Review: Canon EOS 6D Mark II by DPReview

[Sporgon]

For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time.

You're thinking in terms of zooms. 40mm, 50 mm, 85/1.8, 100/2 etc are relatively "cheap" glass but excel on FF.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased. While their reviews have some value it is very striking to compare a review by Bryan at TDP with DPR. If you haven't already, compare: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Here are a few samples. I don't think DPR is worthy more time than this.

"That said, five years is a long time in the digital camera market, and the competition hasn't stood still. So the question remains: Has the 6D Mark II improved enough?"

Improved enough? Are we not interested in whether it is simply a quality product? Clearly they set out with an agenda to compare it to their favorite cameras.

"full frame sensor is wrapped in a fairly plasticky (though still weather sealed) body, and it makes do with some compromises ..."

What exactly is the purpose of this statement? A knock? Bias?

"While at first glance, it's apparent that the 6D Mark II is at least competitive with challengers from Nikon and Sony, it should be noted that both the D750 and a7 II have been on the market for some time, and frankly, are due for an upgrade."

At least competitive, barely?? Clearly the upgrades will blow the 6D2 away in performance in all aspects and price, right?

"though we do wish the viewfinder was 100% coverage: you may find some unwanted objects creeping into the edges of your images in carefully composed shots."

Good grief is this a serious fault to be bringing up early in a review while ignoring lots of far more important items. As if the owner of a $2K camera can't crop 2% out.

"Bluetooth is a bit useless;"

Pretty brash (negative) statement and I'm betting it isn't true.

"Lastly, we've seen that the 6D II's dynamic range at lower ISO's is sorely lacking, which will result in less flexibility in post processing and flat-out noisier images. In fact, even Canon's newer APS-C sensors offer better performance in this regard, despite their smaller size."

Here we go - DR is the be all and end all.

While Bryan is a competent reviewer, these guys are pathetic. Incompetent at least from the perspective of writing a review. If they were in a university course they'd get a flunking grade for sure. Nothing we didn't already know.

Jack

 

[soloyc]

Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased. While their reviews have some value it is very striking to compare a review by Bryan at TDP with DPR. If you haven't already, compare: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Here are a few samples. I don't think DPR is worthy more time than this.

"That said, five years is a long time in the digital camera market, and the competition hasn't stood still. So the question remains: Has the 6D Mark II improved enough?"

Improved enough? Are we not interested in whether it is simply a quality product? Clearly they set out with an agenda to compare it to their favorite cameras.

"full frame sensor is wrapped in a fairly plasticky (though still weather sealed) body, and it makes do with some compromises ..."

What exactly is the purpose of this statement? A knock? Bias?

"While at first glance, it's apparent that the 6D Mark II is at least competitive with challengers from Nikon and Sony, it should be noted that both the D750 and a7 II have been on the market for some time, and frankly, are due for an upgrade."

At least competitive, barely?? Clearly the upgrades will blow the 6D2 away in performance in all aspects and price, right?

"though we do wish the viewfinder was 100% coverage: you may find some unwanted objects creeping into the edges of your images in carefully composed shots."

Good grief is this a serious fault to be bringing up early in a review while ignoring lots of far more important items. As if the owner of a $2K camera can't crop 2% out.

"Bluetooth is a bit useless;"

Pretty brash (negative) statement and I'm betting it isn't true.

"Lastly, we've seen that the 6D II's dynamic range at lower ISO's is sorely lacking, which will result in less flexibility in post processing and flat-out noisier images. In fact, even Canon's newer APS-C sensors offer better performance in this regard, despite their smaller size."

Here we go - DR is the be all and end all.

While Bryan is a competent reviewer, these guys are pathetic. Incompetent at least from the perspective of writing a review. If they were in a university course they'd get a flunking grade for sure. Nothing we didn't already know.

Jack

The review looks "well-balanced". At least, much more than what I would expect. But I agree with you, Jack: a lot of it is written as if they wanted to look less biased, but not achieving to do so perfectly. Probably they read these forums and adjusted themselves... a bit.

