Updated Canon EOS 6D Mark II Specifications [CR2]

[transpo1]

I am amazed at difficulty Canon has offering 4K compared to other manufacturers.
It doesn't rule this camera out for me, but 4K is expected today, it's not a headline feature.
Within a year the third iteration of the Sony A7s and A7r will likely be out, and they will both likely feature:

On sensor AF to rival Canon's DPAF
IBIS
Really good 4K
High frame rate 1080p
Amazing low light performance
and much more

The A7S II and A7R II are highly praised, and version III will of course be better. Canon should have something to line up against this, but they don't seem interested. Sure the 6D2 isn't intended to go up against the A7's, but omitting 4K signals disdain for the reality of todays expectations... expectations of which the other manufacturers seem more attuned toward.

I believe that is the 5Dmk4 is for. it is like the Rebel vs the XXD or the 7D, wonderful cameras but lesser features for the lesser price. Unlike Sony, Canon offers several "levels" of cameras to suite everyone needs (as Nikon also does by the way)

This argument would hold water if the 5DIV had stellar 4K but as we all know, it doesn't.

 

[rrcphoto]

why woud they make the 6D II better at anything then the 5D IV in your theory of specs?

With sensors, the tech is continuously evolving, albeit at a slower rate now.... as a general rule, the latest release has the best tech and therefore, the best sensor. Some notable examples of this have been when the 60D came out with a better sensor than the 7D, and the 80D with a better sensor than the 7D2, and the 6D with a better sensor than the 5D2... Of course, the sensor is only one component and the higher models usually have better AF, frame rates, sealing, ergonomics, etc....

With sensors, the tech is continuously evolving, albeit at a slower rate now.... as a general rule, the latest release has the best tech and therefore, the best sensor. Some notable examples of this have been when the 60D came out with a better sensor than the 7D, and the 80D with a better sensor than the 7D2, and the 6D with a better sensor than the 5D2... Of course, the sensor is only one component and the higher models usually have better AF, frame rates, sealing, ergonomics, etc....

I can't help but wonder if this will be true for the 6D II and 5D IV as well, and maybe this is one of the reasons the 6D II didn't get 4K. Comparing the two cameras the 6D II would have a bunch of advantages over the 5D IV such as: tilting screen, higher dynamic range, better low light performance, lower price... Add 4K with a better crop ratio to that mix and you could make the argument that the 6D may be a bit too competitive with the 5D IV market
[/quote]

except both the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX Mark II required heat sinks to pull off 4k MJEG.

and just because it happened in the past doesn't necessary mean it will happen in the future. the 77D sensor is of lower quality than the 80D sensor.

 

[rrcphoto]

I am amazed at difficulty Canon has offering 4K compared to other manufacturers.
It doesn't rule this camera out for me, but 4K is expected today, it's not a headline feature.
Within a year the third iteration of the Sony A7s and A7r will likely be out, and they will both likely feature:

On sensor AF to rival Canon's DPAF
IBIS
Really good 4K
High frame rate 1080p
Amazing low light performance
and much more

The A7S II and A7R II are highly praised, and version III will of course be better. Canon should have something to line up against this, but they don't seem interested. Sure the 6D2 isn't intended to go up against the A7's, but omitting 4K signals disdain for the reality of todays expectations... expectations of which the other manufacturers seem more attuned toward.

I believe that is the 5Dmk4 is for. it is like the Rebel vs the XXD or the 7D, wonderful cameras but lesser features for the lesser price. Unlike Sony, Canon offers several "levels" of cameras to suite everyone needs (as Nikon also does by the way)

This argument would hold water if the 5DIV had stellar 4K but as we all know, it doesn't.

if you can't figure out your way around a 1.7 crop or MJPEG, then perhaps you need a toy video camera first.

or need to use your phone more or something.

neither issue with the 5D Mark IV is insurmountable.

 

[transpo1]

1080p is a JOKE

This isn't how you separate lines in 2017

iPhones have had 4k for a few iterations....

