More Detailed Specifications for the Canon EOS 6D Mark II

[daphins]

Admittedly, I'm not a camera Techie (I'm upgrading from a 60D). From my understanding, the MKii had DPAutofocus which makes it super-snappy. DPRAW is a RAW file that essentially contains two images so you can make very slight tweaks in focus during post production.

My question is, does the 6D MKii not produce the DPRAW files? I'm looking at the MKIV which apparently does produce DPRAW files...I don't see that listed anywhere in the official Canon Spec's. They both produce JPEG, and RAW (14 bit canon Original). They have mRAW, sRAW, and Large/RAW.

Where is DPRAW? And can the MKii produce it?

You seem to have got the correct understanding.
It all depends on if the 6D2 has the software to record the two sets of data - it is by no means a given. If you think about it, the 5DIV was bot the first camera to have Dual Pixel focussing but was the first one to have DP Raw. I have been distinctly underwhelmed by comments on it so far.

Many Canon ILCs – ranging from the M and Rebel/xxxD lines to the 1D X II – have DPAF. Only one Canon ILC – the 5DIV – has DP RAW capability.

Gotcha, that's where the discrepancy is. I thought I had read that Canon was committed to putting DPRAW in all of their new sensor cameras, but it appears that it was DPAF they committed to.

NBD, I'd probably not use it often anyway, but it is a little disappointing as I'm a low-light photographer that usually has razer-thin focusing situations with ultra-wide apertures. Not a deal breaker, I've been waiting to move to full-frame from my 60D.

Thanks!

 

[pokerz]

1080 60p till 2022
good job Canon!

 

[Keith_Reeder]

1080 60p till 2022
good job Canon!

So buy something else.

 

[Mikehit]

1080 60p till 2022
good job Canon!

Why is that a problem?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Oh, it's not 4k, Mike - a catastrophe, as we all know...

 

[traveller]

Oh, it's not 4k, Mike - a catastrophe, as we all know...

It's not a catastrophe, but it is a marketing blunder. It's given every camera reviewer out there an easy negative headline. Buyers make all kinds of purchasing decisions based upon specifications that they'll never actually use, but like to have "just in case". Include any kind of crippled 4K mode so that the box is ticked: "it has 4K, but the xx rate/crop is only yy" is a far less potent criticism (especially for those that don't really need the functionality) than a simple "doesn't have". Marketing is not about appealing to the rational.

 

[ronaldbyram]

Reading the initial reviews from folks and everyone screaming NO 4K NO 4K.
But from a business side of things.. I wish it had 4k, but if it did.. this would kill the sales of the 5D4?
I'm I missing something?

Hey I admit some of the other features could use a 2017 upgrade. SD slot.. focus points (wider)
But then again would this not effect the 1DX and 5D sales?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

It's not a catastrophe, but it is a marketing blunder.

I'll bet you it isn't...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Reading the initial reviews from folks and everyone screaming NO 4K NO 4K.

A very interesting perspective on the "necessity" of 4k in the Real World, from an actual working video pro (Policar's post):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32228.msg672238#msg672238

 

[traveller]

Reading the initial reviews from folks and everyone screaming NO 4K NO 4K.

A very interesting perspective on the "necessity" of 4k in the Real World, from an actual working video pro (Policar's post):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32228.msg672238#msg672238

When were specifications in consumer products ever about necessity? Why do sports cars have top speeds so far in excess of most national speed limits when few of their purchasers ever take their car to a track day, or go anywhere near their cars' top speeds (except maybe for that initial, illicit "test run")?

The fact is that it isn't 2012, most new cameras are now coming with some kind of 4K capability and more people now understand what the standard is because 4K televisions are becoming commonplace. How do you explain to a potential 6D Mark II buyer why their new $2000 camera can't produce video that matches the resolution of their $500 TV, like their smartphone can?

 

[Loswr]

It's not a catastrophe, but it is a marketing blunder.

