Canon EOS 6D Mk2 Owner's Thread

Just of late there has been nice photos from many different cameras and i wouldnt know what took what without looking at the info but they all looked good.so have to agree as a general
posting on the net or printing up to a certain size handling and extras seem to be the only difference to these old eyes
 
2 for sale with MPB last time I checked, does that say something?
 
Dale. said:
2 for sale with MPB last time I checked, does that say something?
Click to expand...

I doubt it means it’s a rubbish camera. Just might not have been right for those 2 people selling theirs. There are also 4 a9’s for sale on that site.
 
Has anybody bought this camera? I am tempted but but like to see some owner reports.
 
Archie747 said:
Has anybody bought this camera? I am tempted but but like to see some owner reports.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they have, there's user reviews all over the web.
 
I’ve just imported my recent waterfall shots into lightroom, not had chance to process yet, but I’m well pleased with the images out of camera. Last visit I used my 7d Mark ii and they appear to be better from the 6. Shall process and print some off over the weekend and get a better comparison. The main benefit for me is the articulating screen, so much easier on my creaky knees n hips with the tripod set low [emoji106]
 
mOdO_uk said:
Did anyone choose 5dmkiii over this?
Click to expand...

They're different cameras at similar price points s/h

The 6d 2 is lighter and has a flappy screen, GPs and wifi (more 'consumer friendly)
The 5d 3 has better AF and two card slots in a more robust package

And I'd not like to have to choose really, I'd like everything on that list (I'd give up robust for lightweight)
 
Hello all, new to this forum as I’m looking to purchase a 6D mkii and stumbled across this thread.... Realy interesting points of view on it!
 
DarrenR said:
Hello all, new to this forum as I’m looking to purchase a 6D mkii and stumbled across this thread.... Realy interesting points of view on it!
Click to expand...
Yup
Indeed.

Personally unless your stuck with canon or need that flapping screen on a full frame camera. Go for it. Else look at other brands or even the 5d4
 
Last edited:
I am in a conundrum. I currently own 2 x 70D's. I got my first just before the 7d mkii came out and after studying all the specs I believed it to be the best APSC camera Canon had to offer at the time. I grew to love it and still can't fault the 70D, hence I bought a second as a backup almost a couple of years ago, as I do the odd job and shoot a handful of weddings each year.

I am now in the market for another camera body. I cannot justify the cost of a 5d mkiv, it's over my budget. I was really counting on the 6d mkii but after reading all these reviews I'm disillusioned. I feel I need to step up to full frame especially since I'm taking on more and more photography work but Canon's options are limited. The 5d mkiii is currently priced on par with the 6d mkii, but does it make sense to invest in an older camera?

My other option is to stay with an APSC sensor and consider the 80d or 7dmkii. What to do, what to do......and I'm not switching systems this late in the game.
 
Why not have a think about buying a mint, used, 6D Mk1 from a reputable shop/dealer with a long warranty? According to test reviews it's got marginally better low light/high ISO performance than the 5D MkIII and I believe 'normal light' type shots are pretty much comparable between the two, and at the price mint-ish, lightly-used, 6D Mk1s are going for at the moment I doubt you'd get a better value for money intro into Canon full frame? With the money you save you could probably switch to a mint, used, low-mileage 7D MkII too if you trade your current bodies in (after you see how the 6D suits you) or put it towards some L glass if you like full frame and want to make your leap of faith permanent? Anyway, it's just an idea to think about, and best of luck deciding what's right for you. (y)
 
The 6D is going for a good price at the moment, I'd go for that, you will appreciate the difference. I have a 70D and and 6D and, while I miss the touch screen, I love the quality of the image.
 
Last edited:
GTG said:
Problem is they are quoting DXO Marks as if their scores are fact.

...
Click to expand...
This^
And having discovered a chink in the armour, the online review world is simply picking at a sore.

Even on those scores, there’s only one point where the 6dII is ‘worse’ than it’s predecessor, and that’s low ISO DR, the sensor has better high ISO DR than a lot of cameras it’s being compared to, but there’s no headline in that fact.

So Canons best low light camera (the 6d) has been improved in every way (for low light) and its being kicked for its marginal performance drop in good light.

In an ideal world, there’d be nothing to pick on the camera for, but here we are with a camera with one disappointing benchmark score and itsthe biggest story of the year.

