More Canon EOS 6D Mark II Talk [CR1]

[Matthew Saville]

Canon is very deliberate in what they add or omit. By omitting the 2nd slot, it is a direct move against anyone with any kind of professional use aspirations for this camera. Canon's view is, if you're going to dodge paying nearly $4,000 for a 5D, then we're going to make you pay for it by accepting the daily risk of losing photos when using the 6D2 on the job..........................

In the end, all Canon is doing is unnecessarily, and distastefully crippling the capabilities of a large segment of enthusiasts and entry-level pros.

A lousy, stinking 2nd card slot isn't that much to ask for or expect. It also isn't worthy of this kind of opposition by so many people.

Really bizarre.

Your comment is bizarre. The "daily risk of losing photos" is as far away from reality as possible. I'd venture that every long time pro has far more film horror stories than card failure stories. I have shot professionally with one card for over ten years and never had a card fail. I paid $6,000 for my camera with two card slots and almost never use both. I recently did a high profile shoot with a 6D and the last thing on my mind was card issues. If card failure was such a pro feature why don't all medium format digital cameras have them, especially given that size and cost and not as relevant to MFD bodies.

Dual card slots are a vastly over hyper 'feature' that the marketeers have managed to convince keen enthusiasts they need.

It's not just about corrupted cards, by the way. It's about having an immediate backup that is in your pocket or somewhere else, in case your bag or camera gets stolen at a wedding. Or in case it gets dropped in a lake. And lastly, it's also mighty helpful after the job, so that you can download the entire gig from one high-capacity memory card, without sacrificing the safety of swapping out smaller memory cards throughout the day.

But, it seems pretty clear that some folks just refuse to understand this, or maybe they're refusing to believe that Canon does have a corporate philosophy of carefully holding back on their lower models in order to incline more serious buyers to spend way more than they really need to.

In other words, you can talk about what a pro does or does not need until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that cameras like the D750 offer so much more, for about the same price.

This isn't about bashing or being a fanboy. It is in Canon owners best interest that they admit there is a serious problem with the corporate philosophy of upselling and complacency. You didn't stand for that early Rebel that was gimped via software to limit the ISO, and you jumped ship to the D700 in droves when the 5D 2 had the same crappy AF as the 5D 1. Why then are you making excuses for the 6D mk2?

 

[privatebydesign]

All this mindless debating! Good grief!

K, and anyone else who wants two card slots need not be attacked, nor do they need to defend their position. Their is no debate that two card slots offer a safety factor that one card slot does not. This is fact, not opinion.

It is also clear that Canon does not offer this feature in their 6D. Those who want this feature at a comparable price should get the Nikon if it is that important to them. They have options. The feature exists. Buy the camera that has what you want.

It is clear -at least with past experience as a guide - that Canon will not put features into their cheaper cameras if that will keep people from buying more expensive cameras in their lineup. This is not a sin, or deplorable, or outrageous. It is what most manufacturers do - whether you are buying a TV, car, computer, etc. The fact that Nikon is offering more features in their cheaper models is a break for the consumer, but it may prove to be a poor strategy for the company. Or perhaps their strategy will work. Only time will tell. But the choice is there for the consumer. Be satisfied with what you get from Canon - knowing their strategy, or switch to Nikon or other camera maker - knowing their strategies. Those are your choices. Whining and complaining about Canon's strategy won't make them change their strategy, especially if it is succeeding.

Well by that reasoning three is more valuable than two, and four even 'better' than three. This is also a fact, not an opinion.

My point was not that some people might have been sold the marketeers line that advanced amateurs need the dual card slot 'pro' feature, nor that two is intrinsically 'safer' than one (though still less safe than three or four), it was the ridiculous comment Z made that did deserve attacking, "by accepting the daily risk of losing photos". That is not true, and is not a fact, it is hyperbole and patently false. There is no daily risk of losing your photos if you have just one card slot and using that as a reason to demand dual slots is dishonest and inaccurate.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon is very deliberate in what they add or omit. By omitting the 2nd slot, it is a direct move against anyone with any kind of professional use aspirations for this camera. Canon's view is, if you're going to dodge paying nearly $4,000 for a 5D, then we're going to make you pay for it by accepting the daily risk of losing photos when using the 6D2 on the job..........................

