tweak down my go to sharpening preset otherwise they look over sharpened. Colours looked very similar to the 5DS out of the 6D MKII and better than the 6D. I shot a very flat grey sky and with the 6D could provoke banding at 400 iso whereas the 6D MKII didn't show any. The performance of the 6D MKII regarding noise seemed better at 400 iso than it did at 100 iso which I didn't expect.

These were not exhaustive tests and different conditions could provide different results (sunny blue skies were sadly missing), but having shot on Dartmoor in similar conditions and having hundreds of shots to go back & compare too I would say in real world shooting the main obvious difference is not DR they appear close but the sharper shots from the 6D MKII. More noise in pulled shadow shots especially just two stops is not a feather in the cap for Canon but if you never enlarge more than A3 then your not particularly notice it either.

What I am disappointed with is the restricted coverage of the AF points being used to the 5DS as well as the 6D this is a limitation that I know will cause problems in certain situations. The lighter body is surprisingly noticeable seeing as on paper its not much of a change and the tilting / flippy screen was a great bonus with the camera low to the floor shooting long exposures of the river.

For those where DR improvement is what you were looking for (I would have liked it), this is not the camera for you, for those that want the extra versatility the flippy screen brings (the touch screen is great) then its worth the upgrade for the easier framing it presents (its huge in low tripod framing).

I will use the camera on a model shoot I have this coming weekend to see how I fair with the larger number of AF points, even with the 5DS I have to often lock focus & reframe. It will also be interesting to see how it fairs with studio lighting & the Chiaroscuro set-up I will shoot.

 

[BeenThere]

Jeffa4444 thanks for posting your initial impressions. Refreshing to see your comments without the drama that has infected this thread.

 

[dak723]

So my illogic was sticking with Canon as long as I have. I foolishly thought that they would do something different even though they were not losing market share. A company that feels no pressure to compete is great for shareholders, but horrible for users. I realize now that Canon has mastered the art of providing modest improvements to its camera bodies. Just enough to keep its user base locked in but not enough to generate any excitement.

I'm fortunate. I already have a foot out the door (actually, much more than a foot). It's just time for me to completely leave.

Before you actually leave, perhaps you could post some photos taken with both your Nikon gear and your Canon gear that demonstrate the differences in IQ that you believe separate the brands. Modest improvements are all that is possible between camera generations, in the belief of many folks - regardless of brand - so something more concrete than words would help us all understand how Nikon has surpassed Canon in your experience.