PetaPixel poops on the 6D2 sensor

[Sporgon]

I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.

 

[Khalai]

Fstoppers and SLR Lounge now jump onto the Canon DR-lack bandwagon as well

Fstoppers tabloid title speaks for itself:
Disappointment After Disappointment — What Is Wrong With Canon?

SLR Lounge remains calm and impartial:
Canon’s 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Worse Than Its Predecessor & APS-C 80D | Who Is It For?

Brace yourselves, DRavagers are coming!

 

[Loswr]

Fstoppers and SLR Lounge now jump onto the Canon DR-lack bandwagon as well

Fstoppers tabloid title speaks for itself:
Disappointment After Disappointment — What Is Wrong With Canon?

SLR Lounge remains calm and impartial:
Canon’s 6D Mark II Dynamic Range Worse Than Its Predecessor & APS-C 80D | Who Is It For?

Brace yourselves, DRavagers are coming!

Did they also publish their disappointment over the Nikon D5 losing a stop of low ISO DR compared to its two generations of predecessors, and also being bested by the Canon 80D in that particular metric?

 

[Jack Douglas]

And you were accused of not using logic - hmm. These sites are after hits and they get it through controversy.

All I can say is why bother replying when nothing is going to change.

When I was little and excavation for a church had produced a huge pile of dirt we played (rough play indeed) king of the castle. Even at 8 years of age we understood that the one at the top had to be brought down at all cost. Childishness carries on right through life. That's how I see it, anyway.

Jack

 

[Khalai]

But it's sometimes fun to poke the most prominent trolls or DRavagers

 

[hbr]

Re: Whether to buy the Canon 6DMarkII or not...

Good day all,
As you notice, my in-experience is noted. However, my comments are based on what "I" know, not on what I should know. Yes, I am in my senior years; yes, I am not as knowledgeable as most of you; yes, my budget is much more limited than most, (regarding the 1Dx response) and finally, yes, I have so much to learn in this fast paced ever changing world of digital photography. The fun part is that I "am" willing to learn and try new things. This is what I hope to do with "all" of you that comment here.

Photography is a creative form in which I have always loved and will continue to love. I love "still" photography. I love to capture dancers in their craft and the joy and fun of children being creative in thought and play.
I enjoy the awe on a dancer's face when I give them a photo on a move they performed or the joy of a parent when their child's character is caught in a picture.

This medium has changed drastically since I left it years ago in the black and white develop your own film, "don't you dare open that door while the light is on!" era.

I want photography to be my social security fill in job after retirement; which I will be reaching very shortly. I am willing to learn with constructive criticism.

So for those of you taking the time to show me:
-- how to learn to buy and use new equipment (or good used equipment) preferably Canon
-- how to take better pictures of both of my chosen genres
-- how to respond properly with the correct photography dialect
-- and how to network with friendly and fun photographers, (share other sites where I can further learn)
I thank you ahead of time...

Hi lgn55063.
Let me throw my 2 cents worth in. I also think that the 6d II will still be the best bet for you. A lot depends on if you plan to to a lot of shooting indoors or not. I assume that you will be. I think the focus system, the higher resolution over the original 6D and the tilty flippy screen will aid you a lot in the type of photography you plan to do. I think the 6D II is a little expensive for what Canon is offering on it. There is not a tremendous difference between the 5D Mark IV and the 6D II sensors.

I think the biggest disappointment right now that we are seeing is the lack of innovation with this camera, I too am very disappointed but I am still buying one. It appears that Canon just cobbled together a bunch of parts they already had developed for other cameras and gimped out on the sensor.

Yet, it will still be a very capable camera and should handle your needs quite well.

This is just my humble opinion.

Brian

 

[unfocused]

I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.

Sporgon's word is as good as it gets, as far as I am concerned.

For those new to the forum, he's reasonable and also a extremely talented photographer.

Please, people though, read his comment as it is written. He's not saying the 6DII is a bad camera or anything of the sort. He is simply saying that if you are considering upgrading from the original 6D, you should not do so expecting to see major differences at lower ISOs. Lots of other reasons to upgrade or just buy a 6DII.