I still wonder about some aspects, which seemed omitted: f/8 focussing? Weather sealing: is this improved over the 6D, or the same level of "weather sealing"? Or perhaps I read the review too quickly? Can I say that the review also falls short of being thorough? I give it a 80%. :



I remember reading these forums and DPR when looking for a FF model some years ago. My wife owning a 5D3 made it an easy choice, as well as the possible lenses and what I had already seen from the UI of Nikon, Sony and Canon (the latter aspect made it even easier.) It all lead to me getting the 6D. Of course this was some time after its release, and the price was already dropped to 1500 Euros. But I got it despite the mild reviews back then, and the obvious shortcomings: the somehow outdated AF, the camera not being fully weather sealed, DR "failing" compared to some competitors, etc). I was and still am happy with my choice, even if the greatest gripe I have is with the lack of proper sealing, the simple AF system, and the lack of f/8 focussing. But hey, there was no other entry-level FF from Canon, it made the choice quite trivial. I appreciated the comments here at Canon Rumors because they made me realize what kind of camera I was getting.

Now, reading this review, it's like going back in time. I am confident that people looking for an entry-level FF will still see potential in the 6D2. Especially going in stores, handling the different cameras and comparing user interfaces. In a way, this is the camera I would have liked to get if I did not already own one. If the review had been more detailed, it would have helped me understand what I was getting, and what NOT to expect. As far as I see, the 6D2 improves on all major issues (except DR at base ISO, which would mostly affects sunset/sunrise shots, but from my side it's a boring subject -- the sunrise pics, not the DR). This camera will surely not urge people invested in other brands to switch over to Canon, but that was the same with the 6D, which sold well nevertheless. For the same reasons, the 6D2 will probably outsell a lot of its "competitors".

One comment: if the 6D remains available for some time, I bet this will affect 6D2 sales. This is probably its true biggest competitor, despite the shortcomings, and it's like offering two entry-level FF cameras. I can see how Canon will want these to be quickly discounted to get them off the shelves. I would therefore not expect a price drop on the 6D2 until the 6D is gone.


The end of it: I am not considering buying one, although the AF system and weather sealing do appeal to me a lot. It could have had much better DR and I would react the same way: perhaps later, when the price drops, or if my 6D fails, or if by some time warp phenomenon I am back to owning no 6D. Until then, I'm hopeful I can still get acceptable pictures with my current 6D...

 

[Khalai]

For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time.

You're thinking in terms of zooms. 40mm, 50 mm, 85/1.8, 100/2 etc are relatively "cheap" glass but excel on FF.

There are also more rather affordable options such as 24/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS or low-tier L lenses such as 24-70/4L IS or 70-200/4L (non IS)...

 

[Aglet]

If it works for you: good. I have a few questions tough.

Why did you switch to 4 systems from Canon (besides that they were each best at something at the time of introduction)?

Short answer is "because i could." I don't spend my money on big houses or vehicles or kids or pets or frivolous things so all my discretionary can go to my passion and I'm fortunate enough to be able to do this and I recognize that not everyone can so I'm fine with sharing what i've learned.

Cameras all do pretty much the same thing but of course they all do things a little differently.
Each system has it's strengths, whether specific bodies or lenses.

Nikon provided my first experience with the very clean low ISO performance I was looking for. I loaded up on d5100s and d800s for most of my landscape based shots. They delivered what I was looking for.

I had some older Pentax lenses around so when i got a great deal on a new K5-2s I took it. Great camera for slow work but lack of AA filter meant some serious color fringing could appear on specular hilites at times. not so good for my water shots, great for many other things. Very decent low light camera. I added some other Pentax bodies and check out the FF K-1 and let me know what features it's missing... especially at that price.

http://ricoh-imaging.ca/en/products/cameras/K-1/features

Fuji... Started with an Xe1, liked the OOC jpg color tho it was a bit soft. Still bought into the Fuji system quite heavily when the XT1 was next and I saw how good OOC jpg could be and that saved me a lot of post time for certain kinds of product shots I do. Iridient Developer made the Xe1 files as sharp as the Xt1. HOOKED!
Added a lot more Fuji kit. It's quirky but in a way I like and the output is very pleasing.

