More Detailed Specifications for the Canon EOS 6D Mark II

[tron]

Funny how one can enjoy something, like thoroughly enjoy something, and then at a later date describe it as garbage. Do we really need the biggest/best of everything to be happy. Seems research shows that those with the comfortable least are the happiest. I'm not immune but I try hard to not get constantly caught up in this syndrome. I'm convinced that the 6D2 will be a very nice upgrade for me. Yes, all you trolls, Canon has sucked this fool in and I will continue to be happy. And I'm fine with you being happy with your XYZ.

Jack

I'm with ya there. Quite happy with what I have, my lowly 1080p TV and "ancient" 6D are doing just fine! When the time comes I'll be happy to upgrade to the MkII, even if that's a year or more from now. The cameras these days far surpass my own capabilities and I'd rather worry about my skills (or lack there of) than the specs sheets of cameras. Life is pretty good right now. I think we forget just how good it is!

You are correct both of you. It is funny how I have a latest camera like 5DMkIV but on the other hand I also have a 24 inch Sony trinitron TV from the early 90s (Not even a flat screen TV ;D ;D ;D )

 

[pokerz]

Canon
2017 to 2022 is the era of 1080

 

[Jack Douglas]

Tron, you have your priorities straight! If you saw my wardrobe (or lack thereof) you'd know where my priorities lie and an old HD Tv that I only have, thanks to my deceased cousin. My wife is to blame pushing me into the recent photographic purchases, well kind of.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

I live in a rural area.... no cable, no fiber, no high speed internet.... but I do have a 4K tv..... mostly because my tv is also the display for my computer.....

The only 4K content every played on it is from my GoPro.... DVDs (blue ray) are 2K, over the air signals are 2K at best, and any web content would take forever to download even at 2K....

4K is the future, but I am still in the past.....

 

[Jack Douglas]

Aren't you thankful you can still be partially in the past? Sounds like a lovely situation where you are. I'm only on 3 acres but I love it since the reserve land still has lots of wildlife.

Jack

 

[9VIII]

Funny how one can enjoy something, like thoroughly enjoy something, and then at a later date describe it as garbage. Do we really need the biggest/best of everything to be happy. Seems research shows that those with the comfortable least are the happiest. I'm not immune but I try hard to not get constantly caught up in this syndrome. I'm convinced that the 6D2 will be a very nice upgrade for me. Yes, all you trolls, Canon has sucked this fool in and I will continue to be happy. And I'm fine with you being happy with your XYZ.

Jack

If this comment was referring to screen resolution, I assure you that I have never been happy with the resolution of any TV, and even 4K isn't good enough.
I've had the same standards from the start, that being a display with as much clarity than I can see, and nothing on the market meets that expectation, and won't for quite some time.
HDMI 2.1 supports up to 10K and (according to my own measurements) that should actually meet my expectations (as long as I can get it in normal screen sizes).
I'll probably have to settle on 8K for gaming though, but at least that's still really close to being ideal.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

You specifically brought up the "hardly makes a difference" claim.

It's not a "claim" - it's a demonstrable, trivially easily observed fact.

 

[foo]

The problem (a problem, besides the glasses) with 3D was that if it wasn't shot in 3D, there was no way to turn an old 2D film into 3D, so the content was much more limited than 4k will be. You can colorize Casablanca, you can release a 4k version of Casablanca, but you can't make a 3D Casablanca.

You should google 'stereo conversion'.

While it's certainly the case that filming with 3D in mind may help a lot, it's far from impossible to convert 2D into 3D. Some fairly significant percentage of 3D films being made today are shot in 2D and converted.

I suspect it's not a question of whether they could convert Casablanca to 3D or not, more whether it would be comercially viable or not.

See http://www.primefocusworld.com/3d-conversion

 

[9VIII]

You specifically brought up the "hardly makes a difference" claim.

It's not a "claim" - it's a demonstrable, trivially easily observed fact.

It's fact that the "one ark minute" limitation of "visual acuity" has never applied to anything but line pairs, it's a practially useless test to use on people and the results were always practically meaningless.

It's been proven time and again that 1080p is no-where close to reaching the limits of human vision: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum-hyperacuity/index.html

All the marketing around 1080p was total hogwash. It was effective because they were taking one aspect of human vision and acting like it's the absolute limitation for everything when in reality virtually nothing that you will ever look at falls under that limitation.

Everyone can see for themselves how much resolution you can actually use.
If you can see the stair-stepping effect of the pixels used in your display then you need more resolution: http://www.testufo.com/#test=aliasing-visibility&foreground=FFFFFF&background=000000&antialiasing=0&thickness=3
It's not hard to figure out how much more resolution you can use. Measure your current viewing distance and then measure how much farther back you need to be in order to make pixels blend together.
Then multiply the pixel density of your display by the same number of times that you had to multiply your viewing distance: https://www.sven.de/dpi/

4K isn't even close the being enough pixels to out perform your ability to see details (on an average screen from an average viewing distance).

People also don't commonly build multi-thousand dollar "home music" rooms, where the "home theater" is almost expected for anyone in the middle class or higher. The importance that people place on visual quality is an order of magnitude higher than the importance of audio quality.

