Review: Canon EOS 6D Mark II by DPReview

[x-vision]

I gather Canon is expected to be some people's personal servant.

No. But please understand that the so called 'whining' is coming in large part from people who were waiting for this camera and were saving up to buy it.
In other words, the 'whining' (or certainly a large part of it) is coming from loyal Canon customers, who now feel cheated.

For me, personally, the issue with spending $$$ for a FF camera is about the (long term) commitment.
As a hobbyist, I can't justify upgrading to every new release.
Once I buy the camera, I expect to have it for years (or lose money selling it early).

That's why you want to buy the latest and greatest when you spend $$$.
The 6DII doesn't give you that.

Of course once the price drops to $1500 and below, the 6DII will be perceived as a great value and the whining will stop.

 

[reef58]

Not that I fully agree, but I can relate, I think he is saying why all of the cloak and dagger and long wait for a camera that is basically a reconfigured 5dmk3. I certainly was not expecting Canon to lay an egg on the image quality evolution for this model. They did. It is a disappointment. Certainly 1st world problems. I shall endure. I was looking forward to a Canon full frame with a tilt screen for landscape work. The specs looked great, and myself and many others assumed the progress Canon has been making on their sensors would find its way to the 6d2. Oh well.

If (and that is a big 'if') that is what he meant then fair enough - but to talk about being 'bitter' just seems like a drama queen.
If DR is essential, and the idea of having cutting edge sensor technology at your disposal is important, then given the history of Canon releases and the repeated haranguing they have had over the last 6 or 7 years on this issue, why do such people continually imagine that Canon will magically release something equal to Sony sensors?

However, if they stay with Canon because other things (functionality etc) are more important than dynamic range for landscapes, why do they get so worked up about lack of DR? It shows a total lack of perspective. The alternative is to buy a SoNikon then post repeatedly on the SoNikon boards about how poor their functionality is compared to Canon.

It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment. The 6d was released as a low frills high image quality package.

 

[BillB]

+2 stop push and it is very close, +3 stops it is pretty close. +4 stops and it starts to separate.
You have to push it 4 stops to be able to say the 6D2 is not close??

Hmm. Here is what the Digital Picture says about the 6DII dynamic range (so, not DPReview, mind you):

• In the Exposed -3 EV comparison, the 5D IV shows significantly less noise at ISO 100 than the 6D Mark II does and it still shows noticeably less at -2 EV ISO 100.
  

So, the 5D IV shows significantly less noise at base ISO - and yet, they are somehow very close. LOL

And since we are it, the Digital Picture also says that the 80D has a 'slightly higher dynamic' than the 6DII.
So, a 2x cheaper camera with a 2.56x smaller sensor has dynamic range advantage.

If the 6DII is close to the 5DIV, then my 80D is even closer. LOL

Mike, get over it. You are not going to convince anyone with your arguments.

You seem to place considerable faith in the value of DPR's adjectives. DPR Can find significance in some strange places.

 

[x-vision]

Herein lies the dangers of trying to scientifically and objectively grade a product that's designed to produce an image that's ultimately going to be graded subjectively.

What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.

That is, Canon evidently cut some corners when making this camera.
And since they did that, they shouldn't be expecting buyers to get excited, praise the camera and pay the full price.
So, Canon did it to themselves, really.

But let the price drop by 30-40% and we'll talk again.

 

[x-vision]

You seem to place considerable faith in the value of DPR's adjectives. DPR Can find significance in some strange places.

Umm, I quoted a non-DPR review.

That was the whole point, as some here believe that DPR is crooked.

 

[Loswr]

It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment. The 6d was released as a low frills high image quality package.

What streak? It seems you've forgotten the 5DIII, which delivered merely one additional MP and sensor performance that was essentially identical to the 5DII. Of course, it had substantial improvements in AF, metering, frame rate, etc. Gee whiz, that kinda sounds like the 6DII compared to the 6D (except the 6DII got a much bigger MP boost).

Complainers gonna complain, whiners gonna whine, DRoners gonna DRone, and measurebaters gonna measurebate. Meanwhile, photographers gonna go out and take pictures.

 

[dak723]

What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.

Probably because the better technology would cost more to implement. So, like every company, they cut corners to save production cost.

Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?

 

[stevelee]

I own three EF lenses. None of them have made me bitter.

The first was the 75-300mm I got for $100 with my first Rebel. It is not a great lens, but no more often than I shoot longer telephoto, it fills it purpose. I've shot some rather clear pictures of the full moon with is, so I trust I'll get some passable eclipse pictures with my T3i on the 21st is the weather cooperates. 480mm equivalent is not bad, assuming that the moon will be about the same size in the daytime as it was when I shot it at night.

