The Canon EOS 6D Mark II camera puts full-frame performance into a compact, fully featured DSLR. With amazing image quality, fast and accurate autofocus and the versatility desired for numerous environments, the EOS 6D Mark II offers creative content makers a camera that’s as fun as it is powerful.
The 6D Mark II is Canon's 'entry-level' full-frame digital SLR. It uses an all-new 26.2MP CMOS sensor and Canon's DIGIC 7 processor. It features Dual Pixel AF which allows for very responsive autofocus when shooting live view or video.
When using the optical viewfinder you'll have a 45-point all-cross-type AF system at your disposal. The camera can shoot at up to 6.5 fps with Servo AF and has a top ISO of 40,000.The 6D II has a 3' fully articulating touchscreen LCD and a weather and dust-resistant body.
It captures 1080/60p video and can create 4K time-lapse movies. It also has Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and NFC support for easy camera control and photo-sharing. Body typeMid-size SLRMax resolution6240 x 4160Effective pixels26 megapixelsSensor sizeFull frame (35.9 x 24 mm)Sensor typeCMOSISOAuto, 100-40000 (expands to 50-102400)Lens mountCanon EFFocal length mult.1 ×Articulated LCDFully articulatedScreen size3 ″Screen dots1,040,000Max shutter speed1/4000 secFormatMPEG-4, H.264Storage typesSD/SDHC/SDXC (UHS-I compatible)USBUSB 2.0 (480 Mbit/sec)Weight (inc. Batteries)765 g (1.69 lb / 26.98 oz)Dimensions144 x 111 x 75 mm (5.67 x 4.37 x 2.95 ″)GPSBuilt-in. As it should be, the EOS 6D II is a better camera than its predecessor in almost every way.
With plenty of resolution, respectable burst shooting speeds and pleasing Canon color, it's a camera that's capable of producing great images in a variety of situations. Despite this, it is simply overshadowed by competition that is made up of more capable cameras at similar or lower prices.Good for: Social and general use, easy capture of casual video clips and those looking for a backup body for Canon full-frame glass.Not so good for: Photographers needing the best image quality for landscape work, or sports and action photographers needing a more capable autofocus system.
IntroductionThe Canon EOS 6D Mark II is the company's latest full-frame DSLR aimed at advanced amateurs and enthusiasts, and even professionals looking for a second Canon DSLR body. Its all-new 26MP sensor has Dual Pixel technology for accurate autofocus during live view shooting, and it gains the same 45-point autofocus system from the crop-sensor EOS 80D for viewfinder shooting.
A fully articulating touchscreen, built-in Wi-Fi and GPS capability, and 6.5 fps burst shooting round out the package.Coming to market over five years after the release of its predecessor, it should come as no surprise that the 6D Mark II builds upon the original in almost every way. Resolution, autofocus performance, burst shooting speed, video shooting and even battery life are all improved.That said, five years is a long time in the digital camera market, and the competition hasn't stood still. So the question remains: Has the 6D Mark II improved enough?Let's see if it's all blue skies from here with the EOS 6D Mark II. Compromises should be expected given its $1300 discount compared to the EOS 5D Mark IV.And the compromises in the 6D II are largely the same as those made by the 6D before it: The larger sensor is offset by a lower-spec autofocus system borrowed from the EOS 80D, a lack of 4K video, and a shutter mechanism that tops out at 1/4000 sec, to name a few.Processed to taste from Raw.Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM ISO 100 1/250 sec F3.2Photo by Dan BracagliaBut one could easily argue that, especially given its price point, the 6D Mark II has a lot to offer. It is smaller and lighter than a 5D IV, its articulating screen makes it easier to work at odd angles, and most importantly, it's an affordable entry into the world of full-frame Canon glass and increased depth-of-field control compared to similarly priced cameras with smaller APS-C sensors.
