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

[Loswr]

There are simple things Canon could and should do that would have made people happy, such as a flip out screen for the 5dmk4, an AF stick and UHS-II for the 6d mk2. Those simple things are why I haven't bought either of these cameras.

Simple does not mean free. Simple does not mean the majority want it. There are undoubtedly good reasons why those 'simple things' were excluded.

Who said free? I'd gladly pay extra for a 5dmk4 with the same screen as the 6d if it was an option.
Also what's a good reason to not include UHS-II? It's not rare tech. Same for the af stick, I'm 100% sure everyone would appreciate it with the vastly increased af points.

Would you pay a few million dollars extra? I'm sure Canon would do it for a few million dollars. :

I just love comments like, "I'm 100% sure everyone has the same opinion as me." Few things stated here are more asinine, ludicrous, and indefensible.

Canon's goal isn't to do things you'd appreciate, sorry.

 

[Cthulhu]

There are simple things Canon could and should do that would have made people happy, such as a flip out screen for the 5dmk4, an AF stick and UHS-II for the 6d mk2. Those simple things are why I haven't bought either of these cameras.

Simple does not mean free. Simple does not mean the majority want it. There are undoubtedly good reasons why those 'simple things' were excluded.

Who said free? I'd gladly pay extra for a 5dmk4 with the same screen as the 6d if it was an option.
Also what's a good reason to not include UHS-II? It's not rare tech. Same for the af stick, I'm 100% sure everyone would appreciate it with the vastly increased af points.

Would you pay a few million dollars extra? I'm sure Canon would do it for a few million dollars. :

I just love comments like, "I'm 100% sure everyone has the same opinion as me." Few things stated here are more asinine, ludicrous, and indefensible.

Canon's goal isn't to do things you'd appreciate, sorry.

Are you saying you wouldn't appreciate or use an af stick if it came in a camera? Because that is an actually ludicrous and asinine statement.

 

[Talys]

There are simple things Canon could and should do that would have made people happy, such as a flip out screen for the 5dmk4, an AF stick and UHS-II for the 6d mk2. Those simple things are why I haven't bought either of these cameras.

Simple does not mean free. Simple does not mean the majority want it. There are undoubtedly good reasons why those 'simple things' were excluded.

Who said free? I'd gladly pay extra for a 5dmk4 with the same screen as the 6d if it was an option.
Also what's a good reason to not include UHS-II? It's not rare tech. Same for the af stick, I'm 100% sure everyone would appreciate it with the vastly increased af points.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the reason for the fixed screens on FF were more robust weather sealing. I think it becomes problem in low temperatures.

Anyways, sure, I'd live a 5d4 with an articulating screen, faster SD support, and some 77D gizmos (like Bluetooth). But I don't think that even for the perfect camera body I could bring myself to shell out $3,300+, partly because I don't think I'll use it enough before I want the next perfect camera body to justify that price. I'm also get a little nerd retail therapy out of new camera bodies, so I kind of want to buy a new body at least every three years or so.. Or at least I get the itch to do so. I'd be reluctant though if they were at 5D4 price points. Yes, I know it isn't necessarily wise, and I could just buy less stuff an get a 5D4 or 1DX, but I'll happily admit that I make irrational buying decisions that I'm happy with even on reflection.

 

[Loswr]

There are simple things Canon could and should do that would have made people happy, such as a flip out screen for the 5dmk4, an AF stick and UHS-II for the 6d mk2. Those simple things are why I haven't bought either of these cameras.

Simple does not mean free. Simple does not mean the majority want it. There are undoubtedly good reasons why those 'simple things' were excluded.

Who said free? I'd gladly pay extra for a 5dmk4 with the same screen as the 6d if it was an option.
Also what's a good reason to not include UHS-II? It's not rare tech. Same for the af stick, I'm 100% sure everyone would appreciate it with the vastly increased af points.

