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

[Loswr]

...the AF Spread problem...

Let's see...the 6DII has cross-type AF points with the same horizontal spread as the cross-type points on my 1D X, Canon's penultimate flagship camera costing over 3-times the price of the 6DII. Oh, and those lateral cross-type points on the 1D X need f/4...with an f/5.6 lens, such as when I put a 1.4x TC on my 600/4, the 1D X cross type points are restricted to the center three columns. If I put a 2x TC behind the 600/4, a 6DII would maintain 27 AF points with the full lateral spread of the AF array. My 1D X with an f/8 lens? One selectable point, smack in the middle.

If you'd prefer to compare to the 6D, the 6DII has the same horizontal spread, and adds a much wider vertical spread at the lateral edges, meaning unlike its predecessor, the 6DII has AF points very close the rule-of-thirds intersections.

So...what's the 'problem' here??

I agree with the idea of your post but I did want to point out that only the 100-400 ii and the 200-400 maintain 27 focus points at f/8. All other lenses, such as the 600 f/4 with 2x only get the center point. Though to be honest if you can afford the 600 f/4 you are probably buying multiple 5d iv's or a 1dx2 and a 5div, not a 6DII.

The whole AF thing is moot with DPAF being fast and covering 80% of the sensor though. If you are shooting something too fast for DPAF then you are probably keeping it closer to the center of the frame anyway.

Thanks for the clarification/correction!

Incidentally, though I have a 600/4 II and a 1D X, and can afford a 1D X II, the improvements offered by the latter aren't sufficient for me to want to upgrade.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think that the 6D MK II is a really good camera for the money. But, I've decided that rather than have it as a backup to my 5D MK III, I'm going to replace my MK III with the MK IV. I have nothing against the 6D, but I'll use the MK IV features and have used 5D's since they first came out, so I am very familiar with them.

I am in the process of getting the Canon Price Watch deal thru a US dealer (I had a choice of US or Canadian Dealer). I can't reveal who it is, but its one I'd buy from in any event.

 

[malarcky]

"Why doesn't Canon make a perfect DSLR camera knowing fully well that these few years are make or break for them?"

Someone actually asked that in the beginning of this thread. It's almost as though this crippling/market killing debate has got people to believe that Canon could produce a "perfect" camera, but is somehow holding back features in order to protect their market share of some other cameras. This is a stunning display of someone getting caught up in a discussion that is not based on facts, and is merely a theme that there is a marketing tactic by Canon to hold back that "perfect camera" in order to preserve the market share of another line of cameras.

This is saying to us that there are certain people who believe that Canon had the ability to create the perfect camera, but simply won't do it to protect their other line of camcorders/higher end DSLR's. Brainwashing at it's finest.

That being said, I still believe that the full frame version of the 80D is what they were asked to do, while keeping the price the same, and upgrading to the articulating touch screen and including DPAF. That's what they did, basically, and I couldn't be more excited to pre-order this camera.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

"Why doesn't Canon make a perfect DSLR camera knowing fully well that these few years are make or break for them?"

Someone actually asked that in the beginning of this thread. It's almost as though this crippling/market killing debate has got people to believe that Canon could produce a "perfect" camera, but is somehow holding back features in order to protect their market share of some other cameras. This is a stunning display of someone getting caught up in a discussion that is not based on facts, and is merely a theme that there is a marketing tactic by Canon to hold back that "perfect camera" in order to preserve the market share of another line of cameras.

This is saying to us that there are certain people who believe that Canon had the ability to create the perfect camera, but simply won't do it to protect their other line of camcorders/higher end DSLR's. Brainwashing at it's finest.

That being said, I still believe that the full frame version of the 80D is what they were asked to do, while keeping the price the same, and upgrading to the articulating touch screen and including DPAF. That's what they did, basically, and I couldn't be more excited to pre-order this camera.

Yes, Canon marketing is likely the department that selects what will sell and sets the price point after engineers and finance come up with a list of potential features and their cost. 4K, for example, requires a different chassis for cooling, different sensor, faster card slots, and likely a few more things. If it runs $50 more, the selling price jumps by $250.