Now I'm curious though, what are you seeing at higher ISOs, Sporgon? I'm interested in noise at 3200 and 6400 and how it compares to the original 6D.

Purely selfish reason. I'm getting tired of switching between a 70-200 f2.8 and either a wide angle zoom or the 21-105 f4. I've been thinking about picking up an original 6D when the prices drop and sticking the wide angle on the 6D, so I don't have to change lenses at events.

 

[stevelee]

Sometimes we get a bit "full of ourselves" on the forum. The average user in the real world shoots mostly in "green box mode" and most of the things discussed here have no bearing.....

BTW, have you ever tried "green box mode" ? I think that for most conditions under good lighting, that it does a really good job... bet that I could go out and shoot a bunch of images in it, post them here, and nobody could tell the difference between them..... hmmmmmmmmm....... must go conduct an experiment.......

I'm surprised at how often when I'm working in ACR on RAW photos from my G7X II that I use for travel, that after tweaks and eye dropper clicks and such on the color temperature sliders, that I go back to "As Shot," and decide that looks better. Auto exposure works pretty well, too. Sometimes when I have bracketed exposure in less extreme situations, I can get quite decent pictures from two of the three RAW files. At times I can't quite decide between them, so I go ahead and stack them, and might do something as simple as setting the upper one to 50% to deal with my indecision. So really, the auto settings can be surprisingly good, especially as a jumping off spot for ACR, and after the automatic lens corrections.

I don't know how my T3i would compare in that regard. I use it in different ways in somewhat different circumstances. It has a bigger sensor and vastly better lenses, but the technology is older otherwise. I certainly haven't seen any consistent error with any particular lens.

And I can't say the same for the G7X II's video. I haven't shot much with it, and that was under the quirky lighting in an arena with just the practice lights on, and not the ones they use for games and need to look good on TV. The video was a little underexposed and had an odd cast that I couldn't quite correct. A lot of that is my ineptitude with color correction in Final Cut Pro. Premier works better for me in that regard, having controls that seem more Adobe-ish. If it were critical, I might import my video into Photoshop and apply the correction to all frames. But to my limited knowledge, I don't have that much control over the movie file Photoshop exports. Maybe next year I'll try a manual white balance with a piece of white paper, or something. (Sorry to ramble away from the topic; but then maybe next year I'll try shooting the video with the 6D2 I could have by then.)

 

[hbr]

I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.

Sporgon's word is as good as it gets, as far as I am concerned.

For those new to the forum, he's reasonable and also a extremely talented photographer.

Please, people though, read his comment as it is written. He's not saying the 6DII is a bad camera or anything of the sort. He is simply saying that if you are considering upgrading from the original 6D, you should not do so expecting to see major differences at lower ISOs. Lots of other reasons to upgrade or just buy a 6DII.

Now I'm curious though, what are you seeing at higher ISOs, Sporgon? I'm interested in noise at 3200 and 6400 and how it compares to the original 6D.

Purely selfish reason. I'm getting tired of switching between a 70-200 f2.8 and either a wide angle zoom or the 21-105 f4. I've been thinking about picking up an original 6D when the prices drop and sticking the wide angle on the 6D, so I don't have to change lenses at events.

Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."

The problem is that Canon went back to the thinking that this would be just an "enthusiast's" camera. Therefore they did not leave a good upgrade path for the people who bought the original and Canon decided that a few "gimmicks" would sell the camera to enough first time buyers to make the upgrade from APS-C worthwhile. This is the first time that I know of that Canon went backwards. Not the first they used gimmicks when they had no good sensor upgrade to offer. Secondly, one of the things that also helped the sales of the original was when a lot of professionals started to buy it as a cheaper second camera. That meant a lot of wedding photographers bought it. I realize that Canon does not consider the 6 series to be professional grade so, therefore, did not put in a second card slot. I think that had they done that, a lot of wedding photographers would buy the upgrade, (they still might, but won't be happy about it).