In the end, all Canon is doing is unnecessarily, and distastefully crippling the capabilities of a large segment of enthusiasts and entry-level pros.

A lousy, stinking 2nd card slot isn't that much to ask for or expect. It also isn't worthy of this kind of opposition by so many people.

Really bizarre.

Your comment is bizarre. The "daily risk of losing photos" is as far away from reality as possible. I'd venture that every long time pro has far more film horror stories than card failure stories. I have shot professionally with one card for over ten years and never had a card fail. I paid $6,000 for my camera with two card slots and almost never use both. I recently did a high profile shoot with a 6D and the last thing on my mind was card issues. If card failure was such a pro feature why don't all medium format digital cameras have them, especially given that size and cost and not as relevant to MFD bodies.

Dual card slots are a vastly over hyper 'feature' that the marketeers have managed to convince keen enthusiasts they need.

It's not just about corrupted cards, by the way. It's about having an immediate backup that is in your pocket or somewhere else, in case your bag or camera gets stolen at a wedding. Or in case it gets dropped in a lake. And lastly, it's also mighty helpful after the job, so that you can download the entire gig from one high-capacity memory card, without sacrificing the safety of swapping out smaller memory cards throughout the day.

But, it seems pretty clear that some folks just refuse to understand this, or maybe they're refusing to believe that Canon does have a corporate philosophy of carefully holding back on their lower models in order to incline more serious buyers to spend way more than they really need to.

In other words, you can talk about what a pro does or does not need until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that cameras like the D750 offer so much more, for about the same price.

This isn't about bashing or being a fanboy. It is in Canon owners best interest that they admit there is a serious problem with the corporate philosophy of upselling and complacency. You didn't stand for that early Rebel that was gimped via software to limit the ISO, and you jumped ship to the D700 in droves when the 5D 2 had the same crappy AF as the 5D 1. Why then are you making excuses for the 6D mk2?

I understand perfectly well the innumerable and myriad of ways we can fail as photographers, and in my time I have achieved many of them, we can also contrive even more reasons, that will almost certainly never happen, that demand the 'saftey net' afforded by a feature that is up sold. But I dealt with cameras that recorded a single image at a time with film and have had no issues doing the same with digital.

Don has shot digitally for twenty years and lost one image, I have shot for over ten and not lost any from not using a dual card workflow. It isn't that a dual card workflow is needed, it is that the marketing departments have convinced you of your fallibility with a single card workflow and succeeded in making you want dual card slots.

 

[Matthew Saville]

....My point was not that some people might have been sold the marketeers line that advanced amateurs need the dual card slot 'pro' feature, nor that two is intrinsically 'safer' than one (though still less safe than three or four), it was the ridiculous comment Z made that did deserve attacking, "by accepting the daily risk of losing photos". That is not true, and is not a fact, it is hyperbole and patently false. There is no daily risk of losing your photos if you have just one card slot and using that as a reason to demand dual slots is dishonest and inaccurate.

Again, you're ONLY talking about corruption, and nothing else. Having dual card slots can offer many other benefits and protections other than just one card going bad.

I'm not sure what types of photography you guys are into, or if you do photography for a living, but well, it's complicated. And my dual card slots help keep my photos safer, in a complicated environment.

 

[Don Haines]

Personally, I think 2 cards is a good thing.

I like having a Compact Flash (or Cfast when they get more common) for speed, and a SD card for versatility. That SD card fits into laptops, ipads, tablets, televisions, etc etc. Yes, you do get backup protection out of it, but for me, the convenience is the big factor.

As mentioned above, I have only had one card fail on me in 20 years, and that was on the first shot of the day.. words were said, the card was popped out of the camera, a spare card put in, and on I went. Dual card backup isn't really the big thing for me, but I do appreciate it and use it... who knows, someday it might save my bacon....

The big thing with me for dual cards is my workflow. I go home, pop the card out of the camera and into the computer, download the images, and process them. Next morning I grab the camera and head out. The number of times that I have done that WITHOUT removing the memory card from the computer and putting it back into the camera is staggering

 

[Matthew Saville]

.....I understand perfectly well the innumerable and myriad of ways we can fail as photographers, and in my time I have achieved many of them, we can also contrive even more reasons, that will almost certainly never happen, that demand the 'saftey net' afforded by a feature that is up sold. But I dealt with cameras that recorded a single image at a time with film and have had no issues doing the same with digital.

