Canon EOS 6D Mk2 Owner's Thread

Just been catching up on the latest from this camera. That's terrible. Although canon have the glass and customer support down to the T. There camera bodies need to be questioned.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Just been catching up on the latest from this camera. That's terrible. Although canon have the glass and customer support down to the T. There camera bodies need to be questioned.
Click to expand...

I'm only assuming they thought the DR was enough as they had spec'd it and concentrated on other areas? Or they deliberately held back for fear of it beating the 5d4 (and its eventual successor).

I'm going to wait for a few more in depth reviews / reports.
 
odd jim said:
I'm only assuming they thought the DR was enough as they had spec'd it and concentrated on other areas? Or they deliberately held back for fear of it beating the 5d4 (and its eventual successor).

I'm going to wait for a few more in depth reviews / reports.
Click to expand...
But if it's barely better than the original 6d then what's the point? 4 years for this?
 
jonneymendoza said:
But if it's barely better than the original 6d then what's the point? 4 years for this?
Click to expand...

The mk2 sensor is not better than the mk1 is it, according to that link? The 6d is miles ahead of the 80d sensor wise if that's the comparison (going by the posted link, look at the effective ISO of the 6d vs 80d, with the 6d achieving twice the score meaning cleaner images), and that link Is suggesting the 80d sensor outperforms the mk2?? I'd be amazed if it does.

DR and effective ISO are two very different ways to judge a sensor, really you should judge by effective ISO. A camera with better DR but lower effective ISO will have shadow detail that's not as clean as the camera with the more effective ISO but a lower DR rating. Swings and roundabouts.

For example, allegedly my Sony RX100 (1" sensor) has better DR than my FF 6d, but the 6d has a *hugely* better effective ISO score. The 6d performs far better with shadow recovery despite having a 'lower DR' and the detail looks so much nicer.
 
Last edited:
Can any technical geniuses point me to the most reliable review please. Is the consensus that the sensor is not as good as the mk 1?
 
Jamie perks said:
Can any technical geniuses point me to the most reliable review please. Is the consensus that the sensor is not as good as the mk 1?
Click to expand...

It's not even out yet, not seen any other reviews.
 
Jamie perks said:
I know, thought some with a lot of technical knowledge might have looked at the spec on canon website
Click to expand...

Spec is one thing, but it won't show you ultimate image quality.
 
Jamie perks said:
Can any technical geniuses point me to the most reliable review please. Is the consensus that the sensor is not as good as the mk 1?
Click to expand...

I think this thread was a little early.
Threads full of posts about a camera that's not available for sale.

I've held off posting but it's a borderline complete waste of time.

There's no reviews yet, which would still belong in a 'launch' thread. A thread with this title really ought to be for buyers and owners and as info from owners to potential buyers.

All we have so far is speculation.
 
I find it hard to believe that there will be no improved IQ, and impossible to believe it's not as good as the mark 1. I was holding out for the mark2 for a long time before giving in last December, so if it's only bells and whistles and larger file size then I should be happy, although somehow I think I won't. Four years is a long time to wait for a full frame 70D. I'm not altogether convinced by those DP test results and, as others have said, let's see it out in the wild.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The mk2 sensor is not better than the mk1 is it, according to that link? The 6d is miles ahead of the 80d sensor wise if that's the comparison (going by the posted link, look at the effective ISO of the 6d vs 80d, with the 6d achieving twice the score meaning cleaner images), and that link Is suggesting the 80d sensor outperforms the mk2?? I'd be amazed if it does.

DR and effective ISO are two very different ways to judge a sensor, really you should judge by effective ISO. A camera with better DR but lower effective ISO will have shadow detail that's not as clean as the camera with the more effective ISO but a lower DR rating. Swings and roundabouts.

For example, allegedly my Sony RX100 (1" sensor) has better DR than my FF 6d, but the 6d has a *hugely* better effective ISO score. The 6d performs far better with shadow recovery despite having a 'lower DR' and the detail looks so much nicer.
Click to expand...
It's crazy. Someone here or another forum pointed this key thing.

Although your end client may not see the difference in the iq of your images, canons clients are not your clients. You and I are the clients of Canon and they appear to be selling 4 year old tech sensor!
 
jonneymendoza said:
It's crazy. Someone here or another forum pointed this key thing.

Although your end client may not see the difference in the iq of your images, canons clients are not your clients. You and I are the clients of Canon and they appear to be selling 4 year old tech sensor!
Click to expand...

Yes but the tech isn't 4 years old, its actually very advanced with duel pixel etc, it's only the DR 'score' that seems unusually low.

I think we should wait and see what the effective ISO is and how it's handled in reality, which might make a relatively low DR score for it's make up. We can only do that by shooting real images.
 
Craig_85 said:
I do find the 1/4000 thing interesting. The situations where it is applicable must be very rare. And if you are encountering them all of the time why wouldn't you get an nd filter for the sake of £50 to put on your cheap full frame as you clearly don't want to play canons game and buy the more expensive not hamstrung model, saving £1000 in the process.

