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

[Khalai]

Good to see you like the new 6D body. It is a good starting point.

Liking ain't buying. I still have my trusty 6D and despite its shortcomings it's still one capable camera. 6D II will have to prove really potent and foremost, its price has to drop down about 400 € for me to consider buying it

And I'm mostly using OVF as well (with Eg-S matte screen) but that tilty flippy touchy focusy screen really intrigued me. I suggest you give it a go as well, if you have a chance...

 

[Khalai]

The spread of the AF points is an actual joke, I couldn't believe it when I read about it. Why would you need 45 points that spread only across the middle third of the picture?
That makes me actually think twice before buying this camera. But lets wait for the real world tests, if it can't deliver much more than the original 6D then screw it.

Better check all other FF cameras. E.g. much more expensive 5D IV is not that better. And if you compare only cross type points, it's about the same. And even 1DX II is nowhere near top tier crop cameras such as 7D II.

And frankly? What did you expect? 5D AF array in a body, which is 1300 USD cheaper?

Why do people keep comparing 5D/6D with 7D AF array? I mean, one is APSC and one is FF. It's just an apples to oranges comparison, the 7DII only needs to autofocus 62.5% the image that comes through an EF lens, in comparison to a FF camera. In other words, if an APSC had near-100% autofocus coverage, and you transplanted that into a FF camera, you'd only get 62.5% AF coverage. Or you could say that pretty much anything in the crop area of a 6D2 will can be used to autofocus

I realize that's kind of a stupid comparison/scenario, too -- but I think it's kind of equally bizarre to compare an AF system designed for 864 sq. mm to one for 329 sq. mm. I mean, if you're going to make AF coverage comparisons, match 6D2 to 5D4, and 77D to 70D2 -- or at least 6D2 to other camera brand FF bodies.

But that's just my point! It stupid to expect APS-C coverage in FF camera, because they are physically limited in AF array dimensions. No single FF DSLR has similar coverage to 7D II, yet only 6D II gets all the flak. Sure it's smaller than 5D series or obviously 1D series, but what do people seriously expect? 6000 € features in 2000 € body? Some out there are just pure greedy and want basically 1DX II performace for a 77D pricing. Or at least it sometimes seems that way. 6D II is not targeted as a professional camera, so why is everybody expecting it to receive professional AF is really beyond me...

 

[Loswr]

The spread of the AF points is an actual joke, I couldn't believe it when I read about it. Why would you need 45 points that spread only across the middle third of the picture?
That makes me actually think twice before buying this camera. But lets wait for the real world tests, if it can't deliver much more than the original 6D then screw it.

Sounds like your post is the actual joke, here.

But perhaps you're serious, after all, many people only examine things at a very superficial level...either because that's all they care about, or because that's what their capabilities allow.

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.

 

[Zanken]

I'm quite pleased with the upgrade, particularly the flippy touch screen. The potential things to be upset about for me would be lack of dual card slots, but i no longer shoot for money. I'm also not much into video so 4k is not an issue.

I've been shooting mostly night/gig/club type scenes with the original 6D since 2013 and have been quite happy with it. Having good low light with AF and requiring good functionality with an AF assist beam has been a requirement for me that has given me pause with Sony bodies.

I do want to upgrade, but probably wouldn't be in the market for over a year. If an A7III is released with IBIS and an updated sensor, I would probably switch, but only after renting/lending a kit to see whether it stacks up.

 

[ecka]

The spread of the AF points is an actual joke, I couldn't believe it when I read about it. Why would you need 45 points that spread only across the middle third of the picture?
That makes me actually think twice before buying this camera. But lets wait for the real world tests, if it can't deliver much more than the original 6D then screw it.

Better check all other FF cameras. E.g. much more expensive 5D IV is not that better. And if you compare only cross type points, it's about the same. And even 1DX II is nowhere near top tier crop cameras such as 7D II.

And frankly? What did you expect? 5D AF array in a body, which is 1300 USD cheaper?

