Review: Canon EOS 6D Mark II by TDP

[scyrene]

sounds like Canon was successful with the camera. Provide an entry level FF that would not steal sales from the more expensive and more profitable 5D M4.

We don't actually know the 5D4 is more profitable, just because it's more expensive.

 

[Talys]

I agree about the wheel on the back. I also find the buttons on the back to be more plastic-like when pressing them. The remote socket in the front is a big plus. But why to point it to the left instead down? Pointing to the left makes it more complex for the use of a L-bracket. Looking forward for RSS to introduce that one (they are working on it)
Bluetooth with the Canon app....just great!

Forget about the N3 remote socket. Once you use the Bluetooth BR-E1, there's just no going back. No wires, no power switch to forget and tiny profile is a winner. It's even a "cheap" accessory -- not much more than any other wireless remote trigger.

 

[SUNDOG04]

I am sure is is an excellent camera. I have the original 6D. A few things, especially the sensor is a bit disappointing. I would love to have one. However, I would recommend for new owners, not invested in Canon lenses, to look at the Nikon 750.

 

[SecureGSM]

Yeah, it is a nice camera to look at, as you suggested. however Canon bodies require less frequent travel to service centres due to routine product recalls. It works out better mid to long term for people that value quality the most.
I hope it helps.

I am sure is is an excellent camera. I have the original 6D. A few things, especially the sensor is a bit disappointing. I would love to have one. However, I would recommend for new owners, not invested in Canon lenses, to look at the Nikon 750.

 

[HarryFilm]

Just sell them, and buy Sony FE glass. There's no way that EF lens will outperform native Sony lenses, not to mention ergonomics and all that.

Well, maybe not. I briefly owned the Sony A7 II and the two kit lenses (28-70mm & 24-70mm) both perform very poorly away from the image center due to the short flange distance of the Sony. My Canon lenses performed much better with adapter - at least in terms of image quality. I understand that the higher end Sony lenses are a big improvement over their kit lenses, but the kit lenses are all that many can afford.

I keep asking people about the use of adapters and some (many) have stories like
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-10-16-a7r2-5dsr/index.htm
[I don't recommend using that site in general ]

I will freely admit to having no experience in this respect, so I could be totally wrong.

I was kind of assuming that the original Canon lens would be expensive glass, that would get traded in for expensive Sony glass, though. It doesn't really make any sense at all to me to trade in a 6D + 24-70/4 and 70-200II... for a Sony a7RII + kit lens

I am constantly amazed at how much people will offer me for my used (high-end) Canon lenses. I do keep them in perfect condition -- they're sold with no defects, with all the original packaging, and they're pretty much indistinguishable from new. Still, there are very few things in the technology/electronics world that retain value like that, over a period of 5-10 years. I think good Canon glass is one of the best investments when it comes to professional tools.

====

This is fully agree with in that once you have GOOD Canon Glass,
it would take a lot of really bad hardware development mistakes
by Canon for the average prosumer or professional photographer
to even contemplate changing over to Sony or Nikon.

For most of Canon Primes (i LOOOOVE prime lenses) -- my zooms
are all Sigma! -- the image quality coming out of that Canon glass
is almost beyond compare. Only the Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art Series
can beat Canon primes! For the price and build quality, it's gonna
take a lot more from Sony to get me to switch. I won't goto Nikon
because of simple ergonomics due to my large hand size.

While that Sony A9 is looking REALLY GOOD, it's got limited glass!
Good Canon glass on our Canon 1Dc or 5Dmk 2/3/4 cameras
do the job we need so I cannot YET goto Sony unless they
REALLY IMPROVE the variety of prime and zoom lenses they have.

So like MANY on here, Canon's great glass really DOES make
the difference to such an extent that most of us invested
heavily in Canon glass can and WILL live with the hardware/software
faults still present in the 6dmk2, 5Dmk2 or even the 1Dxmk2!

That said, I still think the 6D mk2 is a GREAT CAMERA when
upgrading from a Rebel series or the older 6Dmk1. The lack of
4K isn't really that big of an issue because when I ran some
test HD-resolution 6D mk2 footage through a Lanczos-5 Video
Frame resizer algorithm and ran the "Unsharp Mask" before or
afterwards the Lanczos-5 upsize, I thought the final
UPSIZED-to-4K footage looked FANTASTIC!

So I don't think the lack of true 4K on the 6Dmk2
is a problem anymore! Just use a Lanczos-5 resizer
and remember to run an "Unsharp Mask" BEFORE or
AFTER the upsize to 4K (it's your choice as to running
UnSharp Mask before or after Lanczos-5 resize - the
results are slightly different for final anti-aliasing quality)

 

[stevelee]

Steve, just a guess, but it may be a issue with the filter. Some of them soften the images a lot. What brand is it?

I was not thrilled with my first try, then the sun was blotted out by smoke and not visible at all for over 2 weeks, but it does look sharper. It was captured with my 5D MK III and 100-400mm L II, and cropped way down. I used live view and live autofocus.

Thanks for your help and encouragement.

I tried again today. The filter is apparently OK. I had done a poor job of focusing when I couldn't see well enough. In the meantime I looked up somebody charts from testing this lens, and it seems to be best between f/11 and f/16. I slipped a black t-shirt over my shirt to cut down on screen reflections. I carried another black t-shirt to put over my head and the screen. I put on reading glasses to help my eyes focus. I turned the screen as bright as it would go. Tip: unless you have a really good reason, don't stand out in the August sun in NC with a black t-shirt over your head.

I tried the autofocus. The T3i couldn't handle it. So I went back to manual focus and was very careful, taking advantage of the flippy screen and the precautions above. I forgot to magnify the image, but came out OK. I bracketed the shutter speed over a wide range and shot a lot at f/14, a few at f/16, and for grins, some at f/32 and f/45. The overexposed ones covered up the considerable CA. The underexposed ones showed some detail, most or all of which I assume to be noise. The sunspot in the upper right shows up in all but the most and least exposed pictures. They were taken on different parts of the sensor, and the sun moved while I was shooting anyway. So I gather from that it is a real feature on the sun and not an artifact of the sensor or dust, etc.

Here is a full-size crop of a shot at 1/320 sec. f/16 ISO 200 manual focus AWB. I did no adjustments in camera raw, and did just the crop in Photoshop and saved as a JPEG for posting:

 

[sdsr]

I keep asking people about the use of adapters and some (many) have stories like
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-10-16-a7r2-5dsr/index.htm
[I don't recommend using that site in general ]

I don't have that lens, so I can't comment on how it compares, but the Canon lenses I've attached to Sony bodies have performed at least as well as on Canon bodies (24-105L, 28mm IS, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100mm L, 135mm L, 70-200 f4 IS L and, on aps-c, 10-18mm) in terms of sheer image quality (AF performance varies with the adapter).

As for Rockwell, last week he announced in an essentially self-refuting post that the only lens a Sony mirrorless user need own is the relatively inexpensive 24-240mm. I won't comment further....