MFT when I wanted to travel really compact and light, like bicycle rides and walking, but still wanted much better IQ than from a compact camera and more lens flexibility. Cheap Olympus EM10 was much fun to use, delivered adequate IQ (better than crop Canons) and fit the bill. Got an EM1 cuz it had great ergos and better performance. Now have the new flagship and it's an amazing camera! Excellent ergo's, great IQ, crazy fast, small, light, fun to use. My favorite photography tool right now.
It'll mop the floor with a 5d3 in nearly every thing you might want to do with it. It certainly hasn't been unable to do anything I wanted to do with it. And it's a lot cheaper too.
Their lenses really perform too.

DARE TO COMPARE!

http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/digitalcameras/omd/e-m1-mark-ii.html

If I had to have only one camera system, it's the Olympus.
Fuji's are really good too, (and Panasonic/Sony but I don't have those) but the Oly's are just great tools.

I usually like that my lenses work on the body that I have with me. Is it because one other brand could not meet your needs?

Canon could not meet my most critical need for a very clean low ISO file.

Nikon would have done everything I needed.
But since I had the ability to expand to other brands as well I am able to select from a wide range of gear to fit whatever style or method of shooting I want to do. It's been an interesting learning experience and I enjoy using all the different systems. I often take a mix out on a shoot. One body with lens for one thing, another set for another thing. Totally mixed brand now. I actually carry less gear this way than I used to, oddly enough.

The other question that I have is regarding raw file quality. It happens that I like the Fuji system quite a lot and despite not owning one I played with it quite extensively. The RAW quality is good (using the right converters) but any claim that it keeps up with any FF camera is -at best- misleading. Micro 4/3 is even worse. How do you determine quality?

Most of my prints are 24 to 36" on the long side.
Canon files were giving me visible noise issues at those sizes.
All the other systems are providing me with an image quality I like a lot better. FWIW most of my customers do not see the difference if I don't point it out and even then many do not care about it.
I do, however.

MFT file quality not good enough?...
Uhmmm.... is a 5D3 good enough?

have a look at this: this is one of the more important metrics for my work after the fact that the file must not have any kind of banding or fixed pattern noise show up in processing.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%2080D,FujiFilm%20X-T20,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

I can make a very nice 36" print from a clean 16MP file. With Canon 18MP crop files I had to process carefully to get about 24" and it took a lot of work to clean up 5d2 iso 400 file to print 36" at my standards and I had to wait years for improved software to do it. Lower ISO on my 5d2 often showed banding problems. Hated that.

When I need to go larger I pull out the (Nikon) 36MP FF gear for 48 to 66" prints.
If I have a static scene I have multi-shot hi-res mode with the Olympus (80MP raw I think) and the Pentax that can provide more MP on the subject with enhanced DR (reduced noise) too. I don't need medium format.
Canon can't do these tricks w-o great IBIS. Tho there is some kind of software that allows you to stack multiple shifted images the hard way. Gah. ???

EDIT:
Here's more on what MFT can do in talented hands. From a former Nikon ambassador:

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

In terms of lenses, I think nobody here is prepared to claim that Canon has the absolute best lenses. They have a few gems but so do others. However, my experience is that they can take a beating (usually more than others). If they do fail, CPS will get them back to you in pretty much no time and repairs don't cost a fortune (unless you run a truck over it). Still, my favorite feature of Canon lenses is that I sell them for about the same as I buy them new. Good luck doing that with other brands.

Optically, Canon lenses are nothing special; they have good, great and so-so stuff like everyone else.
Canon does have some specialty lenses tho that are without peer. Fortunately I don't need those.
They definitely do hold their resale value well tho; IMO, for no good reason other than the name.
My gear doesn't get beat up so I can use a consumer grade lens for years without problems.

 

[Maiaibing]

IIRC they admitted the test with the 80D was not done correctly. And promised to redo it. Well, probably they just forgot...

Oliver

They also promised to redo their rather misleading test of the 5DS/R (its noted on the review). Using the failed Adobe Lightroom color profile with crushed shadows for the review with the resultant inferior IQ without checking the results with Canon's own software was of DPR's worst blunders in a camera review IMHO. But nothing so far.