Would you pay a few million dollars extra? I'm sure Canon would do it for a few million dollars. :

I just love comments like, "I'm 100% sure everyone has the same opinion as me." Few things stated here are more asinine, ludicrous, and indefensible.

Canon's goal isn't to do things you'd appreciate, sorry.

Are you saying you wouldn't appreciate or use an af stick if it came in a camera? Because that is an actually ludicrous and asinine statement.

I'm saying I'm not arrogant enough to be '100% sure' that I speak for 'everyone'. That a good way to put the ass in asinine, well done!

 

[Tangent]

In the interest of follow-through, let me just say that I was one of the folks concerned about the early samples from the 6Dmk2. After seeing these I am feeling much better:

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6dmk2/

I really didn't think Canon would put out a horrible sensor for the mkII but I am not one to take things on faith, either. Still looking forward to more samples and test results, but breathing a sigh of relief.

Also, if you want a white SL2 in the USA it is listed as a Canon Online store exclusive:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/cameras/dslr/eos-rebel-sl2-ef-s-18-55mm-is-stm-kit

Cough up for the sales tax, my friends.

 

[Cthulhu]

There are simple things Canon could and should do that would have made people happy, such as a flip out screen for the 5dmk4, an AF stick and UHS-II for the 6d mk2. Those simple things are why I haven't bought either of these cameras.

Simple does not mean free. Simple does not mean the majority want it. There are undoubtedly good reasons why those 'simple things' were excluded.

Who said free? I'd gladly pay extra for a 5dmk4 with the same screen as the 6d if it was an option.
Also what's a good reason to not include UHS-II? It's not rare tech. Same for the af stick, I'm 100% sure everyone would appreciate it with the vastly increased af points.

Would you pay a few million dollars extra? I'm sure Canon would do it for a few million dollars. :

I just love comments like, "I'm 100% sure everyone has the same opinion as me." Few things stated here are more asinine, ludicrous, and indefensible.

Canon's goal isn't to do things you'd appreciate, sorry.

Are you saying you wouldn't appreciate or use an af stick if it came in a camera? Because that is an actually ludicrous and asinine statement.

I'm saying I'm not arrogant enough to be '100% sure' that I speak for 'everyone'. That a good way to put the ass in asinine, well done!

Well, you're definitely arrogant enough to write an asinine comment about the difficulty of determining whether people would appreciate an af stick...

Try not to let your ego get in the way of a simple conversation about camera features.

 

[Etienne]

I like easy decisions, like when the Canon 5D Mark II came out. The 5D2 was a one of a kind ... a great stills camera that could also shoot good cinematic 1080p (not without it's problems). Even the 5D3 was not a hard decision - decent AF, and eliminated the moire and aliasing in video of the 5D2.
But the 5D4 and 6D2 are not easy decisions. They offer some improvements, but they also take away things. The 5D3 with magic lantern gave us things like focus peaking for using manual focus lenses in video, and RAW video if you are willing to do the work. The 5D4 is impossible to manually focus in video because there is no focus peaking and no ML.

Enter the 6D2, and it offers a swivel screen and DPAF touch to focus. Great, except not only is there no 4K, but the 1080p video quality is actually a downgrade ... lowered bitrates, and a return to moire and aliasing is expected from the video community (maybe their analysis is wrong, we'll see). Who downgrades quality today? That's just weird.

I really wish Canon would make my decisions easy, but no. The DPAF with swivel screen on a FF camera is tempting, but I doubt I'll buy it. I'd love using it, but I'd hate seeing the moire and the low bit rate video in the editing room.

I do love the DPAF - I bought the T7i just to play with the DPAF, but that's as much as I'm willing to spend to get mediocre to crappy video with good autofocus. I'll use the T7i as an unattended second camera for interviews, but I have to say I'm disappointed in Canon.