Use your iphone and get wonderful 4K. My iphone 6+ does not have 4K, so how many iterations is a few? Maybe you are counting iphone 7, 8 and 9?

Actually, he's quite right. 1080p-only is a joke in $2K plus camera body when you can get it in an iPhone. These things should be included for the money.

P.S. The iPhone 6S and 7 both have 4K, so Hellish is correct about that.

I must have missed the part where the iPhone is made by canon or has a full frame sensor.

It's made by people who specialize in delivering usable features people want.

 

[rrcphoto]

1080p is a JOKE

This isn't how you separate lines in 2017

iPhones have had 4k for a few iterations....

Use your iphone and get wonderful 4K. My iphone 6+ does not have 4K, so how many iterations is a few? Maybe you are counting iphone 7, 8 and 9?

Actually, he's quite right. 1080p-only is a joke in $2K plus camera body when you can get it in an iPhone. These things should be included for the money.

P.S. The iPhone 6S and 7 both have 4K, so Hellish is correct about that.

I must have missed the part where the iPhone is made by canon or has a full frame sensor.

It's made by people who specialize in delivering usable features people want.

4K on a tiny sensor and a 46MBit/sec bitrate and mono sound is what people want.

Got it.

then use it and why are you here?

 

[transpo1]

I don't believe adding 4K is as simple as people claim it to be. I would think it would take a more heavy duty processor, bigger buffer and more robust heat protection, no? All of these would significantly add to the cost of the camera. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Nah- it would be easy for them to include the processing- hence the reasoning behind the MJPEG 4K format. They're just protecting their higher-end cameras.

 

[rrcphoto]

I don't believe adding 4K is as simple as people claim it to be. I would think it would take a more heavy duty processor, bigger buffer and more robust heat protection, no? All of these would significantly add to the cost of the camera. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Nah- it would be easy for them to include the processing- hence the reasoning behind the MJPEG 4K format. They're just protecting their higher-end cameras.

and where's your design proof - with canon technology, not another brand.

prove it.

you make these baseless statements as if they are fact.

 

[dak723]

1080p is a JOKE

This isn't how you separate lines in 2017

iPhones have had 4k for a few iterations....

Use your iphone and get wonderful 4K. My iphone 6+ does not have 4K, so how many iterations is a few? Maybe you are counting iphone 7, 8 and 9?

Actually, he's quite right. 1080p-only is a joke in $2K plus camera body when you can get it in an iPhone. These things should be included for the money.

P.S. The iPhone 6S and 7 both have 4K, so Hellish is correct about that.

I must have missed the part where the iPhone is made by canon or has a full frame sensor.

It's made by people who specialize in delivering usable features people want.

If you don't understand that an iphone's construction and the totally different sensor size make any type of 4K comparison with a DSLR totally ridiculous, then you should take 15 minutes and research it on the internet.

 

[Luds34]

An off-topic comment: I hate the look of 4K.

The ultra-realism destroys the illusion for me. Television shows broadcast in high definition somehow destroy the invisible curtain between viewer and actor and the actors all look small and insignificant and kind of silly.

But then, when they moved from film to video, I had the same reaction. Maybe I'll get used to it.

That and all the CGI now days. It gets to the point that what you are watching is so far from realistic that you disconnect and no longer fear for the safety of the characters.

A few years ago I read an interesting article where I reviewer went and saw all the various versions of one of the Hobbit movies that came out. I believe there were 3 levels? The 24 fps long time cinema standard, some fancy 60 fps version and of course some crazy 3D version. And that is exactly what the reviewer said, only the 24 fps version was worth seeing... all the magic was gone in the other versions. He said he observed it in the audience and their reactions as well. Peter Jackson just got too consumed by the tech I guess. Kind of like when George Lucas ruined the original Star Wars triology in the later 90's when he re released them with those added CGI scenes. The Han Solo, Jaba the Hut scene that was added back was one of the worse things I had ever witnessed.

