Canon EOS 6D Mark II Has Begun Shipping

[Talys]

A couple of photos I snapped from my patio to try out 6D2 at ISO 1600 and 3200 in good lighting. I thought the ISO 1600 output was pretty great. Both photos were autofocused, which worked well even at f/6.3.

6D2, Sigma 150-600 @ 600mm, f/6.3, 1/4000 ISO 1600
Full Image (unmodified) - http://www.versadyne.com/talys/branches.jpg
Cropped to display at 100%:

6D2, Canon 70-300 II @ 170mm, f5, 1/4000 ISO 3200
Full Image (cropped, but otherwise unmodified) - http://www.versadyne.com/talys/raccoon-3.jpg
Cropped to display at 100%:

I think as-is, the ISO 3200 output is pretty decent. Sure, there's graininess at 100%, but practically, if what you want is to view them on a screen, when you reduce the photo to 1200x1200 pixels or so, the visible noise pretty much disappears. Also, when it comes to noise, I'm much less bothered by graininess than by chroma.

Side note, the reason I was playing with the 70-300 II (the nano USM one) was that I noticed yesterday that I couldn't manual focus when AF was on. Turns out, the control is "Lens electronic MF - Enable after One-Shot AF ON".

I took a bunch of studio shots too, to test under ideal conditions, but *shrug*, what can I say... the pictures are indistinguishable from any other modern DSLR with good glass. Output is great, of course, sharp, nice colors, and all that. The extra 1.6x field of view will be greatly appreciated when I really use it.

Now, all I want is to be able to see CR2 thumbnails in File Explorer

 

[Jack Douglas]

Useful/interesting recent comments. I had a rule with my 6D that I would not generally shoot above ISO 1250 since I typically would be cropping pretty heavily my mostly bird shots. Now, full frame is a different matter and I think 6400 is not so bad.

For BIF sky shots the button programmable option to change the camera settings including shutter speed and Fstop is wonderful. I presently use * for that with EC.

Jack

 

[ShootTheStars12]

I am a current SL1 owner chomping at the bit to get a nice budget full frame camera, so I was extremely excited for the release of the 6D Mark II. However, I still haven't put in an order for one because of the plethora of bad reviews (especially the DR). I've always heard that Canon has the best glass, which I'm sure is true, but is it truly THAT much better? 2 of the main things I want to shoot are astrophotography and landscapes. Do you guys think this is the right camera for me? I can't justify the price of a 5D Mark IV when I'd also be buying L glass to take advantage of full frame.

 

[brad-man]

I am a current SL1 owner chomping at the bit to get a nice budget full frame camera, so I was extremely excited for the release of the 6D Mark II. However, I still haven't put in an order for one because of the plethora of bad reviews (especially the DR). I've always heard that Canon has the best glass, which I'm sure is true, but is it truly THAT much better? 2 of the main things I want to shoot are astrophotography and landscapes. Do you guys think this is the right camera for me? I can't justify the price of a 5D Mark IV when I'd also be buying L glass to take advantage of full frame.

I have not seen bad reviews, only reviews that indicate disappointment in the lack of sensor improvement. Since IQ between version 1 & 2 are so similar, perhaps you would be better served with the original. It is on sale for $1100 refurbished at the Canon USA website. More $ leftover for glass...

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/362776?WT.mc_id=C126149

 

[Jack Douglas]

Canon added the things people griped about, as has been stated many times, so how can it not be a great camera. I sold my 6D and will likely get it, but as a second camera, so when the price drops. It really is sad how the DR tempest in a tea pot upsets so many relative to their confidence in a purchase. My 6D shots held up very well relative to my friends 1DX and everyone has always raved about the 1DX so how can the 6D2 not be a fine camera? Oh I forgot, it doesn't have 4K video. Over 35 k shots on my 6D and around 1 hour of video, so for me ...

Jack

 

[pj1974]

One thing that's pretty obvious but still seems to be overlooked by some is this. Telephoto users like reach and so APSC gets acknowledged in that department. Well, wide angle users like wide angles and APSC doesn't fill that bill too well. Two cameras of course does the trick but I for one prefer only hiking with one; that's heavy enough and less clumsy.