So expect to wait a couple of years. At least...

 

[testthewest]

First time poster here.

I've been following the reviews and forum posts for some time and I finally feel compelled enough to chip in.

I have a 70D with Sigma 18-35 1.8 and 50-150 f2.8 OS and have been itching to sell the 70D body + 18-55 STM kit lens to fund an 80D body for the low ISO DR improvements, wider spread AF coverage, -3EV sensitivity amongst other small benefits like mechanical shutter, larger buffer, 100% VF coverage etc.

When people said the 6D ii was like a full frame 80D I was really excited to consider going FF because this would make a great two body combo that are almost ergonomically identical.

But since discovering more specs it seems like the 6D ii is more a FF rebel just in the larger 80D body. I was almost coming round to 1/4000 max shutter speed which is limiting for fast glass in bright sun, and I've been used to single SD slot and okay with that (though not pleased). But then when the sensor tests show it's the old tech and that the DR at ISO 400 and below is no better than 70D (and way behind 80D and 5D IV), I'm thinking what is the point? I already have the 18-35 1.8 which is like a 28-55 2.8 FF or thereabouts, and on an 80D this would be better than a 6D ii with 24-70 2.8 in low ISO DR, AF coverage, 1/8000 max shutter, 7fps and 1/250 max sync speed as well as being equivalent in ISO performance, DoF control etc, and most importantly at a tiny fraction of the cost of 6D ii + 24-70!

I'm hoping Sigma release a 50-85 ish f2 lens to compliment the 24-35 f2 in a two lens combo that beats the 28-55 2.8 equivalent that you can get on crop sensors with the 18-35 by a full stop.

I was really hoping that the 6D ii would at least update sensor tech so that it genuinely does seem like a FF 80D but whilst it's old sensor tech, no headphone jack, slow max shutter and sync speed and I have the 18-35, I start to look to the 5D IV but then I ask why couldn't canon just keep the 6D ii truly equivelant to the 80D as they match so perfectly together in every other way!

Someone else seduced by all the blather.
If you look at images on threads and social media, you will not see an improvement with the 6d2 or, really, any other camera.
If you crop a lot you will start to see an improvement with the 6D2.
If you print above A2 the larger sensor will benefit you, despite that the spec sheets tell there are situations where the FF sensor beats APS-C despite talk about dynamic range.

But all this ignores the glass which is the biggest factor. Given a choice between the 6D2 and a 'consumer level' lens or the 80D and a 70-200 f4LIS, the 80D wins. Every. Single. Time.

Yeah, but a 6D mkii with a 70-200 f2.8L IS II will eat its king....

Maybe that's because they are more expensive than the options given above?
I'd like to inform you that you can do even better: Just have a 5dMk4 and a 70-200 f2.8L IS II.
And this can also be topped by a Sony A7RII with a GM 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[testthewest]

Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased. While their reviews have some value it is very striking to compare a review by Bryan at TDP with DPR. If you haven't already, compare: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Mark-II.aspx

Here are a few samples. I don't think DPR is worthy more time than this.

"That said, five years is a long time in the digital camera market, and the competition hasn't stood still. So the question remains: Has the 6D Mark II improved enough?"

Improved enough? Are we not interested in whether it is simply a quality product? Clearly they set out with an agenda to compare it to their favorite cameras.

"full frame sensor is wrapped in a fairly plasticky (though still weather sealed) body, and it makes do with some compromises ..."

What exactly is the purpose of this statement? A knock? Bias?

"While at first glance, it's apparent that the 6D Mark II is at least competitive with challengers from Nikon and Sony, it should be noted that both the D750 and a7 II have been on the market for some time, and frankly, are due for an upgrade."

At least competitive, barely?? Clearly the upgrades will blow the 6D2 away in performance in all aspects and price, right?

"though we do wish the viewfinder was 100% coverage: you may find some unwanted objects creeping into the edges of your images in carefully composed shots."

Good grief is this a serious fault to be bringing up early in a review while ignoring lots of far more important items. As if the owner of a $2K camera can't crop 2% out.

"Bluetooth is a bit useless;"

Pretty brash (negative) statement and I'm betting it isn't true.

