More Detailed Specifications for the Canon EOS 6D Mark II

[deadwrong]

Its now Feb 2018......ummm 6d2
even the 5DIV is dead by then.

 

[jayphotoworks]

Im trying to follow what all of this means? (60D shooter, behind on current tech but getting mkii for FF)

1. What's a transmiissive screen do?
2. Why do people want swappable screens?
3. How does his affect manual of users?
4. Will it have touch-point AF?

1: Let's them overlay a ton of (user selectable) info on top of the scene in the viewfinder, instead of the (relatively) limited amount of info that can be fitted into the small lcd bar below the scene. AF Points included, rather than being etched into the focus screen permanently
2: Stock focus screens, in order to brighten the view with slow (f/4, f/5.6, etc) lenses, cannot accurately display the DOF for fast (f/2, f/1.4, f/1.2) lenses. So they are harder to manually focus
3: More difficult to manually focus fast lenses
4: Yes, in Live View

I find Canon's implementation of the transmissive lcd less than ideal. First and foremost is that it is very dark. If you are shooting in an dark environment and use the AF indicator on the transmissive lcd vs the lower status bar which appears bright green regardless of the surroundings, you will miss it for sure. Second, the implementation is also not the same across bodies. Except for the 1dx II, all of them will not allow the AF point to stay illuminated like the 1d4-era bodies. If you want the AF point to illuminate, the entire viewfinder flashes or glows red. It can also blink the af point on the 5Div, but looking through the viewfinder feels like a night club party complete with a DJ and strobe lights. I'm surprised the 5Div didn't get the same treatment as the 1DxII, but I'm hoping all future bodies will get this, but I'm guessing an entry-level body like the 6dII will be last in line.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Im trying to follow what all of this means? (60D shooter, behind on current tech but getting mkii for FF)

1. What's a transmiissive screen do?
2. Why do people want swappable screens?
3. How does his affect manual of users?
4. Will it have touch-point AF?

1: Let's them overlay a ton of (user selectable) info on top of the scene in the viewfinder, instead of the (relatively) limited amount of info that can be fitted into the small lcd bar below the scene. AF Points included, rather than being etched into the focus screen permanently
2: Stock focus screens, in order to brighten the view with slow (f/4, f/5.6, etc) lenses, cannot accurately display the DOF for fast (f/2, f/1.4, f/1.2) lenses. So they are harder to manually focus
3: More difficult to manually focus fast lenses
4: Yes, in Live View

I find Canon's implementation of the transmissive lcd less than ideal. First and foremost is that it is very dark. If you are shooting in an dark environment and use the AF indicator on the transmissive lcd vs the lower status bar which appears bright green regardless of the surroundings, you will miss it for sure. Second, the implementation is also not the same across bodies. Except for the 1dx II, all of them will not allow the AF point to stay illuminated like the 1d4-era bodies. If you want the AF point to illuminate, the entire viewfinder flashes or glows red. It can also blink the af point on the 5Div, but looking through the viewfinder feels like a night club party complete with a DJ and strobe lights. I'm surprised the 5Div didn't get the same treatment as the 1DxII, but I'm hoping all future bodies will get this, but I'm guessing an entry-level body like the 6dII will be last in line.

A major reason why I opted 1DX2 over 5D4 along with metering off selected spot. With a 6D2 as my back up I'm fine with whatever it has (my 6D sale pending Wed night ). Obviously important to a lot of folk because it was brought back not being on the 1DX. And it represented one time when Neuro was wrong

Jack

 

[BillB]

So if I am following all this correctly, for all of this time, an upside of the implementation of the 6D's much maligned 9 point AF was that it permitted us to swap focussing screens in and out as much as we wanted to. As years of discontent with the 6D's 9 point AF come to an end, we will now face discontent with our inability to swap focussing screens in the 6DII, or at least we so believe. (Canon might possibly have given the 6DII better AF and swappable focussing screens as it gave the 7DII, but the indications seem to be that it did not do so.)

 

[MayaTlab]

It's a question of cost. The latch mechanism is cheap enough, but the screen itself has to be aligned within a few microns. That's tough to do in a high-volume camera.

