Scoobert wrote:
Your reference to the D750 is part of my few issues with canon/this camera. It's coming out almost 3 full years behind and offers nothing that couldn't/shouldn't have come out 3 years ago.
Dont get me wrong some of the features this camera has will make it a good seller. I absolutely love the flippy/touch screen. The lack of 4K doesn't really bother me for my uses ( I rarely shoot video), but it should be in there when you can get it in almost everything else now days.
The 1/4000 lock to me is beyond just stupid. When even crop camera's can have 1/8000. Same with the 1/180 flash sync. Even the fn rebel series gets a faster sync speed. Neither of these things would have cost them anything at all to add. Instead I bet it cost them more money to cripple them as it would have to leave it the same as other camera's.
I am sure in canons mind gimping this camera to get you to spend more to upgrade to the higher end camera's. Some people will do that, but all it has me wondering is if I am going to spend 2K on a entry level FF why not spend a couple hundred more and get a sony A7Rii that doesnt have all its features crippled out.
I agree on the lack of 1/8000 and X sync, I would like it to be better, but I disagree with your comparisons:
* The f-in Rebels have APS-C sensors = APS-C shutters = much smaller distance for the shutter blades to cover = same linear speed gives better X sync. And it is not all APS-C bodies that get better than 1/200 x-sync, much like it is more of the norm for many manufacturers to be "creative" with their X-Sync. E.g. the A7R II is known not to sync 1/250s with most studio strobes, while most Canon's and Nikon with 1/250s sync speed do. The 5D3 was also known to not really achieve the rated 1/200s reliably and many people were settling for 1/180 or 1/160s to make sure, so it is not a "Sony thing".
* Same as above for 1/4000 speed. But I agree, whey should be able to give us 1/8000, it is easier than a higher x-sync, and the 6DII already has the x-sync of the 5D3 = same max linear speed shutter. 1/8000 should be there.
I am trying to say that there are weaknesses and "omitted" fineprints in the paper specs that even the field in some ways.
15Bit wrote:
With respect to 4K, who here actually shoots, processes and exports 4K video from a DSLR?
I confess i don't give a crap about video in my camera. I do have a 4K TV though (55 inch) and i've yet to acquire any 4K content to watch on it. 1080p looks amazing on it, so i've never even considered upgrading to 4K netflix, even though i am one of those lucky enough to have cable connection capable of streaming it.
People shoot 4K even on their phones...although even 1080p from phones doesn't look anything like 1080p from a larger camera unless the light is perfect...they just want it to be "there, in case" and of course for e-peen.
Ppl that seriously shoot 4K for movies or Youtube and whatnot, have been into panasonic & Sony long time now, and Nikon's 4K is meh,so ... no DSLRs.
If the 6D II had 4K, but was 1.6x crop (lesser density than the 5D4, so would be less of a crop probably) and with M.JPEG people would still complain that they gave them unusable 4K or gimped UWA capabilities etc...
People just don't want to face the truth: Canon is not giving us a new FF 4K sensor on a DSLR anymore.
There was one, the 1DC. All its Cinema EOS line is built around Super35, not FF 35mm, and the 4K capable DSLRs are shooting @ ~1.3x (1DX II) and ~1.7x (5D4) with still-extraction and not film production in mind.
Simply put, Canon might never give the 4K crowd you what you want, which really sounds like a A7S II.
At least you get usable real time AF in video and a touch screen to assist you, which you don't with any current Sony model
Scoobert wrote:
Your reference to the D750 is part of my few issues with canon/this camera. It's coming out almost 3 full years behind and offers nothing that couldn't/shouldn't have come out 3 years ago.
Dont get me wrong some of the features this camera has will make it a good seller. I absolutely love the flippy/touch screen. The lack of 4K doesn't really bother me for my uses ( I rarely shoot video), but it should be in there when you can get it in almost everything else now days.
The 1/4000 lock to me is beyond just stupid. When even crop camera's can have 1/8000. Same with the 1/180 flash sync. Even the fn rebel series gets a faster sync speed. Neither of these things would have cost them anything at all to add. Instead I bet it cost them more money to cripple them as it would have to leave it the same as other camera's.
I am sure in canons mind gimping this camera to get you to spend more to upgrade to the higher end camera's. Some people will do that, but all it has me wondering is if I am going to spend 2K on a entry level FF why not spend a couple hundred more and get a sony A7Rii that doesnt have all its features crippled out.
