Updated Canon EOS 6D Mark II Specifications [CR2]

[Don Haines]

No 4k.... Ummm thank you Canon I was waiting for this... Now i'm considering panasonic or sony

happy 6d owner

And you know this how? The specs are not out yet... wait till then to panic.......

 

[leadin2]

I currently use a 5DMk2. I am interested, as you sold your 5DMk2 for the 6D, what you think of the difference between the 6d and 5DMk2 in terms of IQ and operation?

In a nutshell, the 6D gives you around a stop more ISO at the high end (3200 on the 6D is like 1600 on the 5D2).
The main operational difference is that you don't get the joystick at the back.

Thanks Bernard, so I should see a good improvement from the 6Dmk2 over my 5DMk2. I use a variety of bodies, the 5DMk2, the 700D, the EOS-M so I don't have the joystick on all of them. But if the 6DMk2 has a touch screen, the rumours are flippy screen, but no one mentioned touch. Anyway, with touch screen the preview of photos is simple and doesn't require the joystick. Setting focus points/area is simple as well.

Does anyone know if touch screen has been muted?

Alan.

5D2 has joystick. I usually use it for live view. Might not be important since 6D2 has touch screen.

 

[EduPortas]

This a premium camera. It should have 4k.

Otherwise, I don't see any reason to move from an original 6D to this second model.

We'll see. Hope the rumors are wrong in this case.

 

[ctrl]

No 4K, great for my wallet

 

[leadin2]

I don't do video now but would love to try 4K one day. If no 4K, I hope Canon price it right (which we know won't happen). I'll wait for the rest of the specs and reviews.

 

[-pekr-]

My take on the 4K issue is, that it is not about Canon wanting to protect their higher market, but about the state of the Canon technology. We've got on-chip ADC only with the laste incarnations of the DSLRs. Who knows, what Canon's FAB is in comparison to SONY's?

That means, that Canon wanting to provide only a solid stuff, plays the catch-up game, and have currently no technology, of how to easily provide their DSLR line with really solid 4K performance/IQ?

Just curious ....

 

[neuroanatomist]

My take on the 4K issue is, that it is not about Canon wanting to protect their higher market, but about the state of the Canon technology. We've got on-chip ADC only with the laste incarnations of the DSLRs. Who knows, what Canon's FAB is in comparison to SONY's?

That means, that Canon wanting to provide only a solid stuff, plays the catch-up game, and have currently no technology, of how to easily provide their DSLR line with really solid 4K performance/IQ?

Just curious ....

Possibly. Could be a marketing decision. But Canon does have a history of deciding what they think is best for their target market, and giving them just that (and a history of making those decisions correctly, as far as the overall ILC market is concerned). There is some logic to the argument that if 4K can be implemented but only with low quality, then it shouldn't be done. It's not just the low-end cameras. For example, the 6D has in-camera HDR (as does my EOS M)...but the 1D X does not. Certainly, Canon could include that feature in the 1-series. But they decided the target market for the 1-series either didn't want it, or shouldn't use it.

 

[K]

The absence of 4K is a strong signal that Canon wants to discourage videographers from using their non-Cinema cameras.

Exactly.

Sad thing is, with the exit from the video side of things - one would think they'd stack up on the stills capabilities. Nope.

FF camera for soccer-dad video? $2,000? Hmmm.

Surely, the stuck-in-Canon system users will buy this rig to subsidize its existence for those who want FF but don't care for any substantial specs.

Based on the leaked specs thus far, the 6D2 shaping up to be a big time loser in terms of consumer value. Canon is so good in all the other lines, on this one they fall short.

 

[photogdan]

Its funny how 4k is a deal breaker for so many people. If every person will shoot 4k with entry level cameras where is the evidence? There is still so little 4k content yet its been on the scene for 3 years.

How many entry level FF buyers are going to have A. a 4k or higher display and B. A machine fast enough to edit the footage. Affordable 4k displays have only been available for about 12 months.