Cake and eat it comes to mind.
Click to expand...

1/4000 bugs me no end and filters can be a right royal PITA as they may need to be fitted for one shot to bring the shutter speed under 1/4000 and removed for the next to stop the ISO rising or shutter speed falling and there's the problem of handling as you juggle your camera and filter and filter box as you get the filter plus box out of your pocket or bag, remove it from its box and juggle the camera, filter box and filter and fit the filter to the lens and if you've got a lens hood there's that to juggle too.

I do wonder how good at juggling people who say that using filters to get under 1/4000 is no biggie are. And then there's the time all this juggling and retrieving, fitting, removing and putting away all takes. Of course if your an f8 all day long kind of guy none of this matters. It's just a PITA if you shoot at wider to normal apertures in changing light. I'd hate to be limited to 1/4000 again.
 
odd jim said:
I think we should wait and see what the effective ISO is and how it's handled in reality, which might make a relatively low DR score for it's make up. We can only do that by shooting real images.
Click to expand...

This is what I suspect it will be, also agree that we need to see what it does in real world images.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Yes but the tech isn't 4 years old, its actually very advanced with duel pixel etc, it's only the DR 'score' that seems unusually low.

I think we should wait and see what the effective ISO is and how it's handled in reality, which might make a relatively low DR score for it's make up. We can only do that by shooting real images.
Click to expand...
Duel pixel is there by default as its a couple of years old now so it's good they included it. The af points are all down the middle which is bad Imo as the af spread on the 6d where a bit better but less af points.

They should slap on proper 4k no crop rubbish and a sensor that's as good as the 5d4 and call it a day.

Other manufacturers ain't scared to add tech that was first on there higher end cameras so why can't canon?
 
woof woof said:
1/4000 bugs me no end and filters can be a right royal PITA as they may need to be fitted for one shot to bring the shutter speed under 1/4000 and removed for the next to stop the ISO rising or shutter speed falling and there's the problem of handling as you juggle your camera and filter and filter box as you get the filter plus box out of your pocket or bag, remove it from its box and juggle the camera, filter box and filter and fit the filter to the lens and if you've got a lens hood there's that to juggle too.

I do wonder how good at juggling people who say that using filters to get under 1/4000 is no biggie are. And then there's the time all this juggling and retrieving, fitting, removing and putting away all takes. Of course if your an f8 all day long kind of guy none of this matters. It's just a PITA if you shoot at wider to normal apertures in changing light. I'd hate to be limited to 1/4000 again.
Click to expand...
If be surprised if they change this, I think for Canon it's one of the major differentiators between the 6 series and the higher full frame ranges. Have to say I use a lot of fast glass and I think I only ran into this as a limitation once in four years of shooting though, so not a big deal for me personally.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Other manufacturers ain't scared to add tech that was first on there higher end cameras so why can't canon?
Click to expand...

Because Canon could sell a 6D with Kodak Instamatic innards to the faithful and still be No.1 in the market.
 
SixToes said:
If be surprised if they change this, I think for Canon it's one of the major differentiators between the 6 series and the higher full frame ranges. Have to say I use a lot of fast glass and I think I only ran into this as a limitation once in four years of shooting though, so not a big deal for me personally.
Click to expand...

I know why they do it... and stopping down to whatever aperture you need to slow the shutter speed down is always an option as are filters but I always paid the price to be able to take the pictures I wanted to take without filter juggling. I didn't like it though.

It all comes down to if you like shooting at wide apertures or not and the lighting. At ISO 100 in strong light or at least what passes for strong light in northern England f2.8 is often needed for 1/4000 or less but on the odd occasion even smaller apertures are needed. Travel a bit to somewhere where the light is stronger and I'd find 1/4000 or having to shoot at small apertures too limiting and this of course plays into Canon's hands.
 
Why hasn't a £2,000 camera got all the same features, image quality, MP, video qulity and shutter speeds as a £3,500 one? If they put all those features on the £2,000 one then they'd sell lots more of them.... oh, hang on. ;)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Why hasn't a £2,000 camera got all the same features, image quality, MP, video qulity and shutter speeds as a £3,500 one? If they put all those features on the £2,000 one then they'd sell lots more of them.... oh, hang on. ;)
Click to expand...
That's one way to look at it but if you're fortunate enough to be able to look at other marques the question becomes "Why should I spend £2k with Canon on a hobbled product when I can get a better spec'd Oujifuji for the same or less dosh."

And I'll end by saying that I'm not a Canon basher. I've had Canon film cameras and I had Canon DSLR's for something like 10 years.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I know why they do it... and stopping down to whatever aperture you need to slow the shutter speed down is always an option as are filters but I always paid the price to be able to take the pictures I wanted to take without filter juggling. I didn't like it though.

