Reading mode: Light Dark

Updated specs on the EOS 6D

Go to last post
C

cs hauser

Leading Member
Messages
739
Solutions
1
Reaction score
202
Location
US
Digicam-info.com was the original source of the leaked 6D specs. They have since quietly updated it with more information. Seems to be accurate, in light of the Adorama accidental leak:
  • 20.2 MP @ 4.5 fps
  • Brand new 11-pt AF system that is "strong" in low light
  • 1/4000 max shutter speed
  • Built-in GPS
  • Built-in Wi-Fi
  • Dust & Splash proof Magnesium Alloy Body
  • Dimensions: 5.65" x 4.35" x 2.8"
  • Weight: 755 g (with battery)
  • SD cards only
  • Viewfinder: 97% coverage and 0.71x magnification
  • $2,099 introductory price
  • December 2012 release date
Notice that the camera will be the same size as an EOS 40D, and in fact it will be lighter. The specs are rather underwhelming compared to the D600. Canon appears to be betting that the built-in Wifi and built-in GPS will justify the pedestrian specs on everything else. The Nikon D600 will require about $250 in clumsy external accessories for GPS and wifi connectivity.

I hope Canon will at least get creative with that built-in Wi-Fi. Providing aps for cellphones to remotely control the camera would be a start.

I'm hoping that the 11-pt AF system isn't as bad as it sounds. Hopefully they will all be cross-type, even if only the center point is f2.8. I'm also quite certain that there will be many (non-selectable) assist points in addition to those 11. Without assist points, an 11-pt AF system would actually be a downgrade from the original 5D, which had 15 total points. I don't think Canon will be so crazy as to take a further step back from the original EOS 5D AF system.
 
Too little and too late? Most of the important specs are no better than or not as good as D600. Plus the almost certain 2 stop or so DR deficit. But it's still a good option for people who have to stay Canon and don't want to spend $1000+ more.

Edit: Think about it what is the point for the camera now that you can buy a 5DII for less than that.
 
Silvex said:
Click to expand...
That came from an unknown, unproven source. Most likely a fake.

Digicam-info was the japanese site that leaked the original specs. I put more weight on their rumors if only because the adorama leak seemed to (partially) confirm the digicam-info specs.
 
GPS, Wifi, Better autofocus, slightly better high iso image, smaller and lighter. dont underestimate the last part. I doubt that the sensor is any better, as it would make no sense so close to release of 5d3 and 1dx
carlk said:
Too little and too late? Most of the important specs are no better than or not as good as D600. Plus the almost certain 2 stop or so DR deficit. But it's still a good option for people who have to stay Canon and don't want to spend $1000+ more.

Edit: Think about it what is the point for the camera now that you can buy a 5DII for less than that.
Click to expand...
--
http://razzi.me/kevindar/photos
 
The rumor spec sounds good for those want a cheap and light entry-level FF camera or a backup one from those 1DX and 5D3 owners. Don't be fooled by number of AF points as AF accuracy and speed are not directly based on number of points. D7000 has 39 pts while 60D only has 9 pt (all cross points however). However we have heard so many D7000 AF fiasco while almost zero from 60D owners. In addition two extra stops of shadow pulling are not all IQ about. Nikon/Sony sensor is better in shadow pulling at base ISO but Canon sensor/processor is better in color tonality and skin tone on my opinion that echoed by many others that are more important to me. I don't need and don't want to pull shadow 4-5 stops so it's not that critical to me. But color tonality and skin tone are something I benefit from most photos everyday. Then come to lens' choice and I am glad I chose Canon years ago. I will still choose Canon if I start from scratch today, not from fanboyism but from what are more important to me.
kevindar said:
GPS, Wifi, Better autofocus, slightly better high iso image, smaller and lighter. dont underestimate the last part. I doubt that the sensor is any better, as it would make no sense so close to release of 5d3 and 1dx
carlk said:
Too little and too late? Most of the important specs are no better than or not as good as D600. Plus the almost certain 2 stop or so DR deficit. But it's still a good option for people who have to stay Canon and don't want to spend $1000+ more.

Edit: Think about it what is the point for the camera now that you can buy a 5DII for less than that.
Click to expand...
--
http://razzi.me/kevindar/photos
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
qianp2k said:
I don't need and don't want to pull shadow 4-5 stops so it's not that critical to me.
Click to expand...
In a correctly exposed shot you would rarely need to lift shadows, but look at it from the other side. You may wish to recover blown highlights. If the camera offers you 4-5 stops cleaner shadows you can underexpose to save the highlights and pull the whole image back to what it should look like, without getting much noise.

