cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

6D Mark ii- Are the owners satisfied? I backed away from it based on the bad internet reviews....

secondlevel
Enthusiast

I backed away from buying the new 6D Mark ii based on all the negative reviews that it received.  However, yesterday I saw the DXO scores and the camera did ok.  That made me start to wonder if I was missing something. Can really produce a usable image at ISO 40,000?

 

I currenly own a 60D, 77D, and the original 6D.  I feel I have most situations that I encounter covered with these models.  Nevertheless, with the cost down on it and I already have lens and flashes I wonder  about it.  I would only need the body.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

shadowsports
Legend
Legend

Greetings,

Everyone has their own standards, experiences and opinions.  I have decades of experience with Canon, and am a former T6s owner.  An enthusiast who does not rely on his camera to put food on the table. 

 

6d2, my reasons for purchase.  I was looking to move up to FF and a 5dMKx wasn't in the cards.  Not because of the price, but because it doesn't have a articulating screen.  Silly, I know.  This is a feature I really enjoy and I hope it happens by the time I'm ready to step up again.  Maybe it never will on a true pro body?   

 

I read the same reviews as you.  They gave me pause, but I continued to research. I didn't want to invest in a older 6d.  (Which I fully acknowledge is a great camera)   After more research, I bought the body.  Its fantastic.  As mentioned, we all have different expectations.  It checked the majority of boxes for me and got me to FF at a reasonable price point, improving on what I had and meeting the criteria I had for upgrade.  The 6d2 is an improvement over the 6d.  Canon has improved almost every aspect of the original platform.  For someone coming from APS-C, its a nice upgrade.  The upgraded AF alone helped to sell me.

 

However, for someone who already owns a entry level FF, the feature set and modest upgrades of the 6d2 might not feel like a big step up, or justify the cost for the value being received.  This depends on the user and his/hers expectations.  Also the intended use of the camera.

 

The camera has already been to Europe with me, a few weddings (as a guest) and to family celebrations.  Used under various shooting conditions, weather and more.  Its perfomed well and I really like it.  When my casual snaps at my niece's wedding came back better than their professional photographers...  I felt even better.  He had a 6d with a Sigma Art lens.  I had a 6d2 with the same lens.  He looked like he knew what he was doing.  But my images are the ones the family wants to frame.  It was a bit of luck coupled with a great body and my modest (non professional) experience.  And lets not forget that Sigma lens which I love as well.  I still classify myself as an enthusiast.  I'm unloading my crop equipment.  Had 2 great years with it.  Body is gone, have some lenses left that will eventually go to good homes. Its a hobby, I just need one good body and the 6d2 is it for now.      

 

Side by side, the body is an improvement from the original.  But will it give you the true bump in performnace is something only you can probably answer.       

 

   

~Rick
Bay Area - CA


~R5 C (1.0.6.1) ~RF Trinity, ~RF 100 Macro, ~RF 100~400, ~RF 100~500, +RF 1.4x TC, +Canon Control Ring, BG-R10, 430EX III-RT ~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~DaVinci Resolve ~Windows11 Pro ~ImageClass MF644Cdw/MF656Cdw ~Pixel 8
~CarePaks Are Worth It

View solution in original post

72 REPLIES 72


@secondlevel wrote:
Thank you everyone for the replies. However, we are getting off topic. My question concerns the new 6D. Full frame vs Crop isn’t an concern.

I agree.  But, your original post stated that you had initially passed on the 6D2, and wanted to give it a second look.  You asked what, if anything, is good about a 6D2.  

 

Personally, I think there are a number of advantages of a 6D2.  Ernie seems to have a counter argument, which is a rather negative opinion of the 6D and the 6D2.  I would encourage you to let him explain the rationale behind his beliefs.  

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

But, your original post stated that you had initially passed on the 6D2, and wanted to give it a second look.  You asked what, if anything, is good about a 6D2.  

 Personally, I think there are a number of advantages of a 6D2.  Ernie seems to have a counter argument, which is a rather negative opinion of the 6D and the 6D2.  I would encourage you to let him explain the rationale behind his beliefs."

 

This may not seem significant  but considering the 6D Mk II is a newer camera with a full-frame sensor at double the price of the 80D.  At high ISO's you may see, probably will see, about a 1 stop improvement in the 6D Mk II over the 80D.  Is that worth almost double the price tag?

The 80D focus points are positioned better vs the 6D Mk II.   The extra 25% in resolution from the 6D Mark II isn't much of a difference especially when you can use the crop factor as an advantage.  It is a give and get situation.  Some inner web tests I have seen claim the 80D makes sharper photos besides.  My unofficial visual examination confirms that. Disclaimer, I don't own either or any of these.  I have just toyed around with them for short periods of time.

 

In the end you need to buy what you deem is best and not what I or anyone here thinks is best.  But in the end my choice, the 80D,  saves you a bunch of money that can be spent on lenses.  When you come right down to it lenses is where its at anyway.

 
EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


ebiggs1 wrote:

But, your original post stated that you had initially passed on the 6D2, and wanted to give it a second look.  You asked what, if anything, is good about a 6D2.  

 Personally, I think there are a number of advantages of a 6D2.  Ernie seems to have a counter argument, which is a rather negative opinion of the 6D and the 6D2.  I would encourage you to let him explain the rationale behind his beliefs."

 

This may not seem significant  but considering the 6D Mk II is a newer camera with a full-frame sensor at double the price of the 80D.  At high ISO's you may see, probably will see, about a 1 stop improvement in the 6D Mk II over the 80D.  Is that worth almost double the price tag?