Please share the data from the extensive market research you've conducted, showing the critical importance of 4K to the target demographic for the 6DII. You did conduct extensive market research before making such a claim, right? I'm sure that Canon did, before deciding not to include 4K. Maybe your extensive market research was just better. :

 

[Don Haines]

Reading the initial reviews from folks and everyone screaming NO 4K NO 4K.

A very interesting perspective on the "necessity" of 4k in the Real World, from an actual working video pro (Policar's post):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32228.msg672238#msg672238

When were specifications in consumer products ever about necessity? Why do sports cars have top speeds so far in excess of most national speed limits when few of their purchasers ever take their car to a track day, or go anywhere near their cars' top speeds (except maybe for that initial, illicit "test run")?

The fact is that it isn't 2012, most new cameras are now coming with some kind of 4K capability and more people now understand what the standard is because 4K televisions are becoming commonplace. How do you explain to a potential 6D Mark II buyer why their new $2000 camera can't produce video that matches the resolution of their $500 TV, like their smartphone can?

I would also have liked to see 4K, but I have no problems with accepting that it isn't there.

If all Canon had to do was to stick in some different software to do it, I am sure that they would have. Some will say it was "nerfed" to protect 5D4 sales, but the reality is that 6D2 sales will be several times the volume of 5D4 sales. Financially, the 6D2 is a more important camera to Canon than the 5D4.... If Canon had put 4K into the 6D2, it would have shifted some of the sales of 5D4 down to the 6D2, but it would have shifted more people upwards from Rebels and the 70/80D, for a net gain in revenue.... and that does not even mention the people that may have migrated to Canon from other brands....

I think that the real reason that it was not done was because of overheating issues. Canon is a conservative company and is far more worried about reliability issues than having the latest and greatest.... They probably decided that not having a camera overheat and burn out the sensor was a good thing....

 

[tron]

Admittedly, I'm not a camera Techie (I'm upgrading from a 60D). From my understanding, the MKii had DPAutofocus which makes it super-snappy. DPRAW is a RAW file that essentially contains two images so you can make very slight tweaks in focus during post production.

My question is, does the 6D MKii not produce the DPRAW files? I'm looking at the MKIV which apparently does produce DPRAW files...I don't see that listed anywhere in the official Canon Spec's. They both produce JPEG, and RAW (14 bit canon Original). They have mRAW, sRAW, and Large/RAW.

Where is DPRAW? And can the MKii produce it?

You seem to have got the correct understanding.
It all depends on if the 6D2 has the software to record the two sets of data - it is by no means a given. If you think about it, the 5DIV was bot the first camera to have Dual Pixel focussing but was the first one to have DP Raw. I have been distinctly underwhelmed by comments on it so far.

Many Canon ILCs – ranging from the M and Rebel/xxxD lines to the 1D X II – have DPAF. Only one Canon ILC – the 5DIV – has DP RAW capability.

Gotcha, that's where the discrepancy is. I thought I had read that Canon was committed to putting DPRAW in all of their new sensor cameras, but it appears that it was DPAF they committed to.

NBD, I'd probably not use it often anyway, but it is a little disappointing as I'm a low-light photographer that usually has razer-thin focusing situations with ultra-wide apertures. Not a deal breaker, I've been waiting to move to full-frame from my 60D.

Thanks!

I have 5DMkIV and DPRAW is close to useless. Don't believe me just search Bryan's article in TDP:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV.aspx

Quoting Bryan:

While I find the Dual Pixel Raw optimization feature very intriguing, I'm not ready to declare it a must-have feature.

Note that, with twice the information being captured with DPRAW enabled, file sizes increase by a factor of 2, the high speed burst buffer capacity is significantly reduced and the high speed burst rate is impacted.


My opinion: I fully agree. The only possibly useful feature would be fixing minor AF errors. The only thing this technology (via the use of DPP software) achieves is selective sharpening of a specific area with a softening in other areas.

Also quoting from Bryan:

While I could see a modestly out of focus background in a 24mm f/2.8 image respond to the optimization, the overall degradation easily surpassed any benefits realized from this adjustment

 

[Loswr]

Quoting Bryan:
While I find the Dual Pixel Raw optimization feature very intriguing, I'm not ready to declare it a must-have feature.