Back to the waiting game. If Canon makes the C100 mark III and nails it, I may remain with Canon... but it's not looking good. In all likelihood, Sony will make an amazing FS5 mark II, and an equally amazing A7s mark III, and my many years with Canon will draw to a close. And, yes, I am sad about that. I would have loved a kick-ass 5D4 (or 6D2) do-it-all paired with a kick-ass C100 mkII, but both fall short, and the next full product cycle for these cameras is many years away. Maybe Sony will disappoint too, who knows, but my suspicion is that the next Sony cycle (less than a year from now) will be irresistible.

 

[BillB]

I like easy decisions, like when the Canon 5D Mark II came out. The 5D2 was a one of a kind ... a great stills camera that could also shoot good cinematic 1080p (not without it's problems). Even the 5D3 was not a hard decision - decent AF, and eliminated the moire and aliasing in video of the 5D2.
But the 5D4 and 6D2 are not easy decisions. They offer some improvements, but they also take away things. The 5D3 with magic lantern gave us things like focus peaking for using manual focus lenses in video, and RAW video if you are willing to do the work. The 5D4 is impossible to manually focus in video because there is no focus peaking and no ML.

Enter the 6D2, and it offers a swivel screen and DPAF touch to focus. Great, except not only is there no 4K, but the 1080p video quality is actually a downgrade ... lowered bitrates, and a return to moire and aliasing is expected from the video community (maybe their analysis is wrong, we'll see). Who downgrades quality today? That's just weird.

I really wish Canon would make my decisions easy, but no. The DPAF with swivel screen on a FF camera is tempting, but I doubt I'll buy it. I'd love using it, but I'd hate seeing the moire and the low bit rate video in the editing room.

I do love the DPAF - I bought the T7i just to play with the DPAF, but that's as much as I'm willing to spend to get mediocre to crappy video with good autofocus. I'll use the T7i as an unattended second camera for interviews, but I have to say I'm disappointed in Canon.

Back to the waiting game. If Canon makes the C100 mark III and nails it, I may remain with Canon... but it's not looking good. In all likelihood, Sony will make an amazing FS5 mark II, and an equally amazing A7s mark III, and my many years with Canon will draw to a close. And, yes, I am sad about that. I would have loved a kick-ass 5D4 (or 6D2) do-it-all paired with a kick-ass C100 mkII, but both fall short, and the next full product cycle for these cameras is many years away. Maybe Sony will disappoint too, who knows, but my suspicion is that the next Sony cycle (less than a year from now) will be irresistible.

I am wondering whether there is another shoe to drop on the Canon video front with a mirrorless model, either crop or FF. If this is so, normal product cycles wouldn't apply. For video an electronic viewfinder is much better than an optical finder, so maybe Canon will emphasize video in a new mirrorless model. It already has touchscreen focussing which is pretty nice. As you point out, right now, Sony hasn't nailed it yet either, so either way it is a waiting game.

 

[scyrene]

AF spread is a big issue for me. I'm a bit tired on focus and compose and hearing the number of AF points I was really set to buy this to replace my 5D classic.

But right now I have decided not to buy it. But I will wait for the reviews and then try it in a shop before making the final decision.

I will probably end up with a Sony A7 III.

Genuine question: how does focus-recompose work with a mirrorless camera? Is it just the same?

Incidentally, is the AF point spread in the 6D2 worse than the original 5D?

Focus-recompose causes problems when you focus then move the camera significantly, and your DoF is shallow. If you have an AF point where you want it (i.e., over your subject with your desired composition), you don't need to recompose, obviating the problem. If you have an AF point close, you only need a small recomposition, and it's really not an issue.

To the extent that a camera, dSLR or mirrorless, has an AF point where you want it, you're good. Since MILCs use the image sensor for AF, focus-recompose is far less likely to be an issue. Note that the same applies to dSLRs in live view. If using CDAF, you can focus almost right at the edge of the frame, albeit slowly, and focus-recompose will never be an issue. With the on-image-sensor PDAF, you can't get right to the edge - but still likely close enough.