The direct manufacturing cost of a camera is nowhere near the selling cost, likely 20-25% or even less. That means another dollar in manufacturing costs adds about $5 to the final price. The cost of distributing cameras world wide, setting up repair stations with spare parts and tooling, recovering design and tooling costs, are factored in to the initial selling cost. After enough cameras are sold to recover those initial, then prices start to fall, and profits rise. Its the same for most products, but some manufacturers get around it by putting out a new model each year with minor differences that cost little, but boost sales.

 

[malarcky]

"Why doesn't Canon make a perfect DSLR camera knowing fully well that these few years are make or break for them?"

Someone actually asked that in the beginning of this thread. It's almost as though this crippling/market killing debate has got people to believe that Canon could produce a "perfect" camera, but is somehow holding back features in order to protect their market share of some other cameras. This is a stunning display of someone getting caught up in a discussion that is not based on facts, and is merely a theme that there is a marketing tactic by Canon to hold back that "perfect camera" in order to preserve the market share of another line of cameras.

This is saying to us that there are certain people who believe that Canon had the ability to create the perfect camera, but simply won't do it to protect their other line of camcorders/higher end DSLR's. Brainwashing at it's finest.

That being said, I still believe that the full frame version of the 80D is what they were asked to do, while keeping the price the same, and upgrading to the articulating touch screen and including DPAF. That's what they did, basically, and I couldn't be more excited to pre-order this camera.

Yes, Canon marketing is likely the department that selects what will sell and sets the price point after engineers and finance come up with a list of potential features and their cost. 4K, for example, requires a different chassis for cooling, different sensor, faster card slots, and likely a few more things. If it runs $50 more, the selling price jumps by $250.

The direct manufacturing cost of a camera is nowhere near the selling cost, likely 20-25% or even less. That means another dollar in manufacturing costs adds about $5 to the final price. The cost of distributing cameras world wide, setting up repair stations with spare parts and tooling, recovering design and tooling costs, are factored in to the initial selling cost. After enough cameras are sold to recover those initial, then prices start to fall, and profits rise. Its the same for most products, but some manufacturers get around it by putting out a new model each year with minor differences that cost little, but boost sales.

I understand that Canon does this, I was merely pointing out the epitome of this theory by this question the poster asked. It is clear that Canon would produce the "perfect" camera if they could, but somehow to believe that they have the capability to make this perfect camera, and don't because they want to protect their other lines, and that is preposterous. They would sell the "perfect camera" if they had one. They are doing the best they can with what they have, price point wise anyway, in my view.

 

[dcm]

For me the Canon Mark versions of a camera are simply refinements to a body at a particular price point. Upgrades happen when you switch series and price points. My focus is about what a body does have, not what it doesn't.

My entry into digital was a 3MP G1 in 2001, which I didn't really consider an upgrade from film (Canon A-1). In 2010 I upgraded from a 7MP G6 to the 550D and began adding L glass which completed my transition from film.

I consider the 6D2 a good refinement to the 6D that I chose in 2013 as a FF upgrade to the 550D I got in 2010 - an XXD with a FF sensor so I decided to skip the xxD series. It improves the areas where I considered it weak like AF and FPS and also benefits from some of Canon's recent advances like DPAF and anti-flicker. I imagine many others will see the 6D2 similarly.

In 2016 I decided to invest more in my photography and make a significant upgrade to a 1DX2, skipping the 5D series this time. It was a significant upgrade to give me new shooting opportunities (sports, wildlife). Otherwise I would likely have picked a 6D2 up for the refined AF/FPS/anti-flicker/...

I have only used my 6D a few times since, primarily for the silent shutter or when my daughter hands me her 6D to take some family photos for her. I do notice the weight difference, but when size and weight are an issue (hiking, biking, travel) I take the M5.

 

[Cthulhu]

"Why doesn't Canon make a perfect DSLR camera knowing fully well that these few years are make or break for them?"

