Ubtree
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II | |
I have been waiting for the launch of the 6D MkII before deciding on a replacement for my 5D MkII.
When launched, the 5D seemed to have been designed with the landscape photographer in mind, but the introduction of video to the 5D MkII changed its nature, and the MkIV has more bells and whistles than I need. So for me, it could be that it would be sensible to move from the 5DMk II to a 6D MkII, rather than to a 5D MKIV.
I have therefore been comparing the detailed specifications of the 6D MkII and the 5D MkIV, and thought that others might find the comparison useful.
The results are as follows:
Sensor: 26.2 MP (vs. 30.4 MP)
(With pixels 12% larger, there is potential for wider dynamic range.)
Maximum ISO: 40,000 (vs. 32,000)
Maximum shutter speed: 1/4000 (vs. 1/8000)
X-sync speed: 1/180 sec (vs. 1/200 sec)
AF points: 45 (vs. 61), and confined to the central area of the image.
Exposure meter: 7,560 pixels (vs. 150,000)
Exposure control : Extended range of special scene modes
LCD monitor: 3.0 inch (vs. 3.2 inch)
......................................................1.04 million pixels (vs. 1.62 million pixels)
......................................................Articulating
......................................................No anti-reflection coating
Shutter time lag between simultaneous SW-1/SW-2 ON and start of exposure: 250ms (vs. 130ms)
Additional drive mode: Self-timer: Continuous shooting (after 10-sec., 2 to 10 shots)
Shooting function settings shown in viewfinder:
Present 6D MkII, but absent on 5D MkIV: Grid / Aspect Ratio Line
Absent 6D MkII, but present on 6D MkII: Dual Pixel RAW setting / Digital Lens Optimizer / White balance / AF status indicator
Battery life: Approx. 30% longer
Start-up time: 0.2 sec (vs. 0.1 sec)
Dimensions: 5.93 x 4.58 x 2.99 in. / 150.7 x 116.4 x 75.9mm
vs. 5.67 x 4.35 x 2.94 in. / 144.0 x 110.5 x 74.8mm
Weight : 890g / 31.39 oz vs. 765g / 26.98 oz
Note: I have excluded the controversial video specifications, which have already been discussed at length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than surprise at how few differences there are, the key points for me are:
- The 6D obviously has a lower resolution, and I would be happy to accept 26 MP in exchange for increased dynamic range.
- The maximum ISO could be useful for early morning / late evening shots.
- I would rarely (if ever) need 1/8000 shutter speed.
- The number of AF points is reasonable, but their spread is disappointing. This is not a problem for landscape work, but poor for general use.
- The exposure meter pixel count and configuration is the same as that of the 80D, whereas the 5D MkIV has 4x the number of zones, and each zone has 4x the number of pixels. From my very limited knowledge, i understand that this has only a limited effect on the general accuracy of metering, but improves the performance of more advanced functions such as scene recognition, face recognition, focus tracking. Exposure control is less critical for me, since I check the histogram on most exposures as soon as I have made them.
- The articulating screen is a very big plus point (for taking macro shots of plants, etc. when out in the landscape). It is surprising that Canon did not apply a non-reflective coating ( - once could say, a glaring omission!
 ), but this can be addressed by using a screen protector).
- Reduced weight is always welcome, but a 10% reduction in the camera/lens combination (and a 3% reduction in the total pack weight that I would be carrying) will not sway my purchasing decision.
At the end of the day, I think that the dynamic range will be the deciding factor for me, and so I’ll be waiting until that information becomes available before making a decision.
|