Don has shot digitally for twenty years and lost one image, I have shot for over ten and not lost any from not using a dual card workflow. It isn't that a dual card workflow is needed, it is that the marketing departments have convinced you of your fallibility with a single card workflow and succeeded in making you want dual card slots.

If you were to ask me, I would say yes, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a job with a camera that has a single card slot. And, I trust my memory cards, I trust my workflow, and I trust my safety habits. So, to say that no serious pro should consider the current 6D is very shortsighted. I actually have advised plenty of pros and aspiring pros that a 6D is a great choice.

However, my other point remains- Canon isn't leaving this feature out because they don't want to subject you to false fears of fallibility. They're leaving it out because they want to maintain the elitist status of their flagship models, and sell more expensive cameras. That is a corporate philosophy I simply cannot support, not when other makers are working hard to cram as many pro features as they possibly can into the most affordable camera they possibly can. That is what I think needs to change, what Canon owners need to create a stronger voice against.

 

[Sporgon]

Canon is very deliberate in what they add or omit. By omitting the 2nd slot, it is a direct move against anyone with any kind of professional use aspirations for this camera. Canon's view is, if you're going to dodge paying nearly $4,000 for a 5D, then we're going to make you pay for it by accepting the daily risk of losing photos when using the 6D2 on the job..........................

In the end, all Canon is doing is unnecessarily, and distastefully crippling the capabilities of a large segment of enthusiasts and entry-level pros.

A lousy, stinking 2nd card slot isn't that much to ask for or expect. It also isn't worthy of this kind of opposition by so many people.

Really bizarre.

Your comment is bizarre. The "daily risk of losing photos" is as far away from reality as possible. I'd venture that every long time pro has far more film horror stories than card failure stories. I have shot professionally with one card for over ten years and never had a card fail. I paid $6,000 for my camera with two card slots and almost never use both. I recently did a high profile shoot with a 6D and the last thing on my mind was card issues. If card failure was such a pro feature why don't all medium format digital cameras have them, especially given that size and cost and not as relevant to MFD bodies.

Dual card slots are a vastly over hyper 'feature' that the marketeers have managed to convince keen enthusiasts they need.

It's not just about corrupted cards, by the way. It's about having an immediate backup that is in your pocket or somewhere else, in case your bag or camera gets stolen at a wedding. Or in case it gets dropped in a lake. And lastly, it's also mighty helpful after the job, so that you can download the entire gig from one high-capacity memory card, without sacrificing the safety of swapping out smaller memory cards throughout the day.

But, it seems pretty clear that some folks just refuse to understand this, or maybe they're refusing to believe that Canon does have a corporate philosophy of carefully holding back on their lower models in order to incline more serious buyers to spend way more than they really need to.

In other words, you can talk about what a pro does or does not need until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that cameras like the D750 offer so much more, for about the same price.

This isn't about bashing or being a fanboy. It is in Canon owners best interest that they admit there is a serious problem with the corporate philosophy of upselling and complacency. You didn't stand for that early Rebel that was gimped via software to limit the ISO, and you jumped ship to the D700 in droves when the 5D 2 had the same crappy AF as the 5D 1. Why then are you making excuses for the 6D mk2?

Stroll on....

How do you sleep at night ? What happens if your Mum puts the card in your pants in the washing machine and the other one fails ?

 

[Loswr]

My failures with cards have been:
1) The USB reader itself introduced errors
2) Pins in USB reader getting bent/broken in the CF slot
3) Not having a CF reader built into my laptop
4) Finding a CF USB reader in a shop when on holidays

1) Defective / poorly chosen 3rd party product.
2) Defective / poorly chosen / misused 3rd party product.
3) Poorly chosen 3rd party product.
4) Poor planning on your part.

Unfortunately...
1) Card readers don't all come with reviews or tell you if they're defective or even seem ok until...
2) This is a very common problem for CF card users.
3) Apple don't sell laptops with CF card readers in them. Are you saying that buying an Apple laptop if your digital camera requires CF cards is a poorly chosen product?
4) I don't know about you, but I don't choose my holiday destinations based on availability of CF card readers in shops.