Someone actually asked that in the beginning of this thread. It's almost as though this crippling/market killing debate has got people to believe that Canon could produce a "perfect" camera, but is somehow holding back features in order to protect their market share of some other cameras. This is a stunning display of someone getting caught up in a discussion that is not based on facts, and is merely a theme that there is a marketing tactic by Canon to hold back that "perfect camera" in order to preserve the market share of another line of cameras.

This is saying to us that there are certain people who believe that Canon had the ability to create the perfect camera, but simply won't do it to protect their other line of camcorders/higher end DSLR's. Brainwashing at it's finest.

That being said, I still believe that the full frame version of the 80D is what they were asked to do, while keeping the price the same, and upgrading to the articulating touch screen and including DPAF. That's what they did, basically, and I couldn't be more excited to pre-order this camera.

That's not true at all. 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.

 

[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?

 

[scyrene]

My biggest gripe is 98% viewfinder coverage.
For $2000 camera, I would have expected to see the full 100% view in its viewfinder.

There is nothing more irritating in the field to tightly compose an image, only to find out later that there is something on the boundary of the picture which spoils the composition and ultimately the whole picture.
And the worst thing is that even if you try to retake the picture, you still do not know whether you are fixing the problem or not.

Granted, those things can be cropped later in post-processing. But I prefer to take a perfect composition, and use post-processing for adding colors or effects.

Why doesn't Canon make a perfect DSLR camera knowing fully well that these few years are make or break for them?
If it keeps scrimping on each of its low-end DSLR, it will loose them to Sony mirrorless.
And once you leave the ecosystem, you don't come back to buy higher end systems.

It was going so well (well, not terribly) until the bold bit. Granted, I can't fathom why you'd use one PP technique but not another, indeed perhaps the most basic, i.e. cropping. But everyone's different, and I crop more than most people - perhaps with wildlife you have to do that more. But at the end you made that same error that (as someone else pointed out above), so many seem to here, especially newbies - to suggest it's make-or-break, and that Canon's missing out of a feature that you want is going to ruin them. And that's why some member keep trotting out sales figures, because that disproves the hypothesis. It might bum you out, and you're allowed to dislike their offerings - but they aren't going bust, and missing out features isn't losing them market share. Plus all companies do it to an extent. And the idea that once people swap systems they don't swap back is not really supported by evidence either, such as it is. Indeed, if you're prepared to swap one way for one feature, why not back should things change? It's logically inconsistent. Hey ho, welcome to CR.

 

[scyrene]

I believe 5D4 covers your needs so maybe searching for a grey market model or waiting for some rebates could be the solution...

Maybe, though truthfully the 6DII offers pretty much everything I need as well, with the exception being that I just dont know yet about ISO performance and DR. Beyond that, the 5D4 doesn't really offer too much extra that I am personally interested in, except maybe the little bit of extra resolution. So, for me, I am still not sure I would be able to find a 5d4 for cheap enough to be worth it for me. Not entirely sure how I feel about gray market or getting a used body, and I think to get the price down enough for me is just not something that will happen for quite some time.

Still, have a few weeks at least to consider whether I want to cancel my 6DII preorder or not.

Are you talking about low ISO DR or high ISO performance? The former will have been improved compared to the original 6D, but maybe not as much as the 5D4 (that remains to be seen); the latter is unlikely to be much different. There's very little progress to be made in raw image high ISO performance - by any manufacturer so long as they use current sensor tech - as has been noted by many technically-knowledgable people here and elsewhere - we're hitting fundamental physical limits in that regard.

 

[scyrene]

The AF spread was also my biggest disappointment.

However in your example, if you are comparing to an a7/a9, you should remember the 6D2 has DPAF which gives you similar coverage to the Sony, but is much faster and from my experience, more reliable. Although I do not generally use such wide apertures for a portrait, DPAF would work well in that situation.

This is a significant point, isn't it?

If you want to shoot through the OVF using a PDAF system, the AF coverage is less than you might like ... but all full-frame cameras seem to suffer that to at least some degree, as a result of technical difficulties putting PDAF AF points too far from the centre. In the end the 6DII doesn't seem to be really that much worse than other full-frame cameras in that regard, does it?