Jack

Hi Jack

I am addressing your statement that "APS-C doesn't fill the [wide angle] bill too well".

While that may have been the case about 10 to 12 years ago, the truth is that for several years now, APS-C DSLR cameras have many great 'wide angle'- indeed, 'ultra wide angle' lens options. Many of these out-perform their FF cousins, particular in terms of sharpness and contrast in the extreme corners.

I have used both FF and APS-C for landscapes and architecture. Here are some APS-C lenses available for Canon APS-C sized sensor DSLR cameras which really provide an amazing amount of bang for the buck:
- Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - an extremely capable lens - widest available zoom for APS-C
- Sigma 10-20mm (both f/3.5 and f/4-5.6 versions are good)
- Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Canon's initial, and still competitive UWA zoom
- Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (small, compact and great value with IS!)
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD - a recent and high quality lens
- Tokina 11-16mm & 11-20mm f/2.8 lens range (fast glass: low light & astro photography)

I challenge you to compare the results that are capable with any of the above lenses, with FF UWA zooms. Use them in the real world, and also analyse credible, scientific data via proper professional reviews.

Furthermore, I could also present you similar information relating to UWA prime lenses. (Though yes, that's another slightly different story). Please (kindly!) refrain from suggesting that APS-C cameras / lenses do not have adequate capacity in the wide to ultra-wide department.... in fact this is one reason I often use APS-C cameras - their UWA choice and performance (without needing / being an uber-expensive big UWA FF lens).

The Canon EOM 11-22mm IS STM lens is also highly regarded as an amazing UWA mirrorless lens.

Cheers....

Paul 8)

 

[Jack Douglas]

Paul, I have no interest in putting down APSC for wide angle usage. You presumably know what you're talking about and I'll accept that. It is not my policy to pontificate about any of these things because I'm just an average amateur enthusiast; I have no problem being chastised.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Choose what you like, everyone.

Jack

 

[derekmccoy]

I have a 6D and I need a second body, so I think I'm just gonna get another one as I can't see where the upgrade is on the 6D2. A good condition 6D can be picked up for £700, so can I justify a 6D2 for an extra £1400 when the only upgrade is a tilty touchscreen? I don't think so.

 

[tomscott]

I have a 6D and I need a second body, so I think I'm just gonna get another one as I can't see where the upgrade is on the 6D2. A good condition 6D can be picked up for £700, so can I justify a 6D2 for an extra £1400 when the only upgrade is a tilty touchscreen? I don't think so.

The AF must be worth it alone.

That 11 point AF system is a challenge unless your doing anything but landscape. For fast glass and portraiture with focus recompose as with such slim DOF you move the plane of focus. Once you have more option its so difficult to go back to a 9 or 11 point system.

DREV is selling the 6DMKII for the cheaper than the 5DMKIII at £1595.

Seems a pretty stellar camera for that sort of money.

 

[derekmccoy]

I have a 6D and I need a second body, so I think I'm just gonna get another one as I can't see where the upgrade is on the 6D2. A good condition 6D can be picked up for £700, so can I justify a 6D2 for an extra £1400 when the only upgrade is a tilty touchscreen? I don't think so.

The AF must be worth it alone.

That 11 point AF system is a challenge unless your doing anything but landscape. For fast glass and portraiture with focus recompose as with such slim DOF you move the plane of focus. Once you have more option its so difficult to go back to a 9 or 11 point system.

DREV is selling the 6DMKII for the cheaper than the 5DMKIII at £1595.

Seems a pretty stellar camera for that sort of money.

The 6D was the low light king when it was released. I would have rather it had a -4EV center point to rival the competition. I've always focus and recomposed. The counter argument is that an upgraded AF for the 6D2 was such an obvious expectation, it's not even worth mentioning. Although 4K and improved DR were also obvious expectations..... I guess Canon shooters should just expect disappointment. Hopefully Canon is reading this and fix the 6D2 with a firmware update, otherwise I'm switching to Fuji.