--
Weather & Photography
http://www.lightningwizard.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightningwizard
 
cs hauser said:
I'm hoping that the 11-pt AF system isn't as bad as it sounds. Hopefully they will all be cross-type, even if only the center point is f2.8. I'm also quite certain that there will be many (non-selectable) assist points in addition to those 11. Without assist points, an 11-pt AF system would actually be a downgrade from the original 5D, which had 15 total points. I don't think Canon will be so crazy as to take a further step back from the original EOS 5D AF system.
Click to expand...
not really .. if it's 11 points selectable than that's an improvement for most shooting over the original 5D and 5D2 .. the 6 none selectable points were only horizontal and only used during AI servo.

i'm not too sure where 11 points would even come in as far as canon AF .. canon's never had a 11 point AF .. 19, 9, 15** (sorta) et all.

but I would certainly choose 11 points selectable cross type AF over the older 5D / 5D2 AF any day of the week.
 
oscarvdvelde said:
qianp2k said:
I don't need and don't want to pull shadow 4-5 stops so it's not that critical to me.
Click to expand...
In a correctly exposed shot you would rarely need to lift shadows, but look at it from the other side. You may wish to recover blown highlights. If the camera offers you 4-5 stops cleaner shadows you can underexpose to save the highlights and pull the whole image back to what it should look like, without getting much noise.
Click to expand...
at a sacrifice of tonality.
 
oscarvdvelde said:
qianp2k said:
I don't need and don't want to pull shadow 4-5 stops so it's not that critical to me.
Click to expand...
In a correctly exposed shot you would rarely need to lift shadows,
Click to expand...
That's point. Canon metering generally is pretty accurate even in old model such as 5Dc. Or as Hans Kruse suggested to take exposure bracketing and select the best one. His photos also explain why many prefer Canon colors.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=42331848&page=1
oscarvdvelde said:
but look at it from the other side. You may wish to recover blown highlights. If the camera offers you 4-5 stops cleaner shadows you can underexpose to save the highlights and pull the whole image back to what it should look like, without getting much noise.
Click to expand...
True. If you frequently need to rescue under-exposed photos or frequently want to expose on highlight then pull the shadow 4-5 stops. Nikon/Sony cameras are your choice. But extreme shadow pulling is not my taste that looks surreal with shadow area under equivalent ISO 1600/3200 IQ after 4-5 stop lifting.

I can do moderate lifting if necessary. This photos is from 5D2 in my recent Vancouver/Alaska trip. It is correctly exposed. I forgot to bring GND filter in my trip but I don't want a blowout sky so I intentionally exposed on sky a bit. I moved shadow bar to 100% (plus +1/3 EC) in LR4 and I am satisfied with result under my taste. Sure I can see a bit of banding in very dark surface at 100% cropped size. But I will not see it if I print or at my 24" monitor ;)




oscarvdvelde said:
--
Weather & Photography
http://www.lightningwizard.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightningwizard
Click to expand...
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
How hard is it to make a VF with 100% coverage?
97 is almost, but not quite there... Kind of annoying.
 
oscarvdvelde said:
qianp2k said:
I don't need and don't want to pull shadow 4-5 stops so it's not that critical to me.
Click to expand...
In a correctly exposed shot you would rarely need to lift shadows...
Click to expand...
The only reason a "correctly exposed" shot would not require shadow lifting is because the shadows are displayed dark per the tone curve applied to the photo.
oscarvdvelde said:
...but look at it from the other side. You may wish to recover blown highlights.
Click to expand...
This is impossible, by definition. Anything blown is blown. Period. What you can do, as you suggest in the paragraph immediately below, is use a lower exposure (as opposed to "underexpose") to preserve the highlights and then apply the appropriate tone curve to the photo.
oscarvdvelde said:
If the camera offers you 4-5 stops cleaner shadows you can underexpose to save the highlights and pull the whole image back to what it should look like, without getting much noise.
Click to expand...
As I said above, this is not "underexposure", but rather using a lower exposure to preserve the highlights, in combination with the desired tone curve to render the desired photo.

The whole notion of "underexposure" and "overexposure" only have meaning in terms of the visual properties of the final photo. An "underexposed" photo means that a higher exposure would have resulted in a better photo, and an "overexposed" photo means that a lower exposure would have resulted in a better photo.

If a lower exposure results in a better photo, then the lower exposure is not "underexposed". This is more than semantics -- it is central to photography, and directly tied to the DR capabilities of the sensor.
 
Pitbullo said:
How hard is it to make a VF with 100% coverage?
97 is almost, but not quite there... Kind of annoying.
Click to expand...
It’s not that a 100% viewfinder is difficult, but that 97% covers small errors in assembling the body. More "slop" so to speak. Not having to accurately hit 100% potentially lowers the overall cost.
 