Realistically...
1) Many do, you have free choice. Hint: the one that costs $5 on eBay is probably not very reliable
2) As you say, a problem for users. Why? Either a design flaw (see #1) or carelessness.
3) If you require an internal CF slot then yes, Apple is a poor choice. Apple is also now a poor choice if you require an internal optical drive. Fortunately there are CF readers. I have both a SanDisk FW800 and a Siig ExpressCard, and amazingly both have worked flawlessly for years (see #1).
4) Are you truly that obtuse? If you can't remember to pack your card reader whatever your destination, that's a personal problem. Would you also prefer to blame Canon if you leave your camera at home? :

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm not sure what types of photography you guys are into, or if you do photography for a living, but well, it's complicated. And my dual card slots help keep my photos safer, in a complicated environment.

It is as complicated as you make it.

I am a full time working pro photographer, I am a generalist, last week I was shooting yachts in the Caribbean, on Saturday I am shooting a wedding in Florida, next week I am shooting artwork for a small town council and the week after that I am back down to the Caribbean for two weeks of mixed yachts and high end real estate.

On Saturday I will have a van load of gear from lights and stands to lenses and bodies a second shooter and an assistant, the week after that I will have one body two lenses and a battery charger that fit in a carry on with my paperwork and clothes, I'll shoot it all with one card.

I understand what you are saying, I don't understand why anybody cares about two card slots. Yes it is a feature Canon use to differentiate between ranges, so what?

However much you criticise Canon what is the alternative? Nikon and Sony throw in everything with every model, do you think that doesn't come at a cost? Of course it does, either reliability, quality control, lower cost components, less investment in the rest of the system etc etc. All camera systems are a balance and pretty much all of them will work for most keen users most of the time.

Buy what you need to do the job you want, take most of the crap on the internet with a healthy dose of skepticism and don't believe the marketing.

 

[Matthew Saville]

....Nikon and Sony throw in everything with every model, do you think that doesn't come at a cost? Of course it does, either reliability, quality control, lower cost components, less investment in the rest of the system etc etc. All camera systems are a balance and pretty much all of them will work for most keen users most of the time....

While I agree with everything else you're saying, I feel this statement is becoming less and less powerful.

Canon and Nikon have been "on top" for too long, and they're beginning to try to get away with crap they shouldn't.

Nikon cuts MFG / QC corners, and winds up with oily sensors or other stuff.

Canon feels free to leave out features that Nikon has offered for 3-ish (2.5?) generations of "affordable full-frame" cameras now, and has offered in multiple sub-$2K cameras since 2009.

In other words, $1,100 cameras like the Pentax K-3 mk2 incline me to believe that neither of these Canon / Nikon shortcomings are compromises that we should accept as "just the way it is".

 

[The Flasher]

I'm not sure what types of photography you guys are into, or if you do photography for a living, but well, it's complicated. And my dual card slots help keep my photos safer, in a complicated environment.

It is as complicated as you make it.

I am a full time working pro photographer, I am a generalist, last week I was shooting yachts in the Caribbean, on Saturday I am shooting a wedding in Florida, next week I am shooting artwork for a small town council and the week after that I am back down to the Caribbean for two weeks of mixed yachts and high end real estate.

On Saturday I will have a van load of gear from lights and stands to lenses and bodies a second shooter and an assistant, the week after that I will have one body two lenses and a battery charger that fit in a carry on with my paperwork and clothes, I'll shoot it all with one card.

I understand what you are saying, I don't understand why anybody cares about two card slots. Yes it is a feature Canon use to differentiate between ranges, so what?

However much you criticise Canon what is the alternative? Nikon and Sony throw in everything with every model, do you think that doesn't come at a cost? Of course it does, either reliability, quality control, lower cost components, less investment in the rest of the system etc etc. All camera systems are a balance and pretty much all of them will work for most keen users most of the time.

Buy what you need to do the job you want, take most of the crap on the internet with a healthy dose of skepticism and don't believe the marketing.

I posted this on page 4 or 5 as a response to a very early comment, but wanted to copy it here again, pro dual slots.


Same debate as last week's post, boils down to the fact that no other Canon camera in the full frame range has wifi built in, a feature us 'pros' crave, plus the small form factor, low light performance and low ev focus ability - that one cross type is just one, but so accurate.. Controlling the camera remotely via tablet over wifi while camera mounted in tight or precarious position, or simply letting clients view image near real time as you shoot is the next level of usability of this tool.