Its a small percentage.

January 2017 screen resolution statistics show that 1366x768 which accounts for 35% of consumers.

In second place is 1920x1080 with 17%, 1440x900 6%, 2560x1440 1%

Higher resolutions account for 6%.

This is probably the reason Canon has decided against 4k its just not popular enough in the target audience. The majority of people have 1080 displays. This camera isn't aimed toward pro video shooters its aimed at enthusiast photographers.

I agree, 4k shouldn't be a deal breaker. I don't shoot video but maybe that's because it's a hassle for a casual video shooter on my 6D. I think people just want the option since every other manufacturer offers it. Sort of a "me too" option when debating with Sony fanboys. The lack of 4k is more embarrassing for some of the Canon faithful more than anything else.

The articulating screen, along with higher resolution was at the top of my wishlist. I'm a bit disappointed with 26MP but I didn't expect them to trump the 5D4. Continued low-light capability is also a major factor for me so I get why 26MP is the choice. As long as it's priced like an entry-level FF DSLR, I'll be onboard. I believe most owners of the 6D will be too because no one purchased that camera for it's video capability.

I really like my Canon glass. Switching seems like such a painful and expensive option.

 

[CanonCams]

Its funny how 4k is a deal breaker for so many people. If every person will shoot 4k with entry level cameras where is the evidence? There is still so little 4k content yet its been on the scene for 3 years.

How many entry level FF buyers are going to have A. a 4k or higher display and B. A machine fast enough to edit the footage. Affordable 4k displays have only been available for about 12 months.

Its a small percentage.

January 2017 screen resolution statistics show that 1366x768 which accounts for 35% of consumers.

In second place is 1920x1080 with 17%, 1440x900 6%, 2560x1440 1%

Higher resolutions account for 6%.

This is probably the reason Canon has decided against 4k its just not popular enough in the target audience. The majority of people have 1080 displays. This camera isn't aimed toward pro video shooters its aimed at enthusiast photographers.

I agree, 4k shouldn't be a deal breaker. I don't shoot video but maybe that's because it's a hassle for a casual video shooter on my 6D. I think people just want the option since every other manufacturer offers it. Sort of a "me too" option when debating with Sony fanboys. The lack of 4k is more embarrassing for some of the Canon faithful more than anything else.

The articulating screen, along with higher resolution was at the top of my wishlist. I'm a bit disappointed with 26MP but I didn't expect them to trump the 5D4. Continued low-light capability is also a major factor for me so I get why 26MP is the choice. As long as it's priced like an entry-level FF DSLR, I'll be onboard. I believe most owners of the 6D will be too because no one purchased that camera for it's video capability.

I really like my Canon glass. Switching seems like such a painful and expensive option.

Coming from the 80D, the 6D MK II seems up my alley for a entry level FF. 4K doesn't have any interest for me.

They are saying the price will be just around 2k, or just under it.

Can't wait.

 

[preppyak]

No 4k is going to cause forum warriors to go crazy. But most likely in reality, how many more cameras would 4k sell? Probably not enough to warrant it.

Remember that this is a camera system. With DPAF and 4k, Canon would actually have a pretty legit camera to compete with the Sony A7-line and the GH5. And at a price point that is comparable. Because right now there are a lot of people who bought Canon lenses during the 5DII era and are adapting them to these cameras.

I know as one of them, I was hoping the 6dII was the camera that would bring me back to the system. All it had to do was match specs of cameras released 3 years ago (4k at 24/30fps, 1080 at 96fps) and I think a lot of people would have moved back for the all-around appeal.

Now, knowing that Canon wont release a 6DIII for years, i dont see much point in waiting or hoping

 

[preppyak]

Its funny how 4k is a deal breaker for so many people. If every person will shoot 4k with entry level cameras where is the evidence? There is still so little 4k content yet its been on the scene for 3 years.