I wonder if Canon has pissed off the 4k crowd, (I think Canon still does not have a good working 4k system), and pissed off the wedding photographers and pissed off the purchasers of the original 6D if this version will be as good of a success as the first one.

I am in the pissed off crowd that is very unhappy about the lack of innovation this time around, but after a lot of agonizing have decided to buy one as the other features will help me with my style of photography,

Very sad, Canon

Brian

 

[SecureGSM]

the more I thinking about it, the bigger this idea grows on me:

It could be that Canon decided to include the older generation sensor in 6D II due to forward projection of expected street price of 6D II model 1 to 2 years from now.
I recon, they were thinking: ok, this sick puppy would have to be competitive and we still have to make some profit from selling it cheaper than at launch by the time those new Nikon and Sony bodies hit the market in next 12 months from now... So let's make the cost as low as we reasonably could and then drop the price to meet market expectations later on while still maintaining the minimum profit margin to keep balls rolling.

If that was true, then we can expect 6D II street price to hit $1,500.00 level by the end of the year.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Wishful thinking - I hope you're right!

Jack

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Or download the files and process them optimally and see how good or bad it actually is. No, why would we do that when we can spend so much time shouting at each other?

Anyway, I know half of you will pull this to pieces but....



1st shot. So here is a crop of the 100iso shot from the 6D MkII vs the D750 both lifted 5 stops, and it's link.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3416153698/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-dynamic-range

2nd shot. I downloaded the 6D MkII file and processed it close to optimally and this is the result. I took five minutes to do this, given a few hours I could do better and work out profiles for each iso and lift amount that could be saved as presets in LR.

You cannot apply the same 'standard' settings to different cameras and say look at the differences. You have to process each file optimally!

When you do you get very different results. When will people stop eating this sh!t up?

I would be VERY interested in those kinds of profiles. If you ever do generate them for various bodies and set up a marketplace, let me know and I can help promote them.

 

[Sporgon]

I've been downloading sample raw files from the 6DII and running them through my process, and at this stage, having done limited testing at low isos, it looks like the chip is no reason to upgrade from the 6D. Just like the 6D it is using a lot of NR to achieve lower noise in the lifted shadows; with all NR off it's noisy just like the 6D. Of course that's with pretty extreme shadow lifting, but the 5DIV achieves better results with no NR on at all.

Sporgon's word is as good as it gets, as far as I am concerned.

For those new to the forum, he's reasonable and also a extremely talented photographer.

Please, people though, read his comment as it is written. He's not saying the 6DII is a bad camera or anything of the sort. He is simply saying that if you are considering upgrading from the original 6D, you should not do so expecting to see major differences at lower ISOs. Lots of other reasons to upgrade or just buy a 6DII.

Now I'm curious though, what are you seeing at higher ISOs, Sporgon? I'm interested in noise at 3200 and 6400 and how it compares to the original 6D.

Purely selfish reason. I'm getting tired of switching between a 70-200 f2.8 and either a wide angle zoom or the 21-105 f4. I've been thinking about picking up an original 6D when the prices drop and sticking the wide angle on the 6D, so I don't have to change lenses at events.

Thanks for those kind words Unfocused; my wife and the Inland Revenue would take issue with you over the 'reasonable' bit

My interest is whether the 6DII would be a suitable low ISO IQ upgrade from my 5DIIs. The answer is no, just as the 6D didn't give me any real advantage once Adobe had introduced the 2012 process raw converter. (Or rather once I has upgraded to it; like a fool I hadn't bothered until after I had bought the 6D). The 2012 process gives that much more latitude at the highlight end that it means I can ETTR in a high contrast scene to an extent that the deepest shadows move from the 0, 1, 2, 3 RGB range to 8, 9, 10 etc. And that makes all the difference in the world when lifting shadows the modest amount that I ever want to.