Back when I shot with my FT-QL, I had an 85mm f/1.8 (I think it was). I loved the pictures that lens produced. I tried to figure out what would be a good substitute for it on the T3i. I decided that for portraits, it was the distance from the subject rather than the lens focal length physical characteristics I wanted (and of course bigger lens opening than the kit lens), so I bought the 50mm f/1.4. It does just what I wanted.

I had some cheap extension tubes and enjoyed playing around with taking some macro shots. One was even good enough to frame and display. But shooting wide open with almost zero depth of field got old, so I decided to buy the 100mm macro. It's a great lens as a quasi-160mm telephoto on the T3i, too.

So I made what still seem like rational decisions in buying lenses to use with the equipment I have now. It would not have occurred to me to buy EF lenses to put in my Hope Chest waiting for a Full Frame Prince Charming to be sent by Canon to wake them up.

In the likely event that I buy a 6D2 some time soon, all three lenses will still be of use, though they will change in function. The 100mm f/2.8 will be the portrait lens for a while until I decide to buy something else, or not to. And, of course, it will still take great macro shots, just with more in the frame, for any given magnification.

Last year I seriously considered buying an 80D, but decided to wait and see what the 6D2 was like, since I thought if I'm spending that kind of money, I should consider FF. It turned out to be a much longer wait than the rumors would have suggested. I did check this site and other internet rumors over those months in anticipation. I didn't spend the time concocting fantasy specifications, so I didn't wind up bitter at life or at Canon when the camera finally came out. But in the meantime I did take a bunch of nice pictures with the T3i and even more with the G7X II that I take with me when I travel.

 

[x-vision]

Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?

Heh. Great question!

I'm prepared to pay $2200 max for a FF camera.
So, if this theoretical 6DII with a 5DIV sensor was priced higher, I would have waited until the price drops to $2200.
But I certainly would have bought one, eventually.

As it stands today, I won't be buying the current 6DII at all - even after the price drops.

 

[daphins]

I waited patiently for this camera, I got EF lenses for my crop body, just to be ready for it. And Canon presents something to me, I could have bought 5 years ago in form of the 5D Mark III.
So excuse my saltiness, if I didn't care for Canon, I wouldn't be.

Well that is pretty dumb. Spending your hard earned cash on inappropriate lenses in readiness to spend more hard earned cash on a camera whose specs and capabilities you had no idea about? And then you get angry at Canon? I think that says more about you than Canon.

Over the years I have seen countless people ask 'which lenses should I buy, I may go FF sometime in the future', and I always advise to bu the lens they need now not something they may need in the future.

What's dumb about getting a lens, you can use later on full frame, if that's what you are planing to do? Furthermore, many fast primes are only available as EF lenses. So I chose to buy something more expensive, but future proof (so I thought), instead of first the cheaper stuff, and then all the stuff again in expensive version.
Also I wasn't "I may go FF". I am: "I definitely will go FF!" So why bother with EF-S lenses (of which I also have 2)?
Which brings us to point where I was "pretty dumb": I though Canon would do better, being the biggest fish in the pont. I though the 6D Mark II would be a 80D scaled to full frame.
I was wrong. Anyway, I got my full frame now, but I won't need the EF glass no more.

Well first, being someone who owns both, I think 6DII is as close to an 80D scaled to full frame as you're going to get. It certainly isn't a lighter, smaller 5DIV + Flippy Screen for $2,000, which seems like what a bunch of people want/expect.

But anyways, perhaps as a takeaway lesson, don't buy glass that you're not going to take advantage of for half a decade plus. Not only do things change, but newer, cheaper, better stuff might come out, not to mention, there will be sales and used units.

On the other hand, with very few exceptions (like EF50/1.8 or EFS17-55/2.8), if you want the best quality images out of fast primes, you're going to be looking at L lenses anyways, which are all EF. So, like, if you want a 100L or 85L or whatever, it's not like there was a cheap EFS you could have bought instead. And that's not just Canon; every single camera manufacturer does that. But it's also not like you can't use a 100L on APSC for great results... right?

About, your comment, "I could have bought a 5DIII 5 years ago" -- well, sure you could have. Why didn't you? It was an awesome camera then. I suspect it's because it's because it was $3,500 at launch. Then the 6D came out. Why didn't you buy that? And then what really doesn't make a lot of sense to me was that if you could have bought a 5DIII at its launch price... why didn't you buy a 5DIV? Or a 5DSR?

If what you're actually saying is that you like Canon cameras, but you want the 5DIV features and output to drop down to the $2000 price range before you go FF, please just say that.

