Poll: What Do You Think About the EOS Canon 6D Mark II?

[Orangutan]

The sensor is the most expensive part, which is 600. All the mechanics together (in a semi-pro camera) cost around 500. The circuit boards cost around 400 (in a semi-pro camera) and the AF system is a part of it. Plus all that is considerably cheaper in a non-retail situation when they are assembling these camera at a factory. Maybe 60, maybe 40, maybe 25, I don't know.

What you hhttp://www.canonrumors.com/forum/Themes/inferno/images/bbc/bold.gifave given me is not evidence - it seems like a list of suppositions. Where are you get your information to say "The sensor is the most expensive part, which is 600. All the mechanics together (in a semi-pro camera) cost around 500"? Canon make their own sensors so how do you know?
How do you know they use the same circuit boards?
What about the AF sub assembly? Programming the system for the camera?

If you have genuine knowledge that is one thing. If you are assuming based on other areas then it is less secure.

So far your number account for 1500 out of 2,000. Add the body (including machining the mount) and other parts, add packaging and distribution and it looks like your claims of room to throw more things in for free are total fantasy

+1

Fabricating facts does not help ecka's credibility.

Those part don't cost Canon the same amount they sell it to you.

See Don's post above. I believe he has some knowledge of the industry, but not Canon specifically. I would trust his estimate.

I'm just saying that it doesn't cost much.

Per-unit cost, that's true. Again, see Don's post. There's also the entire customer support structure -- that ain't cheap.

You are right, the individual parts don't cost that much, but building and supporting the system does have significant costs. The more important truth is that it doesn't matter what it costs them, it's what the buyers, as a collective group, are willing to pay.

 

[unfocused]

You guys are crazy
Those part don't cost Canon the same amount they sell it to you. Use your brains!...

This whole discussion is crazy and brainless.

This is like calculating the value of a professional photographer's work by comparing the price of Compact Flash cards.

The cost of manufacturing an individual component (and no one on this forum even knows what that cost may be) has almost nothing to do with the retail price, which has to take into consideration all of the costs to put the product on the retailer's shelves. The bulk of those costs are embedded costs for marketing, research, development, transportation, technical support, warranty support, distribution network, packaging, etc. etc. etc.

Cherry-picking what you think an individual component might be worth is the real crazy here.

 

[Don Haines]

The sensor is the most expensive part, which is 600. All the mechanics together (in a semi-pro camera) cost around 500. The circuit boards cost around 400 (in a semi-pro camera) and the AF system is a part of it. Plus all that is considerably cheaper in a non-retail situation when they are assembling these camera at a factory. Maybe 60, maybe 40, maybe 25, I don't know.

What you hhttp://www.canonrumors.com/forum/Themes/inferno/images/bbc/bold.gifave given me is not evidence - it seems like a list of suppositions. Where are you get your information to say "The sensor is the most expensive part, which is 600. All the mechanics together (in a semi-pro camera) cost around 500"? Canon make their own sensors so how do you know?
How do you know they use the same circuit boards?
What about the AF sub assembly? Programming the system for the camera?

If you have genuine knowledge that is one thing. If you are assuming based on other areas then it is less secure.

So far your number account for 1500 out of 2,000. Add the body (including machining the mount) and other parts, add packaging and distribution and it looks like your claims of room to throw more things in for free are total fantasy

+1

Fabricating facts does not help ecka's credibility.

Those part don't cost Canon the same amount they sell it to you.

See Don's post above. I believe he has some knowledge of the industry, but not Canon specifically. I would trust his estimate.

I'm just saying that it doesn't cost much.

Per-unit cost, that's true. Again, see Don's post. There's also the entire customer support structure -- that ain't cheap.

You are right, the individual parts don't cost that much, but building and supporting the system does have significant costs. The more important truth is that it doesn't matter what it costs them, it's what the buyers, as a collective group, are willing to pay.

It would be cheaper if they'd put the same AF in all cameras.

I'm not arguing with Don. And he doesn't know the exact cost either. We just know it's not $500. Get over it.

I do not know what the cost to Canon of the components is.

Camera sells for $2000.....

Store makes some profit... Typical retail for electronics is 30-60 percent. Canon forces a pricing structure so the odds are very good that the retail price is 50% or higher markup, so that makes the dealer cost around $1300...

The camera had to get to the store from the factory.... There is an entire distribution network to maintain and there are duties to bring it into the country..... if we assume that all this could be done for a 30 percent markup, then that means the factory got $1000 for that camera.

Someone had to put all those components together....
Someone had to write the manuals and print them.....
Someone had to write all that software on the DVD that came with your new camera.....
Someone had to put it all into a box....
Someone had to do the R+D to make that Canon sensor....
Someone had to build a fabrication line....
Someone had to run it.....
Someone had to do the same with every other component in the camera.....
someone had to write the software in the camera....
Someone has to do HR for all those people.....
Someone has to build the factory...
Someone has to provide global oversight...
Someone has to pay the utilities bill....
Someone has to sweep the floors....
And they all want to be paid.....
Oh yes, the shareholders..... for some strange reason, they want to receive a return on their investment....