@nickdancona its a toss up between the 5dIII or 6dII as an ‘improvement’ on the 6d, in the real world, they’re both ‘better’ cameras, the question is do you want a smaller more modern body or 2 card slots?

Ignore the headlines, the truth is much easier to deal with.
 
Alternatively, do you want to stump up an extra £300 or £400 (or more) for a 'slightly' better camera than a lightly used original 6D? That's one reason that I (and I'd imagine an awful lot of other original 6D owners) haven't changed to the 6D MkII. To be honest, if I hadn't got a 6D and was looking for a full frame DSLR then, at the moment, I'd probably be seriously weighing up the pros and cons of switching to Nikon... and I've owned and been using Canon SLRs since 1980. That's the truth of the matter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about it for a moment, as it's probably saved me something approaching half a grand in 'upgrade' costs! I doubt I'm alone in thinking this way either, and that's some feedback that I think Canon should be giving some careful thought to when considering future upgrades/new camera models.
 
Mr Badger said:
Alternatively, do you want to stump up an extra £300 or £400 (or more) for a 'slightly' better camera than a lightly used original 6D?
Click to expand...
The alternative I was thinking about but never posted, you’re right though!

Mr Badger said:
... To be honest, if I hadn't got a 6D and was looking for a full frame DSLR then, at the moment, I'd probably be seriously weighing up the pros and cons of switching to Nikon... and I've owned and been using Canon SLRs since 1980. That's the truth of the matter.
Click to expand...
Something I’ve been posting for a couple of years now. The D750 is the perfect midrange Camera, and no Canon comes close. It really makes no sense for me to ditch Canon, it’d cost thousands that I simply can’t spare. I’m not bitter about it, I hardly give it a thought, but if I was starting now, Canon wouldn’t get a look in.
 
For me upgrading was a no-brainer. I adore my 6d but I wanted increased FPS without adding all the extra size and weight of the 5D series. The touch screen makes a huge difference - especially as I also have an 80D so when switching between that and the original 6D i was constantly touching the screen and getting irritated when I remembered it didn't work. The flippy screen is amazing as I shoot a lot of ground level wildlife. No, it's not a ridiculous improvement in IQ but I was never expecting that, it's just a great solid FF camera that fits well in my hands.
 
I just bought one from Panamoz, £1780 with the new 24-105mm F4/L II - how can I complain at that price

I see it as a great camera, and a good upgrade from a 6D. The screen has me sold, and the Dual Pixel AF as I’ll be doing a little video work this year.

No review can put me off, I’m happy with the IQ from what I’ve seen. Obviously the ISO100 DR is a minor disappointment, but it’s so minor, the camera is an upgrade in every other way. I couldn’t warrant the upgrade to a 5D Mark IV, and to the honest losing the flip screen would have been a pain.

I’ll keep you all posted
 
Seen it £1039 grey now.

Quite a dramatic drop, must be boxes gathering dust
 
Still a good camera and excellent value for money at that price for anyone looking to upgrade from a rebel series.
 
Panamoz has dropped £80 from when I bought, but oh well that’s life.

Bloody good camera though, definitely a great upgrade from the original 6D. Plus the 24-105mm MKII is a stellar general purpose lens.
 
daralough said:
Panamoz has dropped £80 from when I bought, but oh well that’s life.

Bloody good camera though, definitely a great upgrade from the original 6D. Plus the 24-105mm MKII is a stellar general purpose lens.
Click to expand...
Not so sure its a great upgrade to the orginal 6d seeing as the original 6d has better IQ sensor!
 
jonneymendoza said:
Not so sure its a great upgrade to the orginal 6d seeing as the original 6d has better IQ sensor!
Click to expand...

You could not tell a what camera took what shot if I showed you ten pictures.

You could not even tell me if I used FF or crop censor.

Want to try ?
 
daralough said:
Panamoz has dropped £80 from when I bought, but oh well that’s life.

Bloody good camera though, definitely a great upgrade from the original 6D. Plus the 24-105mm MKII is a stellar general purpose lens.
Click to expand...

