Updated Canon EOS 6D Mark II Specifications [CR2]

[rrcphoto]

internet connections often aren't even good enough, it is simply a wasted effort.

what? do you people live in the same universe as the rest of us?

15Mb/s (2MB/s)...is the minimum netflix recommends for 4k...I can't think of a single developed nation that doesn't have these internet speeds

in alot of cases in rural america you can't get these speeds. usually around 1mb/sec is about all you can get via DSL.

I guess the USA isn't a developed nation.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I was looking at this from the perspective of someone buying their first DSLR and the 6d2 being a contender. I think the lack of 4k will be a negative.

I don't believe for a second that most people looking to buy their first DSLR will be:

1) looking at a 6D Mk II; or

2) worrying about whether they'll be able to shoot at better-than-broadcast-quality videos with whatever they do end up with.

 

[unfocused]

internet connections often aren't even good enough, it is simply a wasted effort.

what? do you people live in the same universe as the rest of us?

15Mb/s (2MB/s)...is the minimum netflix recommends for 4k...I can't think of a single developed nation that doesn't have these internet speeds

in alot of cases in rural america you can't get these speeds. usually around 1mb/sec is about all you can get via DSL.

I guess the USA isn't a developed nation.

Since we are talking about viewing 4K, I wonder how much it matters that 4K may be available on streaming services. After all, the majority of people are viewing videos on phones and other mobile devices. Can anyone see a difference in 4K at that size?

 

[Takingshots]

Wow so many want 4k for this camera... Don't think Canon is listening.

 

[jolyonralph]

Ok, here's a question.

All of you complaining that it won't do 4K, well, that would no doubt have added to the cost, who knows how much, but let's do a quick poll.

Would you pay $50 more for 4k? $100 more? $200 more?

 

[LonelyBoy]

internet connections often aren't even good enough, it is simply a wasted effort.

what? do you people live in the same universe as the rest of us?

15Mb/s (2MB/s)...is the minimum netflix recommends for 4k...I can't think of a single developed nation that doesn't have these internet speeds

in alot of cases in rural america you can't get these speeds. usually around 1mb/sec is about all you can get via DSL.

I guess the USA isn't a developed nation.

What percentage of people is that? Very, very low, depending on which numbers you use. This is not a situation of Manhattan and LA assuming the rest of the country is identical. I grew up in a rural farmhouse that still had an outhouse on site (it hadn't been used in ages, of course, but there was still an OUTHOUSE there), and it's had cable broadband for well over a decade. That town has a population about a tenth of the number of posts Neuro has.

It is fair to say "the USA" has access to those speeds, even if it's frustrating for a couple of percent of people who really don't have the infrastructure for it outside their doors. Nothing is universal.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Ok, here's a question.

All of you complaining that it won't do 4K, well, that would no doubt have added to the cost, who knows how much, but let's do a quick poll.

Would you pay $50 more for 4k? $100 more? $200 more?

Probably $0. I've never shot a second of video with a DSLR and have no intention to in the future. Why would I pay $50 for a huge video file I don't want? I'd sooner take a $100 rebate to have video completely removed and the switch reprogrammed to be something useful.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Wow so many want 4k for this camera... Don't think Canon is listening.

How many people? Please provide citations. I've seen a dozen or so people very loudly exclaiming on this thread and a few others, but not a whole lot of actual different people.

 

[tr573]

internet connections often aren't even good enough, it is simply a wasted effort.

what? do you people live in the same universe as the rest of us?

15Mb/s (2MB/s)...is the minimum netflix recommends for 4k...I can't think of a single developed nation that doesn't have these internet speeds

in alot of cases in rural america you can't get these speeds. usually around 1mb/sec is about all you can get via DSL.

I guess the USA isn't a developed nation.

What percentage of people is that? Very, very low, depending on which numbers you use. This is not a situation of Manhattan and LA assuming the rest of the country is identical. I grew up in a rural farmhouse that still had an outhouse on site (it hadn't been used in ages, of course, but there was still an OUTHOUSE there), and it's had cable broadband for well over a decade. That town has a population about a tenth of the number of posts Neuro has.

It is fair to say "the USA" has access to those speeds, even if it's frustrating for a couple of percent of people who really don't have the infrastructure for it outside their doors. Nothing is universal.

Luckily , the FCC publishes reports on just such a thing

Key findings include the following:

10 percent of all Americans (34 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service.
39 percent of rural Americans (23 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.
By contrast, only 4 percent of urban Americans lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband.
The availability of fixed terrestrial services in rural America continues to lag behind urban America at all speeds: 20 percent lack access even to service at 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 1 percent from 2011, and 31 percent lack access to 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 4 percent from 2011.
41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands (1.6 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband
68 percent living in rural areas of Tribal lands (1.3 million people) lack access.
66 percent of Americans living in U.S. territories (2.6 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband.
98 percent of those living in rural territorial areas (1.1 million people) lack access.
Americans living in rural and urban areas adopt broadband at similar rates where 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps service is available, 28 percent in rural areas and 30 percent in urban areas.
While an increasing number of schools have high-speed connections, approximately 41 percent of schools, representing 47 percent of the nation’s students, lack the connectivity to meet the Commission’s short-term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students/staff.