If you've read some of Bryan's reviews, you know he's a very (!!) positive guy. So, I interpret his statement as tantamount to a typical person stating, "DPRAW is useless."

 

[Zv]

Oh, it's not 4k, Mike - a catastrophe, as we all know...

It's not a catastrophe, but it is a marketing blunder. It's given every camera reviewer out there an easy negative headline. Buyers make all kinds of purchasing decisions based upon specifications that they'll never actually use, but like to have "just in case". Include any kind of crippled 4K mode so that the box is ticked: "it has 4K, but the xx rate/crop is only yy" is a far less potent criticism (especially for those that don't really need the functionality) than a simple "doesn't have". Marketing is not about appealing to the rational.

So let me get this straight; you want Canon to put a garbage and unusable feature on a $2000 camera? ???

How would that be any better?

 

[tron]

Quoting Bryan:
While I find the Dual Pixel Raw optimization feature very intriguing, I'm not ready to declare it a must-have feature.

If you've read some of Bryan's reviews, you know he's a very (!!) positive guy. So, I interpret his statement as tantamount to a typical person stating, "DPRAW is useless."

Yes and that's why I started with" I have 5DMkIV and DPRAW is close to useless." But Brian's opinion matters not mine so I also included the following Bryan's comment:

"While I could see a modestly out of focus background in a 24mm f/2.8 image respond to the optimization, the overall degradation easily surpassed any benefits realized from this adjustment. "

Switching back to my opinion: All in all not a useful feature. I have permanently set it to off.

 

[traveller]

It's not a catastrophe, but it is a marketing blunder.

Please share the data from the extensive market research you've conducted, showing the critical importance of 4K to the target demographic for the 6DII. You did conduct extensive market research before making such a claim, right? I'm sure that Canon did, before deciding not to include 4K. Maybe your extensive market research was just better. :

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” ― Henry Ford

"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new." - Steve Jobs

I'm sure that Canon did extensive market research into what they thought the average 6D buyer wanted. The problem is that they probably did it a few years ago, at the start of the development cycle and they also most likely did it by sending questionnaires to CPS members. Did anyone who bought a 6D receive a survey (genuine question!)? How do you find out the buying preferences of people who haven't bought/didn't buy a Canon camera? Just ask random people in the street?

Like I stated in my first point, the lack of 4K isn't a catastrophe like some are making out, and I'm sure the 6D Mk II will sell well to the target audience, whoever Canon has decided that comprises. The issue is that maybe by targeting too tightly to protect your own company's perception of the market's segmentation, you can miss emerging trends and markets. If Canon already had a C300 type camera in 2008, would they have avoided putting an HD video capability in the 5D Mk II to protect C300 sales? Might they have then missed the latent demand for an affordable large sensor HD video platform from the low end of the market?

It is easy to tell if the product is selling well against your own projections, but not so easy to tell if it could have been even more successful, as it's difficult to get decent information on the people that were considering to buy the product, but in the end chose not to (for whatever reason). How would Canon go about obtaining this information? They could survey 5D Mk IV buyers to try to ascertain whether they would have bought a 6D Mk II, had it featured 4K (i.e. a success from Canon's point of view). Whether they would get truthful answers to such a survey is another matter. How would they go about surveying people that had bought another brand instead? They wouldn't even know who these people were. What about Canon users that have skipped an upgrade generation?

The point I'm trying to make is that just because Canon is a large company with the resources to carry out extensive market research, doesn't mean that they are going to always make the right decisions, otherwise we'd still all be drinking "New Coke".

 

[Loswr]

The point I'm trying to make is that just because Canon is a large company with the resources to carry out extensive market research, doesn't mean that they are going to always make the right decisions, otherwise we'd still all be drinking "New Coke".

Of course Canon can make mistakes. But...you definitely stated that Canon not including 4K in the 6DII is a mistake. Not 'could be'. Not 'may turn out to be'. Is.

