Sadly, the 6dm2 and 5div to be obsolete shortly

[stevelee]

The white L lenses look cool.

The people I've talked with who shoot high school football games either already owned or were planning to buy a particular Canon body that is particularly well suited to that task. I don't recall whether it is the 7D or the 70D, but I think one of those.

 

[ritholtz]

Canon kept on selling 5d3 for years more than any camera. Nikon and Sony threw so many models with much superior sensors. No way they are going to over throw 5d4 with much better and competitive sensor. I am assuming 5d3 was best selling FF dslr. Otherwise I am completely wrong.

 

[applecider]

I think part of the disappointment with the 6D2 is that we were spoiled by the 6D1 sensor and we the public created the myth that the 6 line was where we were going to see new sensor tech. Turned out that that scenario was wishful thinking. Now it is the 5DSR wink wink.

In an ideal world shooting at ISO 12800 or higher could be done noiselessly and thus fast glass would be unnecessary and photography cheaper, gear lighter and the internet full of what you had for dinner.

 

[Talys]

In an ideal world shooting at ISO 12800 or higher could be done noiselessly and thus fast glass would be unnecessary and photography cheaper, gear lighter and the internet full of what you had for dinner.

I own the common 2.8's and some primes that are faster, and tbh, it's very rare that i take a shot wide open just to lower ISO or to allow low light photography -- because usually, if I can't make the shot at f/4 shot, even if there's technically enough light to expose at f/1.4 and a nice ISO, it's going to be a bland, contrast-free shot. Usually, those big apertures are to isolate the subject, or even a part of the subject, and a lot of the money goes into dreamy bokeh.

Generally, if I don't need the isolation, f/4 is just fine. When photographing wildlife, f/8 isn't bad if there's enough light to support it, because you get a little more wiggle room when it comes to focus.

By the way, even if high ISO quality became a lot better (and I'm really AMAZED at how well 6DII's high ISO photos clean up), you would still need to spend huge bucks if you want to have the best tools -- isn't JUST about the aperture size. Those L lenses are more contrasty, sharper (sometimes much, much sharper), focus faster, and built better. With zoom lenses, consumer lenses are like, a fifth the weight and size (or less), with way bigger focal ranges, which is perfect for the target market.

But if you're really a photography enthusiast, you're likely to find, for example, that the 70mm or 300mm photos from a $300 70-300mm lens are pretty cruddy compared to the same lens at 150mm, if you change your distance to the subject. And, you'll notice that the center is pretty sharp, veer towards the edges, and everything is fuzzy. So, sorry, but expensive lens aren't going anywhere soon, regardless of sensor improvements

 

[tron]

I think part of the disappointment with the 6D2 is that we were spoiled by the 6D1 sensor and we the public created the myth that the 6 line was where we were going to see new sensor tech. Turned out that that scenario was wishful thinking. Now it is the 5DSR wink wink.

In an ideal world shooting at ISO 12800 or higher could be done noiselessly and thus fast glass would be unnecessary and photography cheaper, gear lighter and the internet full of what you had for dinner.

Actually I remember an interview of Canon's CEO where he had said that they always use the best sensor available. So even if I got 5D4 I believe what they did with 6D2 was a foul. 6D2 can still sell like hot cakes but its price has to get to the current price of 6D.

 

[SecureGSM]

You mean you open up the aperture only when you need to let more light in? right, I thought so. Oh, wait, why do they shoot wide open with large aperture primes again? hint: bokeh

In an ideal world shooting at ISO 12800 or higher could be done noiselessly and thus fast glass would be unnecessaryand photography cheaper, gear lighter and the internet full of what you had for dinner.

 

[SecureGSM]

I am convinced that was the strategy behind the 6D II: design and build an entry level FF camera that will be profitable to sell even at US$1,500.00 level mid to long term. Hence the sensor choice.

... 6D2 can still sell like hot cakes but its price has to get to the current price of 6D.

 

[Don Haines]

In an ideal world shooting at ISO 12800 or higher could be done noiselessly and thus fast glass would be unnecessary and photography cheaper, gear lighter and the internet full of what you had for dinner.

In an ideal world, there would always be enough light....

 

[Jopa]

In an ideal world shooting at ISO 12800 or higher could be done noiselessly and thus fast glass would be unnecessary and photography cheaper, gear lighter and the internet full of what you had for dinner.

In an ideal world, there would always be enough light....

In ideal world people won't need cameras

 

[SecureGSM]

I guess, Melbourne is the capital of the Ideal World then as 99% of people here are happily snap-shooting away with their iPhones and Samsung Galaxy gizmos ;D

In ideal world people won't need cameras

 

[Jopa]

I guess, Melbourne is the capital of the Ideal World then as 99% of people here are happily snap-shooting away with their iPhones and Samsung Galaxy gizmos ;D

In ideal world people won't need cameras

Those are still cameras!

 

[SecureGSM]

ah, gotcha! wait.. if those are "still cameras", how do they manage to grab Instagram and Snapchat videos with them? ;D

Those are still cameras!