If you want to compare against a camera like the a7 or a9, you can switch the Canon LiveView so you use CDAF and can focus on areas toward the periphery ... and in that mode you get the benefits of DPAF, which seems to be very good. A difference at that point is on the Canon you'd have to be using the rear LCD, while on the a7/a9 you could be using the EVF - which I guess will be more important to some people than others.

Am I missing something?

This is what's weird about the last couple of days on here. This is essentially a non-issue. The biggest gripe about the 6D was apparently its subpar AF system. They improved it in pretty much every way, and suddenly a new 'problem' is invented by a few vocal critics, which seems to be honestly confusing others. The AF spread of full frame cameras covers less of the viewfinder than in (higher end) crop cameras. Nobody complained about this before! But it's something to bash the 6D2 with, so it's now everyone's serious concern. Please. I don't see how anyone who thinks this is a problem can have even used a full frame DSLR, because that's just how it is, whatever the brand.

But the "AF SPREAD" problem is a big complication, without an excuse...
So, just for fun, I will try to start a new topic like this:
POLL: DID THE PRODUCT MANAGER OF 6DM2 LOOK FROM THE VIEWFINDER BEFORE ANNOUNCING IT? WHAT DO YO THINK ? YES OR NO ?

There is no AF spread problem. It's made up. It's a combination of some genuine innocent confusion and some pathetic pot stirring by people who should know better (see my comment above). But something tells me you're not posting in good faith here :

 

[scyrene]

Well, the best comment I heard about 6d Mark II
############################
CANON SHOULD DESERVE OUR MONEY !
############################
Even the AF Spread problem is enough for -not to buy- 6D mark II.
The sells of 6DM2 will be a disaster I suppose, and Canon will learn a lesson
Otherwise, I will sell all my Canon gear (which is a lot!), and jump to another boat !
We are not stupid people Canon ! Please respect us during the design process of your gear...

I absolutely agree that Canon should deserve our money: nobody should buy something that they're not happy with. I certainly wouldn't.

I doubt that's really in question. I think what is, is that some people seem absolutely baffled that there are those who don't see that the 6D2 is a good buy... and others who seem absolutely baffled that anyone would settle for a camera that doesn't have most of the big top-line features from 5D4, but at $2,000.

I think we should just all respect that people come from different perspectives, and that Canon is targeting a certain segment of the DSLR market with the 6D2. If the features you're looking for, whether it's dual SD or 4K or whatever aren't there, the camera isn't for you. Yeah, it's disappointing that Canon made those cuts to hit a price point, but let's be honest: if they're making a $2,000 camera, it's not going to have 98% of the features of a $3,300 camera that sells really well, right?

As to Canon "learning a lesson" with the 6D2 being a train wreck -- since it's already the best selling camera over $500 on Amazon.com, I think you can rule that out. The aging 6D and 5D4 are the two best-selling FF cameras on the market, of any brand, and 6D2 is almost certainly going to sell better than the 6D has been selling in the last couple of years. After all, if you compare it only with 6D, it's superior in practically every way that matters, and will sell at about the price that 6D sold at until recently.

If that makes you so mad that you'd sell all your gear and restart with Pentax or Sony or Nikon or whatever, you might as well get it over with But IMO, you should just buy what makes you happy that's at the price you want, should that exist. If another company's manufacturing philosophy and their product matches your needs better, you should 100% go there. Just keep in mind that their mind is also on the bottom line, and they will also make decisions to optimize their profits, which may, if not now, perhaps in the future will segment their products in a way that is undesirable to you as well.

+1

 

[malarcky]

"Why doesn't Canon make a perfect DSLR camera knowing fully well that these few years are make or break for them?"

Someone actually asked that in the beginning of this thread. It's almost as though this crippling/market killing debate has got people to believe that Canon could produce a "perfect" camera, but is somehow holding back features in order to protect their market share of some other cameras. This is a stunning display of someone getting caught up in a discussion that is not based on facts, and is merely a theme that there is a marketing tactic by Canon to hold back that "perfect camera" in order to preserve the market share of another line of cameras.