 

[tichy]

I have used both FF and APS-C for landscapes and architecture. Here are some APS-C lenses available for Canon APS-C sized sensor DSLR cameras which really provide an amazing amount of bang for the buck:
- Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - an extremely capable lens - widest available zoom for APS-C
- Sigma 10-20mm (both f/3.5 and f/4-5.6 versions are good)
- Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Canon's initial, and still competitive UWA zoom
- Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (small, compact and great value with IS!)
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD - a recent and high quality lens
- Tokina 11-16mm & 11-20mm f/2.8 lens range (fast glass: low light & astro photography)

I challenge you to compare the results that are capable with any of the above lenses, with FF UWA zooms. Use them in the real world, and also analyse credible, scientific data via proper professional reviews.

Furthermore, I could also present you similar information relating to UWA prime lenses. (Though yes, that's another slightly different story). Please (kindly!) refrain from suggesting that APS-C cameras / lenses do not have adequate capacity in the wide to ultra-wide department.... in fact this is one reason I often use APS-C cameras - their UWA choice and performance (without needing / being an uber-expensive big UWA FF lens).

The Canon EOM 11-22mm IS STM lens is also highly regarded as an amazing UWA mirrorless lens.

Cheers....

Paul 8)

Hello,

I'm not the one being challenged but here are my thoughts on your list anyway ;-)

All lenses except the Tokina 11-16 are slower than F2.8. And even that lens has less FOV than a Tamron 15-30 on a FF body.

Since I use the (U)WA lenses mainly for shooting auroras, every f-stop matters to me there and the availability of lenses with F2.8 (or faster) at a very wide FOV is a buying reason for a FF body. You really can neither compensate with ISO (I'm occasionally shooting at 6400) nor time (I'm down to 20-25 seconds sometimes). Every time I shoot, I'm balancing between shutter-speed and ISO (aperture constantly at

2.8

). Every step I can reduce the ISO-value I gain in quality and/or less hassle in post.

Greetings, Tichy

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have a 6D and I need a second body, so I think I'm just gonna get another one as I can't see where the upgrade is on the 6D2. A good condition 6D can be picked up for £700, so can I justify a 6D2 for an extra £1400 when the only upgrade is a tilty touchscreen? I don't think so.

Yeah, those were the only improvements. No improvement to the AF, frame rate, etc. None.

The 6D was the low light king when it was released. I would have rather it had a -4EV center point to rival the competition. I've always focus and recomposed. The counter argument is that an upgraded AF for the 6D2 was such an obvious expectation, it's not even worth mentioning. Although 4K and improved DR were also obvious expectations..... I guess Canon shooters should just expect disappointment. Hopefully Canon is reading this and fix the 6D2 with a firmware update, otherwise I'm switching to Fuji.

An example of -3 EV is 1/15 s, f/2.8, ISO 102400. I'm sure there are lots of situations where -4 EV AF would be a huge benefit for real world use.

News flash, Canon isn't reading this and doesn't care about you or your needs. If you're disappointed (and clearly, you are), don't wait...switch to Fuji now.

Bye.

 

[jeffa4444]

One thing that's pretty obvious but still seems to be overlooked by some is this. Telephoto users like reach and so APSC gets acknowledged in that department. Well, wide angle users like wide angles and APSC doesn't fill that bill too well. Two cameras of course does the trick but I for one prefer only hiking with one; that's heavy enough and less clumsy.

Jack

Hi Jack

I am addressing your statement that "APS-C doesn't fill the [wide angle] bill too well".

While that may have been the case about 10 to 12 years ago, the truth is that for several years now, APS-C DSLR cameras have many great 'wide angle'- indeed, 'ultra wide angle' lens options. Many of these out-perform their FF cousins, particular in terms of sharpness and contrast in the extreme corners.

I have used both FF and APS-C for landscapes and architecture. Here are some APS-C lenses available for Canon APS-C sized sensor DSLR cameras which really provide an amazing amount of bang for the buck:
- Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - an extremely capable lens - widest available zoom for APS-C
- Sigma 10-20mm (both f/3.5 and f/4-5.6 versions are good)
- Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Canon's initial, and still competitive UWA zoom
- Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (small, compact and great value with IS!)
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD - a recent and high quality lens
- Tokina 11-16mm & 11-20mm f/2.8 lens range (fast glass: low light & astro photography)

I challenge you to compare the results that are capable with any of the above lenses, with FF UWA zooms. Use them in the real world, and also analyse credible, scientific data via proper professional reviews.