"Lastly, we've seen that the 6D II's dynamic range at lower ISO's is sorely lacking, which will result in less flexibility in post processing and flat-out noisier images. In fact, even Canon's newer APS-C sensors offer better performance in this regard, despite their smaller size."

Here we go - DR is the be all and end all.

While Bryan is a competent reviewer, these guys are pathetic. Incompetent at least from the perspective of writing a review. If they were in a university course they'd get a flunking grade for sure. Nothing we didn't already know.

Jack

Honestly, you seem more biased then them. And in your fanboydom, you can't even see that.

Their questions are valid. That a second version is better than the first should be a given, otherwise why even make such a product? So stating it is better than 6D Mark I is obsolete. Stating it is a quality product is also obsolete, if the 6D Mark I already was that. The only question is the one they posed: Did Canon improve enough?

Same with your problems about the viewfinder remark. They just state it isn't 100% and they wish it was. What's wrong with that?

And the DR is a disappointment! No beating around the bush here. If you tell me that doesn't matter, then I say what is even mattering to you!
Canon can do better, even in the hobbist market as shown with the 80D. Giving us such a old tech sensor is an insult. But you can't see that, because as long as the Canon logo is on it, you are happy.
And you accusing others of being biased is just rich.

 

[Mikehit]

Honestly, you seem more biased then them. And in your fanboydom, you can't even see that.

Their questions are valid. That a second version is better than the first should be a given, otherwise why even make such a product? So stating it is better than 6D Mark I is obsolete. Stating it is a quality product is also obsolete, if the 6D Mark I already was that. The only question is the one they posed: Did Canon improve enough?

Same with your problems about the viewfinder remark. They just state it isn't 100% and they wish it was. What's wrong with that?

And the DR is a disappointment! No beating around the bush here. If you tell me that doesn't matter, then I say what is even mattering to you!
Canon can do better, even in the hobbist market as shown with the 80D. Giving us such a old tech sensor is an insult. But you can't see that, because as long as the Canon logo is on it, you are happy.
And you accusing others of being biased is just rich.

DR a disappointment when it is so close to the 5DIV? And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same.
When you say the 6D2 image is 'old tech' what exactly do you mean? Personally I don't care what tech they used as long as it turns out good images and the 6D2 does just that. Could they have done better? Maybe. But what would have made you happy? one more stop DR/ WOW! Big move, that.

Jack is far from a fanboy but you in turn seem hellbent on criticsing Canon for areas that they did not see as critical to what they saw as the intended market.

 

[MayaTlab]

IIRC they admitted the test with the 80D was not done correctly. And promised to redo it. Well, probably they just forgot...

Oliver

They also promised to redo their rather misleading test of the 5DS/R (its noted on the review). Using the failed Adobe Lightroom color profile with crushed shadows for the review with the resultant inferior IQ without checking the results with Canon's own software was of DPR's worst blunders in a camera review IMHO. But nothing so far.

So expect to wait a couple of years. At least...

Crushing the black point doesn't necessarily result in "inferior IQ" when you want to compare a camera to others. In fact since it buries more noise under the black point, it can help a camera look better.

The main problem with crushing the black point is that it makes the comparison invalid, since one variable that should have been controlled wasn't.

That being said, at least the raw files are downloadable, and Adobe has released updates profiles for the 5DS(R), so you can form your own opinion. But don't expect any miracle. In terms of noise it isn't particularly good.

 

[MayaTlab]

And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same.

It doesn't.

 

[Mikehit]

And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same.

It doesn't.

You seem to like DPR data:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review/6

 

[jeffa4444]

my biggest problem with this thing is how clustered cannon made the auto focus points. They might as well have left it at 9... I think thats easly one of the most over looked issues with this camera. I was looking forward to finally upgrading to full frame, but I'd rather wate t upgrade to the 7D Mark III. I think that's the camera for me if it lives up to my REASONABLE expectations.

The AF points are no different to the 6D, 5DIV or Nikon D750. That is one of the most overlooked facts when people complain about the 6D2.

I own the 5DS, 6D and 6D MKII (plus the 760D) and the statement about the AF points spread is incorrect the spread is definitely wider on the 5DS (and the 5D MKIV).