D600 covers 100%
But I know that it it made in Thailand and canon's 6D will be made in Japan

It looks like 6D does has a builtin flash......the leaked pic about looks quite real to me!
and digitalcam was wrong for several times before,

Also no one has guessed 5D3 is equipped with 61 points AF even right before its launch

So I think the leaked spec is not entirely correct

I hope 6D has more than 18 AF points and 11 of them are cross with double cross in the center

Having single SD slot, 97% viewfinder, no quiet shutter, and only 1/4000 shutter, lower shutter life cycle/etc...
Already distinguish itself from the higher spec 5D3

Wedding photographer will still buy 5D3 because of the above
 
Great Bustard said:
oscarvdvelde said:
qianp2k said:
I don't need and don't want to pull shadow 4-5 stops so it's not that critical to me.
Click to expand...
In a correctly exposed shot you would rarely need to lift shadows...
Click to expand...
The only reason a "correctly exposed" shot would not require shadow lifting is because the shadows are displayed dark per the tone curve applied to the photo.
Click to expand...
Shadows are shadows as your eyes see. Exposure is displayed in histogram. Towards left is under-exposure while towards right is over-exposure
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
...but look at it from the other side. You may wish to recover blown highlights.
Click to expand...
This is impossible, by definition. Anything blown is blown. Period. What you can do, as you suggest in the paragraph immediately below, is use a lower exposure (as opposed to "underexpose") to preserve the highlights and then apply the appropriate tone curve to the photo.
Click to expand...
Not quite true. You always can recover some details in highlights unless it’s well beyond 18% grey-level.
Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:
If the camera offers you 4-5 stops cleaner shadows you can underexpose to save the highlights and pull the whole image back to what it should look like, without getting much noise.
Click to expand...
As I said above, this is not "underexposure", but rather using a lower exposure to preserve the highlights, in combination with the desired tone curve to render the desired photo.
Click to expand...
This is not a free ride but comes with the price of extra noises after lifting shadow. Your lower exposure is the same as under-exposure from the perspective of histogram as most people understand.
Great Bustard said:
The whole notion of "underexposure" and "overexposure" only have meaning in terms of the visual properties of the final photo. An "underexposed" photo means that a higher exposure would have resulted in a better photo, and an "overexposed" photo means that a lower exposure would have resulted in a better photo.
Click to expand...
From the perspective of histogram.
Great Bustard said:
If a lower exposure results in a better photo, then the lower exposure is not "underexposed". This is more than semantics -- it is central to photography, and directly tied to the DR capabilities of the sensor.
Click to expand...
That tactic (that exposed on highlights then pull shadows extremely) or extreme shadow pulling doesn’t result better photos as we have seen enough. It usually results to HDR surreal look and more noises in shadow areas. That usually destroys color tonality and accuracy. It doesn’t replace the traditional better photography techniques such as using GND filters on highlights and expose on mid-tone if you could. It’s largely the mid-tone determines IQ not shadows nor highlights areas. Personally I also more care highlight recovery and only need to pull shadow moderately on my taste.

--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
 
they can get a 5D2 cheaper and a real camera for $2750?
cs hauser said:
Digicam-info.com was the original source of the leaked 6D specs. They have since quietly updated it with more information. Seems to be accurate, in light of the Adorama accidental leak:
  • 20.2 MP @ 4.5 fps
  • Brand new 11-pt AF system that is "strong" in low light
  • 1/4000 max shutter speed
  • Built-in GPS
  • Built-in Wi-Fi
  • Dust & Splash proof Magnesium Alloy Body
  • Dimensions: 5.65" x 4.35" x 2.8"
  • Weight: 755 g (with battery)
  • SD cards only
  • Viewfinder: 97% coverage and 0.71x magnification
  • $2,099 introductory price
  • December 2012 release date
Notice that the camera will be the same size as an EOS 40D, and in fact it will be lighter. The specs are rather underwhelming compared to the D600. Canon appears to be betting that the built-in Wifi and built-in GPS will justify the pedestrian specs on everything else. The Nikon D600 will require about $250 in clumsy external accessories for GPS and wifi connectivity.

I hope Canon will at least get creative with that built-in Wi-Fi. Providing aps for cellphones to remotely control the camera would be a start.

I'm hoping that the 11-pt AF system isn't as bad as it sounds. Hopefully they will all be cross-type, even if only the center point is f2.8. I'm also quite certain that there will be many (non-selectable) assist points in addition to those 11. Without assist points, an 11-pt AF system would actually be a downgrade from the original 5D, which had 15 total points. I don't think Canon will be so crazy as to take a further step back from the original EOS 5D AF system.
Click to expand...
--

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
 
Rick Knepper said:
they can get a 5D2 cheaper and a real camera for $2750?
Click to expand...
5D2 .. not sold by canon anymore.

why would anyone purchase a rebel over a 60D or a 60D over a 7D then?

or for that matter why would anyone purchase a D600 over a D800?

I don't mind this ... first version of the 6D series .. canon will assuredly mark I it in a few years time .. curious on the shutter and blackout times . if they are better than the 5D2 .. and the body more responsive than the laggy 5D2 .. it's sure to do well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dick Dastardly
Canon 6D- a bargain in 2024
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
ROUSSEL_Photographer
R
I
Is it worth upgrading a B camera from a 6D to a 5D mark III?
Replies
10
Views
11
Igor Sotelo
I
F
new specs on Z9
Replies
7
Views
8
flashpixx
flashpixx
B
R3 press release?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
45
Mark B.
M
D
Upgrade from 6D to EOS R
2
Replies
39
Views
40
Eddie Rizk
E

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top