Canon EOS 6D Mk2 Owner's Thread

redhed17 said:
It is to get people like you, who may have wider aperture lenses (and so more expensive ;)) to buy the higher camera in their range. They think if you are spending a lot on lenses you will buy a camera to as not to compromise them in bright situations. Nikon do it too with the D610 and D750.
Click to expand...

At 50 ISO I don't have a problem shooting fast primes wide open on the mk1? Even in very bright sun I'm not hitting the 1/4000 limit at 50 ISO.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It'll likely be cheaper than that when they hit Panamoz...
Click to expand...

I was comparing price today, as if you wanted to order a camera right now. I said in my previous post it will probably be an it cheaper but right now it isn't. As of today, it's not very good value compared even to the 5Div.
 
jonoooo125 said:
I was comparing price today, as if you wanted to order a camera right now. I said in my previous post it will probably be an it cheaper but right now it isn't. As of today, it's not very good value compared even to the 5Div.
Click to expand...

Is it even on Panamoz yet? I honestly don't know as I haven't looked! You can't compare a grey importers price to OEM RRP!
 
odd jim said:
At 50 ISO I don't have a problem shooting fast primes wide open on the mk1? Even in very bright sun I'm not hitting the 1/4000 limit at 50 ISO.
Click to expand...

Just be aware that ISO 50 is not a native ISO it is an expanded (reduced) one.

As such you will lose about a stop if head room in the highlights and in fact are not gaining anything.
 
I'm trying to fathom what advantages I'd have by getting a 6Dmk2 instead of a Canon 80D - being that I shoot a varied style of photography - landscapes, wildlife, airshows, motorsport, macro, portraits etc.

From what I've gathered with the 80D I'd have a better system for action in that it'd have 0.5 faster fps and a more spread out focus point system instead of them being bunched up in the centre ( I didn't realise until today that all FF cameras are like that though)

I'd imagine the 6D would perform better for landscapes and have less noise at the same ISO settings but aside from that I'd be grateful if anyone could point out what else I'm missing?

Obviously FF means more bokeh but less zoom so 600mm on my Sigma would be 600 instead of the range I get on aps-c.
 
Craig_85 said:
Just be aware that ISO 50 is not a native ISO it is an expanded (reduced) one.

As such you will lose about a stop if head room in the highlights and in fact are not gaining anything.
Click to expand...

Well it's a bit less than that, 0.6 - 0.7 of a stop depending what you read.

TBH it's an easy compromise as shooting wide open with a fast prime I'd be doing more portraiture or static objects than say landscapes, where the DR is more important.
 
Last edited:
smr said:
I'm trying to fathom what advantages I'd have by getting a 6Dmk2 instead of a Canon 80D - being that I shoot a varied style of photography - landscapes, wildlife, airshows, motorsport, macro, portraits etc.

From what I've gathered with the 80D I'd have a better system for action in that it'd have 0.5 faster fps and a more spread out focus point system instead of them being bunched up in the centre ( I didn't realise until today that all FF cameras are like that though)

I'd imagine the 6D would perform better for landscapes and have less noise at the same ISO settings but aside from that I'd be grateful if anyone could point out what else I'm missing?

Obviously FF means more bokeh but less zoom so 600mm on my Sigma would be 600 instead of the range I get on aps-c.
Click to expand...

When you look at the money involved you would be better off getting a secondhand Sony a7ii or a7r as a landscape camera and keeping the 80d for moving things further away. Considering swapping it out for a 7d2.
 
smr said:
I'm trying to fathom what advantages I'd have by getting a 6Dmk2 instead of a Canon 80D - being that I shoot a varied style of photography - landscapes, wildlife, airshows, motorsport, macro, portraits etc.

From what I've gathered with the 80D I'd have a better system for action in that it'd have 0.5 faster fps and a more spread out focus point system instead of them being bunched up in the centre ( I didn't realise until today that all FF cameras are like that though)

I'd imagine the 6D would perform better for landscapes and have less noise at the same ISO settings but aside from that I'd be grateful if anyone could point out what else I'm missing?

Obviously FF means more bokeh but less zoom so 600mm on my Sigma would be 600 instead of the range I get on aps-c.
Click to expand...

It's going to come down to IQ. Better iso, sharpness, dynamic range.
 
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.
 
twist said:
It's going to come down to IQ. Better iso, sharpness, dynamic range.
Click to expand...
Better high ISO. ;)
smr said:
I'm trying to fathom what advantages I'd have by getting a 6Dmk2 instead of a Canon 80D - being that I shoot a varied style of photography - landscapes, wildlife, airshows, motorsport, macro, portraits etc.