Why do people keep comparing 5D/6D with 7D AF array? I mean, one is APSC and one is FF. It's just an apples to oranges comparison, the 7DII only needs to autofocus 62.5% the image that comes through an EF lens, in comparison to a FF camera. In other words, if an APSC had near-100% autofocus coverage, and you transplanted that into a FF camera, you'd only get 62.5% AF coverage. Or you could say that pretty much anything in the crop area of a 6D2 will can be used to autofocus

I realize that's kind of a stupid comparison/scenario, too -- but I think it's kind of equally bizarre to compare an AF system designed for 864 sq. mm to one for 329 sq. mm. I mean, if you're going to make AF coverage comparisons, match 6D2 to 5D4, and 77D to 70D2 -- or at least 6D2 to other camera brand FF bodies.

But that's just my point! It stupid to expect APS-C coverage in FF camera, because they are physically limited in AF array dimensions. No single FF DSLR has similar coverage to 7D II, yet only 6D II gets all the flak. Sure it's smaller than 5D series or obviously 1D series, but what do people seriously expect? 6000 € features in 2000 € body? Some out there are just pure greedy and want basically 1DX II performace for a 77D pricing. Or at least it sometimes seems that way. 6D II is not targeted as a professional camera, so why is everybody expecting it to receive professional AF is really beyond me...

Isn't it stupid to expect APS-C camera's AF system in a FF camera? Because that's what Canon did, they simply adapted 80D's AF system in 6D2, and the coverage difference is due to sensor size. 7DII AF coverage is wider spread than 80D. Why didn't they implement that one instead of 80D's? The whole thing is ridiculous. This greedy marketing segmentation is unjustifiable. 6D2 is crippled on purpose. They always make a bit better cameras a lot more expensive, and much inferior ones just a little bit cheaper, to make more $$ from both.

How much is 5D4 cheaper than 1DX2? Any AF system differences? It doesn't cost a $1000 to put it in every camera. Canon is just messing with us ...

Nikon D610 or D750 have worse AF coverage, either in general (D610) or in X-type coverage (both of them). Never heard any complaints about them. How come, that suddenly, 6D II is DOA because of that?

I get it, everybody would want 5D IV AF system in 6D II. But why should Canon do that? What would be the point of actually buying 5D IV?

And once again - if you switch off all the non X-type points in 5D IV, you get basically the same coverage as 6D II...

At least Nikon allows to use crop lenses on FF bodies in crop mode.

 

[Mikehit]

Isn't it stupid to expect APS-C camera's AF system in a FF camera? Because that's what Canon did, they simply adapted 80D's AF system in 6D2, and the coverage difference is due to sensor size. 7DII AF coverage is wider spread than 80D. Why didn't they implement that one instead of 80D's? The whole thing is ridiculous. This greedy marketing segmentation is unjustifiable. 6D2 is crippled on purpose. They always make a bit better cameras a lot more expensive, and much inferior ones just a little bit cheaper, to make more $$ from both.

Yeah, market segmentation is ridiculous. I mean, no other industry on earth segments their products, right? Oh, dear, Toyota do don't they which is why the have a range of cars. So let us start a campaign with Toyota asking why they don't put the seats from the Avalon into the Camry. After all, it is only a bit of leather and some metal so it can't cost that much and they can afford it from their profits.

I presume you have are (or have been) employed and your company never had a 'pay more and get a better service' approach to business, did they? Imagine , how dumb they would have to be to treat their customers so crappily.

 

[Khalai]

Isn't it stupid to expect APS-C camera's AF system in a FF camera? Because that's what Canon did, they simply adapted 80D's AF system in 6D2, and the coverage difference is due to sensor size. 7DII AF coverage is wider spread than 80D. Why didn't they implement that one instead of 80D's? The whole thing is ridiculous. This greedy marketing segmentation is unjustifiable. 6D2 is crippled on purpose. They always make a bit better cameras a lot more expensive, and much inferior ones just a little bit cheaper, to make more $$ from both.

Right. Because it's totally not ridiculous to expect 6D II to have better than 1DX autofocus system, right? Because that's what 7D II have. It' basically second best AF system in the Canon lineup. And you expect it in entry level FF DSLR? Seriously? You are being greedy, expecting 2000 € camera to have features from top of the line...

At least Nikon allows to use crop lenses on FF bodies in crop mode.

And your point being? I guess many Nikon shooter would trade that gladly for better X-type AF point coverage, which they now have only in the center cluster for D610 or D750...