ComparedThe market for 'affordable' full frame cameras is leagues more competitive than when the original 6D was released five years ago. We've included the 5D Mark IV for comparative purposes only, as it's targeted at a much higher market than the 6D II. (unknown member)No, the dynamic range limitation is a very fundamental issue relating to the way in which analog data gathered by the sensor is converted to digital form. There are ways to improve it somewhat using firmware (such as the Dual ISO implementation by Magic Lantern for the 5D Mark III), but those solutions are clunky and no substitute for hardware based solutions found on other modern cameras (including Canon's own 5D Mark IV and 80D). I could see AF being improved somewhat by firmware updates, but even there, hardware limitations are very unlikely to be overcome using firmware.
In any event, this camera was built to put some distance between it and the 5D Mark IV, so Canon is very unlikely to make fundamental improvements to it via firmware. Complaining about this camera? Vote with your feet, buy an alternative the suits you.Canon user with Canon glass and once again depressed by niche/graded marketing that IGNORES THE MARKET? Teach them a lesson, and go elsewhere. Sell your glass, before there is a rush on it. (BTW - I did that bit in caps so Canon can see it better.
And to all those that bemoan 'marketing' - if it's done right, and steers a company properly, you end up with what you want. It's ham-fisted sales people with a marketing hat that actually screw things up.)Not a Canon fan/user and have differently glass? Canon users (like me) have enough work admitting to themselves that Canon is the 'leader' in a market accelerating towards the gates of hell. At least on the current course.All very sad.
I have no issues with 6D Mk II as a back up camera. I don't think there are downsides on this camera, as mentioned. What I see is that, Canon makes 6D Mk II as the back up to the full-fledged FF EOS camera. Any the so-called 'back-up' equipment, is always meant to be in downgraded specs to the prime equipment.
So, 6D Mk II is a fully capable FF set up as back up and good enough for consumers. Any Pros, look for 5D and above (1D series), and don't look below 5D.
I have 5D Mk II myself, and for me it's a perfect set up with 6D Mk II as my backup camera. Don't just look at the tech specs, but look at a wider angle as to what is the REAL purpose of an EOS camera made by Canon. I think, Canon has made very valuable development in EOS ecosystem, compared to other brands.
I'm really pleased that Canon came up with a FF body with a full flippy screen, which as a landscape photograper who often uses a low down tripod with camera in both portrait and landscape modes, this is ESSENTIAL, and much better for creativity. I find myself using my 'backup' Oly OMD-E5ii more and more for that reason. So, the poor 6Dii DR is a real let down, given that DR is the next worst thing after fixed screens (grads are a pain) for me.
I'm sort of tempted by A7Rii or iii for its DR and being able to use my Canon lenses, but that single axis flip screen thing doesn't work when the camera's vertical. All a bit frustrating! I have the 5D Mark II (+ 50D for crop lenses) and with the 6D Mark II I got basically the same image quality.Except for the very hight ISO where the 6d Mark II pulls ahead visibly!Having a much better autofocus system + Dual Pixel Autofocus via touchscreen which is on top of that articulating make this the perfect upgrade.There will be always disadvantages.But should I give up all my Canon gear and build up a new lens lineup around Nikon D750 just for dynamic range?Sony? Thanxxx a lot. But noGO OUT AND SHOOT!:P. I suppose the real issue is not that this is a bad camera or can't take excellent photographs, it's that at its price point other competitors have made more improvements. Forget the Nikon/canon/Pentax brand stuff, if you have canon lenses the other brands don't matter.
The 5div made significant improvements to dynamic range, in surprised this release did not, and I don't mean because one wants to underexpose by five stops, but it can help in high contrast shots.An excellent camera no doubt, but every dslr now is pretty excellent, but it's not stand out at its price point. As a pro-photographer, must admit that I am a bit amused by the review and the many comments here. This camera, just like the 6D is more than enough for a pro-photographer. The rating is a joke, many of the comments are a joke.
Really.I ditched my 1D and 5D series cameras in favor of the 6D line years ago and I have not regretted it. My customers were absolutely pleased with the picture results, be it an agency, a magazine or a big company. Portrait, landscape, action, news-pics, desert, rain, ice-cold weather - these cameras just work, and that's what any pro asks for: A camera that is tough and reliable. Canon delivers that. People seem to forget what cameras we worked with e.g. 10 or 20 years ago.