The horizontal and vertical spread in the middle row/column is pretty much identical between the 5D/5DII/6D/6DII. But the 6DII has a major difference, of which paxfoto seems ignorant. The 5D/5DII/6D all have diamond-shaped arrays, whereas the 6DII array is essentially a rectangle. The corners of that rectangle sit very close to the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections, which means using those corner points essentially eliminates the backfocus problem for shots with that oft-used composition (and as an added bonus, those corner points are cross-type). With the diamond-shaped arrays, the areas near the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections are devoid of AF points.

Thanks! That's very clear

 

[scyrene]

High iso isn't really something I actually care too much about with the exception of how well the camera handles noise (same when pushing shadows) and I know canon has been lagging behind Sony sensors.

Just worth noting - while Canon's *low ISO* DR (specifically shadow recovery) has historically lagged a little way behind Sony's, at high ISOs there was never any real difference between the two, especially in raw images (usual caveats apply).

 

[Eclectik]

AF spread is a big issue for me. I'm a bit tired on focus and compose and hearing the number of AF points I was really set to buy this to replace my 5D classic.

But right now I have decided not to buy it. But I will wait for the reviews and then try it in a shop before making the final decision.

I will probably end up with a Sony A7 III.

I was thinking the same. However, with Dual Pixel auto-focus, I'm reconsidering my view point. It seems (based on Canon videos, I agree) that DPAF is quite quick enough to do "still" photography, by avoiding the "focus compose" sequence. We could give it a try, IMO.

 

[ecka]

Not everyone cares about 4K or 1/8000 sec shutters, dual card slots, or high end features of a 5 Series camera. Many find it too heavy.

Which is exactly why it makes sense to keep selling older model cameras at lower prices, instead of producing new expensive inferior ones.

I disagree with this. I care WAY more about a lot of the features that are not top-line, that have to do with modernization of technology, ergonomics improvements, and creature comforts than I do about 4k or 1/8000 shutters (neither of which I would use, even once). Like, wifi liveview RAW/JPEG splitting, Bluetooth shutter, articulating screen.

Features like these aren't on older models, and will never be, which is why I'd much rather use an 80D than use a 6D, or 5D3 -- or even 5D4, especially considering the price difference. Since weather sealing is only marginally important to me (most of my shooting is in ideal weather or in studio), I find the articulating lens is almost a "must have" feature. I would trade it for 4k or 1/8000 any day, because it makes it easy, for example, to put a camera at the top of an articulating arm tripod, point it down, and snap a photo of an object laying flat on the ground. Or, mount the camera on an arm and take a photo of a diorama from an of angle, such as just beneath a spotlight.

Product differentiation is a good thing. If I can buy a $2000 camera that gives me everything I want, why would I want to buy a $3,300 camera? Even if getting rid of the $2000 camera could drop the next model up down to $3,000, that would still be a lot more to pay, for $1000 of extra features that I either don't care about, or don't care enough about to pay $1,000 more. But for those people who want those features, good on them, please do by the $3,300, or $7,500 camera.

Same thing for lens: I like the 3-4 tiered system, where you have entry level, enthusiast, and then 1-3 levels of pro lenses (like the variants of 70-200L). I like that, if I am buying glass that will always be in a studio, I won't care about IS or wide aperture and don't have to pay for them, and can instead purchase a lens at a lower cost that will give me the same IQ for my purposes. And if it's for farting around taking weekend photos of birds and raccoons, I'm perfectly happy with a mid-range enthusiast lens.

I think that the number of options/segments should decrease as you get to the highest end camera, because there are a small number of buyers for those (1DX). As you drop down to FF, there needs to be at least a couple of price point, feature and weight options, because 5D4 is not appealing to everyone. When you get to APSC, and sub-$1,500, and especially sub $500, Canon can support a lot of options, because there are tons of buyers out there.