 

[ecka]

Isn't it stupid to expect APS-C camera's AF system in a FF camera? Because that's what Canon did, they simply adapted 80D's AF system in 6D2, and the coverage difference is due to sensor size. 7DII AF coverage is wider spread than 80D. Why didn't they implement that one instead of 80D's? The whole thing is ridiculous. This greedy marketing segmentation is unjustifiable. 6D2 is crippled on purpose. They always make a bit better cameras a lot more expensive, and much inferior ones just a little bit cheaper, to make more $$ from both.

Right. Because it's totally not ridiculous to expect 6D II to have better than 1DX autofocus system, right? Because that's what 7D II have. It' basically second best AF system in the Canon lineup. And you expect it in entry level FF DSLR? Seriously? You are being greedy, expecting 2000 € camera to have features from top of the line...

At least Nikon allows to use crop lenses on FF bodies in crop mode.

And your point being? I guess many Nikon shooter would trade that gladly for better X-type AF point coverage, which they now have only in the center cluster for D610 or D750...

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...
My point is that Nikon did the same stupid mistake with their AF system in 600 series being adapted from APS-C, but at least it works with APS-C

 

[Mikehit]

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...

Of course! Let's ignore the additional costs of the full frame sensor being installed, the larger shutter mechanism and larger mirror mechanism....they're all free aren't they. Silly us, how could we forge that fact? How freaking dumb of us...

 

[Khalai]

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...

Of course! Let's ignore the additional costs of the full frame sensor being installed, the larger shutter mechanism and larger mirror mechanism....they're all free aren't they. Silly us, how could we forge that fact? How freaking dumb of us...

I want Porsche engine and Bentley chassis in my Skoda car, can I have it? After all, they're all from the same company, only different market targets

 

[ecka]

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...

Of course! Let's ignore the additional costs of the full frame sensor being installed, the larger shutter mechanism and larger mirror mechanism....they're all free aren't they. Silly us, how could we forge that fact? How freaking dumb of us...

I'm not ignoring anything. Those larger mechanisms are slower too and larger are easier to make. Do you really think that FF chip costs $1000 more than APS-C? I mean it's $500 more expensive because of the FF sensor. Where do all the rest savings go (from single card slot, inferior AF system, 4K-lessness, etc.)? Even if they both would cost the same, it would be only fair to expect them to share the same AF system.

 

[Khalai]

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...

Of course! Let's ignore the additional costs of the full frame sensor being installed, the larger shutter mechanism and larger mirror mechanism....they're all free aren't they. Silly us, how could we forge that fact? How freaking dumb of us...

I'm not ignoring anything. Those larger mechanisms are slower too and larger are easier to make. Do you really think that FF chip costs $1000 more than APS-C? I mean it's $500 more expensive because of the FF sensor. Where do all the rest savings go (from single card slot, inferior AF system, 4K-lessness, etc.)? Even if they both would cost the same, it would be only fair to expect them to share the same AF system.

When you're producing APS-C sensors from a silicon wafer, you are basically getting 2-3 times more chips, not to mention higher yield percentage, due to defective bits. FF sensors are much bigger (well, obviously), thus any defects will dramatically decrease yield from the silicon wafer and in the process make them significantly expensive. If you lose e.g. 20% of 30 APS-C chips from a single wafer, it's much more cheaper than to lose 20% of 10 FF chips. You end up with 24 APS-C chips vs. 8 FF chips from a single wafer. (numbers are made up for illustratory purposes, I have no internal Canon data for that). Not to mention that those defects are usually not clumped in one area, but spread across the whole wafer. So you risk losing more FF chips than APS-C. Why do you think that high-core-count CPUs are more expensive by order of one or two magnitudes, compared to those mainstream CPU? It's simple - higher yield, lower R&D costs. It's quite analogous to FF vs APS-C. Bottom line - yes, FF chips are much more expensive than APS-C ones...

E.g. replacement cost for 6D sensor is around 600 € w/o servise costs (according to local CPS service center), so yeah - there goes your money...

 

[Khalai]

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...

Of course! Let's ignore the additional costs of the full frame sensor being installed, the larger shutter mechanism and larger mirror mechanism....they're all free aren't they. Silly us, how could we forge that fact? How freaking dumb of us...

I want Porsche engine and Bentley chassis in my Skoda car, can I have it? After all, they're all from the same company, only different market targets

How is that an analogy? I'm not asking for 1DX AF system in 6D2. I want it to have the AF system from a cheaper camera. Like a Lamborghini with Audi engine.