Yet Canon somehow found a way to pull off this engineering phenomenon in the 6D1. :

I'm not upset or ranting about it not being present in the 6D2 -- though others surely will -- but your argument would imply this is a straight takeaway from an existing brand for cost reasons. Possible, but unlikely.

I still think Canon has jazzed up the viewfinder somehow as a result of this decision, perhaps making it more 5D-like. This can't just be a takeaway.

- A

It would be poor even as a differentiator, since taking it out can't possibly even "protect" the 5D4. I'd assume either that you're right that they jazzed up the VF (more likely) or determined the added construction cost wasn't justified by the added sale price/ utility in the field. Remember, it's a whole fiddly extra set of moving parts to engineer and assemble, not just "sure, toss it in".

I know it's a very big deal to some people, but I wonder how many the number is, remembering that the people on this site and the other photo nerd sites are very much the exceptions.

It isn't an extra set of moving parts to engineer and assemble, for the simple reason that all Canon cameras with a transmissive LCD still use the exact same mechanism usually used to hold in place the focusing screen, even ones such as the 5DIII. In fact it's quite the contrary : cameras on which the focusing screen can't be easily changed have an extra protecting piece in front of the holding mechanism that's hold in place with a few screws and prevents users from directly accessing the locking mechanism.
This video demonstrates this : https://vimeo.com/83843427

 

[MayaTlab]

Im trying to follow what all of this means? (60D shooter, behind on current tech but getting mkii for FF)

1. What's a transmiissive screen do?
2. Why do people want swappable screens?
3. How does his affect manual of users?
4. Will it have touch-point AF?

1: Let's them overlay a ton of (user selectable) info on top of the scene in the viewfinder, instead of the (relatively) limited amount of info that can be fitted into the small lcd bar below the scene. AF Points included, rather than being etched into the focus screen permanently
2: Stock focus screens, in order to brighten the view with slow (f/4, f/5.6, etc) lenses, cannot accurately display the DOF for fast (f/2, f/1.4, f/1.2) lenses. So they are harder to manually focus
3: More difficult to manually focus fast lenses
4: Yes, in Live View

I find Canon's implementation of the transmissive lcd less than ideal. First and foremost is that it is very dark. If you are shooting in an dark environment and use the AF indicator on the transmissive lcd vs the lower status bar which appears bright green regardless of the surroundings, you will miss it for sure. Second, the implementation is also not the same across bodies. Except for the 1dx II, all of them will not allow the AF point to stay illuminated like the 1d4-era bodies. If you want the AF point to illuminate, the entire viewfinder flashes or glows red. It can also blink the af point on the 5Div, but looking through the viewfinder feels like a night club party complete with a DJ and strobe lights. I'm surprised the 5Div didn't get the same treatment as the 1DxII, but I'm hoping all future bodies will get this, but I'm guessing an entry-level body like the 6dII will be last in line.

Having both a transmissive LCD and individually lit AF points requires an extra prism and LCD display in the viewfinder and that makes it bigger : https://youtu.be/eZH2fR8MV_8?t=52s

 

[ahsanford]

So if I am following all this correctly, for all of this time, an upside of the implementation of the 6D's much maligned 9 point AF was that it permitted us to swap focussing screens in and out as much as we wanted to. As years of discontent with the 6D's 9 point AF come to an end, we will now face discontent with our inability to swap focussing screens in the 6DII, or at least we so believe. (Canon might possibly have given the 6DII better AF and swappable focussing screens as it gave the 7DII, but the indications seem to be that it did not do so.)

You are conflating # of AF points with the ability change screens. It's not that simple -- consider:

• There are cameras with low AF point count systems and fixed screens: SL1, Rebels, etc.
  
  
• There are cameras with low AF point count systems and interchangeable screens: 5D2, 6D1
  
  
• There are cameras with high AF point count systems and fixed screens: the 5D/5DS line since the 5D3
  
  
• There are cameras with high AF point count systems and interchangeable screens: 7D2, 1-series in general
  

My hypothesis is that that moving to a transmissive setup (that I believe the 6D2 will get, like the 5D3 did when it lost it's interchangeable focusing screens) allows a higher AF point setup from crowding the viewfinder with permanent AF spot marks.