I have not watched a lot of 4k content, but I can say that the higher resolutions (aka 1080p) have not been the "ruiner" for me as much as the high frame rates. I think the motion blur at the de facto standard cinema 24 fps is one of the best things for maintaining "movie magic". Just my humble opinion of course and as I see more 4k content I'll change my tune. I do hear ya on the whole digital look/feel these days.

 

[LonelyBoy]

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.

"So many people" is a couple of dozen people on forums, half of whom really want to shoot 4k eventually and can't stand the thought of a body that will "hold them back" when they actually start.

 

[transpo1]

Hmmm... The specs look quite ok, except the missing 4k function.
What do I hope it will be?
An lighter body as my 5DIV with an faster and wider AF system than the 6D has (Don´t misunderstand me, I took shots at airshows with the 6D that were muuuuch better than on the 7DII). And all cross type AF points. (A must, as nearly all cheaper bodies do have it).
And an improved image and low light quality (better than the very good existing of the 6D).
Touchscreen like on my 5DIV.

4K would have been great, as it is a pleasure to film animals in 4k and see it on your 4k TV or monitor at home.

But I do not think, the body will be priced lower than 2000€. I know, the marvellous D750 is lower than 1900€ here in Germany. I think Canon will try to milk the cow as much at it can be miked.

We all know that's what Canon is good at- milking cows. Also, color science. Not 4K video for sure.

 

[wildwalker]

A few years ago I read an interesting article where I reviewer went and saw all the various versions of one of the Hobbit movies that came out. I believe there were 3 levels? The 24 fps long time cinema standard, some fancy 60 fps version and of course some crazy 3D version. And that is exactly what the reviewer said, only the 24 fps version was worth seeing...

Well that reviewer was wrong, I was invited by Dolby to see the 3D version, which used 6 projectors and was 48 fps. I was AMAZING (Oh yeah, it had Atmos sound as well, which really added to the experience).

What you have to remember with UHD content is that it is supposed to be immersive, that is why a HD 42" screen and a UHD 83" screen have the same viewing distance.

What you also have to remember, is that the way UHD content is shot, is not the same, so early content that was up-scaled HD didn't always work very well.

I work with both HD and UHD every day (and still SD as well) and UHD, when done correctly, is amazing. Like ANY video format, if its bad, its bad.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

It boils down to this, Tom. They have champagne taste and a beer budget. They want a Cinema camera that also takes stills for $2k or under. Then they want to compare such a rig to an iPhone's output. They want a cool running Ferrari for the price of a Ford with overheating problems.

To top it all off they just want to complain and act as though they are the market and know what is best for Canon. Them personally. Forget the fact that Canon must turn a profit. They just want what they want, but aren't able or willing to pay for it. It doesn't matter that the camera might not be reliable due to overheating. It doesn't matter that the thing won't be weather sealed because it has to vent the heat to somewhere. They are "artists" and demand the best video of fluffy they can get without forking over the money to do it.

These whiners are always there. They think $2,000 is a king's ransom and demand to have the king of all rigs for it. They are just plain silly people. Silly, tantrum throwing children.

Maybe us 4K folks just have higher standards than you guys. We understand you'll take everything Canon gives you and like it, but we tend to think a little bit differently.

Also, please see the earlier postings about how 4K acquisition is mostly used to create higher quality 1080p content. Since Canon is an imaging company, one would think they would want to put their best foot forward here.

It isn't that you guys have higher standards. The problem is that you guys don't want to pay for the tech you demand. You want Canon to produce a product in a $2k or under, primarily, stills camera that isn't going to be reliable producing the 4K video you want, but can't or won't pay for. In other words, you want Canon to lower its standards and put overheating junk on the market. :'( Then you'd complain about that too.

If the video end of the business isn't profitable enough to afford the correct tools for the job then the problem is your business, not Canon's.

 

[Ozarker]

1080p is a JOKE

This isn't how you separate lines in 2017

iPhones have had 4k for a few iterations....