But you asked for 1DX system. Because that's basically what 7D II have

 

[Khalai]

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...

Of course! Let's ignore the additional costs of the full frame sensor being installed, the larger shutter mechanism and larger mirror mechanism....they're all free aren't they. Silly us, how could we forge that fact? How freaking dumb of us...

I'm not ignoring anything. Those larger mechanisms are slower too and larger are easier to make. Do you really think that FF chip costs $1000 more than APS-C? I mean it's $500 more expensive because of the FF sensor. Where do all the rest savings go (from single card slot, inferior AF system, 4K-lessness, etc.)? Even if they both would cost the same, it would be only fair to expect them to share the same AF system.

When you're producing APS-C sensors from a silicon wafer, you are basically getting 2-3 times more chips, not to mention higher yield percentage, due to defective bits. FF sensors are much bigger (well, obviously), thus any defects will dramatically decrease yield from the silicon wafer and in the process make them significantly expensive. If you lose e.g. 20% of 30 APS-C chips from a single wafer, it's much more cheaper than to lose 20% of 10 FF chips. You end up with 24 APS-C chips vs. 8 FF chips from a single wafer. (numbers are made up for illustratory purposes, I have no internal Canon data for that). Not to mention that those defects are usually not clumped in one area, but spread across the whole wafer. So you risk losing more FF chips than APS-C. Why do you think that high-core-count CPUs are more expensive by order of one or two magnitudes, compared to those mainstream CPU? It's simple - higher yield, lower R&D costs. It's quite analogous to FF vs APS-C. Bottom line - yes, FF chips are much more expensive than APS-C ones...

E.g. replacement cost for 6D sensor is around 600 € w/o servise costs (according to local CPS service center), so yeah - there goes your money...

So what's your point? Can't you count? 600€ for the replacement ... minus the 500€ difference ... do the math.

I can count very well, thank you for asking, but you can't read - 600 € without service costs. Just for the replacement part. Not to mention that 6D II has a brand new sensor. R&D is not exactly cheap thing these days...

 

[ecka]

Really? The freaking 7DII costs $1500! I want $2000 camera to have the AF system from $1500 camera and you call me greedy ...

Of course! Let's ignore the additional costs of the full frame sensor being installed, the larger shutter mechanism and larger mirror mechanism....they're all free aren't they. Silly us, how could we forge that fact? How freaking dumb of us...

I want Porsche engine and Bentley chassis in my Skoda car, can I have it? After all, they're all from the same company, only different market targets

How is that an analogy? I'm not asking for 1DX AF system in 6D2. I want it to have the AF system from a cheaper camera. Like a Lamborghini with Audi engine.

But you asked for 1DX system. Because that's basically what 7D II have

No it isn't. If you put 7DII AF into 6D2 it would cover much smaller area, but just a little bit wider than the actual AF from 80D currently used in 6D2. And it is not expensive.

 

[Mikehit]

No it isn't. If you put 7DII AF into 6D2 it would cover much smaller area, but just a little bit wider than the actual AF from 80D currently used in 6D2. And it is not expensive.

Please provide the evidence.

 

[ecka]

No it isn't. If you put 7DII AF into 6D2 it would cover much smaller area, but just a little bit wider than the actual AF from 80D currently used in 6D2. And it is not expensive.

Please provide the evidence.

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.

 

[Mikehit]

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 have 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

 

[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 have 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.

The cost of a FF sensor was $35 three years ago..... given inflation, it is still well under $50.....

I would be willing to bet that the total cost of parts (to Canon) to build a 6D2 is well under $250... The real costs are the R+D to design the camera and components, setting up fabrication lines, the software, the assembly, printing, distribution, ect etc etc

 

[Loswr]

Isn't it stupid to expect APS-C camera's AF system in a FF camera? ... The whole thing is ridiculous. This greedy marketing segmentation is unjustifiable.

It's stupid to expect that Canon needs to justify anything to us (except those of us who happen to be shareholders).

6D2 is crippled on purpose.

'Crippled' only relative to what you think it could be...objectively, it's a very capable camera that improves substantially on its predecessor in many ways.

...I don't know.

Now you're starting to make sense.