So for anyone that has the ability to optimise their exposures to suit the 6DII the camera's DR is going to be absolutely fine - just like the 6D. From my point of view I think that the flip screen and DPAF will make it an interesting proposition for tripod shooting - can be comfortable with the tripod at a lower level. The 6.5 fps makes a big difference from 5 IMO, and I'll take the AF system though I manage fine with the old one. So I think for many the upgrade will be worth it.

As far as the difference in really high ISO is concerned, honestly I'm not qualified to comment. I think I only ever once used my 6D at 3,200 in a church to see what it was like, and I can't now lay my hands on that folder. I remember that it seemed quite good at the time because of the way it was responding to NR. Take all the NR off and it was pretty well as ugly as the 5DII, although that camera doesn't respond to the NR as well as the 6D does. I'm really wary of shots that are taken at high ISO for the sake of it, i.e. there is plenty of light, as this can be misleading . However I downloaded some high 1,600 to 6,400 shots from the 6DII that were from genuine low light and it looks to me like it has a tighter, finer "salt and pepper" noise pattern / grain which may well be better than the 6D.

If the sensor tech has somehow enabled Canon to keep the 6DII price down then I'm sure they will have done the right thing for the vast majority of potential purchasers. However it does look like Canon have drawn a line in the sand with the different sensor architecture between the 5 and 6D lines now. At low ISO the 6DII will require more skill from the user in optimising image IQ in challenging light situations than someone using the 5DIV.

 

[scyrene]

Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."

The problem is that Canon went back to the thinking that this would be just an "enthusiast's" camera. Therefore they did not leave a good upgrade path for the people who bought the original and Canon decided that a few "gimmicks" would sell the camera to enough first time buyers to make the upgrade from APS-C worthwhile. This is the first time that I know of that Canon went backwards. Not the first they used gimmicks when they had no good sensor upgrade to offer. Secondly, one of the things that also helped the sales of the original was when a lot of professionals started to buy it as a cheaper second camera. That meant a lot of wedding photographers bought it. I realize that Canon does not consider the 6 series to be professional grade so, therefore, did not put in a second card slot. I think that had they done that, a lot of wedding photographers would buy the upgrade, (they still might, but won't be happy about it).

I wonder if Canon has pissed off the 4k crowd, (I think Canon still does not have a good working 4k system), and pissed off the wedding photographers and pissed off the purchasers of the original 6D if this version will be as good of a success as the first one.

I am in the pissed off crowd that is very unhappy about the lack of innovation this time around, but after a lot of agonizing have decided to buy one as the other features will help me with my style of photography,

Very sad, Canon

Brian

"Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.

 

[stevelee]

"Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.

I started reading this site about a year ago when I decided not to upgrade to an 80D but go to FF. More recently I started to read (and then joined) this forum to follow thoughts on the 6D II. Nothing I've seen here has discouraged me from purchasing one. I have seen some helpful comments. I've even made a few comments myself about experience with regard to DR with my current cameras and with using ACR.

But I keep coming back here sort of like people who can't quit looking at auto wrecks.

 

[Don Haines]

"Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.

I started reading this site about a year ago when I decided not to upgrade to an 80D but go to FF. More recently I started to read (and then joined) this forum to follow thoughts on the 6D II. Nothing I've seen here has discouraged me from purchasing one. I have seen some helpful comments. I've even made a few comments myself about experience with regard to DR with my current cameras and with using ACR.

But I keep coming back here sort of like people who can't quit looking at auto wrecks.

It will be a great camera and can be used to take wonderful pictures.... If my camera were older, this would be a no-brainer upgrade for me.... As it is, it is still tempting and I am waiting to see reports from the real world as to how it performs before I decide one way or another....

 

[Jack Douglas]

"Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.

I started reading this site about a year ago when I decided not to upgrade to an 80D but go to FF. More recently I started to read (and then joined) this forum to follow thoughts on the 6D II. Nothing I've seen here has discouraged me from purchasing one. I have seen some helpful comments. I've even made a few comments myself about experience with regard to DR with my current cameras and with using ACR.

But I keep coming back here sort of like people who can't quit looking at auto wrecks.