There is an awful lot that has to be paid for out of that $1000.... I suspect that if the cost of the components to build the camera were more than 10 percent, then it could not be done....

 

[ecka]

The sensor is the most expensive part, which is 600. All the mechanics together (in a semi-pro camera) cost around 500. The circuit boards cost around 400 (in a semi-pro camera) and the AF system is a part of it. Plus all that is considerably cheaper in a non-retail situation when they are assembling these camera at a factory. Maybe 60, maybe 40, maybe 25, I don't know.

What you hhttp://www.canonrumors.com/forum/Themes/inferno/images/bbc/bold.gifave given me is not evidence - it seems like a list of suppositions. Where are you get your information to say "The sensor is the most expensive part, which is 600. All the mechanics together (in a semi-pro camera) cost around 500"? Canon make their own sensors so how do you know?
How do you know they use the same circuit boards?
What about the AF sub assembly? Programming the system for the camera?

If you have genuine knowledge that is one thing. If you are assuming based on other areas then it is less secure.

So far your number account for 1500 out of 2,000. Add the body (including machining the mount) and other parts, add packaging and distribution and it looks like your claims of room to throw more things in for free are total fantasy

+1

Fabricating facts does not help ecka's credibility.

Those part don't cost Canon the same amount they sell it to you.

See Don's post above. I believe he has some knowledge of the industry, but not Canon specifically. I would trust his estimate.

I'm just saying that it doesn't cost much.

Per-unit cost, that's true. Again, see Don's post. There's also the entire customer support structure -- that ain't cheap.

You are right, the individual parts don't cost that much, but building and supporting the system does have significant costs. The more important truth is that it doesn't matter what it costs them, it's what the buyers, as a collective group, are willing to pay.

It would be cheaper if they'd put the same AF in all cameras.

I'm not arguing with Don. And he doesn't know the exact cost either. We just know it's not $500. Get over it.

I do not know what the cost to Canon of the components is.

Camera sells for $2000.....

Store makes some profit... Typical retail for electronics is 30-60 percent. Canon forces a pricing structure so the odds are very good that the retail price is 50% or higher markup, so that makes the dealer cost around $1300...

The camera had to get to the store from the factory.... There is an entire distribution network to maintain and there are duties to bring it into the country..... if we assume that all this could be done for a 30 percent markup, then that means the factory got $1000 for that camera.

Someone had to put all those components together....
Someone had to write the manuals and print them.....
Someone had to write all that software on the DVD that came with your new camera.....
Someone had to put it all into a box....
Someone had to do the R+D to make that Canon sensor....
Someone had to build a fabrication line....
Someone had to run it.....
Someone had to do the same with every other component in the camera.....
someone had to write the software in the camera....
Someone has to do HR for all those people.....
Someone has to build the factory...
Someone has to provide global oversight...
Someone has to pay the utilities bill....
Someone has to sweep the floors....
And they all want to be paid.....
Oh yes, the shareholders..... for some strange reason, they want to receive a return on their investment....

There is an awful lot that has to be paid for out of that $1000.... I suspect that if the cost of the components to build the camera were more than 10 percent, then it could not be done....

Exactly.
Economically speaking, making inferior parts that don't cost less than the good stuff, isn't economical at all , even if the final product is sold cheaper. It takes extra R+D investments and production lines. Instead, they could just sell more good stuff by selling it cheaper.

 

[unfocused]

Someone had to put all those components together....
Someone had to write the manuals and print them.....
Someone had to write all that software on the DVD that came with your new camera.....
Someone had to put it all into a box....
Someone had to do the R+D to make that Canon sensor....
Someone had to build a fabrication line....
Someone had to run it.....
Someone had to do the same with every other component in the camera.....
someone had to write the software in the camera....
Someone has to do HR for all those people.....
Someone has to build the factory...
Someone has to provide global oversight...
Someone has to pay the utilities bill....
Someone has to sweep the floors....
And they all want to be paid.....
Oh yes, the shareholders..... for some strange reason, they want to receive a return on their investment....

You haven't even scratched the surface. There is a lot more to costs than those directly associated with getting product to market:

Someone has to pay Rudy Winston and all the other tech reps...
Someone has to write their white papers...
Someone has to write website content...
Someone has to pay for website maintenance, updates, design, etc. etc...
Someone has to pay for warranty repairs...
Someone has to write, tape, edit and distribute their videos..
Someone has to pay for advertising...
Someone has to pay the "Explorers of Light"...
Someone has to pay the people who answer the phones...
Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's absolutely silly to calculate the cost of a product based solely on what some people think a component might cost.

 

[Mikehit]

Instead, they could just sell more good stuff by selling it cheaper.

And your experience of manufacturing industry is....what exactly?

Imagine a wedding photographer saying "I will process an additional 50 photos for you - it will be free of charge because I am sat at my computer anyway so additional costs are minimal"

Or, to go back to cars, demand they put on 4 tyres from the next quality level up. It will only cost $200 and the cost of a car is 20,000 so the difference is minimal.

I note you haven't explained to me where you got your estimate of prices for sensors and AF chips...