 

[Jopa]

ah, gotcha! wait.. if those are "still cameras", how do they manage to grab instagram videos with them? ;D

Those are still cameras!

LOL

 

[Mikehit]

I think part of the disappointment with the 6D2 is that we were spoiled by the 6D1 sensor and we the public created the myth that the 6 line was where we were going to see new sensor tech. Turned out that that scenario was wishful thinking. Now it is the 5DSR wink wink.

In an ideal world shooting at ISO 12800 or higher could be done noiselessly and thus fast glass would be unnecessary and photography cheaper, gear lighter and the internet full of what you had for dinner.

Actually I remember an interview of Canon's CEO where he had said that they always use the best sensor available. So even if I got 5D4 I believe what they did with 6D2 was a foul. 6D2 can still sell like hot cakes but its price has to get to the current price of 6D.

And I think that raises on interesting question: why was the 6D2 sensor designed like it was? I presume the technicians had a specific objective in mind and wanted to resolve specific issue(s) so it would be interesting to know what that was and whether they had achieved it.
For example, the D5 has been widely acknowledged to take a hit on DR but with benefits elsewhere in the picture-making chain. What was the logic behind the 6D2. If it was simply 'because it is cheaper', then it does add to your comment.

 

[jester73]

And I think that raises on interesting question: why was the 6D2 sensor designed like it was? I presume the technicians had a specific objective in mind and wanted to resolve specific issue(s) so it would be interesting to know what that was and whether they had achieved it.
For example, the D5 has been widely acknowledged to take a hit on DR but with benefits elsewhere in the picture-making chain. What was the logic behind the 6D2. If it was simply 'because it is cheaper', then it does add to your comment.

Another possible reason - to save sales of 5d mark IV. I believe that this is the main reason, since a much cheaper camera (80D) has more advanced sensor.

 

[Mikehit]

And I think that raises on interesting question: why was the 6D2 sensor designed like it was? I presume the technicians had a specific objective in mind and wanted to resolve specific issue(s) so it would be interesting to know what that was and whether they had achieved it.
For example, the D5 has been widely acknowledged to take a hit on DR but with benefits elsewhere in the picture-making chain. What was the logic behind the 6D2. If it was simply 'because it is cheaper', then it does add to your comment.

Another possible reason - to save sales of 5d mark IV. I believe that this is the main reason, since a much cheaper camera (80D) has more advanced sensor.

It is as good a reason as any but not one that I go with. Unfortunately it is because Canon do not explain what they were trying to achieve that it is impossible to fully disprove
As for the comparison with 80D, Dustin Abbott has done a thorough comparison and shows that the 6D2 is in most ways superior or at least equal to it.

 

[tomscott]

And I think that raises on interesting question: why was the 6D2 sensor designed like it was? I presume the technicians had a specific objective in mind and wanted to resolve specific issue(s) so it would be interesting to know what that was and whether they had achieved it.
For example, the D5 has been widely acknowledged to take a hit on DR but with benefits elsewhere in the picture-making chain. What was the logic behind the 6D2. If it was simply 'because it is cheaper', then it does add to your comment.

Another possible reason - to save sales of 5d mark IV. I believe that this is the main reason, since a much cheaper camera (80D) has more advanced sensor.

It is as good a reason as any but not one that I go with. Unfortunately it is because Canon do not explain what they were trying to achieve that it is impossible to fully disprove
As for the comparison with 80D, Dustin Abbott has done a thorough comparison and shows that the 6D2 is in most ways superior or at least equal to it.

Its obvious that 90% of people comenting havent used one. It has had the classic canon treatment of its a shi*t camera.

I opened a ISO 125 image form my 5DMKIII the other day and I was amazed at how quickly banding came into it. The 6DMKII may not be a groundbreaking camera in anyway but the sensor quality blows the 5DMKIII out of the water.

Would anyone turn round and say the 5DMKIII is a sh*t camera? Certainly not because its a brilliant camera, the 6DMKII is pretty much a 5DMKIII with all the issues of IQ solved with incredible high ISO capability, with one card slot and a reduced AF system for half the price. Ok its not brand new technology but for bang for buck there is little that compares.

Especially when they are currently less the £1500 thats £500 less than a 5DMKIII after over 350,000 images from my 5DMKIII and being an early adopter of that camera I would have the 6DMKII over one every day.

The 5DMKIV again probably the best all round camera but its just too expensive, yes its good but its not ground breaking and better than the 6DMKII in every aspect but certainly not worth £3500 £2k more than the 6DMKII.

These reviews of the 6DMKII have been super harsh and in the real world it performs so well.

All I wanted was a 5DMKIII without banding, the 6DMKII had increased resolution no banding and amazing low light performance. As a wedding and event photographer I rarely use base ISO and tbh in this day it isnt necessary the fact you get good DR high up and the noise pattern is super random and does really well with noise reduction.

Fantastic camera highly highly underrated and currently a bargain.