How many entry level FF buyers are going to have A. a 4k or higher display and B. A machine fast enough to edit the footage. Affordable 4k displays have only been available for about 12 months.

Its a small percentage.

January 2017 screen resolution statistics show that 1366x768 which accounts for 35% of consumers.

In second place is 1920x1080 with 17%, 1440x900 6%, 2560x1440 1%

Higher resolutions account for 6%.

This is probably the reason Canon has decided against 4k its just not popular enough in the target audience. The majority of people have 1080 displays. This camera isn't aimed toward pro video shooters its aimed at enthusiast photographers.

I can tell you dont shoot video if you are quoting screen size as a legitimate stat. As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, 4k is more than just total resolution. The ability to downscale and crop and maintain 1080 image quality is key.

But most importantly, Canon has delivered some really shitty 1080 video quality in the last half decade. At at time when Panasonic and Sony were delivering quality 4k, Canon is struggling with 1080. Them adding 4k would be a signal that they've figured out their codec issues. Because I know they have in their Cine line. It'd also be a signal for higher frame rates at 1080. The GH4 does 96fps, the GH5 can do 180fps, and 60fps in 4k.

Seems pretty clear Sony is gonna figure out how to match Canons auto focus abilities before Canon decides to spec a camera competitively

 

[photogdan]

Its funny how 4k is a deal breaker for so many people. If every person will shoot 4k with entry level cameras where is the evidence? There is still so little 4k content yet its been on the scene for 3 years.

How many entry level FF buyers are going to have A. a 4k or higher display and B. A machine fast enough to edit the footage. Affordable 4k displays have only been available for about 12 months.

Its a small percentage.

January 2017 screen resolution statistics show that 1366x768 which accounts for 35% of consumers.

In second place is 1920x1080 with 17%, 1440x900 6%, 2560x1440 1%

Higher resolutions account for 6%.

This is probably the reason Canon has decided against 4k its just not popular enough in the target audience. The majority of people have 1080 displays. This camera isn't aimed toward pro video shooters its aimed at enthusiast photographers.

I agree, 4k shouldn't be a deal breaker. I don't shoot video but maybe that's because it's a hassle for a casual video shooter on my 6D. I think people just want the option since every other manufacturer offers it. Sort of a "me too" option when debating with Sony fanboys. The lack of 4k is more embarrassing for some of the Canon faithful more than anything else.

The articulating screen, along with higher resolution was at the top of my wishlist. I'm a bit disappointed with 26MP but I didn't expect them to trump the 5D4. Continued low-light capability is also a major factor for me so I get why 26MP is the choice. As long as it's priced like an entry-level FF DSLR, I'll be onboard. I believe most owners of the 6D will be too because no one purchased that camera for it's video capability.

I really like my Canon glass. Switching seems like such a painful and expensive option.

Coming from the 80D, the 6D MK II seems up my alley for a entry level FF. 4K doesn't have any interest for me.

They are saying the price will be just around 2k, or just under it.

Can't wait.

Yeah, I went from 70D to 6D. Huge difference. I expect you'll notice a huge difference too. I much prefer FF although I have an M5 and my kids have a couple of M3's. I got the M5 for those times when I want to travel light, Problem is I rarely use it. I use the same lenses on the M5 as I do the 6D so the difference in size and weight isn't that much of a factor.

 

[jeffa4444]

For me it is a big fail.

And that is because of 4K

Many says "I don't care, because I never do video". How about "never say never"?
You have trouble in life and will have to sell some of you gear. You lost already half of buyers because your 6D II doesn't do 4K. Your son wants to enter photography and you want to give to him your 6D - he says no because he wants 4K. Not because you don't need 4K that he doesn't need it either. You do portraiture and you realized that you don't have enough customers and someone suggested behind the scenes in Youtube would be a good idea - but you don't do video. And so on and so on. Simply put, you never know your tomorrow need.