Those cameras were way inferior to a 6D and still got the job done. So please stop this absurd tech-talk. Photography is much more than hundreds of focus-points, ISO 500.000 and 80 pics per second. You know what?
I work with ONE focus point all the time. Since decades. Oh no, not everyone delivers that, it ain't that simple. Not everyone has a reliable, sturdy camera that is easy to use, withstands thunderous rainfalls or other extreme weather conditions, that delivers great picture quality and a splendid customer service worldwide.
That's the reason why Pentax, Fuji, Minolta/Sony and Olympus never managed to take away a significant portion of the marketshare in the pro-segment from Nikon and Canon. They just did not and still don't deliver in the one or the other area what it takes. Some of them are slowly getting their act together - but once you have invested 10.000+ Euros in lenses from one manufacturer, you don't ditch it immediately for some system with an uncertain future (Hello Olympus, Hello Minolta.).
Furthermore, all those new technical gimmicks of questionable value will be adopted by every company sooner or later. I can wait five years for a new technical gimmick that neither I nor my customers need. In total agreement.
I shoot Pentax as a part time professional and my go to body is the k5iis crop sensor 16mp with awesome glass up front.I have high mp FF but use it sparingly.Clients dont look at my photos and say. What was that shot with? They rely on me to get a nice image.The tech race is the place these forums revel in and mostly amatuer gear heads who have enough time to spend here.The whole DR thing is hilarious.If you expose correctly then whats the problem.I think Canon knows what works for their faithfull, not always everyones system of choice but there is a reason why their #1. (unknown member)Viriato: of course it can take great pictures.
But it does it no better than the original 6D, and until ISO 400, worse than the crop sensor 80D, both of which cost substantially less.It would be as if BMW rebranded an entry level Hyundai and charged you a 3 series price. The car would do just fine at getting you to work and back, or taking you and your family on vacations, but you grossly overpaid for it. If this camera is successful, it will be because of Canon's marketing and the lack of technical savvy of its target customers. Arun: The 6Dii hast just been my reliable companion on a Baltic sea vacation, and I must say: it does take great photos.
I owned the old 6D before, and the new one is better with the higher resolution in regard. Might dynamic range of the 80d be better until ISO 400, so isn't general image quality, especially seeing low light cababilities of the 6Dii, which are no point of complaint. See the overall package and do not just focus on price and DR, which seems to be matter of exaggerated interest. Not one image I captured in my seaside vacation including sunsets and other contrast demanding situations where I have longed for more DR - correct exposure provided. (unknown member)I owned a 5DIII and loved it. I was of the camp that said who needs a 5 stop push or more than 11 stops DR or more than 21 MP resolution.
![Kit Kit](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81dMCaz8bxL._SX425_.jpg)
I upgraded to the IV last year; I love how clean the shadows look. I love how easy it is to recover when I do accidentally underexpose. I love ITR face tracking even though it probably lags Nikon and Sony in this area. I love how well controlled the noise is in my astrophotographs.I used a 5DS to shoot the eclipse, and I was amazed at how much detail 50MP done well captures.
So these days, I am much less dismissive of new features - bottom line is that they make your job a lot easier and help you take better pictures in tough situations and are more forgiving of your mistakes.I'm sure the 6D II will take great pictures. But be aware that it is highly overpriced for what it provides. And don't be so dismissive of increased DR or better AF systems until you actually try them. Best net comment so far:Free Translation:'Problem starts with the 5D Mark IVOf course you could always put it that way that the IQ of the 6D II is more than enough that 6.5fps are enough and that you don't need video on a photo camera.If I were to become a racedriver and drive a car with 400 hp I would surely think that's pretty fast.
But if I could get a car for less money with 600hp than that's simply faster then a 400hp car.Canon is driving with pulled parking brake and made the 6D II partly worse on purpose than it could be.' But Mark, they have to to keep distance to 5D IV.' Then they should have made 5D IV a lot better in the first place.