 

[Hector1970]

It looks a pretty decent camera to me for a 6D. 4K is totally wasted on most users. The files are way too big. You need very good hardware to process it. HD is more usuable on a general purpose camera. (Personally I think filmmakers who use DSLRs should spend more time on good actors and script than worrying about 4K).
It's a photographers camera. Focus points BT's and focus points spreads are a minor issue. I think it's a bit of an illusion that more of them is a Great Leap Forward. If the ones you have work then you'll do just fine. Frame rate is surprisingly high. It makes it very all purpose. I think if you can't take good photographs with a camera with those specs you should consider another hobby. It's a much more discernible improvement than the 5DIII to 5DIV.
I'd be confident most users buying it will be happy with it.
It would be nice if Canon had something a little more exciting in the bag in the next 12 months. A mirror less camera the size of a 5D/6D than can out frame rate a 1DX would be good. Olympus have a good thing on their OMD M1 II with Pro Mode. It holds about 14 frames in a buffer while holding partially the shutter button. If Canon could do that for even more frames (5 or 6 seconds worth ) it would be great for sport/wildlife etc).

 

[Don Haines]

<SNIP>

You haven't even scratched the surface. There is a lot more to costs than those directly associated with getting product to market:

Someone has to pay Rudy Winston and all the other tech reps...
Someone has to write their white papers...
Someone has to write website content...
Someone has to pay for website maintenance, updates, design, etc. etc...
Someone has to pay for warranty repairs...
Someone has to write, tape, edit and distribute their videos..
Someone has to pay for advertising...
Someone has to pay the "Explorers of Light"...
Someone has to pay the people who answer the phones...
Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's absolutely silly to calculate the cost of a product based solely on what some people think a component might cost.

And someone has to pay Neuro for all those postings..... even at $0.01 per word, Canon must owe him millions of dollars by now....... That's a lot of cameras they have to sell to keep us informed/entertained

 

[ethanz]

<SNIP>

You haven't even scratched the surface. There is a lot more to costs than those directly associated with getting product to market:

Someone has to pay Rudy Winston and all the other tech reps...
Someone has to write their white papers...
Someone has to write website content...
Someone has to pay for website maintenance, updates, design, etc. etc...
Someone has to pay for warranty repairs...
Someone has to write, tape, edit and distribute their videos..
Someone has to pay for advertising...
Someone has to pay the "Explorers of Light"...
Someone has to pay the people who answer the phones...
Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's absolutely silly to calculate the cost of a product based solely on what some people think a component might cost.

And someone has to pay Neuro for all those postings..... even at $0.01 per word, Canon must owe him millions of dollars by now....... That's a lot of cameras they have to sell to keep us informed/entertained

+1 ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

And someone has to pay Neuro for all those postings..... even at $0.01 per word, Canon must owe him millions of dollars by now....... That's a lot of cameras they have to sell to keep us informed/entertained

I'm so sorry, Don. Canon HQ really didn't want it known that paying my fee is why they had to cut costs on the 6DII by gimping it with the 80D's AF module. It was probably just a wild guess on your part, but Canon's legal department isn't known for believing in coincidence. Best of luck with your forthcoming legal difficulties.

 

[ashmadux]

I've been reading lots of posts on this website about the 6D Mark II and decided to write first post for this poll.

This camera looks good but who is it for?

Right now I have the 80D and iPhone 7. My iPhone is perfect for all of my "on-the-go" photos, including birthdays, etc, and if I want to be a little more serious, the 80D is giving me lovely images. The 6D Mark II will need to offer much more impressive images for me to upgrade from the 80D. If I was still using the 70D or 7D Mark II or some earlier Canon camera, sure I will upgrade to 6D Mark II but with the 80D, I don't need it.

When I shoot video, I'm never using my 80D, just the iPhone, same as my friends that do video. I'm thinking that the video train has already left the station and Canon is still standing on the platform. So I don't mind no 4K in the 6D Mark II.

I think this Canon camera is just for people that already own Canon and want to stay with Canon. It doesn't have good video to make people give up another camera or brand for this one if they do video and nobody that use other brand for photos is going to move for it because they already got good images too.

This is perfect camera for people that already own earlier Canon cameras and want to upgrade or have bigger Canon cameras and want to add something else (the flip-panel for video is something that more expensive cameras don't do.)

Hope that's all ok.

It's not that hard to figure out. Part of the problem is that if your usage pattern does not necessitate a certain body, then it's no real concern of yours, making it hard to distinguished whom (ie. what kind of shooter) it is for.

As a 6d1 owner, I'd love to trade up and take pressure off my workhorse 5d3. For landscapes, this will also be aces, with flippy and touchscreen. Time lapses? Never shot one in my life, but now I can in 4k. Great. More Mp? bigger prints, more cropping for us serious croppers (crop till you drop!).

With decent AF points, can also capture action. Studio? In the bag. Probably the only thing this isn't "great" for is expeditions and the Olympics, or paparazzi.

SO basically, you obviously dont "need' a full frame camera. Some of us absolutely do. And as a basic FF cam, this covers a lot of basic needs. And for the love of all that's holy, there's a FLIPPY SCREEN. I haven't had another since my g12.