Some says that if you need 4K go to 5D IV. That must be a lack of understanding of the difference between 5D and 6D from a video perspective.
The main attractive feature of the 6D is its size and weight. It is not a stupidity that competitors are trying at all cost to stick to small size (even though they still fail in other domains because of it).
The future of video is camera movement and it brings your footage to the competitors level. The one that is the most popular today is handheld stabilizers. Ignoring the fact that 5D is at the heaviest size when using stabilizers is a big mistake. The issue is the number of good lenses that you can use. The lighter the body the more options you have.
Someone already listed good reasons why 4K is the key to video and I am glad he put at the top of the list the most important one, which is cropping in post, in other words zooming in post.
The approach in videography is "shoot for the edit", something that we photographers do not understand, we desperately want to get it right in camera. 4K gives you that possibility, and yet you remove it from your best camera for the job.
So you will end up with two gears; one is very heavy (shooting 4 hours on a heavier gear is more painful) and the other one without zooming in post.

Finally, if you have already a 1DX II or C200, why would you buy a 6D II if it cannot do 4K?
Yes, the bulk of your videography is still tripod, monopod and sliders, but that fluid movement is something that would add 3D illusion to your footage, in particular your B-roll.
I have no doubt in my mind, a 6D II with 4K would attract (or I should say keep your existing) customers a lot more.

I know what you mean I paid BMW £ 45K for my 5 Series with a turbo charged 2.0l engine but on my Mini Cooper that cost £ 19K they only gave me a 1.5l engine don't BMW know Honda put a 2.0l engine in the Civic.

Never understood the rational of 4K video in a DSLR, 4K is compromised in such offering as the most important part is the compression & codec, the broadcasters set minimum standards and these "toys" don't hit it including the Sony A7S II otherwise why would Sony make the FS7 or the F55 or the F65!

The majority of Canon 6D users don't shoot video period, Canon know that because they do their research so why should the majority pay for something they don't need or use?

 

[Don Haines]

My take on the 4K issue is, that it is not about Canon wanting to protect their higher market, but about the state of the Canon technology. We've got on-chip ADC only with the laste incarnations of the DSLRs. Who knows, what Canon's FAB is in comparison to SONY's?

That means, that Canon wanting to provide only a solid stuff, plays the catch-up game, and have currently no technology, of how to easily provide their DSLR line with really solid 4K performance/IQ?

Just curious ....

Possibly. Could be a marketing decision. But Canon does have a history of deciding what they think is best for their target market, and giving them just that (and a history of making those decisions correctly, as far as the overall ILC market is concerned). There is some logic to the argument that if 4K can be implemented but only with low quality, then it shouldn't be done. It's not just the low-end cameras. For example, the 6D has in-camera HDR (as does my EOS M)...but the 1D X does not. Certainly, Canon could include that feature in the 1-series. But they decided the target market for the 1-series either didn't want it, or shouldn't use it.

Personally, I was expecting to see 4K appear first on the Rebels.... Obviously compressed to death and not at 60Fps.... I think that for most people the quality really does not matter, all they want are some short clips. The number of people shooting a quality video will be quite low, but well represented here on CR

 

[Etienne]

4K cannot be ignored, and with DPAF delivering the dream of reliable video autofocus it is only natural that videographers want it now, especially in full frame.

The intimacy of an f/1.4 portrait lens on a FF is so tantalizing, but it is notoriously difficult to focus. Getting a 4K option with DPAF in full frame would not in anyway replace or compete with the cinema line, but it would add the ability get that full frame intimate look for key shots.

Also, when travelling light, and/or alone, multiple cameras is not always possible. The idea that you should always have and use the perfect camera for the job, say 6D for stills and bring a C300 for video, is not only unrealistic, but bringing an excess of equipment can prevent you from getting the shots. Virtually every free lancer will have dealt with this issue. Having a compact stills/video/low light/ shallow DOF all in one camera is the needed too, and the right tool for the one-man-band freelancer ... even if they have to up the price.

