@VictorTrasvina
it does not deny that Canon played an insulting card to their customers.

@herein2017
I guess "pixel peeping" is relative to personal taste. Considering the subpar 1080 offering of the 6DII I would say you are easy to please. Nice to see that you are the ideal Canon customer: happy to overpay a subpar product. If fewer of you were around Canon would be forced to move their asses along with the other brands.

Much of the complaining is focused on the absence of additional extras that are near-standard these days. And regressing the sensor to this extent has never been done before. There's a reason for that.

@Kaso, getting the shutter replaced on a Ten Year Old Camera seems sorta silly to me—YMMV.

You don't have to quote KR in order to believe what I wrote. And, by the way, I wrote "SL1."

Get yourself the cheapest, least capable camera if none of the more advanced cameras make any difference in the final images TO YOU.

Why do you bother with an article on the 6D Mark II?

Going ...

gone.

@Kaso, Having worked as a pro for many years, I know what top-end clients expect—they don't care about advanced cameras, they care about results. And the best results come from lighting knowledge, not high ISO. "...it's hard to tell the difference between something shot with a 20D, a 1DS2 or a 5D3.' were all shot with Profoto packs and heads—some with custom made modifiers.

For a pro, ROI is the most important feature—you'd be surprised at the crap, obsolete cameras used by many advertising and editorial shooters. A new 6D1/2 would fit the bill, when my shutter dies :).

@ armandino - Yeah I saw and agree. I mentioned the 80D (and many others) as well. Personally the 7D II stands out as more for less, I vastly prefer the 7D/5D body type to the X0D/6D, for a model within the same ecosystem.

"And so on. Even fast normal primes, you really need to be using f1.4 (or brighter) to have any really advantage to the FF."

How so? Cheap f/1.8 prime on FF matches results of a lot more expensive f/1.2 on DX, provided it even exists.

CCD FTW, you are skirting the issue, you need the size, weight and price of f/1.2 prime to match f/1.8 of FF, f/0.9 to match f/1.4 on FF, etc. When you start matching FF performance on APS-C it can quickly become the more expensive and/or larger kit.

That is the advantage of FF - more relaxed lens design requirements for the same light gathering. It shows in zoom as well, all the zooms faster than 2.8 have reduced range compared to FX lenses of the same , that 1.4x is wide angle lens is barely a zoom. Similar to 50-100mm goes, while the difference in compression between 150 and 200mm isn't great, it is still there, so is greater reach, and convenience of 3x zoom over 2x zoom. DX has more compromises when it is trying to match FF performance.

As far as effective resolution goes, general consensus, dxomark measurements, and image samples on www.the-digital-picture.com, all agree that FF resolves more detail than DX on pretty much all the lenses even when sensor resolution is the same.

A bit on that last remark. APS-C resolves more detail. That's why lenses look softer on APS-C than FF, despite cutting out the weakest part of the frame. You need more than 2x the res on FF to match the detail captured by APS-C.

@ Marko2 "CCD FTW, you are skirting the issue...."

As are you. Thus my opening statement about unless using specifically very fast FF primes lenses. Perhaps you need to read it again. There are few f1.2 lenses available for DSLRs, but if you think that 1/3 of a stop is going to make a drastic difference to your photography I think you need a different hobby.

"It shows in zoom as well, all the zooms faster than 2.8 have reduced range compared to FX lenses of the same"

Yes, and? I feel we have covered this.

"that 1.4x is wide angle lens is barely a zoom"

You seem to think 1/3 stop of DoF is going to be life altering, but the AoV difference between 21mm equiv and 30mm isn't... Interesting. Personally I don't know a single FF UWA f2.8 zoom that is much (if anything) over 2x and certainly not 3x. Are they 'hardly zooms' also?

TBC

"DX has more compromises when it is trying to match FF performance."

Yet you're ignoring the advantages, because FF must always be better right?

"As far as effective resolution goes, general consensus, dxomark measurements, and image samples on www.the-digital-picture.com, all agree that FF resolves more detail than DX on pretty much all the lenses even when sensor resolution is the same."

What a load of BS. The difference is nominal at best between those lenses mentioned and their FF counterparts when used on (say) a 20MP APS-C and 20MP FF respectively. Those APS-C lenses are also considerably cheaper, making the whole package cheaper with greater capabilities. Not to mention that any resolution advantage at base ISO that FF had is lost once you factor the 1 1/3 stop loss in aperture and in many cases even more, closer to 2 stops. So I am sure under test conditions you might be able to eek out a whopping 1MP more, in real world usage that would evaporate.

