Besisika said:
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.
More meaningless whining by the video freaks. Let's break it down.
1) I don't buy cameras for resale value.
2) You're probably wildly overestimating the number of secondhand Canon buyers looking for 4k video - plenty of people still buy used bodies without video, or without video anywhere near what even the 6D2 is rumored to supply. It's much harder to do, and do right, and post process, than stills. (Its fans are just very, very loud.)
3) If my hypothetical son doesn't want a free camera, well, he can buy whatever he prefers. When my uncle went to teach English in China and gave me his old Ford Tempo, I didn't throw it back in his face - I was thrilled to have a free car.
4) "Shoot for the edit". Sure that would be nice. That's why when you want to shoot video, you reach for a video camera that's designed for what you want to do.
5) If you have a 1DX2 or C200, you're right, this wouldn't make a great backup video body. Canon didn't intend it for that purpose. Why not complain that the SL2 won't be suitable for that, either?
Why do you video freaks want Canon to fulfill your wish list so bad? If Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic are so much better, why not just use them?