It will be a great camera and can be used to take wonderful pictures.... If my camera were older, this would be a no-brainer upgrade for me.... As it is, it is still tempting and I am waiting to see reports from the real world as to how it performs before I decide one way or another....

I think I have the same auto-wreck mentality so right now I'm exercising my will power and hitting unnotify!

Jack

 

[hbr]

Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."

The problem is that Canon went back to the thinking that this would be just an "enthusiast's" camera. Therefore they did not leave a good upgrade path for the people who bought the original and Canon decided that a few "gimmicks" would sell the camera to enough first time buyers to make the upgrade from APS-C worthwhile. This is the first time that I know of that Canon went backwards. Not the first they used gimmicks when they had no good sensor upgrade to offer. Secondly, one of the things that also helped the sales of the original was when a lot of professionals started to buy it as a cheaper second camera. That meant a lot of wedding photographers bought it. I realize that Canon does not consider the 6 series to be professional grade so, therefore, did not put in a second card slot. I think that had they done that, a lot of wedding photographers would buy the upgrade, (they still might, but won't be happy about it).

I wonder if Canon has pissed off the 4k crowd, (I think Canon still does not have a good working 4k system), and pissed off the wedding photographers and pissed off the purchasers of the original 6D if this version will be as good of a success as the first one.

I am in the pissed off crowd that is very unhappy about the lack of innovation this time around, but after a lot of agonizing have decided to buy one as the other features will help me with my style of photography,

Very sad, Canon

Brian

"Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.

scyrene, maybe I needed to elaborate a little more in my post. Firstly, I have pre-ordered the 6D II and as I said, I pretty much have decided to keep it due to the things you mention, but my agonizing has been whether to purchase the 5D III or the 6D II. I own both the 6D version 1 and the 7D II, and I even considered purchasing the 80D. Both of them are fantastic cameras and maybe I shouldn't upgrade.

The 80D would give me all the features of the 6D II, but IQ wise I believe the 6D is superior and the 7D II while not having the IQ of the newer 80D, it is by far a better camera.

The 5D III would give me the better focusing, speed and weather proofing over the 6D, but IQ wise I would not be much better off than what I already have. Plus If I want speed, the 7D II blows it out of the water.

I do want the increased resolution of the 6D II along with the better focusing and tilty flippy, but after 5 years of owning the 6D I expected a better sensor especially having the on chip ADC. IQ and signal to noise ratios are also very important to me.

Sony and Nikon seem to have much better sensors than Canon and Canon does not seem to catch up. For example, My sister in law owns the Nikon D7200 which is Nikon's equivalent to my 7d II. While the Canon is much more fun and easier to use, the IQ of the 7D II lags behind the D7200.

In the case of the 6D II there does not seem to be any innovation that I can see, The AF was already developed for other cameras. The tilty-flippy was already designed for other cameras. The touch screen had already been designed for other cameras. So it appears that Canon just cobbled together a few items from other cameras and along with a old style sensor, (although recently designed) put them all in the 6D II to save money. IQ is one of the reasons one purchases a FF camera over a crop sensor. If I was still into crop sensor cameras I would have purchased the 80D. If Canon is trying to protect their 5D IV then why were the original 6d and the 5D III so close to each other in the sensor performance. I am not the first one to say that Canon took a step backwards on the sensor design.

Anyway, yes, the 6D II is still a great camera and makes taking photos a lot easier than before, a lot of owners of the original 6D will not upgrade to the version II.

Sad

 

[scyrene]

Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."

The problem is that Canon went back to the thinking that this would be just an "enthusiast's" camera. Therefore they did not leave a good upgrade path for the people who bought the original and Canon decided that a few "gimmicks" would sell the camera to enough first time buyers to make the upgrade from APS-C worthwhile. This is the first time that I know of that Canon went backwards. Not the first they used gimmicks when they had no good sensor upgrade to offer. Secondly, one of the things that also helped the sales of the original was when a lot of professionals started to buy it as a cheaper second camera. That meant a lot of wedding photographers bought it. I realize that Canon does not consider the 6 series to be professional grade so, therefore, did not put in a second card slot. I think that had they done that, a lot of wedding photographers would buy the upgrade, (they still might, but won't be happy about it).

