More Canon EOS 6D Specifications Talk [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Phone under $1,000 is 4K and 2017 with no 4K is a big mistake for a DSLR over $2,000.
Even 4K TV has gone down in price. Stagnation is a failure ...
Even 4K TV has gone down in price. Stagnation is a failure ...
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
The 6D2, if it's like the 6D, will start around $2,000 and there'll be the expectation that they offer something better than what they did years ago. It'll be 2017 when the 6D2 is released and it's head-scratching how 4K would then still be viewed as a $10,000 technology. And since Canon doesn't produce a new version every six months like another company, they'll have to sell the 6D2 in 2018, 2019, 2020 too when 4K adoption will likely have grown.
For Canon it'll make it more competitive for them to have that basic 4K in there, whether or not people actually it. The 4K Canon's put in the 5D4 isn't even particularly advanced at just 30fps max at 1.7X crop in an old codec. That could be good enough for many users where not having it at all wouldn't be. The 5D3 and 6D came with the same video capability and it's conceivable the same thing will happen with the 5D4 and 6D2.
Against the 6D2, Canon will have to, and can, distinguish the 5D4 not for video but for its stills capabilities like higher resolution, more sophisticated autofocus, faster burst, etc, as well as better build.
Upvote
0
Maiaibing said:
Exactly.
I believe the 6D sensor was experimental. A mix between high iso performance from the 1DX, DR and lower resolution than the 5D3. It turned out great. And since it's not that different from the 5D3, you're paying for a lower body quality, less weather sealing, less af points, less durability, etc.
I'm sure the 6D2 sensor will exceed and of course it'll have lower noise, its a 24/25 mpx against 30. Heck, ill love it to have 22 and outperform the D750 / "D760" / "D650" and the 1DX Mark 1.
Upvote
0
I'm happy to hear more rumors about the 6D Mark II, but I'm concerned by the words "tilting screen." I am a BIG fully-articulated screen fan. Not all my shots are horizontals, after all, and a tilt-only screen provides no help with verticals. We know (from the 80D and other crop-sensor models) that Canon knows how to make these things. If they do the wrong thing (oh, when has Canon EVER done that, cry the doubters!) and stick a basic tilt-only screen on the back, I'll be very disappointed. I'm not a video guy, so losing 4K doesn't bother me.
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:rfdesigner said:
Because BNC is obsolete and N is too bulky?
indeed
in fact on the kit I design SMA is only used on external connectors, U.fl is the way to go. (2mm total height including mating half and the cable)
but then I find size (or lack of) is king.
Upvote
0
Hellish said:
As the mobile phone has 4k now. I think the digital camera, high level camera requires 4k. 6D mark II needs 4k . If 6D mark II without 4K and just have 19 AF points. I will hesitate whether it is worth buying. My ideal parameter of 6D mark II maybe will have 4K and 33~41 AF points.
Upvote
0
fixed it for you 33-41 AF points are not coming. the ideal parameter of 6D mark II from Canon perspective:
Serve as hook, line and sinker. Convert APS-C user base into FF user base and leave them wanting more of the Pro range camera features, be uncomfortable about camera limitation but not dissatisfied.
33-41 AF points are not coming. the ideal parameter of 6D mark II from Canon perspective: Serve as hook, line and sinker. Convert APS-C user base into FF user base and leave them wanting more of the Pro range camera features, be uncomfortable about camera limitation but not dissatisfied.
Joycreate said:
Upvote
0
Real 4k produces increadible high data volumes, which i am not sure that the consumer wants to handle them for filming their dog and post on youtube.
the so called 4k content on youtube and content which is produced by smartphones is so highly compresst, that there is much quality loss. Maybe it's more "marketing" than "resolution" which give this formats the label "4k"
To have a good quality FullHD output is maybe a good compromis and more honest, than giving a pseudo 4k.
The next limitation of 4k is the viewing distance. To view 4k on a 40'' screen from 4 meters distance is completely meaningless, even for FullHD. The resolution of the eyes is not enough. To enjoy 4k resolution, the Viewer must stand directly in front of the display.
As a user,to prepare for 4k is a huge change, it needs a huge screen, close viewing distance, increadible amount of data space for the content, immens computing power to edit the videos etc. buying a real video camera for this is only a small part of this expense.
Creating a good film (other than just recording holiday memories) needs i lot of skills, i gave up on this and just do still which is already difficult enough. Recording Terrabytes of crap is meaningless, nobody will ever want to see it, neither in FullHD nor in 4k
the so called 4k content on youtube and content which is produced by smartphones is so highly compresst, that there is much quality loss. Maybe it's more "marketing" than "resolution" which give this formats the label "4k"
To have a good quality FullHD output is maybe a good compromis and more honest, than giving a pseudo 4k.
The next limitation of 4k is the viewing distance. To view 4k on a 40'' screen from 4 meters distance is completely meaningless, even for FullHD. The resolution of the eyes is not enough. To enjoy 4k resolution, the Viewer must stand directly in front of the display.
As a user,to prepare for 4k is a huge change, it needs a huge screen, close viewing distance, increadible amount of data space for the content, immens computing power to edit the videos etc. buying a real video camera for this is only a small part of this expense.
Creating a good film (other than just recording holiday memories) needs i lot of skills, i gave up on this and just do still which is already difficult enough. Recording Terrabytes of crap is meaningless, nobody will ever want to see it, neither in FullHD nor in 4k
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
Lack of 4K (or any other video system) will be irrelevant for me and every other photographer (bar one) that I know. Many of us have no interest in this side of photography and buy still cameras to shoot stills!
Naturally there are those out there who want to shoot video with a DSLR but, as I said, I only know one photographer who shoots a little video occasionally. Note I only know 60-70 photographers but it is still a very small percentage that need/want any form of video let alone 4K.
I feel that the R&D involved would be FAR better spent on other aspects of a 6D2 - or any other DSLR for that matter. Even a 1% improvement in AF/DR?hig ISO would be welcomed, Improved video? I can't even be bothered to find the switch, I only one photographer that can and he isn't that concerned.
All I would like from a 6D is more (accurate) AF points and an improved sensor, possibly a few more MP but not too many. A tilty screen might be handy for low level/macro work but far from essential.
Naturally there are those out there who want to shoot video with a DSLR but, as I said, I only know one photographer who shoots a little video occasionally. Note I only know 60-70 photographers but it is still a very small percentage that need/want any form of video let alone 4K.
I feel that the R&D involved would be FAR better spent on other aspects of a 6D2 - or any other DSLR for that matter. Even a 1% improvement in AF/DR?hig ISO would be welcomed, Improved video? I can't even be bothered to find the switch, I only one photographer that can and he isn't that concerned.
All I would like from a 6D is more (accurate) AF points and an improved sensor, possibly a few more MP but not too many. A tilty screen might be handy for low level/macro work but far from essential.
Upvote
0
johnf3f said:
I'm in two minds on 4k.
I don't need it, many others don't need it... but if this camera is going to last 4 years then there's a strong argument that it needs 4k.. otherwise it would be like the current 6D only doing 720p @ 30fps.
in 4 years time, very many people will have 4k TVs and would want to have 4k video.
My counter argument is that the 6D is aimed at enthusiasts who "know what they're doing", who ought to know that you need a decent video setup for 4k, if you're going to do hand held wobblecam, then 1080p is still more than adequate.
the 6D has never been that well regarded for video, those that have bought it have selected it on the basis of stills performace. If I were in Canons shoes I might put 4k using the full sensor in a 7DIII, and not put it in the 6D at all.
I think it's more important that the 6D produces top flight stills.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