Did the Doctor take you in his TARDIS on a brief visit to 2019, where you saw pallets of 6DIIs sitting in Dollar General stores, because sales were so poor due to the lack of 4K? Are you clairvoyant? Or do you just like making blanket pronouncements with no facts to back them up, and ample contrary evidence (i.e. 14+ years of ILC market leadership to suggest that Canon generally makes the correct marketing decisions)?

What was your point, again?

 

[bdunbar79]

The point I'm trying to make is that just because Canon is a large company with the resources to carry out extensive market research, doesn't mean that they are going to always make the right decisions, otherwise we'd still all be drinking "New Coke".

Of course Canon can make mistakes. But...you definitely stated that Canon not including 4K in the 6DII is a mistake. Not 'could be'. Not 'may turn out to be'. Is.

Did the Doctor take you in his TARDIS on a brief visit to 2019, where you saw pallets of 6DIIs sitting in Dollar General stores, because sales were so poor due to the lack of 4K? Are you clairvoyant? Or do you just like making blanket pronouncements with no facts to back them up, and ample contrary evidence (i.e. 14+ years of ILC market leadership to suggest that Canon generally makes the correct marketing decisions)?

What was your point, again?

John there is not point. I will refer you to your own advice in the DOF and magnification thread concerning a bowling ball and gravity.

 

[Loswr]

Just for fun, let's have a look back at a few of Canon's previous 'marketing blunders', according to CR wisdom:

The 5Ds/R, because 20 MP is enough for anyone serious about photography...

I am of the opinion that a mid 20s MP full frame is quite enough. My guess is that most pros will find this to be true as well. In my experience, at least, larger pixels create better overall IQ than smaller pixels, but I guess we'll find out if this remains to be true with these new cameras.

In my opinion, I think Canon is making a major marketing blunder. This camera should be the lowest priced FF as it will appeal to those who aren't pros. Those enthusiasts who are easily seduced by what seems like a big improvement probably won't pay $3 to $4 thousand for a camera. Pros that will pay that amount won't be seduced by the 50 MP unless their is some sort of breakthrough in other areas.

The 5DIII, because everyone wants more MP and the D800 had it (thread entitled: Canon's bad marketing - big mistake)

I am absolutely convinced that the 5D 3 for the majority of people will be a far better and more versatile camera than the D800. Except for resolution (and maybe sharpness). But, just like a few years ago, that is exactly what people want at this moment. My guess is that Nikon will be selling truckloads and truckloads more of the D800 than Canon of the 5D 3.

Canon making their own sensors like the one in the 5DIII, because the 'sensor IQ' (aka DxO scores) of the D800 were so much better:

I'm talking about Nikon working hard to trump their competitors by making smart moves, and Canon doing other things because they're too complacent and comfortable. If Canon decides to make their own sensors and loses market share because of it, that's known as a marketing mistake. Simple.

Case in point: Nikon D3200. Higher resolution than any Canon ever made and it's their CHEAPEST model in the new line. The image quality is apparently darn good. Yes, I now it's DX, but it's still remarkable - and a brilliant move.

If Canon wants to avoid a disastrous loss in market share they need to DO something, not sit on their behinds.

I've worked with R&D and I know exactly how this works, how companies do well and then relax. And lose.

I particularly like the suggestion – from a post in 2012 – that if Canon continues making their own sensors, it's a marketing mistake that will contribue to a 'disastrous loss in market share'. And he knows exactly how it works, so Canon will lose...Internet wisdom at it's finest.


The 24-70/2.8L II, because it lacks IS:

If Canon can put IS in the excellent 17-55f/2.8 (and 24-105f/4) there is no reason they can't or shouldn't put it in a new 24-70f/2.8. If they don't it will be a huge marketing mistake. I sold my 24-70 because it didn't have IS and I was not really happy with the IQ. I kept the 24-105 because of the IS but I find (with my copies at least) the 17-55 IS is sharper.

Well, I could go on, but I trust you get the point. Thanks for contributing your own wisdom concerning Canon's latest marketing blunder to the steaming pile of bovine excrement.