 

[MayaTlab]

And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same.

It doesn't.

You seem to like DPR data:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review/6

You were talking about DR : "DR a disappointment when it is so close to the 5DIV? And it certainly beats the 80D when you have two images framed the same."
Factual evidence points to the contrary. Full stop.

at higher ISOs it's better to talk about SNR (because you're shutter speed or aperture limited).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Having read CR for a number of years, it's pretty clear to those who've been around a while that DPR is biased.

Honestly, you seem more biased then them. And in your fanboydom, you can't even see that.

Jack reads CR for the humor. I hope he finds your post as funny as I do.

Jack has also posted many wonderful images, including some with the original 6D. What images have you posted? Oh yeah, a screenshot of the DPR comparison tool. Too funny.

 

[jeffa4444]

The 3 years old d750 still can eat this 'amazing' (according to the fan boys) 6d2 for breakfast. How canon managed to produce bellow standard products and still kept fanboys happy is what amazes me lol! 2k usd for a 2013 sensor and system! No thanks.

Thanks for the past 6 years Canon. But I'm done feeding a greedy corporation like you. I'd gladly support a company that leads with innovation with my next purchases instead.

Will 6d2 limit my photography skill? No. But why would I support company who isn't the leading innovator? Who isn't pushing thing? Who's just playing the lame cat up game and playing it bad?

I know that feeling.
so I sold most of my Canon gear; lost some $ on bodies, but maintained or made $ on the lenses.
I still keep a little bit of it for specific uses but in 2012 I switched to Nikon and eventually added Pentax, Fuji and Olympus gear.
After seeing that even consumer-level products from those mfrs gave me the kind of raw file quality that even Canon's high end bodies could not deliver I was convinced I made the right decision and 5 yrs later I'm still happy I changed gear to get what I wanted. I allowed me to focus on the image and processing I wanted to do instead of learning workarounds to deal with shortcomings of Canon's imaging systems. It also spared me the angst of waiting and hoping that the next Canon body upgrade would deliver what I wanted. I would have been waiting for years for the 80D and 5d4.

I still think Canon makes one of the simplest and easiest to understand and use camera systems (early flashes not included) with great ergonomics but raw file quality was more important to me than all those other things.

So, if you also feel like that, hopefully you can justify and afford to make the change. it's not that hard to learn a different system and Canon's lenses aren't so fabulous that you're going to miss out on something special by switching... Well, maybe with the exceptions of those wonderful 17 and 24mm til-shift units!

Just do it!

To put some balance on this statement we own a still camera rental business for every rental of a Nikon or a Sony product we have three or four on Canon. The Sony A7 series cameras have great sensors but terrible control layouts & menu structures, Nikon menus by comparison to Canon are also not as well thought out and color imagery not as good. All these systems have their star lenses and ones that could be better.
I have had Olympus micro 4/3rds cameras back to when they brought out the 4/3rds system with Panasonic again the menu structures are flawed and the sensor size too small for serious landscape but as a casual travel camera it fits the bill.
Fact is grass is always greener on the other side until you get there then you see the shortcomings. Did Canon short change the 6D MKII, yes and no, did Nikon short change the D750 yes and no, did Sony short change the A7 II yes and no life is never simple and neither is camera choice.

 

[Luds34]

Very disappointing AF performance which is the case with even 80d.

I would take that with a big pinch of salt - DPR have a long history of not knowing how to use Canon AF. Rishi has been on here before saying they use the Canon AF in the same way they do the testing with Nikon AF and quite few have called him out on this.
I am not saying the 6D2 AF is fantastic, just that DPR history does not give me much confidence in what they write.

I think, DPR staff knows Canon AF stuff which needs user input for starting focus point when all focus points activated otherwise it picks focus point with nearest contrast/object. No option with Canon to pick face and track in view finder like Nikon 3D tracking which is a big feature for DPR staff. They even mentioned this 3d tracking in their recent Nikon d3400 vs sl2 article even with their 11 focus point system.