This is saying to us that there are certain people who believe that Canon had the ability to create the perfect camera, but simply won't do it to protect their other line of camcorders/higher end DSLR's. Brainwashing at it's finest.

That being said, I still believe that the full frame version of the 80D is what they were asked to do, while keeping the price the same, and upgrading to the articulating touch screen and including DPAF. That's what they did, basically, and I couldn't be more excited to pre-order this camera.

That's not true at all. 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.

Just to point out one thing about the reasons you haven't purchased these models, especially the 6D Mk II. The lack of a joystick is something that the 6D Mk II wouldn't be expected of this upgrade, as a rule anyways. There is nothing to indicate the need for this function, as the joystick is geared more towards the faster cameras designed for action, like the 7D Mk II. The 6D Mk II just now got into the faster category of the 80D, but still isn't a camera marketed for the sports action crowd, in my view. I believe the argument about the UHS-1 vs 2 discussion is misunderstood by me, as the camera's buffer is simply not needing these faster cards, and since it doesn't impliment 4k, the UHS-2 card speed wouldn't be needed, and therefore overkill. I am perfectly happy not having to pay extra for the higher priced cards.

 

[Khalai]

Just to point out one thing about the reasons you haven't purchased these models, especially the 6D Mk II. The lack of a joystick is something that the 6D Mk II wouldn't be expected of this upgrade, as a rule anyways. There is nothing to indicate the need for this function, as the joystick is geared more towards the faster cameras designed for action, like the 7D Mk II. The 6D Mk II just now got into the faster category of the 80D, but still isn't a camera marketed for the sports action crowd, in my view. I believe the argument about the UHS-1 vs 2 discussion is misunderstood by me, as the camera's buffer is simply not needing these faster cards, and since it doesn't impliment 4k, the UHS-2 card speed wouldn't be needed, and therefore overkill. I am perfectly happy not having to pay extra for the higher priced cards.

Well, after that AF upgrade and 6.5 FPS, this actually seems like a nice camera even for non-professional sports and wildlife usage. The AF pattern and point type is not that much different from 5D line now, so you can actually use that for more than just still life.

About UHS-II, that omission is actually a bit beyond me. I'd like to see USB-C port instead of rather antiquated USB 2.0 and UHS-II slot (you can still use UHS-I cards in it anyways) on that 6D2. Well, if the reviews sway me to upgrade (actually move 6D to back-up mode and 6D2 into main mode) I'll just have to live with that, but those two things could have been there. Sometimes Canon seems a bit to conservative in such details.

 

[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.

 

[Cthulhu]

"Why doesn't Canon make a perfect DSLR camera knowing fully well that these few years are make or break for them?"

Someone actually asked that in the beginning of this thread. It's almost as though this crippling/market killing debate has got people to believe that Canon could produce a "perfect" camera, but is somehow holding back features in order to protect their market share of some other cameras. This is a stunning display of someone getting caught up in a discussion that is not based on facts, and is merely a theme that there is a marketing tactic by Canon to hold back that "perfect camera" in order to preserve the market share of another line of cameras.

This is saying to us that there are certain people who believe that Canon had the ability to create the perfect camera, but simply won't do it to protect their other line of camcorders/higher end DSLR's. Brainwashing at it's finest.

That being said, I still believe that the full frame version of the 80D is what they were asked to do, while keeping the price the same, and upgrading to the articulating touch screen and including DPAF. That's what they did, basically, and I couldn't be more excited to pre-order this camera.

That's not true at all. 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.

Just to point out one thing about the reasons you haven't purchased these models, especially the 6D Mk II. The lack of a joystick is something that the 6D Mk II wouldn't be expected of this upgrade, as a rule anyways. There is nothing to indicate the need for this function, as the joystick is geared more towards the faster cameras designed for action, like the 7D Mk II. The 6D Mk II just now got into the faster category of the 80D, but still isn't a camera marketed for the sports action crowd, in my view. I believe the argument about the UHS-1 vs 2 discussion is misunderstood by me, as the camera's buffer is simply not needing these faster cards, and since it doesn't impliment 4k, the UHS-2 card speed wouldn't be needed, and therefore overkill. I am perfectly happy not having to pay extra for the higher priced cards.