Hearing/seeing the phrase - "entry level" - makes me face palm every time. I'm not entering anything when buying cheaper products. Honestly, it sounds like a "gradual robbery", which makes you suffer till it's over. I expect to get an adequate tool for my money, not the "snake oil". I don't care what you don't care about. I care to get a modern camera with sufficient features and qualities for the next 5 years and APS-C is not an option.
If an image doesn't deserve high quality, then, most likely, it's not worth shooting at all.

 

[Etienne]

I like easy decisions, like when the Canon 5D Mark II came out. The 5D2 was a one of a kind ... a great stills camera that could also shoot good cinematic 1080p (not without it's problems). Even the 5D3 was not a hard decision - decent AF, and eliminated the moire and aliasing in video of the 5D2.
But the 5D4 and 6D2 are not easy decisions. They offer some improvements, but they also take away things. The 5D3 with magic lantern gave us things like focus peaking for using manual focus lenses in video, and RAW video if you are willing to do the work. The 5D4 is impossible to manually focus in video because there is no focus peaking and no ML.

Enter the 6D2, and it offers a swivel screen and DPAF touch to focus. Great, except not only is there no 4K, but the 1080p video quality is actually a downgrade ... lowered bitrates, and a return to moire and aliasing is expected from the video community (maybe their analysis is wrong, we'll see). Who downgrades quality today? That's just weird.

I really wish Canon would make my decisions easy, but no. The DPAF with swivel screen on a FF camera is tempting, but I doubt I'll buy it. I'd love using it, but I'd hate seeing the moire and the low bit rate video in the editing room.

I do love the DPAF - I bought the T7i just to play with the DPAF, but that's as much as I'm willing to spend to get mediocre to crappy video with good autofocus. I'll use the T7i as an unattended second camera for interviews, but I have to say I'm disappointed in Canon.

Back to the waiting game. If Canon makes the C100 mark III and nails it, I may remain with Canon... but it's not looking good. In all likelihood, Sony will make an amazing FS5 mark II, and an equally amazing A7s mark III, and my many years with Canon will draw to a close. And, yes, I am sad about that. I would have loved a kick-ass 5D4 (or 6D2) do-it-all paired with a kick-ass C100 mkII, but both fall short, and the next full product cycle for these cameras is many years away. Maybe Sony will disappoint too, who knows, but my suspicion is that the next Sony cycle (less than a year from now) will be irresistible.

I am wondering whether there is another shoe to drop on the Canon video front with a mirrorless model, either crop or FF. If this is so, normal product cycles wouldn't apply. For video an electronic viewfinder is much better than an optical finder, so maybe Canon will emphasize video in a new mirrorless model. It already has touchscreen focussing which is pretty nice. As you point out, right now, Sony hasn't nailed it yet either, so either way it is a waiting game.

Another video camera would be a great surprise, but I seriously doubt it. Even the C200 is not going to be fully functional until the first firmware update, which is planned for almost a year from now.

Sony has all the technology available to do this now, and has demonstrated that they will push the limits on what they offer. The A7s III only needs on sensor phase detect and a swivel touchscreen to be irresistible. An improvement in rolling shutter would be nice too.
The FS5 only needs IBIS, sensor phase detect and touch screen. A little low light improvement would be nice, but I suspect that these things will come to the A7s III and FS5 II in less than a year. If so, I'll have to go with those. (They are already very tempting cameras, this would just make the decision extremely easy)

 

[Loswr]

Hearing/seeing the phrase - "entry level" - makes me face palm every time. I'm not entering anything when buying cheaper products. Honestly, it sounds like a "gradual robbery", which makes you suffer till it's over. I expect to get an adequate tool for my money, not the "snake oil". I don't care what you don't care about. I care to get a modern camera with sufficient features and qualities for the next 5 years and APS-C is not an option.
If an image doesn't deserve high quality, then, most likely, it's not worth shooting at all.