As great as the 24-105 mk2 is, I’ve been reading that it’s not worth the £ over the mk1 as there’s very little difference?
 
odd jim said:
As great as the 24-105 mk2 is, I’ve been reading that it’s not worth the £ over the mk1 as there’s very little difference?
Click to expand...
And that's why I haven't changed from my Mk 1 of that either, plus I've read the new one is slightly bigger than the Mk1 too. :confused:
 
Ive had my 6d MkII for little over 6 months and in reality I've not used it all that much just down to ending up being very busy with life. What I would say is I replaced a Canon 5d MkI with the 6d MkII so for me it is like night and day! The screen at the back is a big plus for me! I didn't really have much choice however... when you buy you are always best to buy the best you can afford and the most modern as this will take you forward. I couldn't afford the 5d mkIV and the mk III whilst im sure a great second hand camera just seemed old and the technology superseded. I guess I always have wished Canon would make a photographers camera... IE a full frame and high spec... but without the video function ... I am aiming to test out my 6d more... but I tend to think a camera of that level is Good.... what makes it great is the eye and skill of the person behind it... great pics are made by great photographers not great cameras.
 
captures.in.time said:
guess I always have wished Canon would make a photographers camera... IE a full frame and high spec... but without the video function ...
Click to expand...

This is something hundreds of photographers were saying 5 years ago, and I’d hoped it’d disappear by now. :(

Video for most of us is an addition we really don’t need, but...

Once people started moving from digital compacts to DSLR’s, there was a demand for ‘live view’ (again something most older photographers could live without), once we had live view, adding video recording costs pennies in additional software. For the camera makers, it opens up a massive market at zero cost.

You’re not paying anything for video capture, it’s an accidental by-product, and cameras without it risk losing sales, so there’s no point moaning about it, we can just ignore it.
 
Phil has a point there, it's a bit like when some of the higher spec Canon 35mm film SLRs had 'eye controlled focus'; it didn't work for some people (possibly as they were wearing contact lenses, glasses or couldn't get to grips with calibrating it correctly for their eye) so they moaned about it. I found it worked very well, as I think did a lot of people who used it, and my reply to those who complained about it was "Don't use it then, it's not compulsory, there's an off switch!".

I think I've used the video feature on my 6D twice since I bought it nearly 4 years ago, and it did a good enough job, but I have a camcorder if I want to shoot HD video. It's handy to have the video feature all the same, but I tend to forget it's there. For me it's a bit like one of those tools on an up-market Swiss Army Knife, it's useful to have if I ever need it, and it shows I didn't buy the poverty model! ;) I know some folks seem to like using DSLRs for video, but I've never really understood why they just don't use a decent camcorder instead?
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
This is something hundreds of photographers were saying 5 years ago, and I’d hoped it’d disappear by now. :(

Video for most of us is an addition we really don’t need, but...

Once people started moving from digital compacts to DSLR’s, there was a demand for ‘live view’ (again something most older photographers could live without), once we had live view, adding video recording costs pennies in additional software. For the camera makers, it opens up a massive market at zero cost.

You’re not paying anything for video capture, it’s an accidental by-product, and cameras without it risk losing sales, so there’s no point moaning about it, we can just ignore it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say I was moaning to be fair... it was just a thought iv had. You are right however It's on there if I need it and you don't really notice it being there!

Mr Badger said:
Phil has a point there, it's a bit like when some of the higher spec Canon 35mm film SLRs had 'eye controlled focus'; it didn't work for some people (possibly as they were wearing contact lenses, glasses or couldn't get to grips with calibrating it correctly for their eye) so they moaned about it. I found it worked very well, as I think did a lot of people who used it, and my reply to those who complained about it was "Don't use it then, it's not compulsory, there's an off switch!".

I think I've used the video feature on my 6D twice since I bought it nearly 4 years ago, and it did a good enough job, but I have a camcorder if I want to shoot HD video. It's handy to have the video feature all the same, but I tend to forget it's there. For me it's a bit like one of those tools on an up-market Swiss Army Knife, it's useful to have if I ever need it, and it shows I didn't buy the poverty model! ;) I know some folks seem to like using DSLRs for video, but I've never really understood why they just don't use a decent camcorder instead?
Click to expand...

I had an EOS3 with eye control... my last film camera... I have to say I did love that function... and I wore glasses and seemed to work fine... it was all about setting it up correctly... I wonder why they can't get it to work on digital cameras...???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top