I'm very happy to see the full frame sensor start working its way into smaller, lighter, less expensive bodies. I'm a FF fan and think its great that its becoming more affordable. Canon has introduced a lot of new cameras this year - lots of choices. Compact G1X, EOS M, and G15. FF 5D3, 1DX, 6D. And some Rebels. With the exception of replacing my G10 with the G1X, none of this new gear obsoletes my existing gear. But I'm happy there are lots of choices should I find myself in the market.

Tom Dix wrote:

Wow for many means most MP, prettiest bells and whistles, and build quality. I have felt for some time that the upper teens in MP and great DR, would be best for what I do, portraits, events and weddings.



One man's meat is another man's poison.

6D might of been of interest in 2007/2008 if it were the 5Dc replacement, but in 2012, it does seem rather boring. Sure it'll a good camera as are pretty much all cameras these days, but it doesn't really bring anything to the table other than more of what we've seen for years, other than some connectivity.

All I can say is thank god they released the 5D III, as if this was as good as it got, it would have been a bad look for Canon.

Its wierd. The 6d is in exactly the same position the 5d was.

5d was a 20d with a FF sensor and a few tweaks.
6d is a 60d with a ff sensor and a few tweaks.

5D launched at $3200, 6d launches at $2100 at a time when the USD is worth peanuts.

It has 20mp, ISO 25600+ -3ev focus, wifi, gps, 4.5fps, live view, remote control from your phone, movies etc etc etc.

And yet were unimpressed. hmm..

I highly doubt that the IQ of the 6d will be a problem.

I think its all going to boil down to the AF with the 6d, it sounds like 20d/5d AF on paper, but so far several people who have had a chance to play with it seem to think its much better than that.

If it turns out that Canon has really improved the AF (esp of the outer points) compared with the 5d2 then the 6d will be a pleasant surprise. Its just that on paper the 6d seems sorta lame.

The only "wow" feeling that I have for this 6D is, "Wow! Did Canon just put this type of AF in $2,000+ camera again?" Not a good wow. And this is especially when Nikon releases a camera with more features at the same price point. That's wow!

I'm not in the market for a 6D as I'm using 5D3 & 7D. Anyway, we won't know for sure how the AF performs until the camera is actually available. Will this "new" non-cross-type sensor ever match the performance of the "old" cross-type?

Many people including myself don't find 6D to be that much of an upgrade from a 5D Mark II. Many may disagree that 6D is not a 5D II replacement. Yes, that's true. But 5D II is available new for less than $2,000. Unless 5D II is discontinued, it's not that attractive to pay more for a 6D.

Still, the EOS Remote feature seems to be interesting and could open more possibilities. I hope that one feature that could be added in the future for this application is time-lapse photography controlled via smart phone. That would be really cool.

What makes people think the 6d is the 5d2 replacement? Quite easy to see what the 5d2 got replaced with....

No wow at all, just blah, and overpriced at that. It's not 2005 when the 1Ds II was the only other FX body and a 5D at 40% of the pride was attractive.

EBH

RobDickinson wrote:
Its wierd. The 6d is in exactly the same position the 5d was.

5d was a 20d with a FF sensor and a few tweaks.
6d is a 60d with a ff sensor and a few tweaks.

Except that it isn't. When the light got dim, both 5D and 20D had 1 usable AF point. On paper the 6D's 1 cross-type AF point is mediocre compared to the even the 60D's. On paper. I know--don't judge until it's out. But in this case IMO it's safe to start from what we know and work from there until otherwise proven, which in the case of non-cross-type AF points all of my past experience has been that they're mostly useless in low light, certainly not reliable enough to use consistently in pressure situations.

I know that what you said has a of truth to it, but when AF is a crucial feature then the comparison breaks down. For some people a single AF point is great, and for them I say, "More power to you!" But for some of us that's not the case.

5D launched at $3200, 6d launches at $2100 at a time when the USD is worth peanuts.

This coincides with their relative positioning as you stated above. The 60D is a lower end product compared to the 20D at its time. Similarly the 6D is a lower end product than the 5D in its time. Hence the price makes sense. Again my only real problem with the 6D is the AF. The price would have been acceptable for me if the 7D were at least all cross-type points.

It has 20mp, ISO 25600+ -3ev focus, wifi, gps, 4.5fps, live view, remote control from your phone, movies etc etc etc.

And yet were unimpressed. hmm..

If I need reasonably good AF am I supposed to be impressed by things I have absolutely no need for such as Wifi, GPS, live view, and remote control? I would trade all of those for all cross-type AF points any day and twice on Sunday. Heck, strip the camera all the way down to 5D-level technology (No live view! No movies! How did savages live back then?!) except put an amazing sensor in it (which arguably Canon can't do with their current gen sensors) and a very good AF system in it and I would buy it in a heartbeat over the 6D.

Obviously the camera isn't targeted at me. I'm a general-interest shooter who shoots a lot of people in both posed and candid situations, but basically shoots anything that moves or doesn't move... Uh, so everything then This makes me wonder who it is for? Studio shooters and landscapers? Is that it? Not that you couldn't shoot anything else with it, but are there really so many people out there who would actually use the Wifi, GPS, remote control, etc. over a more competent AF system? I'm not talking about users who think those features might be neat, use them once, then forget they even exist. Are my requirements so unusual? All of the support for the 5DII's AF and now the 6D make me wonder sometimes, despite the many people seemingly on my side decrying the AF.