Second card slot is a must to limit liability of failing cards, dropped and stepped-on cards, lost cards etc. Data redundancy starts in camera.

ps. Cards still fail, that's not even a debate.

To add, Don above was lucky it failed at the beginning of the shoot. Had it failed at the end, and had he'd spent $10k on equipment, production permits, talent, assistants, props, etc, and everyone had gone home before he realized the data was lost, there would have been tears. And money lost, insurance or not. And speaking of taking out insurance on a project, there's usually a data compromise clause, whereby you are required to shoot to redundant media, more so in the movie industry, but if there's enough money on the table, stills jobs as well.
To me dual slots a must - if the 6D didn't have a killer wifi feature and fantastic image quality warranting it's use on profeassional assignments, I'd be happily shooting 5D3 or 1ds3 and wouldnt be participating in this debate.

Cheers.

 

[Loswr]

...maybe they're refusing to believe that Canon does have a corporate philosophy of carefully holding back on their lower models in order to incline more serious buyers to spend way more than they really need want to.

I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't believe or understand that, with the caveat of the edit above. What's baffling is the apparent belief that whining on the Internet about what is basically Marketing 101 will change it. You can't get the DVD Navigation system on the base model Honda Pilot. OMG, Honda are a bunch of greedy, conniving, upselling bastards. :

In other words, you can talk about what a pro does or does not need until you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that cameras like the D750 offer so much more, for about the same price.

Indeed. Compared to the 6D, the D750 offers features like a more card slots, more low ISO DR, more AF points, a more limited lens lineup, more average lens softness, significantly more repair turnaround time at more cost...and all for about the same price. Yay, more is better!

You didn't stand for that early Rebel that was gimped via software to limit the ISO, and you jumped ship to the D700 in droves when the 5D 2 had the same crappy AF as the 5D 1. Why then are you making excuses for the 6D mk2?

You have an interesting way of recalling history. Interesting, even if factually inaccurate.

 

[privatebydesign]

....Nikon and Sony throw in everything with every model, do you think that doesn't come at a cost? Of course it does, either reliability, quality control, lower cost components, less investment in the rest of the system etc etc. All camera systems are a balance and pretty much all of them will work for most keen users most of the time....

While I agree with everything else you're saying, I feel this statement is becoming less and less powerful.

Canon and Nikon have been "on top" for too long, and they're beginning to try to get away with crap they shouldn't.

Nikon cuts MFG / QC corners, and winds up with oily sensors or other stuff.

Canon feels free to leave out features that Nikon has offered for 3-ish (2.5?) generations of "affordable full-frame" cameras now, and has offered in multiple sub-$2K cameras since 2009.

In other words, $1,100 cameras like the Pentax K-3 mk2 incline me to believe that neither of these Canon / Nikon shortcomings are compromises that we should accept as "just the way it is".

It depends entirely on how broad a view you take of your system and how much of that system functionality you are interested in accessing.

For people mainly interested in a DSLR with a 24ish to 200ish mm focal length range there is little to choose between the manufacturers, and small points like dual card slots can make a difference to modest users.

Others have niche uses and specific requirements that push them in one direction for more fundamentally important key reasons. For example I use the unique first party Canon RT system extensively, for me the 100% reliability of that one feature alone vastly outweighs any thoughts of dual card slots on a body, any body. How about the unique 11-24 I have on order? Or the unique 17 TS-E that I use very often. Canon are and have been extremely prolific in outstanding system features that really have put them in a class of their own, sure many won't find a use for some of them, for example I love the idea of the 200-400 f4 1.4 but will never buy one, but I appreciate that Canon are looking after a broad range of system orientated users.

I use many of the unique features the Canon system provides, for a generalist like me Canon is unmatched in the depth and breadth of the system I need, I am no fanboy, I need radio flash control, I need a 17 TS-E, I need an 11-24. Canon is the only company that offers me any one of those as a first party option.

 

[Don Haines]

Second card slot is a must to limit liability of failing cards, dropped and stepped-on cards, lost cards etc. Data redundancy starts in camera.

ps. Cards still fail, that's not even a debate.[/i]

To add, Don above was lucky it failed at the beginning of the shoot. Had it failed at the end, and had he'd spent $10k on equipment, production permits, talent, assistants, props, etc, and everyone had gone home before he realized the data was lost, there would have been tears. And money lost, insurance or not. And speaking of taking out insurance on a project, there's usually a data compromise clause, whereby you are required to shoot to redundant media, more so in the movie industry, but if there's enough money on the table, stills jobs as well.
To me dual slots a must - if the 6D didn't have a killer wifi feature and fantastic image quality warranting it's use on profeassional assignments, I'd be happily shooting 5D3 or 1ds3 and wouldnt be participating in this debate.