Personally, I DO NOT want a 5DIII/5DIV. It doesn't have an articulating screen, which is crucial for me, it is too bulky for my liking, and I won't take advantage of its ability to survive deserts, rainforests, arctic tundras and warzones. I'd just rather have a smaller camera that is more suited to my casual, fairweather and studio photography. Sure, I would prefer a better sensor; who wouldn't? But that doesn't mean I can't be happy with the 6DII sensor, which takes beautiful pictures, period.

Going to have to disagree here. I bought a 60D and my first lens as a 50 f/1.2L. Yes it cropped on the 60D, but the aperture is unparalleled and allows me to shoot literally in the dark for about 6 years. I then added a 16-35, and a 70-200 IS II. With my entire kit I was able to spend 2k on a 6d mkii and shee an incredible array of lenses at my disposal, and years of using them under my belt.

I'd punt money in glass, they'll always stay awesome. Bodies age very quickly.

 

[Talys]

Herein lies the dangers of trying to scientifically and objectively grade a product that's designed to produce an image that's ultimately going to be graded subjectively.

What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.

That is, Canon evidently cut some corners when making this camera.
And since they did that, they shouldn't be expecting buyers to get excited, praise the camera and pay the full price.
So, Canon did it to themselves, really.

But let the price drop by 30-40% and we'll talk again.

If you define "cut corners" as Canon producing a $2,000 camera that has inferior image quality to their current, $3,200 camera released less than one year ago, then yeah, I guess you got them there.

I mean, serious question: why is it the expectation for a $2,000 camera's sensor in July 2017 be as good as the $3,200 camera's sensor released in August 2016? And, have all the other features that differentiate the two, like 4k video and dual sim? Sometimes, I thing some people forget just how new 5D4 is. Do you think it's overpriced? If not, what features would you cut out to reduce the cost by 40%?

I think it sits comfortably between 80D and 5DIV, which are both 2016 cameras, making neither camera irrelevant. I don't think anyone has bought one and posted an overall negative experience.

I totally agree that if you can wait, you'll get better value by waiting for a sale or some unbundled price. You can get 80D and 5D4 now for significantly less than launch prices.

Regarding my original comment, I stand by it. There are now tons of photos produced by 6D2 out there for everyone to see, and ultimately, people judge the photographs, not the technical specifications of the camera that took them. If you took the same shot with four modern FF cameras and compared them after you processed them, one of two things will happen: you will have 4 good photos... or you'll have 4 that aren't. Post processing, if you removed the EXIF, I really doubt anyone would be able to tell them apart.

Part of it is that you reach a point of diminishing returns, so extra megapixels and extra DR, at some point, is less impactful. I'm not saying that it's meaningless, but ultimately, it's just numbers that don't reflect whether you can get "wow" pictures out of the camera or not.

Going to have to disagree here. I bought a 60D and my first lens as a 50 f/1.2L. Yes it cropped on the 60D, but the aperture is unparalleled and allows me to shoot literally in the dark for about 6 years. I then added a 16-35, and a 70-200 IS II. With my entire kit I was able to spend 2k on a 6d mkii and shee an incredible array of lenses at my disposal, and years of using them under my belt.

I'd punt money in glass, they'll always stay awesome. Bodies age very quickly.

I think you misunderstood me

I have nothing against putting money on great glass. Before I owned a 6DII, I didn't have a FF camera, and had several pricey lenses, including 24-70 f/4, 70-200 II 2.8, and 100L 2.8.

I just don't think you should put money on great glass if you're not going to do anything with it for five years. Yeah, they have a really good longevity, and will last a lot longer than bodies, but ultimately, in 5-10 years... other options or a new version become available. Or price drops!

 

[Deleted member 379512]

Herein lies the dangers of trying to scientifically and objectively grade a product that's designed to produce an image that's ultimately going to be graded subjectively.

What the measurements at review sites do show, quite objectively, is that Canon cut corners when it comes to the 6DII image quality.
They do have the technology for better dynamic range (e.g. 5DIV) - but didn't use this technology in the 6DII.

That is, Canon evidently cut some corners when making this camera.
And since they did that, they shouldn't be expecting buyers to get excited, praise the camera and pay the full price.
So, Canon did it to themselves, really.

But let the price drop by 30-40% and we'll talk again.

If you define "cut corners" as Canon producing a $2,000 camera that has inferior image quality to their current, $3,200 camera released less than one year ago, then yeah, I guess you got them there.

I mean, serious question: why is it the expectation for a $2,000 camera's sensor in July 2017 be as good as the $3,200 camera's sensor released in August 2016? And, have all the other features that differentiate the two, like 4k video and dual sim? Sometimes, I thing some people forget just how new 5D4 is. Do you think it's overpriced? If not, what features would you cut out to reduce the cost by 40%?