They reviewed lot of Canon cameras recently. Like 80d, all focus point servo tracking struggled to keep up with subject face. Unlike recent rebels and 80d, live view tracking also bad on 6d2. DPR is pretty big on live view tracking which also fits their mirror less and face tracking expectations). They praised recent rebels for their live view servo tracking. 6D2 live view servo tracking went back to M2.

I'm leaving this afternoon for a long weekend at a lake resort out of town. I'm really looking forward to spending some more time with the 6D2. However with that said, so far I've found the AF to be spot on. Algorithms continue to get tweaked and improved, and processing power goes up with each camera. The 6D2 has no issue crunching the data it receives from it's focus points and continuously moves among them effortless as it tracks a subject. While it doesn't have the fancy/smancy iRGB size metering sensor in the 5D/7D/1D, the modest one they DID put in the 6D2 appears to have improved tracking as well.

The 6D2 is a evolutionary upgrade over the 6D, essentially the same or a little better in every way, except one area, AF tracking. It is a night and day difference between the two.

 

[Luds34]

For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time.

You're thinking in terms of zooms. 40mm, 50 mm, 85/1.8, 100/2 etc are relatively "cheap" glass but excel on FF.

Agreed, while this forum gives most the attention to the L glass when we get to full frame status, most of the "consumer" primes from Canon are very excellent pieces of glass, and quite affordable (in comparison) to boot!

 

[candyman]

Very disappointing AF performance which is the case with even 80d.

I would take that with a big pinch of salt - DPR have a long history of not knowing how to use Canon AF. Rishi has been on here before saying they use the Canon AF in the same way they do the testing with Nikon AF and quite few have called him out on this.
I am not saying the 6D2 AF is fantastic, just that DPR history does not give me much confidence in what they write.

I think, DPR staff knows Canon AF stuff which needs user input for starting focus point when all focus points activated otherwise it picks focus point with nearest contrast/object. No option with Canon to pick face and track in view finder like Nikon 3D tracking which is a big feature for DPR staff. They even mentioned this 3d tracking in their recent Nikon d3400 vs sl2 article even with their 11 focus point system.

They reviewed lot of Canon cameras recently. Like 80d, all focus point servo tracking struggled to keep up with subject face. Unlike recent rebels and 80d, live view tracking also bad on 6d2. DPR is pretty big on live view tracking which also fits their mirror less and face tracking expectations). They praised recent rebels for their live view servo tracking. 6D2 live view servo tracking went back to M2.

I'm leaving this afternoon for a long weekend at a lake resort out of town. I'm really looking forward to spending some more time with the 6D2. However with that said, so far I've found the AF to be spot on. Algorithms continue to get tweaked and improved, and processing power goes up with each camera. The 6D2 has no issue crunching the data it receives from it's focus points and continuously moves among them effortless as it tracks a subject. While it doesn't have the fancy/smancy iRGB size metering sensor in the 5D/7D/1D, the modest one they DID put in the 6D2 appears to have improved tracking as well.

The 6D2 is a evolutionary upgrade over the 6D, essentially the same or a little better in every way, except one area, AF tracking. It is a night and day difference between the two.

AF tracking on the 6D MK II is pretty good. I used it two days ago on some speedy waterboats. I experienced some limitation of the buffer. Very fast it is full (slowing down). That could happen in a moment I really need some more shots. But knowing this limitation, I need to carefull look when to press and not. Otherwise I really like this camera. It is very nice to use and I did some nice shots


Skyline Rotterdam by Thornmill Images, on Flickr

 

[MayaTlab]

For people thinking that FF is an "upgrade", it's only an upgrade if you buy all the accompanying glass, which is an order of magnitude more expensive. If you cheap out on the glass, it's a waste of time.

You're thinking in terms of zooms. 40mm, 50 mm, 85/1.8, 100/2 etc are relatively "cheap" glass but excel on FF.

Agreed, while this forum gives most the attention to the L glass when we get to full frame status, most of the "consumer" primes from Canon are very excellent pieces of glass, and quite affordable (in comparison) to boot!

I'll add to that that, if I were to buy the DOF equivalent lenses to the lenses that I currently use with my 6Ds within, for example, Fuji's lineup, it would actually cost me a little bit more than Canon's FF lenses.