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report

 

[IglooEater]

Ok, here's a question.

All of you complaining that it won't do 4K, well, that would no doubt have added to the cost, who knows how much, but let's do a quick poll.

Would you pay $50 more for 4k? $100 more? $200 more?

I'd be quite ready to pay $100 more. Seriously, and I don't shoot video at all. I'd rather be a bit more out of pocket and have that bragging right. As I said a while back, the notion of not having some form of 4K on a $2,000 camera in 2017 is just insulting. I know it's just a spec sheet thing, but I've still got a little pride. Besides, I'll probably get my $100 back when I sell it in 2022, when 1080 will be looking long in the tooth.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Luckily , the FCC publishes reports on just such a thing

Key findings include the following:

10 percent of all Americans (34 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service.
39 percent of rural Americans (23 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.
By contrast, only 4 percent of urban Americans lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband.
The availability of fixed terrestrial services in rural America continues to lag behind urban America at all speeds: 20 percent lack access even to service at 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 1 percent from 2011, and 31 percent lack access to 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 4 percent from 2011.
41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands (1.6 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband
68 percent living in rural areas of Tribal lands (1.3 million people) lack access.
66 percent of Americans living in U.S. territories (2.6 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband.
98 percent of those living in rural territorial areas (1.1 million people) lack access.
Americans living in rural and urban areas adopt broadband at similar rates where 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps service is available, 28 percent in rural areas and 30 percent in urban areas.
While an increasing number of schools have high-speed connections, approximately 41 percent of schools, representing 47 percent of the nation’s students, lack the connectivity to meet the Commission’s short-term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students/staff.

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report

In other words (per your numbers) 90% of America has access to broadband. That would be a massive, colossal majority in most contexts. Now, that is for the 25mb downstream necessary for 4k; if we're talking about bandwidth to stream normal content, that can drop as low as 4% without access to 4mb downstream. Is 25mb downstream better? Obviously. However, it is completely disingenuous to display the numbers as you did, with the implication that 10% of America is constrained to dial-up.

 

[ken]

My point early in the thread is I found the lack of 4k curious even though I don't care about it. I was looking at this from the perspective of someone buying their first DSLR and the 6d2 being a contender.

A first time DSLR buyer spending $2,500 plus lenses? How many would do that?

I can't say how many first time DSLR buyers would do that, but I spent close to that for my first DSLR, the 6D with kit lens. (The EF24-105mm IS) I also acquired several L-series lenses at the same time. I wanted to go full frame to take advantage of the best of the Canon lens system. So happy I did... closing in on 20K photos taken with the 6D. (I also acquired a Sony a6000 since then, which I use probably half as much as my 6D.)

As an engineer, I studied the options for a long time before jumping in. The Nikon D600 was the main competitor at the time but had that unresolved oil spot issue that they eventually addressed by releasing the D610. I still think it was the right "first time" DSLR for me. I could afford it (and I get that not everyone can). I think anyone thinking about buying a DSLR for the first time should research what they want to shoot, what lenses they will need for those goals, and make sure they're buying into the ecosystem they'll be happy with (and can afford) because... the glass is where the real money goes. The camera body is but one component.

I've continued to grow my L-series glass collection, and I'm really excited about the 6Dii. 4K would have been nice but it's in no way a deal killer, as I've rarely shot video at all on my 6D. (I have a Gopro. Even with it, I don't always use 4K mode. Tradeoffs...)

For me, I bought into the Canon ecosystem not because I'm a Canon fanboy, but because of what the complete system offers. I will likely trade up to the 6Dii. But when the specs come out, if it isn't all I hoped, I might wait for prices to come down a bit on the 5Div. It would be a harder decision to abandon the investment in glass to move to a non-Canon system, but I guess it could happen some day. Camera bodies... man, there will always be new bodies. The body is that part that really changes quickly. I suspect in a year or so Canon will have a full frame mirrorless that supports EF lenses. So I'd even consider upgrading again if it seems worth it. That's just technology... it's going to keep on changing.

If I were looking for my first DSLR and could afford it, and I was primarily interested in photography (over videography) the 6Dii would have my laser focus right now. But so would a comparable Nikon, or a comparable Sony... You just have to jump in somewhere and don't waste time looking back.

 

[scyrene]

Ok, here's a question.

All of you complaining that it won't do 4K, well, that would no doubt have added to the cost, who knows how much, but let's do a quick poll.

Would you pay $50 more for 4k? $100 more? $200 more?