I wonder if Canon has pissed off the 4k crowd, (I think Canon still does not have a good working 4k system), and pissed off the wedding photographers and pissed off the purchasers of the original 6D if this version will be as good of a success as the first one.

I am in the pissed off crowd that is very unhappy about the lack of innovation this time around, but after a lot of agonizing have decided to buy one as the other features will help me with my style of photography,

Very sad, Canon

Brian

"Gimmicks"? "Lack of innovation"? They improved pretty much everything (notably autofocus and the addition of an articulating screen - both high on people's wish lists, from what we can gather from forum talk) except apparently this minor aspect of sensor design (and arguably adding a second slot). I think you've lost a bit of perspective.

scyrene, maybe I needed to elaborate a little more in my post. Firstly, I have pre-ordered the 6D II and as I said, I pretty much have decided to keep it due to the things you mention, but my agonizing has been whether to purchase the 5D III or the 6D II. I own both the 6D version 1 and the 7D II, and I even considered purchasing the 80D. Both of them are fantastic cameras and maybe I shouldn't upgrade.

The 80D would give me all the features of the 6D II, but IQ wise I believe the 6D is superior and the 7D II while not having the IQ of the newer 80D, it is by far a better camera.

The 5D III would give me the better focusing, speed and weather proofing over the 6D, but IQ wise I would not be much better off than what I already have. Plus If I want speed, the 7D II blows it out of the water.

I do want the increased resolution of the 6D II along with the better focusing and tilty flippy, but after 5 years of owning the 6D I expected a better sensor especially having the on chip ADC. IQ and signal to noise ratios are also very important to me.

Sony and Nikon seem to have much better sensors than Canon and Canon does not seem to catch up. For example, My sister in law owns the Nikon D7200 which is Nikon's equivalent to my 7d II. While the Canon is much more fun and easier to use, the IQ of the 7D II lags behind the D7200.

In the case of the 6D II there does not seem to be any innovation that I can see, The AF was already developed for other cameras. The tilty-flippy was already designed for other cameras. The touch screen had already been designed for other cameras. So it appears that Canon just cobbled together a few items from other cameras and along with a old style sensor, (although recently designed) put them all in the 6D II to save money. IQ is one of the reasons one purchases a FF camera over a crop sensor. If I was still into crop sensor cameras I would have purchased the 80D. If Canon is trying to protect their 5D IV then why were the original 6d and the 5D III so close to each other in the sensor performance. I am not the first one to say that Canon took a step backwards on the sensor design.

Anyway, yes, the 6D II is still a great camera and makes taking photos a lot easier than before, a lot of owners of the original 6D will not upgrade to the version II.

Sad

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification. I think - as many others have said here and elsewhere - DSLRs are mostly a mature technology, and to expect "innovation" of the type I think you mean is to set oneself up for disappointment. I don't think it's entirely fair to say, for instance, 'articulating screens already existed, so the addition to this line is not innovative' - it is in as much as it's the first Canon FF camera to have one (as far as I know). Virtually *nothing* will be truly new. That doesn't mean it is in some way innovative. Assuming innovation is as important as some seem to believe.

As for the 80D versus the 6D2, I can't comment. I think the waters have been very muddied by a few vocal people online, but in general, a FF camera offers a small number of advantages to some people, regardless of the model. If those are not important to you, then the 80D is a much better value option. If they are important, then your decision is between the 6D2 and other current FF cameras.

I hope you enjoy your purchase

 

[rrcphoto]

Remember a couple of years ago Canon was not happy with the sales of the original 6D and one of their executives said that the camera was going, "upscale."

that was a figment of your imagination.

or prove it.

Canon never stated anything about the sales of the 6D. Considering amazon rankings, the 6D sold quite well in the US.