It all comes down to if you like shooting at wide apertures or not and the lighting. At ISO 100 in strong light or at least what passes for strong light in northern England f2.8 is often needed for 1/4000 or less but on the odd occasion even smaller apertures are needed. Travel a bit to somewhere where the light is stronger and I'd find 1/4000 or having to shoot at small apertures too limiting and this of course plays into Canon's hands.
Click to expand...

I've never had a problem with this shooting wide primes on a bright sunny day with the 6d. On the very rare occasions 1/4000 wasn't fast enough I just dropped the ISO to 50. Works a treat.
 
odd jim said:
I've never had a problem with this shooting wide primes on a bright sunny day with the 6d. On the very rare occasions 1/4000 wasn't fast enough I just dropped the ISO to 50. Works a treat.
Click to expand...

It being a bright sunny day is just one factor as it depends what you point your camera at and the lighting. I've shot at high ISO and with a slow shutter speeds on bright sunny days. Point your camera in the wrong direction for a wide aperture and 1/4000 to cope with and it's not a matter of opinion but the hardware and its limitations. And as mentioned before dropping to ISO 50 doesn't come cost free. You're making a compromise by doing so, it's acceptable to you and that's fine for you but others may not wish to do so.
 
woof woof said:
That's one way to look at it but if you're fortunate enough to be able to look at other marques the question becomes "Why should I spend £2k with Canon on a hobbled product when I can get a better spec'd Oujifuji for the same or less dosh."

And I'll end by saying that I'm not a Canon basher. I've had Canon film cameras and I had Canon DSLR's for something like 10 years.
Click to expand...

Well, if other manufacturers are offering similar/better quality, better specced SLR cameras for the same money then I'm sure the sales figures will speak for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Well, if other manufacturers are offering significantly better quality, better specced SLR cameras for the same money then I'm sure the sales figures will speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
They are already but like most things in life. It takes time for the market to adjust.
 
Mr Badger said:
Well, if other manufacturers are offering significantly better quality, better specced SLR cameras for the same money then I'm sure the sales figures will speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

You're missing some important factors, Canon have a good name and a loyal following and there are Canon users with a significant investment in lenses. These two groups will buy Canon products in large numbers even if there's a better and cheaper alternative. I'm sure there are also people who may see advantages in other brand products but just can't be bothered learning new kit and so stick with Canon.
 
woof woof said:
It being a bright sunny day is just one factor as it depends what you point your camera at and the lighting. I've shot at high ISO and with a slow shutter speeds on bright sunny days. Point your camera in the wrong direction for a wide aperture and 1/4000 to cope with and it's not a matter of opinion but the hardware and its limitations. And as mentioned before dropping to ISO 50 doesn't come cost free. You're making a compromise by doing so, it's acceptable to you and that's fine for you but others may not wish to do so.
Click to expand...

It's only a very tiny sacrifice (about -0.6 EV) which isn't noticeable in any way, especially with the type of shots you'd typically shoot with shallow DOF.
 
jonneymendoza said:
They are already but like most things in life. It takes time for the market to adjust.
Click to expand...

It takes time for the Canon faithful to die off and for younger buyers to become significant in the market... or for the market to shift to a different product.
 
14 pages in an owners thread (on IOS at least as I'm not on desktop at the mo) and no owners as yet. We'll need a new thread by the time it actually starts delivery!
 
woof woof said:
It takes time for the Canon faithful to die off and for younger buyers to become significant in the market... or for the market to shift to a different product.
Click to expand...

So you're now saying it's just oldies who use canon?? [emoji23]
 
odd jim said:
It's only a very tiny sacrifice (about -0.6 EV) which isn't noticeable in any way, especially with the type of shots you'd typically shoot with shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

As I said, you're making a compromise, exposure and dynamic range. That's fine for you but others may not wish to make that compromise.
 
woof woof said:
I think it's a fact that DSLR ownership is mainly male and aging. That's the demographic.
Click to expand...

Why do you think this? Anything to back it up with? I've seen plenty of young female photographers with DSLRs on my travels, more than I ever used to.
 
woof woof said:
That's one way to look at it but if you're fortunate enough to be able to look at other marques the question becomes "Why should I spend £2k with Canon on a hobbled product when I can get a better spec'd Oujifuji for the same or less dosh."

And I'll end by saying that I'm not a Canon basher. I've had Canon film cameras and I had Canon DSLR's for something like 10 years.
Click to expand...

There's always something allegedly better coming along. Start of the year I was about to pull the credit card out for a D810. Spent a few months thinking about what Canon lenses to sell and replace with Nikon. Messed about, am I doing the right thing, will I regret running two systems. 5D4 comes along, big improvement is dynamic range, bigger sensor, fits the bill, no reason to buy a D810 anymore. Until the next model release that pushed the game forward.

I actually went and had a look at a mirrorless recently. Fuji XT-2. First time ever looking through an EVF. Reminded me of looking at the picture on one of those 2" hand held TVs you used to be able to buy. Perhaps that's not representative of an EVF though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top