I think it sits comfortably between 80D and 5DIV, which are both 2016 cameras, making neither camera irrelevant. I don't think anyone has bought one and posted an overall negative experience.

I totally agree that if you can wait, you'll get better value by waiting for a sale or some unbundled price. You can get 80D and 5D4 now for significantly less than launch prices.

Regarding my original comment, I stand by it. There are now tons of photos produced by 6D2 out there for everyone to see, and ultimately, people judge the photographs, not the technical specifications of the camera that took them. If you took the same shot with four modern FF cameras and compared them after you processed them, one of two things will happen: you will have 4 good photos... or you'll have 4 that aren't. Post processing, if you removed the EXIF, I really doubt anyone would be able to tell them apart.

Part of it is that you reach a point of diminishing returns, so extra megapixels and extra DR, at some point, is less impactful. I'm not saying that it's meaningless, but ultimately, it's just numbers that don't reflect whether you can get "wow" pictures out of the camera or not.

Going to have to disagree here. I bought a 60D and my first lens as a 50 f/1.2L. Yes it cropped on the 60D, but the aperture is unparalleled and allows me to shoot literally in the dark for about 6 years. I then added a 16-35, and a 70-200 IS II. With my entire kit I was able to spend 2k on a 6d mkii and shee an incredible array of lenses at my disposal, and years of using them under my belt.

I'd punt money in glass, they'll always stay awesome. Bodies age very quickly.

I think you misunderstood me

I have nothing against putting money on great glass. Before I owned a 6DII, I didn't have a FF camera, and had several pricey lenses, including 24-70 f/4, 70-200 II 2.8, and 100L 2.8.

I just don't think you should put money on great glass if you're not going to do anything with it for five years. Yeah, they have a really good longevity, and will last a lot longer than bodies, but ultimately, in 5-10 years... other options or a new version become available. Or price drops!

On the other side, the sl2 has higher dr at iso 100, so I think the argument could also be, why does the 2k camera have an inferior quality here than an $500 entry level crop?
I think that is where some of the frustration has come from.

Don't get me wrong, I think the expectation of some that the 6d should be a cheap 5dmk4 without giving anything up are probably a bit optimistic, but I thought the sensor being shared would have been a positive step.

 

[x-vision]

I mean, serious question: why is it the expectation for a $2,000 camera's sensor in July 2017 be as good as the $3,200 camera's sensor released in August 2016?

I'm on record for defending the 6DII for its lack of 4K video support and for having only a single card slot.
So, I don't think I have unrealistic expectations of what a $2K FF camera needs to have.

Let me ask you this:
Do you expect that FF cameras should have at least 1-stop ISO advantage over crop cameras?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

I'm pretty sure that you take the ISO advantage of FF as a given and you don't even think about it.

Well, for me at least, it's the same for dynamic range.

So yes, I fully expect that in a $2000 FF camera announced in 2017 will have better dynamic range than crop cameras - just like it is expected (given, actually) that said camera will have better ISO as well.

 

[x-vision]

On the other side, the sl2 has higher dr at iso 100, so I think the argument could also be, why does the 2k camera have an inferior quality here than an $500 entry level crop?
I think that is where some of the frustration has come from.

Don't get me wrong, I think the expectation of some that the 6d should be a cheap 5dmk4 without giving anything up are probably a bit optimistic, but I thought the sensor being shared would have been a positive step.

Heh, you beat me to it. My thoughts exactly!

 

[Loswr]

Let me ask you this:
Do you expect that FF cameras should have at least 1-stop ISO advantage over crop cameras?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

I'm pretty sure that you take the ISO advantage of FF as a given and you don't even think about it.

Well, for me at least, it's the same for dynamic range.

For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.

So yes, we can take the ISO advantage of FF as a given, thanks to physics. Your expectation that a larger sensor should automatically have a DR advantage is just that – your expectation.

Let me ask you this:
Do you believe that a $6500 camera with a FF sensor should have better DR than a $1200 camera with an APS-C sensor that's a year older?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

Well, you should go and compare the Nikon D5 with the D7200, and after seeing that the older and much cheaper camera with the smaller sensor has >2 stops more DR at base ISO, you may want to consider what implications that has on how realistic your personal expectations really are.

 

[Deleted member 379512]

Let me ask you this:
Do you expect that FF cameras should have at least 1-stop ISO advantage over crop cameras?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

I'm pretty sure that you take the ISO advantage of FF as a given and you don't even think about it.

Well, for me at least, it's the same for dynamic range.