This is where the problem begins. If it had been a technological milestone there would have been more room for better specs and innovation on 6D II.' I like the image quality of my 6D a lot and hoped for a worthy upgrade.For me 2 things are clear now.First, the 6DII is an even (ISO, DR) or better camera (DPAF, focus points, swivel-screen, touch display, MP) than the 6D.
No question great pictures are possible with the camera, but so you can do with a lot of cameras.But second, compared to the competitors up to 2021/22, this is a letdown. I`m sure for me the Sony A7II will beat the 6DII in nearly all categories besides ergonomics (I think Sony bodys should be larger).What I`m not sure about is the strategy behind it. Is Canon doing the bare minimum knowing that they will sell a lot of cameras and continuing doing so just waiting until the sales drop and only then delivering a better camera than similar priced competitors?
Any ideas?I`m waiting what the Sony A7III will be capable of, until then the 6DII is out of question, especially for that price. I am a Canon guy, amateur. I am very enthusiastic and I wouldn't settle with APSC, so basically 6D is for me. In other words. I am the daddy wants to shoot pro-like pictures of my kids, shoot a little video of them starting to walk, doing something funny etc.
I invested about 8k so far into my set. I could buy 5D, but that simply is not my League and I don't need many of it's classy features, that's for guys making money on the thing. So I was expecting canon 6D MII to give me a recent and FF AF system, better LW AF system, tilting LCD, better IQ on an affordable upgrade price. Out of that AF in LW and a tilting LCD would cost me now 1900 USD with a slightly worse IQ, with an emphasize on worse IQ, if it would be slightly better. That would be an easier choice.
End of the day the photo is the product, camera is just a part of the quotation. Spending on something actually adds less value to the end product just makes no sense, whatever fancy tags does it have alongside. Walker2000:But 20 years ago B+H and other camera gear stores in NYC were outlier.There may have been more pro gear options for purchase in say Minneapolis, but even those stores didn't really have the very high end SLRs on display for you to simply try in the shop. And back then, it was understood very well, in the US, that ordering the gear from NYC stores would be less expensive than purchasing say a Nikon F4, or whatever the Canon equivalent was, than buying the same gear at the store in Minneapolis.The review websites don't get any cut of the purchase if you don't click on links directly on the review websites' webpage. Also it's more like getting a click fee, rarely is it a cut of the purchase. That will never happen.First of all, Canon sells millions of cameras every year, and their lenses are very popular. The fact that Sony users are buying Canon glass to put on their Sony cameras speaks to the quality and variety of Canon glass, which no manufacturer can touch.
If I could mount Canon glass on my Nikon D750, I would.Second, they sell more than just cameras and lenses. They sell photo equipment, printers, scanners and commercial equipment. They are one of the largest photographic companies on Earth, if not the largest and the failure or success of one camera isn't going to bury them.I love DP Review for information on gear, specs and the like. But its reviews are biased. Considering the major recalls of the Nikon D750 that should have downgraded its rating due to its unreliability stands to that.
I own a D750, my first Nikon and I had to send it in due to warranty issues. I owned 6 Canon cameras prior to Nikon and not one camera I owned malfunctioned. @ScorehoundcaI think you're missing the point.
Market volume (share) =/= profit. Yes, Sony is selling less cameras than Nikon yet their no. 3 camera division is in solid green and no. 2 NIkon is in deep red.You can sell cheap Rebels and 50 1.8 all you want, but the real indicator of true profitability (not revenue) is the amount of new models and R&D, because it means that the company have enough money to burn. Canon right now is just like Nokia in 2007. Yes, their share in numbers are huge, but Sony just making more money per camera or per glass.
Last time I've checked this is how Apple won the cell market.Also photocopiers is not that future-proof business you wanna bring into discussion, you know. The World is rapidly adopting electronic paper circulation and Canon could be left behind even here in 10 years or so. I stand by my statement. Canon isn't going to sink because some pixel peepers don't like the 6D2. Canon is a diversified company, and the money they make from their cameras will sustain them, even if the 6D2 isn't as profitable as they had hoped. But considering more and more positive real world reviews are surfacing and people are uploading their images, it becomes apparent that the success or failure of an image depends on the photographer.Canon will be perfectly fine. No company is perfect and all companies have their failures.