If you are a good photographer this camera will have very little real world issues. The only thing I wish it had was 2 card slots. Again not the end of the world as in the 10 years ive been working as a pro ive never had a card fail.

On a side note all my canon glass feels sharper every image I open I have to look twice as its hard to believe the difference between this and the 5DMKIII. The 100-400mm MKII is sharp but the 6DMKII seems to get the best out of it of any camera ive owned. (all my cameras are AFMA'd) Took it out to photograph deer and even with a 1.4 its so sharp you can pixel peep to 200% and the images still look incredible! For the price... blown away with it.

 

[SecureGSM]

that's true. 5% better sharpness at pixel level resulting in sharper images produced with your older lens(es).

.............
On a side note all my canon glass feels sharper every image I open I have to look twice as its hard to believe the difference between this and the 5DMKIII. The 100-400mm MKII is sharp but the 6DMKII seems to get the best out of it of any camera ive owned. (all my cameras are AFMA'd) Took it out to photograph deer and even with a 1.4 its so sharp you can pixel peep to 200% and the images still look incredible! For the price... blown away with it.

 

[unfocused]

...These reviews of the 6DMKII have been super harsh and in the real world it performs so well...

That's a classic Canon pattern. Canon tends to be conservative on the features and features are an easy thing for reviewers and forum trolls to focus on. But, in the field, Canons tend to turn in very solid performances and generally perform well above what their feature sets might indicate.

Could be one reason they continue to dominate the market.

 

[tron]

And I think that raises on interesting question: why was the 6D2 sensor designed like it was? I presume the technicians had a specific objective in mind and wanted to resolve specific issue(s) so it would be interesting to know what that was and whether they had achieved it.
For example, the D5 has been widely acknowledged to take a hit on DR but with benefits elsewhere in the picture-making chain. What was the logic behind the 6D2. If it was simply 'because it is cheaper', then it does add to your comment.

Another possible reason - to save sales of 5d mark IV. I believe that this is the main reason, since a much cheaper camera (80D) has more advanced sensor.

It is as good a reason as any but not one that I go with. Unfortunately it is because Canon do not explain what they were trying to achieve that it is impossible to fully disprove
As for the comparison with 80D, Dustin Abbott has done a thorough comparison and shows that the 6D2 is in most ways superior or at least equal to it.

Its obvious that 90% of people comenting havent used one. It has had the classic canon treatment of its a shi*t camera.

I opened a ISO 125 image form my 5DMKIII the other day and I was amazed at how quickly banding came into it. The 6DMKII may not be a groundbreaking camera in anyway but the sensor quality blows the 5DMKIII out of the water.

Would anyone turn round and say the 5DMKIII is a sh*t camera? Certainly not because its a brilliant camera, the 6DMKII is pretty much a 5DMKIII with all the issues of IQ solved with incredible high ISO capability, with one card slot and a reduced AF system for half the price. Ok its not brand new technology but for bang for buck there is little that compares.

Especially when they are currently less the £1500 thats £500 less than a 5DMKIII after over 350,000 images from my 5DMKIII and being an early adopter of that camera I would have the 6DMKII over one every day.

The 5DMKIV again probably the best all round camera but its just too expensive, yes its good but its not ground breaking and better than the 6DMKII in every aspect but certainly not worth £3500 £2k more than the 6DMKII.

These reviews of the 6DMKII have been super harsh and in the real world it performs so well.

All I wanted was a 5DMKIII without banding, the 6DMKII had increased resolution no banding and amazing low light performance. As a wedding and event photographer I rarely use base ISO and tbh in this day it isnt necessary the fact you get good DR high up and the noise pattern is super random and does really well with noise reduction.

Fantastic camera highly highly underrated and currently a bargain.

If you are a good photographer this camera will have very little real world issues. The only thing I wish it had was 2 card slots. Again not the end of the world as in the 10 years ive been working as a pro ive never had a card fail.

On a side note all my canon glass feels sharper every image I open I have to look twice as its hard to believe the difference between this and the 5DMKIII. The 100-400mm MKII is sharp but the 6DMKII seems to get the best out of it of any camera ive owned. (all my cameras are AFMA'd) Took it out to photograph deer and even with a 1.4 its so sharp you can pixel peep to 200% and the images still look incredible! For the price... blown away with it.

It is my opinion that as a wedding photographer you should get a 2 slot camera although I understand that the possibility of anything happening is close to zero. But almost close to zero is not zero. I remember shooting with my 5D4 in the early days - not important photos but the setting was left to writting to both cards concurrently - when 5D4 froze displaying an error about the SD card. A few months after this event Canon issued firmware 1.0.4 fixing communication with sd card but this is an example of a low probability event that did happen. The card had to be full formated on a PC and then formatted again in camera to work again! As I said I agree that issues are very rare but would you risk your reputation over the price difference of these 2 cameras?

I understand that it is not possible for 6D2 to be a bad camera and it will handle noise more than decently. But 6D was already better than 5DIII in the noise department so the comparison between the two 6D generations - that are 5 years apart - is inevitable.