TBC

You've pointed out zoom range and... well a marginal (at most) improvement in resolution under optimal conditions. That's very helpful, thank you for that. You also failed to address any other points at all. Congrats.

CCD FTW, "You seem to think 1/3 stop of DoF is going to be life altering"

You are being dishonest. I never even mentioned the 1/3 stop difference, that was you when you cherry picked a single comparison (that I never mentioned myself) that you thought is a bit less unfavorable to APS-C, while ignoring all the ones I did mention.

On zoom, 21-30mm, the only example you could find, is a lot less useful range than 16-35mm or similar that are dime a dozen on FF in the f/2.8 variant. Even ultra wide, specialist lens, like Canon 11-24mm has wider zoom ratio. But you can't concede advantage of FF here either without a lot of handwaving.

I'll make a new detailed post on resolution.

" So I am sure under test conditions you might be able to eek out a whopping 1MP more, in real world usage that would evaporate."

Only if you are very selective in what lenses you mount on APS-C for comparison, but that would be more cherry picking from you, wouldn't it? Lets compare lenses with same sharpness mounted on 20MP FF and APS-C:

Canon 85mm:
23MP on 50MP 5dsr
16MP on 6d
8MP on 7d II

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF85mm-f-1.8-USM

There is a greater difference in effective resolution between 20MP 6d and 20MP 7d II than between 50MP 5dsr and 6d. Marginal difference you said?

Canon 50mm f/1.8.
21MP on 50MP 5dsr
15MP on 20MP 6d,
10MP on 20MP 7d II.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF50mm-f-1-8-II

Nikon 70-200mm
21MP on D810
17MP on D750
12MP on D7100

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-Nikkor-24-70mm-f-2.8G-ED

Some visual inspection shows the same thing, FF is a lot sharper everywhere, including in the corners:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

And if we are less fair to APS-C and compare lenses at equivalent fstops difference is night and day:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=106&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I could do this all day long, but the bottom line is, you were wrong.

Apparently dim witted pixel peepers can't see anything past that.

And from a practical standpoint, ignoring your dishonesty and attempts to deny and minimize all the advantages FF has over APS-C, most dslr users don't want to limit their lens choice to just two lenses.

And they will inevitably buy lenses that will give them less sharp results than equivalent FF lens. This is especially true for Canon and Nikon because they treat APS-C as a second class citizen. All the best lenses are made for FF system, and APS-C users are expected to use them instead of having a complete APS-C system that stands on its own.

@Marko2 - ALL you seem to care about is being a pixel peeping noob. I'm sorry I can't help you to understand why you would compare different lenses across different format trying to get similar photographic results, I really can't.

The fact that you can't see anything beyond maximum sharpness according to DXOMark in controlled conditions tells me this conversation is over. You have been unable to reapond to any of the advantages, only sharpness, sharpness, sharpness. Plus some misguided understanding about depth of field.

Go back to your test charts loser.

@ Marko2 - Actually I looked at some of your other comments in other 'discussions' you have and guess what I found? More pedantic bickering about absolute basics, the things you have managed to wrap your head around and can easily quantify. With the same abrasive and disrespectful tone you have here.

Honestly, I couldn't give two big piles of turd what you have to 'contribute' on the matter, or any other matter for that matter.

The nerve? Who do you think you are? Seriously? I can't count how many times you have called me 'dishonest' because you didn't 'get it'. I'm sorry you aren't that smart. I'm sorry you can't fathom simple ideas. I'm sorry the most you know is sharpness with test charts. You are a waste of oxygen.

You point out the 'basics' (as you see them) because you literally can't understand anything more complex or nuanced. Then you go and 'like' your own posts... Just sad.

Okay, what if I still want a Canon DSLR and don't want to spend more than ~$2000?

This is exactly why the 6DII is what it is if you have to have a Canon FF for under $2,000. They know that people would go for it anyway.
Actually, looking for a used 5DS is not a bad idea at all if you do not care for video and touch/tilt screen. A lot of camera to be honest. I would still wait to see the A7III.....

@CCD FTW
indeed that is why I sold my 7DII after I got my A7RII

5DS's IQ was pretty terrible, though. God help the 6D II if it can't at least beat that camera...