Look at Donald Trump Several bankrupted casinos, a flopped University, a defunct airline and not to mention an unsuccessful steak company but he still managed to be the President of the USA and is still rich.Canon didn't accidentally cripple the 6D2. They were very meticulous in where they wanted this camera to sit.
I will say the same for every company that makes a camera that makes some people scratch their head. Canon = Nokia, Canon = Bowens, Canon = Name any failed company that commenters can remember. Such a tired theme from Sony fans.Apple burying Blackberry, Nokia, Windows Phone, etc. Isn't remotely comparable to Canon.
Excuse me, but which company, certainly not the behemoth Sony, has introduced a radical new camera system that has completely obsoleted all that came before it?Also, last I checked, high end DSLRs are not turned over at anywhere close to the rate that cell phones were. A photographer with a multi thousand dollar investment in glass & bodies isn't suddenly going to go Sony because the lowest end full frame offered by Canon isn't as good as one offered by a competitor.People love throwing out fake facts like Canon is only popular because of Rebel. The 5D Mark IV remains one of the top selling full frame cameras on the market and the 1DX Mark II was a HUGE hit with the targeted pros. Canon has been trending up again now that the point & shoot collapse is over. As you say, mate. But the fact is, in my line of work (video production) virtually every studio switched to Panasonic GH or Sony A7s (with legacy Canon glass) years ago.
Wedding guys I know are also moving to Sony at a rapid pace because of Eye AF and insane DR. Photo journos are wole another story (mainly because their gear is supplied by the outlets, with whom Canikon have solid history), but this is not the main chunk of the photography market to begin with.Changes are happening, like it or not, but it's nice that you're in the Denial stage atm. Also it's nice that you've like TOTALLY missed my point. It's not about the AMOUNT of cameras sold but about their profit margin.
Nikon sold way more bodies than Sony, yet not Sony is bleeding money right now. Idk, do the math. Canon is making the same mistake that doomed so many companies in this new era of digital innovations. Being a captive of it's own past success, it is afraid to cannibalize it's own carefully segmented market, so it is not adapting fast enough to the changing conditions.
![Mark Mark](https://www.cascoantiguo.com/24697-large_default/caixa-estanque-para-canon-6d-mark-ii.jpg)
So it releases cameras that are fitting nicely in the artificial niches that never existed in the first place, but were forced on consumers with lack of other choices. Keep going like this, Canon, and you will lose everything. Look at Kodak, Polaroid, Blackberry, Nokia and countless other victims of their stagnant views. Few more releases like this and we can add Canon's name to the list. Spot on, Netscorer2.I've had a 6D for just over two years: it was the only full-frame Canon DSLR body I could afford.
Things I like are:1. FINALLY getting back to the bokeh of a 35mm camera after years of frustration with APS sensors.2.
All the goodies I get from running Magic Lantern (which saves it from being a depressing experience to pick up and use).3. Low noise/poor light performance (compared to the 30D that I had)4. Pretty much nothing else.The original 6D is a real compromise.- It's far too heavy.- The ergonomics are rubbish, especially the menus and button layout (why no assignability?).- THE SHUTTER IS TOO SLOW, both shutter speed and lag when the button is pressed (even in manual focus). 1/4000 is too slow!And when you use it for video the demosaicing is very poor, and it can't do more than seconds of raw video (because of the SD controller bottleneck).The 6DII: still heavy, slow, etc.; gizmos I don't need, but core functionality isn't really any better. +1.Canon could well take a scythe to its product range (and probably its R+D and marketing!), make far fewer bodies & pay attention to product quality and detail.I got my 6D (on a very limited budget) as I wanted to keep the lenses I have.
When it finally dies, there won't be a Canon body worth thinking about. Even the 5Ds are stupidly lumpen and unergonomic.Back in the day, you knew a pro camera, immediately you picked one up because of the build quality and the ergonomics.
It simply worked better and was easier to use. Not any more.I used to take two SLR bodies, a winder, four or five lenses and fill-flash in a CCS 'Workbench' under a rucksack.