You don't have to market a camera for sports to make the af more usable. Navigating 45 af points is a million times easier with a joystick and since it has decent speed you can definitely use it for some action. It's the reason I don't have an 80d, even if the IQ is better than my 7dmk2.
As for card types, faster cards mitigate shallow buffers to an extend, by clearing them faster.

 

[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.

 

[mashuto]

I believe 5D4 covers your needs so maybe searching for a grey market model or waiting for some rebates could be the solution...

Maybe, though truthfully the 6DII offers pretty much everything I need as well, with the exception being that I just dont know yet about ISO performance and DR. Beyond that, the 5D4 doesn't really offer too much extra that I am personally interested in, except maybe the little bit of extra resolution. So, for me, I am still not sure I would be able to find a 5d4 for cheap enough to be worth it for me. Not entirely sure how I feel about gray market or getting a used body, and I think to get the price down enough for me is just not something that will happen for quite some time.

Still, have a few weeks at least to consider whether I want to cancel my 6DII preorder or not.

Are you talking about low ISO DR or high ISO performance? The former will have been improved compared to the original 6D, but maybe not as much as the 5D4 (that remains to be seen); the latter is unlikely to be much different. There's very little progress to be made in raw image high ISO performance - by any manufacturer so long as they use current sensor tech - as has been noted by many technically-knowledgable people here and elsewhere - we're hitting fundamental physical limits in that regard.

Mostly low iso dr. That's what I am most interested in. I know it should be improved, but at this point I would hope that it's at basically the same level of the 5d4 as to me at this point that amount of improvement is about the minimum of what I would want out of a camera.

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.

So, with all the feature improvements it has over the original 6d, with the assumption that low iso dr will be similar to the 5d4, it's worth the price to me. If dr is not that much of an improvement then personally I'm not sure it's completely worth the cost. Especially because I don't find my 6d really lacking for me, so at this point most things are things that would be nice, but not really must haves.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[malarcky]

I believe 5D4 covers your needs so maybe searching for a grey market model or waiting for some rebates could be the solution...

Maybe, though truthfully the 6DII offers pretty much everything I need as well, with the exception being that I just dont know yet about ISO performance and DR. Beyond that, the 5D4 doesn't really offer too much extra that I am personally interested in, except maybe the little bit of extra resolution. So, for me, I am still not sure I would be able to find a 5d4 for cheap enough to be worth it for me. Not entirely sure how I feel about gray market or getting a used body, and I think to get the price down enough for me is just not something that will happen for quite some time.

Still, have a few weeks at least to consider whether I want to cancel my 6DII preorder or not.

Are you talking about low ISO DR or high ISO performance? The former will have been improved compared to the original 6D, but maybe not as much as the 5D4 (that remains to be seen); the latter is unlikely to be much different. There's very little progress to be made in raw image high ISO performance - by any manufacturer so long as they use current sensor tech - as has been noted by many technically-knowledgeable people here and elsewhere - we're hitting fundamental physical limits in that regard.

I rented the 5D Mk III from Canon once and it was pretty overwhelming to see the added options in the menu of the included choices that this camera had over the T3i, the 70D, the 80D and the 6D that I own at the present time. It was intimidating actually. There really is that many things for you to choose that isn't available in these "lesser" models. I believe that is an understated value option, if you consider it to be such, knowing that only really hardcore enthusiasts or hobbyists would actually take advantage of these complicated menu options.

The point I'm trying to make here is the difference between these camera models that you can't see just by looking at the camera itself, until you get inside the menus and realize that you have a piece of technological advanced optical instrument in your hands that is simply more than just a camera. It is a powerful tool that has a host of options that are available to you, as the photographer, to take advantage of if you want to, or not, depending on how hard you want to pursuit your goal of being a great photographer.