@ BlueBomberTurbo - Maybe in the hyper-DR department, but otherwise it has great IQ? It had improved DR over previous Canon iterations, especially 5D III, but also 6D, 1DX etc. I certainly never had any issues with it (and I am not a Canon apologist). It's also still the highest resolution sensor in a 135 format camera. Even high ISO performance was pretty good, both on a pixel level and downsampled. The 6D II has literally no chance of having better IQ than the 5DS. None whatsoever.

@BlueBomberTurbo you should try it before making such claims.

Those are non-cropped 50mpx images with minimum processing.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject/32729512521/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject/31731655622/in/dateposted/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject/24094140353/in/dateposted/

This is the A7r2:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject/28738645471/in/dateposted/

No difference except of the A7r2 picks up green color cast from everywhere.

Not sure if you aware about strobes / mixed light widely used nowadays in portraiture? Or maybe blending techniques in landscape photography?
Here is a blend for you: https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject/35001792943/
Post yours whatever you think is challenging.

I'm also wondering what 50mpx FF CCD sensors existed 15 years ago ;)

https://www.flickr.com/gp/96121329@N04/678X4K - please take a look at the top right corner where it's obvious the highlights were pulled down and the tree tops look much darker, but the girl's face is still in the shade. I'm not sure but IMO you could carefully throw some fill light from both sides to balance the picture. When light is properly set you simply don't need spend hours in PP trying to make it look "real".

Concerning the 1dx vs a7r2 shots - why couldn't you underexpose the 1dx? Granted you'll have more noise in the shadows but it will be visible only if someone pixel peeps. I highly doubt your client would ever notice. With modern noise reduction algorithms it's hard to call it a problem.

BTW this picture https://www.flickr.com/photos/96121329@N04/15658210820/in/dateposted/ is really AWESOME.

Very cool "glow in the dark photography".

I'm shooting Sony cameras since the A99, never missed a release except of the A9 (after I finally gave up on the A7r2 and Sony in general a couple of months ago). I never was able to push shadows more than 70-75% without seeing some ugly noise (which would annoy me looking at 1:1). With the 5DsR it's around 60-70%. I don't do it much with the 1dx2, but it's probably somewhere in between. But... if I look at those pictures fitted to my screen - I don't really see any noise. Assuming the 6DII has the same sensor tech as the 5DsR, it's more than acceptable to make a decent photo to be published online. If some needs to push / pull really hard - the apps like DxO Optics Pro can reduce noise in batches.

Well, that's my opinion and I never tried the "glow in the dark photography" :)

"Does it have 1/250sec flash sync like 80D?
Does it have 1/8000sec shutter speed like 80D?
Does it have similar AF point coverage like 80D?
No. No. No."

Oh gosh, I'm so sorry it also has a different shutter mechanism, because hey it's full frame. AF coverage is exactly the same, because it's the same AF. But the full frame has more area outside. Get it? No. No. No.

Did you answer any of those questions? No. No. No.

This is why I hate people.

You made a bunch of incorrect arguements, when called on it you just move on to something else to try and maintain that you're 'correct' never having to justify your statements. Thats weak AF (not auto focus). Now you're focussing on one thing (literally) as it is all you have left and trying to build that up to be enough of a 'deal breaker' in itself.

I get you don't like it. Hey, I don't like it. I won't buy it. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to buy it, including yourself. I'm merely pointing out how your post was a silly emotional response.

6D was $2k when it was released. 6D was also panned for not being worth the money, yet here we are, you’re a happy camper with your 6D... Funny that. Canon didn’t implement the features of a $2k camera when the 6D was released... Again happy with your 6D?

I don’t care whether you like it or not. Your statement was false. Then when you had no response you simply ‘forget’ and move on to some other BS instead of being a grown up and admit you were mistaken.

I’m not here to argue that the camera is good, bad or otherwise. Your claim was a bunch of BS and you should own that.

" but 5 years ago it was a very decent camera and there was not much competition"

What a moron you are, still thinking you have a clue.

The 6D came out competing against the D600, which had dual card slots and a 39-Point AF system compared to it's poxy 9-points. It also had more resolution and far better dynamic range, for less money. Released literally a month or something apart.

It also had the same weak body, no headphone jack, poor video, blah blah blah that you're complaining about with the MkII. In other words you bought an overpriced 1100D. What a POS. $1500?! You must be a real moron to have bought that. Clown boy.

"Kapeesh?" - FFS you sound like an idiot. How old are you? Tell you what if you talked like that in person I would have wrapped your overpriced 1100D around your head by now. Kapeesh?

Idiot.