So -- I'm just guessing here -- Canon views the transmissive viewfinder as either being premium to the non-transmissive version or more necessary with the 6D2 than the 6D1 due to 36 more AF points coming to the table.

That paragraph (above) makes perfect sense to me, as does the Cadillac-spec'd 1-series getting the luxe option to go transmissive or swap out the screen. The only part of this that doesn't make sense is a $1,500 crop rig getting functionality a 6D2, 5D4, 5DS, etc. doesn't get. Why the 7D2 gets the fancy here is the real outlier to me.

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

It isn't an extra set of moving parts to engineer and assemble, for the simple reason that all Canon cameras with a transmissive LCD still use the exact same mechanism usually used to hold in place the focusing screen, even ones such as the 5DIII. In fact it's quite the contrary : cameras on which the focusing screen can't be easily changed have an extra protecting piece in front of the holding mechanism that's hold in place with a few screws and prevents users from directly accessing the locking mechanism.
This video demonstrates this : https://vimeo.com/83843427

That extra tab for the release (that people noticed was missing from above the mirror) is, definitively, a finicky moving part, no? It can't possible be simpler to make the piece removable than permanently close it, or they'd all be removable. And a few extra screws that stay screwed down are better, from an engineering perspective, than a bunch of hinges and tabs that also need to be screwed down but need to be tested to a certain number of cycles, temperature ranges, sealing, etc.

 

[BillB]

So if I am following all this correctly, for all of this time, an upside of the implementation of the 6D's much maligned 9 point AF was that it permitted us to swap focussing screens in and out as much as we wanted to. As years of discontent with the 6D's 9 point AF come to an end, we will now face discontent with our inability to swap focussing screens in the 6DII, or at least we so believe. (Canon might possibly have given the 6DII better AF and swappable focussing screens as it gave the 7DII, but the indications seem to be that it did not do so.)

You are conflating # of AF points with the ability change screens. It's not that simple -- consider:

• There are cameras with low AF point count systems and fixed screens: SL1, Rebels, etc.
  
  
• There are cameras with low AF point count systems and interchangeable screens: 5D2, 6D1
  
  
• There are cameras with high AF point count systems and fixed screens: the 5D/5DS line since the 5D3
  
  
• There are cameras with high AF point count systems and interchangeable screens: 7D2, 1-series in general
  

My hypothesis is that that moving to a transmissive setup (that I believe the 6D2 will get, like the 5D3 did when it lost it's interchangeable focusing screens) allows a higher AF point setup from crowding the viewfinder with permanent AF spot marks.

So -- I'm just guessing here -- Canon views the transmissive viewfinder as either being premium to the non-transmissive version or more necessary with the 6D2 than the 6d2 due to 36 more AF points coming to the table.

That paragraph (above) makes perfect sense to me, as does the Cadillac-spec'd 1-series getting the luxe option to go transmissive or swap out the screen. The only part of this that doesn't make sense is a $1,500 crop rig getting functionality a 6D2, 5D4, 5DS, etc. doesn't get. Why the 7D2 gets the fancy here is the real outlier to me.

- A

Just to quibble, I said it was Canon's implementation of the 9 point system that permitted the swappable screen, I did not say that the number of points per se had anything to do with it. My main point was that the long sought end to the much maligned 9 point AF system will apparently come at the price of the swappability of the focussing screen.

I agree with you that the lack of a transmissive screen in the 6D was the reason that the screens were swappable, and that likely there is a transmissive setup in the 6DII that will mean that the screen cannot be swapped out. The transmissive setup would seem to be part of the 45 point system that has been implemented on several APS-C cameras, non of which have swappable focussing screens.

 

[Luds34]

I know it's a very big deal to some people, but I wonder how many the number is, remembering that the people on this site and the other photo nerd sites are very much the exceptions.

I really enjoyed the high precision focus screen on my 6D. I expected to purchase one for my new 6D2. If it isn't an option to swap the focus screen, I'll live. It's a nice to have but nothing critical.