I'd be quite ready to pay $100 more. Seriously, and I don't shoot video at all. I'd rather be a bit more out of pocket and have that bragging right. As I said a while back, the notion of not having some form of 4K on a $2,000 camera in 2017 is just insulting. I know it's just a spec sheet thing, but I've still got a little pride. Besides, I'll probably get my $100 back when I sell it in 2022, when 1080 will be looking long in the tooth.

Perhaps the problem isn't with the camera, but with the world you inhabit? I don't mean to be confrontational, but the whole 'bragging rights' thing is bizarre to me. Who are you bragging to about 4K? Who is listening, and who cares? Anyone who knows about it wouldn't just accept that 4K is enough (i.e. they'd know that some devices that 'do' 4K, like phones, do it so poorly that it's not worth the label), and those who don't won't care either way. Sounds like teenage boys comparing the size of their manhood, but even less worthwhile.

 

[YuengLinger]

My point early in the thread is I found the lack of 4k curious even though I don't care about it. I was looking at this from the perspective of someone buying their first DSLR and the 6d2 being a contender.

A first time DSLR buyer spending $2,500 plus lenses? How many would do that?

Millions! And that's just in Shanghai!

 

[tr573]

Luckily , the FCC publishes reports on just such a thing

Key findings include the following:

10 percent of all Americans (34 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps service.
39 percent of rural Americans (23 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.
By contrast, only 4 percent of urban Americans lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband.
The availability of fixed terrestrial services in rural America continues to lag behind urban America at all speeds: 20 percent lack access even to service at 4 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 1 percent from 2011, and 31 percent lack access to 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, down only 4 percent from 2011.
41 percent of Americans living on Tribal lands (1.6 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband
68 percent living in rural areas of Tribal lands (1.3 million people) lack access.
66 percent of Americans living in U.S. territories (2.6 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband.
98 percent of those living in rural territorial areas (1.1 million people) lack access.
Americans living in rural and urban areas adopt broadband at similar rates where 25 Mbps/ 3 Mbps service is available, 28 percent in rural areas and 30 percent in urban areas.
While an increasing number of schools have high-speed connections, approximately 41 percent of schools, representing 47 percent of the nation’s students, lack the connectivity to meet the Commission’s short-term goal of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students/staff.

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report

In other words (per your numbers) 90% of America has access to broadband. That would be a massive, colossal majority in most contexts. Now, that is for the 25mb downstream necessary for 4k; if we're talking about bandwidth to stream normal content, that can drop as low as 4% without access to 4mb downstream. Is 25mb downstream better? Obviously. However, it is completely disingenuous to display the numbers as you did, with the implication that 10% of America is constrained to dial-up.

As I did what? I copied and pasted the report findings summary from the fcc page so people could read it without clicking through if they were so inclined. Those aren't my words, they're some bureaucrats words.

You asked for the info on the topic, I found it and put it here, exactly as I found it, and suddenly I have an agenda in opposition to you.

 

[Don Haines]

One of the projects that I worked on was bringing the internet to remote communities..... we would fly in, set up a ground station, a router, and high speed internet would arrive at the community.... 20Mbps (bits, not bytes) to be shared between several hundred people.....

So yes, I do believe that there are lots of remote areas where the bandwidth is pathetic.....

 

[snappy604]

While not a deal breaker for me, I certainly think they should have 4k by now. Doesn't have to have the quality of a dedicated video rig, but it should have the option.

It's mindboggling that much of the SLR competition have it, phones have 4k, gopros and DJIs have 4k... yet an offerring from canon that is $2k+ doesn't.

 

[Mikehit]

While not a deal breaker for me, I certainly think they should have 4k by now. Doesn't have to have the quality of a dedicated video rig, but it should have the option.

It's mindboggling that much of the SLR competition have it, phones have 4k, gopros and DJIs have 4k... yet an offerring from canon that is $2k+ doesn't.

Yes, It's mind boggling how many FF cameras under 2,500 USD have 4K video. Like None. Now ask yourself why.

 

[malarcky]

I almost didn't buy a certain smartphone because I knew I'd be wasting money on the camera part of it. I wanted a phone. The same goes with a still camera. I was hoping that Canon would offer a purist line of still cameras that had no video capabilities at all. That hasn't happened, but they are offering strictly video cameras, although, just like my Elura back in 2000, they are probably still offering still capturing ability on their "dedicated" video cameras.

It's a waste of money for me to pay for the R&D of the still cameras to offer something that I don't need, or want. On the other side of the coin, everyone was complaining about the 4k capture codec for the 5D MkIV while I would be only interested in capturing stills out of the video, and an 8MB jpg would be nice to be able to extract from the video. I still would love to see a purist line of cameras for the stills only shooter.

 

[Hellish]

Ok, here's a question.

All of you complaining that it won't do 4K, well, that would no doubt have added to the cost, who knows how much, but let's do a quick poll.

Would you pay $50 more for 4k? $100 more? $200 more?

I bought the 1DX2 when realistically I would of been fine with 5D3 if stills was the only need, so ~$4,000