I understand that a camera can't be designed for everybody, but I think I'm being honest with myself that my bewilderment with Canon's strategy isn't simply a result of selfish pouting from not having my needs catered to. Does this camera really make sense, and if so who does it make sense to and are there enough of those users to justify the feature set?

Cheese what snobs The 6D is not for people who regularly tirade on this forum - people who think the cost of a 24 L2 is normal and who think that the 70-200 2.8 L2 is just a zoom. People who think 45 focus points is barely enough and 22 MP is not enough. You've got the 5D3 with 1 series AF at $3500, the 1DX with 10 FPS at $7000, and you've got the 6D with regular AF and frame rate at $2100. For the normal consumer (as opposed to the prosumer) who thinks maybe FF is better than crop, this is a great camera. I know PetKal won't want one, he just bought a 1DX and a 400 f2.8. EB-1 might want to replace his 50D, 30D, and XTi with one, its no more blah than those, but only if he gets over expecting 2005 pricing for a 2012 body. Just sayin'.

A 6D with a 40 pancake weighs 2 pounds even and supposedly focuses in the dark. wouldn't that make a nice street cam?

It's Canon's decision to approve and deliver a design to their targeted customer, there is no justification but their interest in profits, this is not a difficult proposition. Find market segment, build product, hope for cross over sales; lenses, flashes, accessories, etc.

It's a crap shoot to find what works, gps, wifi; how powerful, andriod/iOS apps...Canon's been doing this for decades, often putting new stuff on lower end models then trickling it up the food chain, down as well...take ECF as one example, the A2E, then EOS3...even the new AF style "black boxes" in the 5D3 and 1DX was 1st seen in the 7D!

We're beta testers with a hunger for more/more/more, so we put up with "not perfect"...and Canon cashes in big time

The only thing WOW about the 6D is when you compare it to what the D600 offers at the same price....then 6D becomes "WOW", what a joke

IF Canon still had a much better sensor/DR/MP then the 6D might make sense with crippled AF for the same price, but that's not the case anymore. Not only does Nikon give you a much superior sensor/DR/MP, but it also gives you a huge list of other superior specs for the same price. WOW!

Any camera that doesn't have 1 Series AF is "crippled" and therefore garbage.

Jeff Nolten wrote:
Any camera that doesn't have 1 Series AF is "crippled" and therefore garbage.

7D isn't crippled, and it's a cheaper camera...

artsupreme wrote:
IF Canon still had a much better sensor/DR/MP then the 6D might make sense with crippled AF for the same price, but that's not the case anymore. Not only does Nikon give you a much superior sensor/DR/MP, but it also gives you a huge list of other superior specs for the same price. WOW!

Well said. The 6D AF is sufficient for my needs and I will be getting it for sure. But I still find it bizarre that the entry level T4i/650D gets a 9-point all cross AF sensor while the 6D does not.

Canon management clearly needs a shake-up.

artsupreme wrote:
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Any camera that doesn't have 1 Series AF is "crippled" and therefore garbage.

7D isn't crippled, and it's a cheaper camera...

RobDickinson wrote:
What makes people think the 6d is the 5d2 replacement? Quite easy to see what the 5d2 got replaced with....

There is a number of people who can't afford a 5D3, but would like to replace their 5D2 with something better. Besides, there are also a lot of people who actually would like to upgrade to full frame, but have been waiting for something better than 5D2 and cheaper than 5D3. When the news about the release of D600, Canon users "expected" something similar from Canon.

No matter what you think, between two Canon cameras, 6D and 5D2 is pretty much a head-to-head match-up. In many areas, 6D is a downgrade from 5D2 for a higher price. Again, for a higher price.

Check what people on this forum think:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1149634/0

Yes. I know people on the internet arnt happy. but when are they ever happy?

5d2 is a rounout model sold cheap.
6D is a new model just introduced , it will be sold cheaper than the 5d2 was eventually I am sure.

I myself I thinkk prefer the 5d2, especially with ML loaded.

Still doesnt mean the 6d is the 5d2 replacement, because its not.

RobDickinson wrote:
Yes. I know people on the internet arnt happy. but when are they ever happy?

5d2 is a rounout model sold cheap.
6D is a new model just introduced , it will be sold cheaper than the 5d2 was eventually I am sure.

I myself I thinkk prefer the 5d2, especially with ML loaded.

Still doesnt mean the 6d is the 5d2 replacement, because its not.

Who says it is anyway? But then again, how come a camera released in very late 2012 can barely compete with a camera that was released in late 2008?

T4i is in a different series than xxD and definitely not a direct replacement of an old xxD camera in any way, but many people find it to be an upgrade from their previous 20D/30D/40D.

Wahoowa wrote:But then again, how come a camera released in very late 2012 can barely compete with a camera that was released in late 2008?

By being $2100 instead of $2700?

RobDickinson wrote:
Wahoowa wrote:But then again, how come a camera released in very late 2012 can barely compete with a camera that was released in late 2008?

By being $2100 instead of $2700?


So, by your logic, $3,500 5D Mark III should have been worse than $10,000 1.3MP DSLR first released in 1991.

But, please, simply ignore if I've ever posted this. I think it's pretty much pointless to have any further argument.