Cheers.

Don WAS lucky it failed at the beginning of the shoot.... and there was a second card in the camera so nothing was lost.... with the exception of the one shot where the camera reported that there was an error writing to the card and did not save the shot. I immediately replaced the bad card with a spare card and continued the shoot with 2 cards in the camera.

Everything will fail at one time or another.... cards die, hard drives crash, camera bodies turn into bricks... we do what we can to mitigate those risks.

On an important shoot, I carry two cameras and for a good reason. I had a camera die during a wedding, and because of the backup camera, nobody even noticed... I had another camera die while shooting the big group photo for a reunion (the day after the warranty expired..... don't know how they timed that????), and out came the backup body to save my bacon... and that wedding.... I was second shooter.... more backup

So two cards.... I regard it as a very good feature for professional usage, but just because a camera does not have two cards does not mean a pro wouldn't use it... A pro with a 6D would swap in a new card every now and then so that the entire day's shooting was not all on one card... better to loose just an hour than the entire day....

 

[Bernard]

It's about having an immediate backup that is in your pocket or somewhere else, in case your bag or camera gets stolen at a wedding.

Hold on a minute. You are talking about shooting weddings with a 6D? It's a lovely camera, but what happens when it rains? Do you tell the bride that you can't get the shots she wants because it's too wet out? What happens when you drop your bag or bang the camera? Do you tell the whole wedding party that they need to reschedule because you didn't bring the right tools?

You know what, there's no point arguing. There won't be much left once the Mother in Law and her lawyers are done with you.

For the rest of us, let me be perfectly clear: the 6D is not a professional camera. Adding a second card slot will not change that.

If real customers are paying for your time and for results, you bring a camera that works in the toughest conditions. You don't bring excuses. Sure, you can experiment with a non-professional camera: run a few Polaroids, or shoot some stuff with a Holga, but that's in addition to the shots you are paid to cover. The 6D's images are not different enough from a 1Dx or 5D3 to justify being anything but the "last chance" fourth backup camera that stays locked in a waterproof container in the back of your car all day.

 

[privatebydesign]

It's about having an immediate backup that is in your pocket or somewhere else, in case your bag or camera gets stolen at a wedding.

Hold on a minute. You are talking about shooting weddings with a 6D? It's a lovely camera, but what happens when it rains? Do you tell the bride that you can't get the shots she wants because it's too wet out? What happens when you drop your bag or bang the camera? Do you tell the whole wedding party that they need to reschedule because you didn't bring the right tools?

You know what, there's no point arguing. There won't be much left once the Mother in Law and her lawyers are done with you.

For the rest of us, let me be perfectly clear: the 6D is not a professional camera. Adding a second card slot will not change that.

If real customers are paying for your time and for results, you bring a camera that works in the toughest conditions. You don't bring excuses. Sure, you can experiment with a non-professional camera: run a few Polaroids, or shoot some stuff with a Holga, but that's in addition to the shots you are paid to cover. The 6D's images are not different enough from a 1Dx or 5D3 to justify being anything but the "last chance" fourth backup camera that stays locked in a waterproof container in the back of your car all day.

Ah, another persons view hijacked by marketeers.

I have used the 6D for pro shoots, I would happily use the 6D for weddings. The 6D is a way way better camera than the $7,000 1Ds we were shooting weddings with over ten years ago, and that had one card slot! It is leagues better than the 1VHS's I used for my last film weddings and many leagues better than the F1N's and A1's I shot weddings with pre AF.

Anybody that couldn't shoot an excellent wedding with a 6D shouldn't be shooting weddings, all modern digital cameras can easily do that.

 

[9VIII]

What happens when you... bang the camera?

You're doing it wrong.