4K has a market, and so will 8K. The Japanese are going to be broadcasting in 8K come 2020.
1080p is being phased out and everyone should be thankful for that because the idea of hundred million dollar moveis being recorded at the same resolution as 15 year old TV's is horrendous. What's worse is all the 3D stuff means "professional" movie theaters currently offer the worst visual quality you can possibly get. Right now Youtube actually provides better image quality than "Digital IMAX".
That has got to change.

(And action movies should be shot at 120fps, almost all of the effect of explosions is lost at 24fps.)

 

[Jack Douglas]

@Don - actually I have to say that I was not really focusing on TV or monitors and I plan to fork out for a much higher level 32" monitor since I don't want that link to be weak in the process of working on my photos. I don't watch many movies etc. and really don't care much about my TV except for nature videos etc.

I tend towards perfectionism and have to fight it in order to not waste too much time on projects that really don't deserve the treatment so of course I can get wound up in the gear criticism department too. I simply have to remind myself regularly that it's not a significant source of happiness and often counterproductive, and to keep things in perspective, I'm just an enthusiast.

Jack

 

[darynthe]

Personally--- I am not buying into this upgrade. Will hold on to my 6D for another 4 years until the next generation or if there is an update on 5Dr. I am supposed to be the perfect market to this camera though. I am an enthusiast who doesn't do much video who wanted better AF. I do a lot of macro and studio. But I don't see a good resale value on this new camera and I feel it is overpriced if we go by the competitor brands.
If the metabones is fast enough in the upcoming A3iii I may consider making and effort and buying that one to use with my glass. I was needing 120-240 fps slow motion capabilities, for a personal project. I will just rent the 5d IV I guess. Not rich here folks, gotta be careful with this kind of expenses. I respect everybody else's opinion if you guys like and will buy I think it not unreasonable either. Those leaving because of the disappointment, sorry but I think they are just as reasonable. This offering is too average so any decision is not unreasonable.

 

[SevenDUser]

Does 6D mkII support HDR in RAW format? The old 6D only supports JPG?

 

[Khalai]

Does 6D mkII support HDR in RAW format? The old 6D only supports JPG?

Bad news for you.

6D Mark II manual, p. 256, clearly states that HDR is saved as JPEG file and you cannot select either RAW or RAW+JPEG quality settings - in those settings, HDR mode is not available.

 

[SevenDUser]

Does 6D mkII support HDR in RAW format? The old 6D only supports JPG?

Bad news for you.

6D Mark II manual, p. 256, clearly states that HDR is saved as JPEG file and you cannot select either RAW or RAW+JPEG quality settings - in those settings, HDR mode is not available.

Not getting it then... Thanks!

 

[Khalai]

Does 6D mkII support HDR in RAW format? The old 6D only supports JPG?

Bad news for you.

6D Mark II manual, p. 256, clearly states that HDR is saved as JPEG file and you cannot select either RAW or RAW+JPEG quality settings - in those settings, HDR mode is not available.

Not getting it then... Thanks!

You can still bracket RAW files and make HDR file in the post as usual.

 

[Mikehit]

Does 6D mkII support HDR in RAW format? The old 6D only supports JPG?

Bad news for you.

6D Mark II manual, p. 256, clearly states that HDR is saved as JPEG file and you cannot select either RAW or RAW+JPEG quality settings - in those settings, HDR mode is not available.

Not getting it then... Thanks!

Is there a camera that does HDR in raw format? I f it is HDR then it is not a raw file

 

[Don Haines]

Does 6D mkII support HDR in RAW format? The old 6D only supports JPG?

Bad news for you.

6D Mark II manual, p. 256, clearly states that HDR is saved as JPEG file and you cannot select either RAW or RAW+JPEG quality settings - in those settings, HDR mode is not available.

Not getting it then... Thanks!

Is there a camera that does HDR in raw format? I f it is HDR then it is not a raw file

Every DSLR out there does HDR in RAW format... It is called automatic exposure bracketing!

 

[NorbR]

Is there a camera that does HDR in raw format? If it is HDR then it is not a raw file

No, but there are cameras that let you keep your bracketed exposures, including in RAW format, and give you the in-camera HDR image on top of that. The original 6D doesn't do that. You need to switch to JPG altogether, and you don't even get to keep the bracketed exposures. Just the one JPG. Apparently the Mark II works the same way.

 

[Mikehit]

Is there a camera that does HDR in raw format? If it is HDR then it is not a raw file

No, but there are cameras that let you keep your bracketed exposures, including in RAW format, and give you the in-camera HDR image on top of that. The original 6D doesn't do that. You need to switch to JPG altogether, and you don't even get to keep the bracketed exposures. Just the one JPG. Apparently the Mark II works the same way.

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining it.
Surely for a complex processing like HDR it is always best on a computer anyway? So as Don says, auto bracket and process in post.

 

[Khalai]

Is there a camera that does HDR in raw format? If it is HDR then it is not a raw file

No, but there are cameras that let you keep your bracketed exposures, including in RAW format, and give you the in-camera HDR image on top of that. The original 6D doesn't do that. You need to switch to JPG altogether, and you don't even get to keep the bracketed exposures. Just the one JPG. Apparently the Mark II works the same way.

What's the problem? In camera HDR is still flaky at best. It's always best to use AEB anyway. No big deal...