Use your iphone and get wonderful 4K. My iphone 6+ does not have 4K, so how many iterations is a few? Maybe you are counting iphone 7, 8 and 9?

Actually, he's quite right. 1080p-only is a joke in $2K plus camera body when you can get it in an iPhone. These things should be included for the money.

P.S. The iPhone 6S and 7 both have 4K, so Hellish is correct about that.

I must have missed the part where the iPhone is made by canon or has a full frame sensor.

It's made by people who specialize in delivering usable features people want.

4K on a tiny sensor and a 46MBit/sec bitrate and mono sound is what people want.

Got it.

then use it and why are you here?

He's here complaining because he doesn't understand anything much.

 

[jmoya]

The made the dynamic range better on the 6d than on the mark 5d III

 

[Nininini]

No 4k is ridiculous. The 6D is from 2012, it is 5 years old.

If the 2017 6D MII doesn't have 4k, you will have to wait until 2022 6D MIII for 4k.

Do you know how ridiculous that is when every smartphone out there is doing 4k video.

And don't say that it's a smaller sensor on an iPhone. It's completely irrelevant. Canon does line skipping and cropping, it requires the exact same processing power as an iPhone to do on a Canon.

Canon just doesn't want to put fast chips in their cameras since they make their own old 22nm chips with their own outdated japanese lithography machines while the smartphones are using state of the art 10nm ARM ASML chips from Qualcomm that don't overheat and deliver far more processing power.

 

[transpo1]

1080p is a JOKE

This isn't how you separate lines in 2017

iPhones have had 4k for a few iterations....

Use your iphone and get wonderful 4K. My iphone 6+ does not have 4K, so how many iterations is a few? Maybe you are counting iphone 7, 8 and 9?

Actually, he's quite right. 1080p-only is a joke in $2K plus camera body when you can get it in an iPhone. These things should be included for the money.

P.S. The iPhone 6S and 7 both have 4K, so Hellish is correct about that.

I must have missed the part where the iPhone is made by canon or has a full frame sensor.

It's made by people who specialize in delivering usable features people want.

4K on a tiny sensor and a 46MBit/sec bitrate and mono sound is what people want.

Got it.

then use it and why are you here?

He's here complaining because he doesn't understand anything much.

As always, I'm on here fighting the losing battle to open your minds. Unfortunately, the conservative CanonFanboy mindset cannot at this time comprehend the future of video and stills hybrid shooting.

 

[Nininini]

I must have missed the part where the iPhone is made by canon or has a full frame sensor.

Canon does line skipping for video, and cropping. It does not use all the pixels, it does not downsample. Canon doesn't have a single full frame camera doing full frame video or downsampling from a full frame sensor. They just skip lines. So your argument makes no sense.

The only reason Canon doesn't have 4k is because they want to use their own chips instead of chips from the competition. Canon uses their own chips in their cameras, made by their own (outdated) lithography techniques.

Those smartphone chips are using state of the art 10nm chips from qualcomm and samsung.
*that is why the can do 4k, even at 60FPS nowadays
*that is why they don't overheat

It's purely about money for Canon, Canon refuses to use 3rd party chips and will continue to refuse, because that is the mindset in Japan. Protectionism at all cost, even if it means shooting in your own foot.

 

[Andries]

I just love all the buzz of the 6D2 not having 4K ;D A lot of people are bitching and moaning about it, saying they won't buy if it doesn't have 4K.

Wel, fine by me !

That just means that when I order one, the wait might be less long as a lot of videographers will not order any. If those people jump ship to Sony, well, maybe I could even score some nice glass when they sell their Canon gear. I have been waiting for an 'affordable' and very capable FF stills camera for some time and it looks like Canon is about to deliver just that 8)

 

[Nininini]

Its funny how 4k is a deal breaker for so many people. There is still so little 4k content yet its been on the scene for 3 years.

Little 4k content? Are you insane? Do you know what youtube is? There are tens of thousands of 4k videos.

Everyone with an iPhone or newer Android phone is shooting 4k.