From what I've gathered with the 80D I'd have a better system for action in that it'd have 0.5 faster fps and a more spread out focus point system instead of them being bunched up in the centre ( I didn't realise until today that all FF cameras are like that though)

I'd imagine the 6D would perform better for landscapes and have less noise at the same ISO settings but aside from that I'd be grateful if anyone could point out what else I'm missing?

Obviously FF means more bokeh but less zoom so 600mm on my Sigma would be 600 instead of the range I get on aps-c.
Click to expand...
For what you describe, a crop sensor camera may suit you better. At base ISO settings you may see little difference in Landscape scenes, which are normally shot at low ISOs. A 600mm lens would give the same field of view as a 960mm lens on a FF. (600x1.6)

The FF v Crop sensor debate has been done to death though, and this thread is about the 6DII. ;)
 
redhed17 said:
Better high ISO. ;)

For what you describe, a crop sensor camera may suit you better. At base ISO settings you may see little difference in Landscape scenes, which are normally shot at low ISOs. A 600mm lens would give the same field of view as a 960mm lens on a FF. (600x1.6)

The FF v Crop sensor debate has been done to death though, and this thread is about the 6DII. ;)
Click to expand...

Apologies, I will be more pedantic next time... But there is still a difference at lower iso... however small it may be.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Is it even on Panamoz yet? I honestly don't know as I haven't looked! You can't compare a grey importers price to OEM RRP!
Click to expand...

Well I can but I'm not, I'm comparing the lowest price available, it just happens to be one is grey and one is not. In 3 months the story will be different, but at this time, id say an extra £400 (based on today's available prices) for a 5Div would be a better investment.

I paid £1350 for my 6D from wex 3 months after release, I thought it was worth it as a 5diii was a lot more, with the 6dii and 5div it is not as big of a gap.
 
redhed17 said:
Better high ISO. ;)

For what you describe, a crop sensor camera may suit you better. At base ISO settings you may see little difference in Landscape scenes, which are normally shot at low ISOs. A 600mm lens would give the same field of view as a 960mm lens on a FF. (600x1.6)

The FF v Crop sensor debate has been done to death though, and this thread is about the 6DII. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever shot a landscape above base ISO. Always tripod.
 
jonoooo125 said:
Well I can but I'm not, I'm comparing the lowest price available, it just happens to be one is grey and one is not. In 3 months the story will be different, but at this time, id say an extra £400 (based on today's available prices) for a 5Div would be a better investment.
.
Click to expand...

There is no lowest price available for the 6DII as it's not available until the end of July so your comparison is worthless.

Once both bodies are in stock at Panamoz then you can compare them but until then anything could happen.

jonoooo125 said:
I paid £1350 for my 6D from wex 3 months after release, I thought it was worth it as a 5diii was a lot more, with the 6dii and 5div it is not as big of a gap.
Click to expand...

Then the time to compare is surely 3 month after release anyway.
 
Last edited:
smr said:
I don't think I've ever shot a landscape above base ISO. Always tripod.
Click to expand...

Weddings are shot often with wide primes and high ISO (for example). The 6d was Canons best at this. It's good to be able to be flexible.

I've shot landscapes at dusk at high ISO, but then I never use a tripod.
 
Last edited:
I'm really excited to update my 6d to the mkii. For me, the FPS increase and flippy touchscreen is worth every penny. I'm primarily wildlife and landscapes and with all the travel, I need the lightest kit possible but with redundancy built in so if one body packs up, I can use all the same lenses on the second. I mostly use the 80d with a 150-600 lens and the 6d with the 24-105 and carry both at all times and have found it so frustrating going from touchscreen to not when moving between bodies that having largely the same setup on both is going to be a godsend. This is going to be the perfect pairing for me, can't wait to get my hands on one!
 
celnav said:
I'm really excited to update my 6d to the mkii. For me, the FPS increase and flippy touchscreen is worth every penny. I'm primarily wildlife and landscapes and with all the travel, I need the lightest kit possible but with redundancy built in so if one body packs up, I can use all the same lenses on the second. I mostly use the 80d with a 150-600 lens and the 6d with the 24-105 and carry both at all times and have found it so frustrating going from touchscreen to not when moving between bodies that having largely the same setup on both is going to be a godsend. This is going to be the perfect pairing for me, can't wait to get my hands on one!
Click to expand...

So will you be selling your 80D?
 
GTG said:
I can almost guarantee he will sell the 6d mk1, not the 80d.

Would not make any sense the other way around
Click to expand...

