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

[secondlevel]

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.

[ebiggs1]

"...why don’t you go for a PowerShot Elph Series,..."

Because, I don't want one.  This debate is over two models the 80D vs the 6D Mk II.  Not every camera on the market.

Blowing another hole in your 1 Series argument is all 1 Series are not FF.  I have both.  Why they even got into the debate since it is the 80D vs the 6D Mk II is silly.  Try to keep on the 80D vs the 6D Mk II models.

[ebiggs1]

"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."

When Waddizzle is right, he is right!  You asked and I offered the 80D as a legitimate option.  With the big advantage of price.

Bottom line the 80D will do everything the 6D or 6D Mk II will.  Some things even better.

There's very little between these cameras when shooting in ideal circumstances. You should expect a significant difference in image quality between full-frame and APS-C cameras, however there isn't much of a difference.  And, that is the case for most folks most of the time. 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.

[ebiggs1]

Here is a thought, buy the 80D and the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM Lens for Canon.  About the same money as just a 6D Mk II, then bring on any 6D Mk II challenge!

[RobertTheFat]

---

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."

When Waddizzle is right, he is right!  You asked and I offered the 80D as a legitimate option.  With the big advantage of price.

Bottom line the 80D will do everything the 6D or 6D Mk II will.  Some things even better.

There's very little between these cameras when shooting in ideal circumstances. You should expect a significant difference in image quality between full-frame and APS-C cameras, however there isn't much of a difference.  And, that is the case for most folks most of the time. 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.)

[secondlevel]

It appears that there is a strong feeling that FF doesn’t overwhelm crop sensors in image quality anymore. I agree that the sensor used in the 80D is a dramatic improvement. But my main concern is being able to handle low light and high ISO.

[RobertTheFat]

---

secondlevel wrote:
It appears that there is a strong feeling that FF doesn’t overwhelm crop sensors in image quality anymore. I agree that the sensor used in the 80D is a dramatic improvement. But my main concern is being able to handle low light and high ISO.

---

These days Ernie Biggs appears to profess that "strong feeling". The rest of us, maybe not so much. Ernie has a lot more experience than I do; maybe he's right.

The informed consensus is that the 6D was as good a low-light camera as Canon had ever produced. Presumably one can expect similar performance from the 6D2.

[ebiggs1]

"my main concern is being able to handle low light and high ISO."

Most tests, beside my own observation which I already said was minimal, show the most you can hope for is a 1 stop advantage.  If that 1 stop is number one on your must have list you need to buy the 6D Mk II.  Also remember that 1 stop does not mean the 80D images produced are not good and unusable.  They totally are and most people will not be able to tell the difference.  That tell-tale difference is in 100% crop comparisons.

It's your money spend it as you see fit.  But don't kid or fool yourself in thinking all will be rosey in low light because you bought a FF body.

[ebiggs1]

"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!

[RobertTheFat]

---

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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.