What phrase would you prefer? 'Bottom of the line' full frame camera? How about 'low-end' full frame camera? Maybe 'cheapest' full frame camera?

Probably you should buy the 1D X II, D5, or a9, so you can enter the world of full frame cameras at the top. At least until the successor is released. Then, instead of gradual robbery up the line, you can slowly (or quickly, with Sony) experience your inexorable slide into a has-been camera.

Or you could just ignore the terminology, but the camera that meets your needs, and go take pictures. At least, that's worked well for me.

 

[Talys]

Hearing/seeing the phrase - "entry level" - makes me face palm every time. I'm not entering anything when buying cheaper products. Honestly, it sounds like a "gradual robbery", which makes you suffer till it's over. I expect to get an adequate tool for my money, not the "snake oil". I don't care what you don't care about. I care to get a modern camera with sufficient features and qualities for the next 5 years and APS-C is not an option.
If an image doesn't deserve high quality, then, most likely, it's not worth shooting at all.

The problem is that I ALSO don't really care about what you don't care about -- and I do care about price. If there's a cheaper model that has enough (or all) of the features that *I* care about, that's the one I'll probably buy. Why should I pay more?

What most people who say, "I don't like so many models" are actually saying is: "This vendor doesn't have a lower-priced model with the features I want, and if they got rid of the lower-priced models, the higher-end one would come down in price". But that's just not going to happen. If you're advocating that they start FF cameras at 5D4, then you should just ignore the 6D2 entirely, and buy a 5D4, or complain, "5D4 is too expensive". But that's not going to get you very far, unless the sales of $3,300 pro cameras significantly drop.

It's only "gradual robbery" if you keep climbing the ladder because what you REALLY want is a full pro model but keep settling for something less thinking it would do. If you know this to be the case, you should not buy a lower end model. It isn't "gradual robbery" at all, if you buy the 6D2 and you're happy with it for the next 3 years or so, until the 6D3 comes out. If you just read through this thread, you'll see all sorts of people who remain perfectly happy with 6D mark 1 -- they weren't robbed, right?

By the way, I do agree that it's not worthwhile buying a camera that doesn't shoot a good image. The problem is that we have different standards for what constitutes acceptable or excellent, and price is an important consideration for most buyers. Like most things in life, it's about compromises

 

[BillB]

I like easy decisions, like when the Canon 5D Mark II came out. The 5D2 was a one of a kind ... a great stills camera that could also shoot good cinematic 1080p (not without it's problems). Even the 5D3 was not a hard decision - decent AF, and eliminated the moire and aliasing in video of the 5D2.
But the 5D4 and 6D2 are not easy decisions. They offer some improvements, but they also take away things. The 5D3 with magic lantern gave us things like focus peaking for using manual focus lenses in video, and RAW video if you are willing to do the work. The 5D4 is impossible to manually focus in video because there is no focus peaking and no ML.

Enter the 6D2, and it offers a swivel screen and DPAF touch to focus. Great, except not only is there no 4K, but the 1080p video quality is actually a downgrade ... lowered bitrates, and a return to moire and aliasing is expected from the video community (maybe their analysis is wrong, we'll see). Who downgrades quality today? That's just weird.

I really wish Canon would make my decisions easy, but no. The DPAF with swivel screen on a FF camera is tempting, but I doubt I'll buy it. I'd love using it, but I'd hate seeing the moire and the low bit rate video in the editing room.

I do love the DPAF - I bought the T7i just to play with the DPAF, but that's as much as I'm willing to spend to get mediocre to crappy video with good autofocus. I'll use the T7i as an unattended second camera for interviews, but I have to say I'm disappointed in Canon.

Back to the waiting game. If Canon makes the C100 mark III and nails it, I may remain with Canon... but it's not looking good. In all likelihood, Sony will make an amazing FS5 mark II, and an equally amazing A7s mark III, and my many years with Canon will draw to a close. And, yes, I am sad about that. I would have loved a kick-ass 5D4 (or 6D2) do-it-all paired with a kick-ass C100 mkII, but both fall short, and the next full product cycle for these cameras is many years away. Maybe Sony will disappoint too, who knows, but my suspicion is that the next Sony cycle (less than a year from now) will be irresistible.