 

[Don Haines]

My evaluation of the 6D2:

Better than expected:
45 points AF – All Crosstype
Continuous: Up to 6.5 frames / sec
5 Axis Electronic Image Stabilization
Time lapse movie (4K output)
Number of pictures per charge: Approx. 1200 pictures (when viewfinder shooting)

As expected:
Number of effective pixels: 26.2 million pixels
DIGIC 7
Dual pixel CMOS AF
Tilt/swivel touchscreen
No Flash
7560 pixels RGB + IR metering sensor
Viewfinder: 98% coverage
Viewfinder magnification: 0.71x
Standard ISO: 100 – 40000 (extended ISO: 50 [L], 51200 [H 1], 102400 [H 2])
Sync Speed 1/180
Anti-flicker
Wi-Fi
Bluetooth
NFC
No headphone jack
GPS
Single memory card slot
Electronic level
Battery: LP-E6N / LP-E6

Disappointing:
Video: Full HD 60p
No USB3
Media: SD / SDHC / SDXC card (UHS-I card compatible)
No swappable screen

Keep in mind that this is an upgrade, and a lot of the "expected" features are better than the 6D. The items that are better than expected, like high ISO, Fps, and battery life are very important to the stills shooter.

The four disappointing specs....

Only 2K video? seems a bit disappointing and dated. Obviously this is not a high end video camera. On the other hand, THIS IS NOT A HIGH END VIDEO CAMERA! If video is really that important to you, get a real video camera! It will work much better than a DSLR and the ergonomics are designed for the task. Even a 1DX2 or 5D4 pales beside a real video camera.... I wanted 2.7K so I could "steadycam edit" my footage to get a more stable 2K output, but now I can not. HOWEVER, (and this is a really big however), the camera seems to have this function built into the camera, so I can now get the stable 2K footage straight from the camera, saving me a lot of work and HD space....

No USB3.... mixed emotions on this one.... The speed of 3 is better, but you can remote with much longer cables for 2..... If it had 3, 90 percent of the time I used it, it would have "failed" down to USB 2 mode....

No UHS-2? OK, This one is clear. I think Canon goofed on this one.... They could have had infinite buffer on the camera with a UHS-2 card. Obviously Canon thinks different, but in my opinion, they got this one wrong!

No swappable screen? Since I would not do this anyway, it matters not!



When you lump it all together, my conclusion is that Canon just cost me $2000. On paper, it looks like a great camera for a stills shooter or a standard quality video shooter. I look forward to seeing a few reviews soon....

 

[Jack Douglas]

Don, for me the better than expected far outweigh the small disappointments. I loved the 6D in spite of; now those things are history.

I'm hoping for more programmability, especially relative to AF buttons, and AF at F8 would be appreciated too. I was clueless about so much of this back 4 years when I bought the 6D so it didn't register much but all that has changed.

Jack

 

[Inspired]

This is ridiculous.
Who makes a camera for working professionals with a sync speed of 180?
why canon why?

 

[ahsanford]

Don, my list is a little simpler:

It's 90% the rig I thought they'd get with the (somewhat shocking) surprise of the 6.5 fps and the (reasonably forseeable) letdown of no 4K or dual slots. The rest is just about dead on to what you'd expect.

Interchangeable screens have been a live topic today but largely a background consideration in the bigger picture of how this will sell. Some folks will be bummed -- and rightly so if you shoot MF glass on your 6D1 today -- but I'm imagine they are a distant minority to the people who will be loving life with an 80D-like AF setup.

There will be some new beefs & butthurtness once the deep (manual-level) specs arise, like how many f/8 AF points there turn out to be, how much you can / cannot control remotely over wifi, fps burst rate while using silent shutter, if you need to buy a new L-plate for landscapes, etc.

But more or less, it's a worthy step up and it will sell well.