 

[rrcphoto]

My take on the 4K issue is, that it is not about Canon wanting to protect their higher market, but about the state of the Canon technology. We've got on-chip ADC only with the laste incarnations of the DSLRs. Who knows, what Canon's FAB is in comparison to SONY's?

That means, that Canon wanting to provide only a solid stuff, plays the catch-up game, and have currently no technology, of how to easily provide their DSLR line with really solid 4K performance/IQ?

Just curious ....

I think you're right.

Canon simply donsn't have the technology outside of the video line, which are all vented and fan driven cameras.

 

[rrcphoto]

The majority of Canon 6D users don't shoot video period, Canon know that because they do their research so why should the majority pay for something they don't need or use?

I think it's a combination of this, and the fact that canon simply doesn't have a 4K solution that isn't MJPEG that can go into a DSLR.

 

[rrcphoto]

I would clearly join the WTF is canon thinking if they had a 4K solution that was compact, sealed from the environment and running on other DSLR's.

all they have right now is a hack job that lives side by side to the 1080p video stream from the sensor through DIGIC.

Face reality: canon can "do" 4K from the current cameras, only by scraping a windowed JPEG from the sensor 30/60 times a second by bypassing the video stream that encompasses the h.264 encoder, HDMI, etc entirely. It's easy and efficient to do in software and requires no additional camera hardware to pull it off.

Those saying that canon is deliberately crippling, or "could do it easily" are living in some kind of fantasy land that doesn't exist.

Their broadcast 4K solutions in the CINI line are done using single and dual DIGIC DV chips entirely different than the DIGIC's found in stills cameras - and they run hot and consume far more power than DIGIC's in stills.

Canon simply doesn't have it. Why is another question and for that - I agree with the 4K frothing at the teeth fans, they should. They are big enough with a large enough R&D budget that unless they have a locked in deal with TI for DIGIC. TI has no direct 4k or better effecient h.264 encoders. Period. Why they don't is beyond the pale as well. the ones they do have are heatsinked m'f'ers. if you look at the history of TI's encoders, you very clearly see a parallel march in canon's video support progression in DSLR's.

They could swap DryOS over to snapdragon SoC's without much problem (that's what DryOS was all about!!) if TI isn't giving them what they need. DryOS has it's own HAL (hardware abstraction layer)

However, for whatever reason they don't. Complaining about it isn't going to get it on a camera, if you really need a hybrid solution, get a Sony. Maybe that will make canon wake up after a while.

 

[Mikehit]

4K cannot be ignored, and with DPAF delivering the dream of reliable video autofocus it is only natural that videographers want it now, especially in full frame.

Who said they are ignoring it? They just don't think it is important to the target market of the 6D2 and 5DIV - and given the amount of research they do to find out what people need, I trust their experience rather than your 'I want everything in one camera at the same price' view'.

The intimacy of an f/1.4 portrait lens on a FF is so tantalizing, but it is notoriously difficult to focus. Getting a 4K option with DPAF in full frame would not in anyway replace or compete with the cinema line, but it would add the ability get that full frame intimate look for key shots.

Are you talking stills or video?
Do Sony offer 4K full frame vdieo with DPAF? Just asking. If not, why not go over to Sony and complain about their lack of technology?

Also, when travelling light, and/or alone, multiple cameras is not always possible. The idea that you should always have and use the perfect camera for the job, say 6D for stills and bring a C300 for video, is not only unrealistic, but bringing an excess of equipment can prevent you from getting the shots.

Which camera offers that 'one camera fits everything' role? Does Sony? Panasonic?

Virtually every free lancer will have dealt with this issue. Having a compact stills/video/low light/ shallow DOF all in one camera is the needed too, and the right tool for the one-man-band freelancer ... even if they have to up the price.

Which camera offers this?

The reason I ask 'which camera...' above is to see if one camera does do everything you want, and does everything to the highest level you would want. Please do enlighten me which camera is the one you would prefer given a free choice.