I am wondering whether there is another shoe to drop on the Canon video front with a mirrorless model, either crop or FF. If this is so, normal product cycles wouldn't apply. For video an electronic viewfinder is much better than an optical finder, so maybe Canon will emphasize video in a new mirrorless model. It already has touchscreen focussing which is pretty nice. As you point out, right now, Sony hasn't nailed it yet either, so either way it is a waiting game.

Another video camera would be a great surprise, but I seriously doubt it. Even the C200 is not going to be fully functional until the first firmware update, which is planned for almost a year from now.

Sony has all the technology available to do this now, and has demonstrated that they will push the limits on what they offer. The A7s III only needs on sensor phase detect and a swivel touchscreen to be irresistible. An improvement in rolling shutter would be nice too.
The FS5 only needs IBIS, sensor phase detect and touch screen. A little low light improvement would be nice, but I suspect that these things will come to the A7s III and FS5 II in less than a year. If so, I'll have to go with those. (They are already very tempting cameras, this would just make the decision extremely easy)

Fair enough. As you say, time will tell. Sony thinks the demand is there for an FS5 II and an A7sIII, and they are going to come up with models to cash in on that demand as soon as possible. Canon has dual pixel technology and touchscreen focussing, but Canon's next steps are less clear, partly because it is not clear how Canon sees the market for video/stills cameras. The 6DII puts some of Canon's cards on the table, but what next? (if anything).

 

[ecka]

Hearing/seeing the phrase - "entry level" - makes me face palm every time. I'm not entering anything when buying cheaper products. Honestly, it sounds like a "gradual robbery", which makes you suffer till it's over. I expect to get an adequate tool for my money, not the "snake oil". I don't care what you don't care about. I care to get a modern camera with sufficient features and qualities for the next 5 years and APS-C is not an option.
If an image doesn't deserve high quality, then, most likely, it's not worth shooting at all.

What phrase would you prefer? 'Bottom of the line' full frame camera? How about 'low-end' full frame camera? Maybe 'cheapest' full frame camera?

Probably you should buy the 1D X II, D5, or a9, so you can enter the world of full frame cameras at the top. At least until the successor is released. Then, instead of gradual robbery up the line, you can slowly (or quickly, with Sony) experience your inexorable slide into a has-been camera.

Or you could just ignore the terminology, but the camera that meets your needs, and go take pictures. At least, that's worked well for me.

Why not "exit level" then? What's the difference?
"FF scam edition" sounds reasonable.
What makes you think that I can't shoot pictures without your permission? . 6D2 doesn't feel like a $2000 camera of 2017. More like $1700 camera of 2016, which should be $1500 by now .

 

[ecka]

Hearing/seeing the phrase - "entry level" - makes me face palm every time. I'm not entering anything when buying cheaper products. Honestly, it sounds like a "gradual robbery", which makes you suffer till it's over. I expect to get an adequate tool for my money, not the "snake oil". I don't care what you don't care about. I care to get a modern camera with sufficient features and qualities for the next 5 years and APS-C is not an option.
If an image doesn't deserve high quality, then, most likely, it's not worth shooting at all.

The problem is that I ALSO don't really care about what you don't care about -- and I do care about price. If there's a cheaper model that has enough (or all) of the features that *I* care about, that's the one I'll probably buy. Why should I pay more?

What most people who say, "I don't like so many models" are actually saying is: "This vendor doesn't have a lower-priced model with the features I want, and if they got rid of the lower-priced models, the higher-end one would come down in price". But that's just not going to happen. If you're advocating that they start FF cameras at 5D4, then you should just ignore the 6D2 entirely, and buy a 5D4, or complain, "5D4 is too expensive". But that's not going to get you very far, unless the sales of $3,300 pro cameras significantly drop.

