Updated Canon EOS 6D Mark II Specifications [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I was thinking about 4K. And the people I personally know who have and use 4K in some way. 1 family friend tv is streams 4k but movie room is still 1080 but they are overly rich (he just brought a plane). Then one other friend who is a graphic designer and 4k on this "computer" set up. But that is it so 2 out of 30 people I know well enough to know. I know a lot of people with 4k stuff like iphone but can't use 4k. They could 4K video but the iphone screen is only 1080 at best, so they couldn't watch 4k.
Upvote
0
jayphotoworks said:
That is a reasonable response. What is much less reasonable (and the cause of much derision on this website and beyond) is the response of "Canon's [product] does not meat my personal preferences, therefor it is crap, Canon is crap, you're all stupid for buying crap, and doooooooom!".
Also not reasonable is "Nikon's D750 is awesome. Therefor, Canon needs to match it for features and price, and if they don't, I'm going to throw a temper tantrum instead of buying the D750 because I don't really want a Nikon."
Upvote
0
timmy_650 said:
There's a huge difference between "I have a 4k screen somewhere" and "when I shoot video, it needs to be in 4k". My mother is going to be getting a new TV soon, and it'll be 4k. There's a strong chance she'll never put a 4k stream on it, but when you can get a good 65" Samsung 4k for $900, why not?
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
tr573 said:Nininini said:lgn55063 said:
I had to actually look up what a "Canon portable video camera" means.
Last time I saw a camcorder out in the wild was probably 10 years ago.
I hope that answers your question.
You're going to hate me, but (not joking) there were 2 different parents recording my daughters preschool "graduation" ceremony with camcorders today.
Edit: The rest of them were using smartphones to video. The few people (like myself) that had ILC's were only taking still with them. Personally I can't stand using my SLR for video - I think , like has been said a few times here, that it's an incredibly kludgy and non-ergonomic platform for video. It gives people who can't afford 10k$ cameras large sensor video if they want it, but at the cost of being very lousy to use.
+1
It's the end of the school year, and with three young kids there are many concerts, plays, and other events to be captured. At all of them, there are generally a couple of parents with a camcorder, a couple with a dSLR, maybe one with a MILC, and the rest are using their phones.
Personally, I prefer to use the right tool for a job. The camcorder is the ideal tool for casual video capture – compact, easy to hold, ample optical zoom (so I can get the whole band or just my daughter and her violin), mini-hotshoe mounted shotgun mic (selectable coverage so I can hear the whole band or just my daughter and her violin). The dSLR is the ideal tool for stills, full frame with an f/2.8 zoom gives good quality images in the poor lighting typical for such events.
Sure,, you could build a house with a combination hammer/screwdriver:
...but neither is very effective.
Upvote
0
This is fantastic 5D3 replacement. Mine is on it's way out, albeit, slowly. It has some internal water damage but it still works great right now. I considered the 5D4 but bought a 1DX2 instead last year. The 6D2 looks like an incredible machine provided the specs listed turn out to be relatively correct and Canon can keep the price at $2000 again
Upvote
0
tr573 said:
There were three tripods set up during my daughters' piano recital. Two had camcorders, and the third was mine with a DSLR. The two tripods in front were in the front row, and being the largest, mine was raised full height (>6 ft) in the back with a clear shot of the performers on a raised stage. I also had separate mics/portable recorder placed near the piano for audio. Camera audio was only used to sync the audio to the video. It works well enough. I shoot stills with a second DSLR, and leave the one doing video largely untouched. I might change the framing from time to time, but that's it.
I used to use a dedicated camcorder (Canon HV20) but keeping the DSLR/camcorder that used different media/batteries was a pain. Having a backup camera that can do video as good as a consumer camcorder simplified a lot of things.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Random Orbits said:
I suppose I could use my EOS M2 for video... But my Vixia HF M41 does a great job, is much easier to hand hold, uses SD cards (along with internal flash memory), and for handheld or moving subjects, the AF makes life easy. If I replace my M2 with an M6 (which is looking likely), I may shoot more video on an ILC (not that I shoot all that much video either way).
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
I think it's not about 4k or video in general. People on forums do not buy cameras for video or photo. If you think that photography is about taking pictures you are plain wrong! People buy cameras to discuss them and complain of the forums. Sometimes no purchase required at all. All is required is to read what others say and start your own complain!