I know I'm getting old, but now a 6D, batteries, three lenses and very limited flash kit weighs as much as the kit in the rucksack! And I need a MUCH bigger bag and heavier tripod!This is no longer emerging tech., and It's crazy that we put up with what we're offered. And yes, the segmentation is Canon's fantasy: it will kill them. Erictheviking,I find it interesting that you say that the Canons lack good ergonomics, since one of the biggest pluses of the pro bodies is their ergonomics. I had a chance to handle the 6D2 and the 5D IV last week and found them more comfortable than my D750.It sounds like you want a lighter camera. Go mirrorless. Fuji makes a great product.
Don't go Sony if you plan on staying light. Their new G Master lenses are no smaller than SLR lenses, and if you add a grip that will just make the system almost as heavy as the 6D you currently have.My opinion, for what it's worth. Your comment typifies the flawed rationale of the gearhead pixel peepers on this platform who all insist that Canon will go the way of Kodak & Nokia.News flash: It ain't gonna happen. There are many sectors in the global economy which still survive & thrive after decades of stagnant technological advancement. I can think of two of these industries straight off the top of my head:Airline AviationMotor VehiclePhotography is similar as well. Canon will not go broke because a few obsessed gearheads on DP Review didn't get 4k video and 25 stops of dynamic range in the 6d2. @IloveaircraftnoiseYou contradict yourself.
First you are saying that 'There are many sectors in the global economy which still survive & thrive after decades of stagnant technological advancement' then you say that Canon will not go down the path of Kodak and (Polaroid). Weren't these companies in the same 'sector in the global economy' with Canon? Or you think that with advent of electronic sensor the innovations took a pause for the next 30-40 years?Canon stopped innovating. The 6D Mk.2 is only a confirmation that they think the market will swallow whatever they release as long as there is that white logo on the camera. @erictheviking That's the first time I've ever heard complaints about Canon's DSLR ergonomics.
I've been shooting them since the 20D, and have the 5D MkIII now, and nothing could be further from the truth. I'd hazard to guess that the vast majority of Canon DSLR users would concur.And who the hell buys a modern DSLR and bitches about the size?
If you want the size benefits of a mirrorless camera, go buy one of those and stay away from any full frame DSLR. 1/4000th of a second is too slow! Why did you buy a camera with 'gizmos you don't need?' Didn't you do your homework?I would love to hear what it is you can't shoot at 1/4000th of a second. Bullets in flight? I have seen the writing on the wall and bought A7R2 this past winter. With all the quirks of that camera, it's 5 years ahead of anything that Canon has to offer.
Great sensor with loads of dynamic range, excellent high-ISO performance, finally a well-done EVF that shames any OVF Canon has to offer, fast AF that covers 90% of the entire frame, effective in-body stabilization and growing by the month list of excellent Sony glass that beats aging Canon glass in most popular prime and zoom ranges. Plus you can use any other glass (including Canon) with a range of adapters.
Held a Sony a7 camera last week. Curiosity got the better of me. I personally hated the picture and the EVF. It probably takes some getting used to. For me I find the Sony cameras too small.
It's a matter of taste. With camera companies starting to force you to add a grip to get the full functionality of the camera, it won't be long before mirrorless cameras weigh as much as DSLRs., once you add a grip and a G Master lens.When I'm old and full of arthritis, I might go mirrorless, provided we still have a choice in 30 years. Maybe cameras will be eye implants by then.:-). @ScorehoundcaNobody is arguing that mirrorless camera with big lens and grip attached can be (almost) as heavy as similarly setup DSLR.
This is not a point. The point is that when you want to go small with mirrorless you can do that. This option is simply not available with DSLR. I can attach a 35/F2.8 pancake lens to my Sony A7R2 and take it on a whole day trip without ever needing to rest my hands. And when I attach a large and heavy lens like Tamron 150-600 (with adapter in case of Sony), I would probably want to put a grip on, no matter if I use mirroless or DSLR.Try A7R2, regular A7 has an old EVF that, I agree, is not the best. On the other hand, regular A7 is almost 4 years old by now, so you can't really blame Sony for not having the technology at the time to put it in the camera.