For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.

So yes, we can take the ISO advantage of FF as a given, thanks to physics. Your expectation that a larger sensor should automatically have a DR advantage is just that – your expectation.

Let me ask you this:
Do you believe that a $6500 camera with a FF sensor should have better DR than a $1200 camera with an APS-C sensor that's a year older?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

Well, you should go and compare the Nikon D5 with the D7200, and after seeing that the older and much cheaper camera with the smaller sensor has >2 stops more DR at base ISO, you may want to consider what implications that has on how realistic your personal expectations really are.

With this, what are the main factors for increasing DR? It seems like the full frame sensors are able to get higher dynamic ranges (d810, a7r2), I had thought (completely without research) sensor size had some impact, but design was also important? Or am I way off on that one?

 

[Hflm]

Let me ask you this:
Do you expect that FF cameras should have at least 1-stop ISO advantage over crop cameras?
Is that an unrealistic expectation?

I'm pretty sure that you take the ISO advantage of FF as a given and you don't even think about it.

Well, for me at least, it's the same for dynamic range.

For you...but not for physics. Image noise is inversely proportional to total light gathered. Larger sensors gather more light, and thus will have less noise (for FF vs. APS-C, that difference is ~1.3 stops). DR does not scale in the same way.

So yes, we can take the ISO advantage of FF as a given, thanks to physics. Your expectation that a larger sensor should automatically have a DR advantage is just that – your expectation.

Image noise (let's just concentrate on photon shot noise) _increases_ with more light gathered (signal S), due to the random nature of photons collected (Poisson distribution), it scales with sqrt(S). But S/N ratio = S/sqrt(S) = sqrt(S) increases, too. I think, however, that you meant that.
For DR read noise is extremely important and moving the ADC on sensor in the 5div, 1dxii, 80D or newer Rebels has decreased it. It is not as low as in the Sony sensor or Toshiba sensor models, but it is something I personally don't want to miss.

For me DR is important, as we often have contrasty scenes and I need to underexpose at weddings and push in post to protect highlights. If you don't do that, a 6dii certainly is a good entry level camera. But what will many people do? People now compare a 6dii to its peers. They have Dxo, Bill Claff, Dpreview, You tube "reviewers" (see quotes) etc. The Pentax, Sony and Nikon models (e.g. D750) in a similar price region compare favourably. Personally, I would always chose a D750 (two slots, incredible sensor, excellent AF system) over the 6dii.
With the 5div it is different. We use two at weddings and we are really happy with them. Really great cameras. However, owing a Sony A9, too, we see what is possible now with mirrorless technology. Hope Canon will counter accordingly.

 

[testthewest]

I was "pretty dumb"

Good to know you can be right about one thing, at least.

Glad you got that cheap shot. Because that's about all you do: Evade most of the arguement and go ad hominem.

Yeah, I guess you missed the previous reply...or are you evading it? Maybe it was too long to read, so I'll summarize: you're wrong.

I evade the biggest bs there is, if I can. That's true.
Perhaps you simply open canonrumors main site and just look at the topics presented there instead of the forums, which have next to no exposure in comparison. The main page is where its at. That's where google funnels the visitors of this site. This is where the topics are set. This is the face of canonrumors, not some forums in the back of the site. Also I take any bet that people coming here come for rumors on gear, not pictures.

And that's fine!

But one should accept that's the way it is. There are other rumor sites that do differently btw. Where photos of users are discussed on the main page! Again, I don't say Canonrumors should do that, but please realize that this site is not about photos.

 

[Mikehit]

It seems each camera Canon has been putting out has shown a nice amount of sensor quality improvement over the prior generation. That streak ended with the 6d2. Now image the 7d3 comes out with as much noise as the 7d2. That will be a disappointment.

Yes, it will be. But I sure as heck won't go flouncing around forums talking about how I have been 'cheated' and how I feel 'bitter'. I will decide what is best for my next move in a camera and buy the appropriate body. And in the meantime continue to take great photos with my current set up knowing that it is highly unlikely a new camera would have made such a significant jump in quality as to change the way I take photos.

 

[Mikehit]

Would you have bought this camera for 2,499 if it had the 5DIV sensor?

Heh. Great question!

I'm prepared to pay $2200 max for a FF camera.
So, if this theoretical 6DII with a 5DIV sensor was priced higher, I would have waited until the price drops to $2200.
But I certainly would have bought one, eventually.

As it stands today, I won't be buying the current 6DII at all - even after the price drops.

But yousaid

Of course once the price drops to $1500 and below, the 6DII will be perceived as a great value and the whining will stop

and

But let the price drop by 30-40% and we'll talk again.