 

[The Flasher]

Second card slot is a must to limit liability of failing cards, dropped and stepped-on cards, lost cards etc. Data redundancy starts in camera.

ps. Cards still fail, that's not even a debate.[/i]

To add, Don above was lucky it failed at the beginning of the shoot. Had it failed at the end, and had he'd spent $10k on equipment, production permits, talent, assistants, props, etc, and everyone had gone home before he realized the data was lost, there would have been tears. And money lost, insurance or not. And speaking of taking out insurance on a project, there's usually a data compromise clause, whereby you are required to shoot to redundant media, more so in the movie industry, but if there's enough money on the table, stills jobs as well.
To me dual slots a must - if the 6D didn't have a killer wifi feature and fantastic image quality warranting it's use on profeassional assignments, I'd be happily shooting 5D3 or 1ds3 and wouldnt be participating in this debate.

Cheers.

Don WAS lucky it failed at the beginning of the shoot.... and there was a second card in the camera so nothing was lost.... with the exception of the one shot where the camera reported that there was an error writing to the card and did not save the shot. I immediately replaced the bad card with a spare card and continued the shoot with 2 cards in the camera.

Everything will fail at one time or another.... cards die, hard drives crash, camera bodies turn into bricks... we do what we can to mitigate those risks.

On an important shoot, I carry two cameras and for a good reason. I had a camera die during a wedding, and because of the backup camera, nobody even noticed... I had another camera die while shooting the big group photo for a reunion (the day after the warranty expired..... don't know how they timed that????), and out came the backup body to save my bacon... and that wedding.... I was second shooter.... more backup

So two cards.... I regard it as a very good feature for professional usage, but just because a camera does not have two cards does not mean a pro wouldn't use it... A pro with a 6D would swap in a new card every now and then so that the entire day's shooting was not all on one card... better to loose just an hour than the entire day....

This just popped up on petapixel, re liability, data etc.

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/28/wedding-photographer-ordered-to-pay-couple-8800-after-losing-photos/

 

[privatebydesign]

Second card slot is a must to limit liability of failing cards, dropped and stepped-on cards, lost cards etc. Data redundancy starts in camera.

ps. Cards still fail, that's not even a debate.[/i]

To add, Don above was lucky it failed at the beginning of the shoot. Had it failed at the end, and had he'd spent $10k on equipment, production permits, talent, assistants, props, etc, and everyone had gone home before he realized the data was lost, there would have been tears. And money lost, insurance or not. And speaking of taking out insurance on a project, there's usually a data compromise clause, whereby you are required to shoot to redundant media, more so in the movie industry, but if there's enough money on the table, stills jobs as well.
To me dual slots a must - if the 6D didn't have a killer wifi feature and fantastic image quality warranting it's use on profeassional assignments, I'd be happily shooting 5D3 or 1ds3 and wouldnt be participating in this debate.

Cheers.

Don WAS lucky it failed at the beginning of the shoot.... and there was a second card in the camera so nothing was lost.... with the exception of the one shot where the camera reported that there was an error writing to the card and did not save the shot. I immediately replaced the bad card with a spare card and continued the shoot with 2 cards in the camera.

Everything will fail at one time or another.... cards die, hard drives crash, camera bodies turn into bricks... we do what we can to mitigate those risks.

On an important shoot, I carry two cameras and for a good reason. I had a camera die during a wedding, and because of the backup camera, nobody even noticed... I had another camera die while shooting the big group photo for a reunion (the day after the warranty expired..... don't know how they timed that????), and out came the backup body to save my bacon... and that wedding.... I was second shooter.... more backup

So two cards.... I regard it as a very good feature for professional usage, but just because a camera does not have two cards does not mean a pro wouldn't use it... A pro with a 6D would swap in a new card every now and then so that the entire day's shooting was not all on one card... better to loose just an hour than the entire day....

This just popped up on petapixel, re liability, data etc.

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/28/wedding-photographer-ordered-to-pay-couple-8800-after-losing-photos/

And that is a quantum leap from that situation to the two card slot argument. Besides, his contract must suck and it should be a matter for his insurers. At no point should your personal liability ever exceed your agreed fees and insurance should take care of accidental liabilities and legal fees.

Work smart people.

 

[Loswr]

This just popped up on petapixel, re liability, data etc.

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/28/wedding-photographer-ordered-to-pay-couple-8800-after-losing-photos/

After the event in Seville, the photographer somehow deleted the photos without making any backup of them — and presumably without any way to recover the data.

A second card slot is not adequate protection from stupidity.