Upvote
0
I have a hard time with the subject matter of this camera's announcement of features being dominated by the lack of 4K video. This kind of thing happens every time a new camera comes out, especially a Canon.
If you think about what people wanted in a new 6D, you would go back to the expectorate "full frame 80D". That's what we have here, and I can't be more excited. This same thing happens all the time with the announcements of new models. No one has been applauding anything, as a rule, they just want to whine about the lack of 4K. I told myself that I would be fine with the new 6d MkII being a full frame 80D, and this is what we have here.The flippy touch screen is there, and the focusing system has been expanded to include DP raw.
This camera is going to be a winner, and the people who are complaining about the lack of 4K are really being a little bit ridiculous in having the 80D full frame everyone was clambering for, but they claim they won't budge because of 4K. My response to them is that if they want 4K, buy a video camera, or don't complain that a stills camera doesn't magically transform into a super duper video camera. I feel like I'm getting a better stills camera because there wasn't a lot of R&D going for the implementation of something I would never use, and didn't want in the first place.
I have a t3i, a 70D, an 80D, and a 6D. All three of these cameras offer video capabilities. I feel like I have spent unnecessary money funding the research of video implementation because I don't shoot video. I spent $1,300 on a Canon Elura DV Camcorder back in 2000, that equates to about $1,850 in today's dollars. I was capturing stills from the video at a 370KB JPG. I felt like I was getting sub par quality JPG stills from the video, and that's basically what the 4K naysayers are doing here. I bought the Elura as a camcorder, not a stills camera, so the 1/3 MB JPG's were a bonus, albeit a sub par one.
Come back here in three or four months, and you will see about the same thing that you see on the 5D MkIV threads, and people will be praising the low ISO performance and other qualities of this new camera, (I expect that anyway) and there will be few people complaining about the lack of 4K, as the stills will be the main focus of the discussion, as they should be.
I understand the disappointment about the 4K, but it is not going to be a deal breaker, and I would bet money that this camera does a lot better than the 6d in the volume of sales. A full frame 80D is all I want, and I will expect the picture quality to be better than the 80D, so it's going to be a winner.
If you think about what people wanted in a new 6D, you would go back to the expectorate "full frame 80D". That's what we have here, and I can't be more excited. This same thing happens all the time with the announcements of new models. No one has been applauding anything, as a rule, they just want to whine about the lack of 4K. I told myself that I would be fine with the new 6d MkII being a full frame 80D, and this is what we have here.The flippy touch screen is there, and the focusing system has been expanded to include DP raw.
This camera is going to be a winner, and the people who are complaining about the lack of 4K are really being a little bit ridiculous in having the 80D full frame everyone was clambering for, but they claim they won't budge because of 4K. My response to them is that if they want 4K, buy a video camera, or don't complain that a stills camera doesn't magically transform into a super duper video camera. I feel like I'm getting a better stills camera because there wasn't a lot of R&D going for the implementation of something I would never use, and didn't want in the first place.
I have a t3i, a 70D, an 80D, and a 6D. All three of these cameras offer video capabilities. I feel like I have spent unnecessary money funding the research of video implementation because I don't shoot video. I spent $1,300 on a Canon Elura DV Camcorder back in 2000, that equates to about $1,850 in today's dollars. I was capturing stills from the video at a 370KB JPG. I felt like I was getting sub par quality JPG stills from the video, and that's basically what the 4K naysayers are doing here. I bought the Elura as a camcorder, not a stills camera, so the 1/3 MB JPG's were a bonus, albeit a sub par one.
Come back here in three or four months, and you will see about the same thing that you see on the 5D MkIV threads, and people will be praising the low ISO performance and other qualities of this new camera, (I expect that anyway) and there will be few people complaining about the lack of 4K, as the stills will be the main focus of the discussion, as they should be.
I understand the disappointment about the 4K, but it is not going to be a deal breaker, and I would bet money that this camera does a lot better than the 6d in the volume of sales. A full frame 80D is all I want, and I will expect the picture quality to be better than the 80D, so it's going to be a winner.
Upvote
0
malarcky said:
To be fair, a lot of people have expressed excitement about a tilty-flippy FF body with DPAF, on-chip DAC, and 45 AF points, at (probably) a very reasonable price.