I agree on the lack of 1/8000 and X sync, I would like it to be better, but I disagree with your comparisons:
* The f-in Rebels have APS-C sensors = APS-C shutters = much smaller distance for the shutter blades to cover = same linear speed gives better X sync. And it is not all APS-C bodies that get better than 1/200 x-sync, much like it is more of the norm for many manufacturers to be "creative" with their X-Sync. E.g. the A7R II is known not to sync 1/250s with most studio strobes, while most Canon's and Nikon with 1/250s sync speed do. The 5D3 was also known to not really achieve the rated 1/200s reliably and many people were settling for 1/180 or 1/160s to make sure, so it is not a "Sony thing".
* Same as above for 1/4000 speed. But I agree, whey should be able to give us 1/8000, it is easier than a higher x-sync, and the 6DII already has the x-sync of the 5D3 = same max linear speed shutter. 1/8000 should be there.
I am trying to say that there are weaknesses and "omitted" fineprints in the paper specs that even the field in some ways.
15Bit wrote:
With respect to 4K, who here actually shoots, processes and exports 4K video from a DSLR?
I confess i don't give a crap about video in my camera. I do have a 4K TV though (55 inch) and i've yet to acquire any 4K content to watch on it. 1080p looks amazing on it, so i've never even considered upgrading to 4K netflix, even though i am one of those lucky enough to have cable connection capable of streaming it.
People shoot 4K even on their phones...although even 1080p from phones doesn't look anything like 1080p from a larger camera unless the light is perfect...they just want it to be "there, in case" and of course for e-peen.
If the 6D II had 4K, but was 1.6x crop (lesser density than the 5D4, so would be less of a crop probably) and with M.JPEG people would still complain that they gave them unusable 4K or gimped UWA capabilities etc...
People just don't want to face the truth: Canon is not giving us a new FF 4K sensor on a DSLR anymore.
There was one, the 1DC. All its Cinema EOS line is built around Super35, not FF 35mm, and the 4K capable DSLRs are shooting @ ~1.3x (1DX II) and ~1.7x (5D4) with still-extraction and not film production in mind.
Simply put, Canon might never give the 4K crowd you what you want, which really sounds like a A7S II.
At least you get usable real time AF in video and a touch screen to assist you, which you don't with any current Sony model
Scoobert wrote:
Your reference to the D750 is part of my few issues with canon/this camera. It's coming out almost 3 full years behind and offers nothing that couldn't/shouldn't have come out 3 years ago.
Dont get me wrong some of the features this camera has will make it a good seller. I absolutely love the flippy/touch screen. The lack of 4K doesn't really bother me for my uses ( I rarely shoot video), but it should be in there when you can get it in almost everything else now days.
The 1/4000 lock to me is beyond just stupid. When even crop camera's can have 1/8000. Same with the 1/180 flash sync. Even the fn rebel series gets a faster sync speed. Neither of these things would have cost them anything at all to add. Instead I bet it cost them more money to cripple them as it would have to leave it the same as other camera's.
I am sure in canons mind gimping this camera to get you to spend more to upgrade to the higher end camera's. Some people will do that, but all it has me wondering is if I am going to spend 2K on a entry level FF why not spend a couple hundred more and get a sony A7Rii that doesnt have all its features crippled out.
I agree on the lack of 1/8000 and X sync, I would like it to be better, but I disagree with your comparisons:
* The f-in Rebels have APS-C sensors = APS-C shutters = much smaller distance for the shutter blades to cover = same linear speed gives better X sync. And it is not all APS-C bodies that get better than 1/200 x-sync, much like it is more of the norm for many manufacturers to be "creative" with their X-Sync. E.g. the A7R II is known not to sync 1/250s with most studio strobes, while most Canon's and Nikon with 1/250s sync speed do. The 5D3 was also known to not really achieve the rated 1/200s reliably and many people were settling for 1/180 or 1/160s to make sure, so it is not a "Sony thing".
* Same as above for 1/4000 speed. But I agree, whey should be able to give us 1/8000, it is easier than a higher x-sync, and the 6DII already has the x-sync of the 5D3 = same max linear speed shutter. 1/8000 should be there.
I am trying to say that there are weaknesses and "omitted" fineprints in the paper specs that even the field in some ways.
Jun 29, 2017 at 01:30 PM
Previous versions of dtolios's message #14089478 « Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II »