- A

 

[nightscape123]

My evaluation of the 6D2:

Better than expected:
45 points AF – All Crosstype
Continuous: Up to 6.5 frames / sec
5 Axis Electronic Image Stabilization
Time lapse movie (4K output)
Number of pictures per charge: Approx. 1200 pictures (when viewfinder shooting)

As expected:
Number of effective pixels: 26.2 million pixels
DIGIC 7
Dual pixel CMOS AF
Tilt/swivel touchscreen
No Flash
7560 pixels RGB + IR metering sensor
Viewfinder: 98% coverage
Viewfinder magnification: 0.71x
Standard ISO: 100 – 40000 (extended ISO: 50 [L], 51200 [H 1], 102400 [H 2])
Sync Speed 1/180
Anti-flicker
Wi-Fi
Bluetooth
NFC
No headphone jack
GPS
Single memory card slot
Electronic level
Battery: LP-E6N / LP-E6

Disappointing:
Video: Full HD 60p
No USB3
Media: SD / SDHC / SDXC card (UHS-I card compatible)
No swappable screen

Keep in mind that this is an upgrade, and a lot of the "expected" features are better than the 6D. The items that are better than expected, like high ISO, Fps, and battery life are very important to the stills shooter.

The four disappointing specs....

Only 2K video? seems a bit disappointing and dated. Obviously this is not a high end video camera. On the other hand, THIS IS NOT A HIGH END VIDEO CAMERA! If video is really that important to you, get a real video camera! It will work much better than a DSLR and the ergonomics are designed for the task. Even a 1DX2 or 5D4 pales beside a real video camera.... I wanted 2.7K so I could "steadycam edit" my footage to get a more stable 2K output, but now I can not. HOWEVER, (and this is a really big however), the camera seems to have this function built into the camera, so I can now get the stable 2K footage straight from the camera, saving me a lot of work and HD space....

No USB3.... mixed emotions on this one.... The speed of 3 is better, but you can remote with much longer cables for 2..... If it had 3, 90 percent of the time I used it, it would have "failed" down to USB 2 mode....

No UHS-2? OK, This one is clear. I think Canon goofed on this one.... They could have had infinite buffer on the camera with a UHS-2 card. Obviously Canon thinks different, but in my opinion, they got this one wrong!

No swappable screen? Since I would not do this anyway, it matters not!



When you lump it all together, my conclusion is that Canon just cost me $2000. On paper, it looks like a great camera for a stills shooter or a standard quality video shooter. I look forward to seeing a few reviews soon....

This is pretty much exactly where i'm at right now. The lack is UHS-II is baffling, but the good far outweighs the bad. I'll probably pre-order, i've been saving up for this camera for a long time. It is going to be a pretty massive upgrade over my T3i...

 

[ahsanford]

One addendum to my last post, though -- I don't think the D750 boo birds aren't going away.

I'm not agreeing with them one bit, but at a body-feature-level, other than DPAF, I'm hard pressed for a killer spec sheet item on the 6D2 that will turn heads from that camp. (I'm obviously disregarding the intrinsic Canon upsides like ergonomics, EF portfolio, menu setup, reliability, resale, etc.)

I'm just guessing that the 6D2 isn't exactly going to steal many crop-to-FF upgraders from Nikon, that's all. Doubly so if a D760 with 30+ MP / 8 fps / 4K rig shows up for $2k in the next year.

- A

 

[LonelyBoy]

This is ridiculous.
Who makes a camera for working professionals with a sync speed of 180?
why canon why?

Why do you think Canon made this for working professionals?

 

[Loswr]

This is ridiculous.
Who makes a camera for working professionals with a sync speed of 180?
why canon why?

Why do you think Canon made this for working professionals?

+1

It's almost as if Canon wants this camera to fail. After all, the 6D also has a 1/180 s Xsync, and look what a commercial failure that turned out to be. :

 

[BillB]

This is ridiculous.
Who makes a camera for working professionals with a sync speed of 180?
why canon why?

And what sync speed is appropriate for a working professional's camera?

 

[Don Haines]

This is ridiculous.
Who makes a camera for working professionals with a sync speed of 180?
why canon why?

Why do you think Canon made this for working professionals?

+1
It's almost as if Canon wants this camera to fail. After all, the 6D also has a 1/180 s Xsync, and look what a commercial failure that turned out to be. :

And what sync speed is appropriate for a working professional's camera?

Come on now.... the person has only made one post, and it is to say something ludicrous and provocative..... and you responded? Best to ignore such postings and let the troll perish from lack of attention....