(She btw) and yes, it'll be the 6d that's going on the market if anyone's interested ;)
 
It's interesting that Canon hasn't made a song and dance about the DR or how clean the high ISO is .... Hmmmm!
 
Diamonddec said:
It's interesting that Canon hasn't made a song and dance about the DR or how clean the high ISO is .... Hmmmm!
Click to expand...
You can see for yourself by downloading the raws?
 
smr said:
link?
Click to expand...

I don't have a link but they're out there, as they were on the 6d announcement.

Canon China have test images up, they may have the raws too.
 
If Canon produce a similar improvement in this sensor that they've done with the 1DX MkII and 5D4 this could be a very nice all round camera.
 
redhed17 said:
Maybe because there was nothing to shout as far as the DR or how clean the high ISO with the original 6D. ;) :LOL:
Click to expand...

High ISO on the 6d is very, very good?

You sure you're thinking about the right camera?
 
6D is famous for it's noise handling isn't it.

Anyway I think I'm going to take the plunge on an 80D now instead of the 6D2. Don't get me wrong, fabulous looking Camera, I'd be very happy with one, but I'd be equally as happy with an 80D after days of consideration. I spent months looking at the 80D after it was announced and came very close to buying it a few times. If I were shooting strictly landscapes and portraits, or one or t'other, I think I'd probably invest in the 6D2, but as I shoot a variety of photographic genres, if you will, I think the 80D is more suited to me - the wider AF spread, extra reach etc. the 0.5s faster fps (ok the last I guess you'd barely notice any difference but hey).. it also means I can keep all my crop lenses which I've got a few of... 10-18, 55-250, 18-55, think my Sigma 105 is crop as well, and I keep the 960mm or whatever it is in reach of my Siggy 150-600.

With the cash saved I might either buy a 100-400mk2 or a good tripod and gimbal head too :p

For those of you who do upgrade to the 6D2 - enjoy it, looks superb.
 
odd jim said:
High ISO on the 6d is very, very good?
Click to expand...

I`m not fussy, I use 102,400 ISO, my old aps-c cameras looked worse than this at 6400 ISO.

uiuiuiuibbbbbbbbbbbbbbb-4_zpsb8ogolt7.jpg
 
From all the stuff out there on the internet, (this is not fact but speculation)it looks like the new sensor has marginal improvement in DR, slightly better high ISO noise performance but most importantly it has the increase in Megapixels. I am guessing but had they kept it to 20mp and put the new improvements we would have had a much better sensor but obviously Megapixels sell cameras.
 
Mintchocs said:
From all the stuff out there on the internet, (this is not fact but speculation)it looks like the new sensor has marginal improvement in DR, slightly better high ISO noise performance but most importantly it has the increase in Megapixels. I am guessing but had they kept it to 20mp and put the new improvements we would have had a much better sensor but obviously Megapixels sell cameras.
Click to expand...

I love the detail on a 24mp dslr`s so I welcome the increase to 26mp.
 
Mintchocs said:
From all the stuff out there on the internet, (this is not fact but speculation)it looks like the new sensor has marginal improvement in DR, slightly better high ISO noise performance but most importantly it has the increase in Megapixels. I am guessing but had they kept it to 20mp and put the new improvements we would have had a much better sensor but obviously Megapixels sell cameras.
Click to expand...
Megapixels are the least important upgrade, given you would rarely need more than 10mp!

For me, SNR performance and DR are far more important.
 
Well for me i don,t see enough to tempt me away from my 6D Mk1.:)
 
odd jim said:
Megapixels are the least important upgrade, given you would rarely need more than 10mp!

For me, SNR performance and DR are far more important.
Click to expand...

It's not about what I need it's about what I can have. And there ain't no substitute for megapixels when it comes to photography top trumps.
 
Gaz J said:
It's not about what I need it's about what I can have. And there ain't no substitute for megapixels when it comes to photography top trumps.
Click to expand...

[emoji848]

Why? When you'd be lucky to have a monitor that can't show anymore than 8mp or if you don't print more than 10 foot by 6?

MP stopped being a "top trump" in the mid 2000s, we have telephones with more MP than the best DSLRs...
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
[emoji848]

Why? When you'd be lucky to have a monitor that can't show anymore than 8mp or if you don't print more than 10 foot by 6?
Click to expand...

I don't care what anyone says, on a 720p 12" ultrabook I can see a difference between 10mp, 16mp, 24mp.

Whether it is megapixles or just newer better other improvements I don't know but I can physically see an improvement in clarity and definition each time very obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top