It's only "gradual robbery" if you keep climbing the ladder because what you REALLY want is a full pro model but keep settling for something less thinking it would do. If you know this to be the case, you should not buy a lower end model. It isn't "gradual robbery" at all, if you buy the 6D2 and you're happy with it for the next 3 years or so, until the 6D3 comes out. If you just read through this thread, you'll see all sorts of people who remain perfectly happy with 6D mark 1 -- they weren't robbed, right?

By the way, I do agree that it's not worthwhile buying a camera that doesn't shoot a good image. The problem is that we have different standards for what constitutes acceptable or excellent, and price is an important consideration for most buyers. Like most things in life, it's about compromises

Exactly. I have no idea why you prefer to pay more. Crop kit lenses are good value. But most of the "next level" crop optics are overpriced. Even using EF lenses on APS-C is wasting 60% of the unused glass.
There are options other than Canon. The problem is that people are lazy. I am too lazy for switching systems each time someone makes a better offer. And I do like many things Canon does well. I just hate it when they dumb it down for no reason. Look what MagicLantern does with 5 year old Canons ... It makes the new ones seem dated. It took 5 years to release the 6D2. Why do you expect the 6D3 coming sooner?
I'm not fully happy with 5D series either. This CF+SD combo is BS. No flip-out screen politics is stupid. No peaking, etc. ...

 

[Khalai]

Hearing/seeing the phrase - "entry level" - makes me face palm every time. I'm not entering anything when buying cheaper products. Honestly, it sounds like a "gradual robbery", which makes you suffer till it's over. I expect to get an adequate tool for my money, not the "snake oil". I don't care what you don't care about. I care to get a modern camera with sufficient features and qualities for the next 5 years and APS-C is not an option.
If an image doesn't deserve high quality, then, most likely, it's not worth shooting at all.

What phrase would you prefer? 'Bottom of the line' full frame camera? How about 'low-end' full frame camera? Maybe 'cheapest' full frame camera?

Probably you should buy the 1D X II, D5, or a9, so you can enter the world of full frame cameras at the top. At least until the successor is released. Then, instead of gradual robbery up the line, you can slowly (or quickly, with Sony) experience your inexorable slide into a has-been camera.

Or you could just ignore the terminology, but the camera that meets your needs, and go take pictures. At least, that's worked well for me.

Why not "exit level" then? What's the difference?
"FF scam edition" sounds reasonable.
What makes you think that I can't shoot pictures without your permission? . 6D2 doesn't feel like a $2000 camera of 2017. More like $1700 camera of 2016, which should be $1500 by now .

Well, what's the problem then? You don't like the price - then don't buy it or wait for the price to fall down to a level you'll find acceptable.

If you are lazy to switch systems (as you stated yourself), then tough luck - you either overcome your laziness and switch systems (if you feel that necessary) or just get used to it.

I don't like some things about 6D Mark II either, price si rather higher (in my country, not MSRP) than original 6D, when I bought it 3 years ago, I'd welcome 2nd slot, USB-C interface and other small things. But hey, I either shell out around 2200 € or just simply don't buy if I feel that 6D Mark II is not worth of my money and effort.

Vote with your wallet, simple...

 

[Loswr]

Why not "exit level" then? What's the difference?

One is accepted terminology for the lowest trim level across a variety of industries. The other is a lame phrase, with obvious negative connotations.

What makes you think that I can't shoot pictures without your permission? .

Well, I thought you could comprehend what you read. But if that's how you interpret it, clearly I was wrong. My bad.

"FF scam edition" sounds reasonable.
6D2 doesn't feel like a $2000 camera of 2017. More like $1700 camera of 2016, which should be $1500 by now .

If that sounds reasonable to you, you probably shouldn't buy one. No one cares, least of all Canon.