Furthermore, I could also present you similar information relating to UWA prime lenses. (Though yes, that's another slightly different story). Please (kindly!) refrain from suggesting that APS-C cameras / lenses do not have adequate capacity in the wide to ultra-wide department.... in fact this is one reason I often use APS-C cameras - their UWA choice and performance (without needing / being an uber-expensive big UWA FF lens).

The Canon EOM 11-22mm IS STM lens is also highly regarded as an amazing UWA mirrorless lens.

Cheers....

Paul 8)

Hi Paul
Owning both Canon APS-C and Canon FF cameras & lenses and in particular wide angle zooms and having the ability to test both in controlled environments for the vast majority your completely right.
I currently have the EF-S 10-18mm and had the EF-S 10-22mm before it, I use the APS combo when travelling lighter and it works a treat.
However the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens takes some beating this is simply one of Canon finest lenses with great sharpness out to the very corners of the frame any landscape photographer shooting FF should own this optic.

 

[derekmccoy]

An example of -3 EV is 1/15 s, f/2.8, ISO 102400. I'm sure there are lots of situations where -4 EV AF would be a huge benefit for real world use.

News flash, Canon isn't reading this and doesn't care about you or your needs. If you're disappointed (and clearly, you are), don't wait...switch to Fuji now.

Bye.

I'm speaking from experience. An example of -4EV is a dark dancefloor (shooting with speedlites). I normally have to rely on a handheld mini flashlight or DJ lights to grab focus. For example, I know that the D500 can focus in those situations.

I'm loving the sarcasm though, keep it up!

 

[Don Haines]

I have used both FF and APS-C for landscapes and architecture. Here are some APS-C lenses available for Canon APS-C sized sensor DSLR cameras which really provide an amazing amount of bang for the buck:
- Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - an extremely capable lens - widest available zoom for APS-C
- Sigma 10-20mm (both f/3.5 and f/4-5.6 versions are good)
- Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Canon's initial, and still competitive UWA zoom
- Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (small, compact and great value with IS!)
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD - a recent and high quality lens
- Tokina 11-16mm & 11-20mm f/2.8 lens range (fast glass: low light & astro photography)

I challenge you to compare the results that are capable with any of the above lenses, with FF UWA zooms. Use them in the real world, and also analyse credible, scientific data via proper professional reviews.

Furthermore, I could also present you similar information relating to UWA prime lenses. (Though yes, that's another slightly different story). Please (kindly!) refrain from suggesting that APS-C cameras / lenses do not have adequate capacity in the wide to ultra-wide department.... in fact this is one reason I often use APS-C cameras - their UWA choice and performance (without needing / being an uber-expensive big UWA FF lens).

The Canon EOM 11-22mm IS STM lens is also highly regarded as an amazing UWA mirrorless lens.

Cheers....

Paul 8)

I have a 7D2.....
my most used lens is the 17-55F 2.8.....
going really wide, it's the Tokina 11-16 F2.8...

You can definitely go wide on a crop with a F2.8 lens and not break the bank.....

 

[privatebydesign]

An example of -3 EV is 1/15 s, f/2.8, ISO 102400. I'm sure there are lots of situations where -4 EV AF would be a huge benefit for real world use.

News flash, Canon isn't reading this and doesn't care about you or your needs. If you're disappointed (and clearly, you are), don't wait...switch to Fuji now.

Bye.

I'm speaking from experience. An example of -4EV is a dark dancefloor (shooting with speedlites). I normally have to rely on a handheld mini flashlight or DJ lights to grab focus. For example, I know that the D500 can focus in those situations.

I'm loving the sarcasm though, keep it up!

On that situation what is stopping the Speedlite AF assist working?

 

[pj1974]

Paul, I have no interest in putting down APSC for wide angle usage. You presumably know what you're talking about and I'll accept that. It is not my policy to pontificate about any of these things because I'm just an average amateur enthusiast; I have no problem being chastised.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Choose what you like, everyone.