The 80D focus points are positioned better vs the 6D Mk II.   The extra 25% in resolution from the 6D Mark II isn't much of a difference especially when you can use the crop factor as an advantage.  It is a give and get situation.  Some inner web tests I have seen claim the 80D makes sharper photos besides.  My unofficial visual examination confirms that. Disclaimer, I don't own either or any of these.  I have just toyed around with them for short periods of time.

 

In the end you need to buy what you deem is best and not what I or anyone here thinks is best.  But in the end my choice, the 80D,  saves you a bunch of money that can be spent on lenses.  When you come right down to it lenses is where its at anyway.

 

Where Ernie's argument breaks down is in that last paragraph. Canon's best lenses (the "L" series) don't come in the focal lengths one would normally prefer on an APS-C camera, and this can be annoying. I used to do indoor event photography with two 7D's and two excellent lenses: the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. But this left a 15mm gap in a very important part of my shooting range. Canon makes no CA f/2.8 zoom that covers that range without being too long at the wide end. So I bought a 5D Mk III basically to close that gap. (I continued to use the 17-55 on a 7D and put the 70-200 on the 5D3.) If Ernie wants to make the case that there's virtually no reason to choose FF over APS-C, he needs to persuade Canon to provide a more appropriate line of APS-C lenses. (A 50-150mm f/2.8L IS would be a great start.)

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

"Where Ernie's argument breaks down is ...."

 

Let's see, does it really?  The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II as a bag.  AOV is roughly 84 degrees to 28 degrees.  That is a pretty easy to live with range.  But you say that missing 7 or 8 degrees between the two choices is a killer.  Actually that small of missing AOV can easily be corrected in PS.  Seldom will 15mm be a problem when it is on the long end.  Now on the other hand if you mounted the 70-200mil and needed the same 15mm, that phooh-phooh is on you for not knowing your shot better.

 

So now let's examine the benefit of having that 70-200mm zoom.  We get the ability to have a very tight frame.  Face filling frame if so you desire.  So there are trade offs, some good some not so good.  They are different cameras and so act like different cameras.  But don't blame 15mm as the reason you couldn't do your job!

 

 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


ebiggs1 wrote:

"Where Ernie's argument breaks down is ...."

 

Let's see, does it really?  The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II as a bag.  AOV is roughly 84 degrees to 28 degrees.  That is a pretty easy to live with range.  But you say that missing 7 or 8 degrees between the two choices is a killer.  Actually that small of missing AOV can easily be corrected in PS.  Seldom will 15mm be a problem when it is on the long end.  Now on the other hand if you mounted the 70-200mil and needed the same 15mm, that phooh-phooh is on you for not knowing your shot better.

 

So now let's examine the benefit of having that 70-200mm zoom.  We get the ability to have a very tight frame.  Face filling frame if so you desire.  So there are trade offs, some good some not so good.  They are different cameras and so act like different cameras.  But don't blame 15mm as the reason you couldn't do your job!

 


I didn't say I couldn't do my job; I could and did. But a lot of the events I covered (awards ceremonies, presentations, City Council inaugurations, etc.) were ones where getting the shot was critical and my time and mobility were limited. The missing 15 mm of zoom range was a distraction I didn't need, so I countered it with more appropriate equipment. It made sense to me then and still does.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

"Where Ernie's argument breaks down is in that last paragraph. Canon's best lenses..."

 

Sounds like 15mm was a big deal if it is a complete "break down" !

 

"I didn't say I couldn't do my job; I could and did."

 

Right! Smiley Happy  You sound like so many photographers I have met over the years.  If I only had more light or it was too bright.  If I only have my other body or lens or my tripod or my (?) and on and on..................but the shots look pretty good anyway. Don't they?

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


ebiggs1 wrote:

"Where Ernie's argument breaks down is in that last paragraph. Canon's best lenses..."

 

Sounds like 15mm was a big deal if it is a complete "break down" !

 

"I didn't say I couldn't do my job; I could and did."

 

Right! Smiley Happy  You sound like so many photographers I have met over the years.  If I only had more light or it was too bright.  If I only have my other body or lens or my tripod or my (?) and on and on..................but the shots look pretty good anyway. Don't they?


Have it your way, Ernie. I'll argue with you about equipment, procedures, composition, etc.; that's what this forum is for. But I wouldn't care what you think of my skills as a photographer, even if I thought you had the slightest idea what they are.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

Oh, Robert, "... I wouldn't care what you think of my skills as a photographer, even if I thought you had the slightest idea what they are."

 

Not bringing into question your ability.  If that was the thought expressed I apologize. Just trying to highlight the fact 15mm is not a break down to completing an assignment. (In most cases anyway.)

 

My meaning was, photographers always complain about stuff or want more or different.  It just seems to be inbred in us.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

 

The 80D focus points are positioned better vs the 6D Mk II.   

.

 

As I stated earlier, the two cameras appear to use the same AF sensor.  The angle of view through the focus points on the 80D and 6D Mark II are arguably identical.  

Also, the tightly spaced AF points seem to benefit the AI Servo mode immensely, giving it more data points to sample.  I wonder what happened to the 7D Mark II.  I am surprised Ernie has not recommended that APS-C body, instead of an 80D.  

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"I am surprised Ernie has not recommended that APS-C (7D Mk II) body, instead of an 80D."

 

I didn't know or have forgotten that was an option.  Was it?   If it was I would have, except it doesn't meet my best price per value point.  So, no, in this case, I am not recommending a 7D Mk II.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Announcements