It's just the half-dozen or so whiners whine very loudly and start twenty-page arguments over 4k.
Upvote
0
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. I think the lack of 4k will be a negative. Most people buying TV's now are looking at 4k sets. I am not hip on the industry, but are companies making announcements of 1080p TV sets in this day and age? I must plead ignorance on that, but would be surprised if they did.
Luds34 said:
Upvote
0
malarcky said:
I too have struggled with page after page of 4K back and forth. Folks, the 6D is a budget camera that happens to be full frame. Showing my (digital) age, I remember when the price of entry for full frame photography was over $3k, and that price was considered revolutionary. When the 6D came out, no one cared that it was "crippled" relative to top-end APS-C offerings. We were all simply wowed that we could finally shoot full-frame at such a low price point. That the camera was compact and had better IQ than the 5DIII (yes, better in that the 6D had less banding, better high-ISO performance and lower noise in general) was simply a bonus.
Yet, here are so many demanding a specific feature be included in this budget offering. Sorry, I just don't get it.
For the 6D replacement, if it can keep up with the 80D, it is a winner, and will actually be a bit better than a budget offering. I have an 80D and absolutely love it. I would like to have an XD camera to take full advantage of my full-frame glass (like the 24-70L II, 100-400L II, and potentially the 11-24L). I'd love it if it improved on the the 5D IV's DR, and matched the 80D's burst rate. However, coming close to those levels would be fine. The Canon is a second system for me, so I'm not in the market to purchase a $3k plus camera. However, there are many enthusiasts who are similar situated in that they are also budget limited who would love to try FF frame but fine the current 6D too limited. introducing a 6DII that is feature parity with the 80D would draw a slew of folks off the fence.
Even without 4K. That's who this camera is for.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
reef58 said:
No, they're advertising 4K sets, and touting their ability to upscale content to 4K resolution. They have to, because so little native 4K content is available.
I wonder how many photographers routinely view and display their images at 200% or even higher zoom settings on their monitors?
Upvote
0
Nininini said:testthewest said:
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
testthewest said:
again, do you people live in the same universe as the rest of us
Youtube is not the place for 4k? Youtube has a 4k prominently displayed in their filter at the top of the page!
I filtered out 4k videos, there are millions on youtube currently.
You arrogant little brat. This world (not even this universe) is a bit bigger than your US city you live and can enjoy cheap, good internet. Most of the population of this universe DOES NOT live there. And just because there is a filter, it does mean nothing. None of the channels I watch offers 4K regularly because it is simply not needed on a normal monitor. It makes no difference to get an upvote, HD is enough for that. At least iof I look at the trending videos, they don't have 4K. It is just not needed.
And now back with you, in your little wealthy bubble and boast more how much you have.
Upvote
0
There's pretty clearly two distinct groups of commentors (and potential 6DII users) on here, and then a bit of gray hybrid between:
A) Pro's (or wannabe's) that think 4k is critical in a DSLR... (editorial - why a "pro" is using a 6DII for paid work vs a 1D___ is a little worthy of discussion).
B) the rest of us that use our entry-level FF camera for taking casual vacation photos, occasional "paid" work and rarely, if ever, shoot video.
A/B's) Those who occasionally want video capability and a great stills camera and occasionally do a little paid/volunteer work for public consumption.
Basically - the gist of my post is that if you're lamenting the apparent lack of 4k in an entry-level FF camera, you might be barking up the wrong tree. That's what dedicated video cameras and higher-end PRO dslr's are for.
A) Pro's (or wannabe's) that think 4k is critical in a DSLR... (editorial - why a "pro" is using a 6DII for paid work vs a 1D___ is a little worthy of discussion).
B) the rest of us that use our entry-level FF camera for taking casual vacation photos, occasional "paid" work and rarely, if ever, shoot video.
A/B's) Those who occasionally want video capability and a great stills camera and occasionally do a little paid/volunteer work for public consumption.
Basically - the gist of my post is that if you're lamenting the apparent lack of 4k in an entry-level FF camera, you might be barking up the wrong tree. That's what dedicated video cameras and higher-end PRO dslr's are for.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
exactly. Take a spin through almost any retailer and find any for-purchase 4k media, let alone anything broadcast or delivered via wire. There's not much yet. Hardly enough to call it "standard".
Upvote
0