Fair comment, netscorer2.I think though, that a lot of the 'Screw Canon, I'm going Sony!' Comments are more about gearheads expecting perfection for cheap rather than DSLR users wanting something light. They wanted the 6D2 to give them a reason not to shell out a lot more money for the 5DIV, and when Canon didn't give them a reason to avoid the more expensive camera, they threw a tantrum, grabbed a tiki torch and joined the 'Canon sucks, Sony rocks' mob.If a person wants something lighter, definitely go mirrorless. I would rather have the bulk for now. But in the future, who knows. @ScorehoundcaWhen I switched to Sony it was not because of the size.
In fact, I saw diminutive size of A7R2 as con, rather then a pro. I was accustomed to large Canon DSLRs and liked the ergonomics. Adjusting to the new smaller camera and new system was not something I was looking forward to. I could wait another couple of years with Canon, but I was hooked by mirrorless advantages after borrowing my friend's Fuji, in particular the ability to see the actual exposition in EVF vs waiting for a review of the image already taken and thus opportunity missed. I also use manual focusing lenses a lot and ability to do focus peaking, instant focus point zoom and other tricks that mirrorless cameras have was a big advantage for me. At the time I was switching from APS-C to full frame and Canon simply did not have anything that would entice me.
Going with the best sensor on the market in A7R2 was a no brainer. @ShiranaiDo you even own modern mirrorless camera, or do you criticize just for the sake of it? What delay switching from monitor to EVF? What picture jerkiness? Which specific camera are you referring here or are you just bundling all mirrorless cameras into one ambiguous substance?I am talking having an experience handling both DSLRs (80D & 6DMk1) and mirrorless (A7R2 & A6500) within the past 6 months. And I shoot a lot of photos in extreme low light.
I can tell you from MY EXPERIENCE, that coupled with fast lens (F1.8 or faster) A7R2 & A6500 have much better AF then either of Canon bodies. And composing your picture with Canon DSLR in low light through the pentaprism viewfinder is no fun. Yes, you may see highlights, but shadows are all but completely black and midtones are lost in shadows. Swithing to Live View (80D only) is not much better as you lose your eyesight after staring at the bright monitor and switching back to dark conditions around you. @Scorehoundha I would argue that the camera is two features too short.
People expected increased DR, 4K and dual card slots in that order. It wasn't just DR which with the 80D and 5DIV we'd rightly assumed would be the case.
All three of those features makes the camera a great £2000 camera and likely to hold up to the A7III and D620. Two would make it a great camera but more in line with the Canon gap in features vs price. One of those would make it a hard sell compared to coming competition, but would ultimately still be of interest when it drops in considerably in price. Having none of these features is what has made the camera a conplete dissapointment for many.We know Canon products cost a premium for less features but is the level of this exhibited in the 6DMKII which is the problem. The Fat Fish,If Canon gave the 6D2 those three things there would be no reason for anyone to buy a 5DIV. Canon would then be shooting themselves in the foot like they did with the IQ of the 6D mkI.Back in 2013, after the 6D mkI was released, Canon probably started trending sales of both the 6D and the 5DIII. What they probably noticed was a drop in sales of the 5DIII, since the IQ of the 6D sensor was on par or better than the 5DIII.
When IQ lovers realized that they can get the same IQ out of the 6D that they could with the 5DIII for much cheaper, they went for it - especially landscape photographers.Continued below. Continued.In 2017, Canon couldn't afford to make the same mistake twice. So now we have real segmentation between the 6D and 5D series. People are mad because they don't want to pay the 5DIV premium to get 4K, dual card slots, a vari-angle touch screen and high quality DR.
If the difference in price were only a couple of hundred dollars most people would shrug it off and buy the 5DIV. But considering the 5DIV is about $2000 CAD more than the 6D2, people are upset that they have to pay for the tech they hoped the 6D2 would have for cheaper. Think about it.a lighter, smaller body, better battery, vari-angle touch screen, 4K, dual card slots, similar IQ to the 5DIV all for $1500 - $2000 LESS than the 5DIV.