Jack

Hi Jack

Thanks for your gracious reply. My post wasn't so much a chastise, as a gentle correction. Cheers!

Indeed... freedom IS a truly wonderful thing! Peace.

Paul

 

[pj1974]

I have used both FF and APS-C for landscapes and architecture. Here are some APS-C lenses available for Canon APS-C sized sensor DSLR cameras which really provide an amazing amount of bang for the buck:
- Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - an extremely capable lens - widest available zoom for APS-C
- Sigma 10-20mm (both f/3.5 and f/4-5.6 versions are good)
- Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - Canon's initial, and still competitive UWA zoom
- Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (small, compact and great value with IS!)
- Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD - a recent and high quality lens
- Tokina 11-16mm & 11-20mm f/2.8 lens range (fast glass: low light & astro photography)

I challenge you to compare the results that are capable with any of the above lenses, with FF UWA zooms. Use them in the real world, and also analyse credible, scientific data via proper professional reviews.

Furthermore, I could also present you similar information relating to UWA prime lenses. (Though yes, that's another slightly different story). Please (kindly!) refrain from suggesting that APS-C cameras / lenses do not have adequate capacity in the wide to ultra-wide department.... in fact this is one reason I often use APS-C cameras - their UWA choice and performance (without needing / being an uber-expensive big UWA FF lens).

The Canon EOM 11-22mm IS STM lens is also highly regarded as an amazing UWA mirrorless lens.

Cheers....

Paul 8)

Hello,

I'm not the one being challenged but here are my thoughts on your list anyway ;-)

All lenses except the Tokina 11-16 are slower than F2.8. And even that lens has less FOV than a Tamron 15-30 on a FF body.

Since I use the (U)WA lenses mainly for shooting auroras, every f-stop matters to me there and the availability of lenses with F2.8 (or faster) at a very wide FOV is a buying reason for a FF body. You really can neither compensate with ISO (I'm occasionally shooting at 6400) nor time (I'm down to 20-25 seconds sometimes). Every time I shoot, I'm balancing between shutter-speed and ISO (aperture constantly at

2.8

). Every step I can reduce the ISO-value I gain in quality and/or less hassle in post.

Greetings, Tichy

Hi Tichy

Thanks for writing... In the area of auroras (and a few other specialised applications) - sure, there is an advantage that FF has (larger sensor, less noise).

My initial post was addressing Jack's statement that APS-C do not cover wide angle well (thus I was using the appropriate generalisations to respond to this broad statement).

Some of Canon's later sensors (e.g. 80D etc) do quite well in low light. The Tokina's f/2.8, or even faster primes will obviously help whatever size sensor. (The new Sigma 14mm f/1.8 looks great for example!) Cheers

Paul

 

[pj1974]

Hi Paul
Owning both Canon APS-C and Canon FF cameras & lenses and in particular wide angle zooms and having the ability to test both in controlled environments for the vast majority your completely right.
I currently have the EF-S 10-18mm and had the EF-S 10-22mm before it, I use the APS combo when travelling lighter and it works a treat.
However the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM lens takes some beating this is simply one of Canon finest lenses with great sharpness out to the very corners of the frame any landscape photographer shooting FF should own this optic.

Hi Jeffa444,

Thanks for adding your 2 cents also. Seems we have similar experiences... and currently I have the Sigma 8-16mm and the Canon 10-18mm STM IS. Both very good lenses, and each have their application.

I have used a Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS and yes, that would likely be my UWA if I was to go FF. The combination of its zoom range, IS and optical quality is a great accomplishment by Canon.

Both my real world testing, and the tests by photozone.de indicate that the corners of it are good, but e.g. there are some APS-C lenses which have superior relative sharpness right into the corners.

Again, cheers... appreciate your post!

Paul

 

[unfocused]

I guess Canon shooters should just expect disappointment. Hopefully Canon is reading this and fix the 6D2 with a firmware update, otherwise I'm switching to Fuji.

Given that the 6DII seems to be selling very well (best selling full frame DSLR on Amazon), I'm doubting they feel compelled to "fix" anything just to please you.

I'm curious, which full-frame Fuji are you switching to?