Who would buy the 5DIV? Not many.As much as I would have loved award winning DR in the 6D2, I don't blame Canon for giving the 6D2 more segmentation between the 6D and 5D series.Any manufacturer would do it.Sony did it with the A7 series. You have an A7, A7S and and A7R.
All three with different price points, different features and different sensors. You have to balance which features you want vs. The price you're willing to pay to get them. You're wrong actually, at the minimum focus distance its exactly like 600mm f4, (background blur). But say, if you're aiming at a target thats 5 meters away from you, it would be like 600mm f8. The only reason it wont look like 600mm f4 is because in order to get the same magnification (i mean view angle) you need to be with that theoretical 600mm f4 (attached to a full frame body) lens 2.5 meters away from the target (and not 5 meters), which causes the background to be a lot more blurry.exposure wise, both full frame and mft will have the same exposure.
X - mft cameraY - camera with a full frame sensorZ- a 300mm f4 lenswhen using camera X at 5 meters from the subject with lens Z, you will have the same depth of field with camera Y with lens Z at 2.5 metes away from the subject. The only reason lens Z would be considered '600mm f8' on camera X, is because of the depth of field, it doesnt mean that the exposure will be longer due to weaker light that gets to the sensor. The crop of camera X makes it look like twice the focal length, even though its this way only because camera X has a smaller sensor, so it practically crops the frame. I hope i explained it better now.
A 300mm F4 is and always remains a 300mm F4.However, in the same sense that its field of view on mft is comparable with that of a 600mm lens on Full Frame, its depth-of-field, diffraction and total light projection is comparable with an F8 lens on Full Frame.You can't say 'it's like a 600mm' but reject that it's also 'like an F8.' That said, if you shoot FF 600mm F8 and mft 300mm F4 at the same shutter speed, you'll get very similar overall performance. You only get the additional light that NicoPPC is talking about if you can open up the 600mm F8 on full frame to a wider aperture (and don't mind the shallower depth-of-field), or you can use a longer shutter speed without clipping.In other words, equivalence normalizes different systems, so be careful not to double-count the differences. Yesterday I had once again a situation where DR mattered a lot.
Inside a church.You can either take photos at +0EV, then you are at ISO 800+ and have the inside paintings but not the nice windows. So I went to -4EV with ISO 100 and know that with the 80D I am able to push the shadows and have both, nice wall/ceiling and the nice windows.Bracketing with a tripod is not necessarily a good idea inside a church.And if a 6D II is unable to outperform my 80D in those those simple situations then it's a no-invest for me. @johnny420Some comments here are like 'DR is not so important, just use bracketing instead and you'll be fine'As if they were defending Canon to bring out a 1000$ more expensive cam that does not produce better quality or better raw data than their 1.5 years older APS-C mid-budget product.As I read somewhere else:The problem starts with the 5D IV. It is a expensive, yet it does not close the gap to their competitors at same price level like A7RII or D810.So from Canon POV this is one of the best they have but not on same level with Nikon or Sony.Now they bring out their entry level FF and have to cripple it on purpose to protect their more expensive failure. If 5D IV were more competitive in its league, 6D II could be in its as well.I mean even if Canon could easily close the gap to D750 with the 6D II they can't because 5D IV is limiting the technological potential that Canon can grant a FF entry product.Too bad they teased customers with DR a low ISO with 80D/Rebel already. Cale Johnson-'I think concerns about its competitive position are valid but saying that the Mark II is a step backward should be supported or not said at all.' Go to the conclusion of the 6DII's review here on DPR, select the comparison tool and choose the 6D.
Toggle back and forth. That's my support of what I said.Your statement of these cameras being nice, not great is purely subjective, as is my opinion of the 6D being nearly great. It really has to do with what you use the camera(s) for, doesn't it? That's why I wrote: 'In just about all the things I care about.' For me, any possible advantage the mkII may have doesn't warrant the consideration of replacing the 1st generation with it.
Just my humble opinion as well.