I had that one when I shot Canon, and it was even better than the $5000 Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux.

Its very expensive, but the newish 35/1.4 L II is perhaps THE BEST 35mm lens on the market.

Me too, F2A, usually loaded with Pan F and with the 50mm f/1.2 AIS attached.

How many times do all of us have to repeat, people don't buy on features per dollar.

Actually the correct question should be, is Anyone happy with the specs of Cholly?

And you DO know that the base model usually doesn't get all of the latest and greatest tech, right? You DO understand that the higher specs go to the more expensive models.

The original 6D drew the same (bullshit) arguments about specs when it came out in 2012. Lets see how good my memory is....

Only 20 megapixels when Nikon's D600 had 24.
Only 11 focus points when Nikon had 39
Only one cross type when Nikon had 18 (maybe more?)
Only one card slot
No headphone jack
Only 1/4000th second shutter speed

The 6D also added two features that were not previously incorporated into a Canon full-frame DSLR, WiFi and GPS, which on other models required add-ons.

All of the spec chart warriors back then complained about each of those specifications, but funny thing was that a few months earlier Canon had released the 5D3 which solved all of those "issues". Guess what happened? The 6D sold like crazy and five years later it still does. The 5D3 was also wildly popular. The 6D was never marketed for video or action photography, but for travel and portraiture, which by the way it does exceptionally well at to this day (not at all obsolete).

So now we have the 6D2 and it has "only" 26 megapixels.
Only 40-something focus points (all cross)
Only one card slot
No headphone jack
No 4K video
Only 1/4000th second shutter speed.

Like the original 6D before it, the 6D2 adds a feature for the first time in a full-frame Canon DSLR, specifically a tilt, swing-out LCD.

Maybe not what Cholly wants, but most likely exactly what the market wants in a $2000 full-frame DSLR.

Here's my crystal ball prediction. in the year 2021 or 2022 the 6D2 will still be popular, and selling for about between $1500 and $1800 body only as market waits for the 6D3 which will also NOT offer the latest and greatest features and specs and will also do very well.

Another way to look at is that the original 6D was the full-frame version of the then-current high-end APS-C enthusiast's model (the 60D), while the 6D2 is the full-frame version of today's equivalent, the 80D, and that pattern will repeat.

Canon has been at this game for a while now, and seems to be doing quite well at it.

No, the 6D2 looks like an intelligent upgrade to a very successful model (6D), slotted BELOW another successful upgrade (5D4) to another very successful model (5D3).

Even on those features he keeps talking about, he keeps ignoring that Canon has ALL OF THEM, in the 5D4. The 6D2 is the BUDGET model. Anyone who wants those features on a Canon can easily get them, for more money.

FYI, I used a 6D for about three years (my daughter has it now) precisely for its low-light capabilities and its interchangeable focusing screen (had a precision Matt "S" screen installed) for manual focus. I'd still be using it today except that the Nikon Df, fitted as mine is with a modified split-image focusing screen (K3 from FM3a) is even better for both high ISO and manual focus.

Origina 6D remains a fantastic camera for those uses and new one looks like it will be even better.

Honestly I can't think of any APS-C or Full Frame under $2000 that does better than the original 6D at 6400 or even 12,800. Nikon Df and Sony A7s are better, but those are both much more expensive.

6D2 looks like a winner.

They continue to sell a bunch of them as the old 6D remains a current model, at a lower price point. I'm sure the new version will also prove very popular.

Probably also get a few Canon and Nikon APS-C owners that only own APS-C lenses.

I'm sure the K1 is quite good, and have no doubt that bridge camera users, film shooters moving to their first full-frame DSLR and APS-C shooters without significant investment in good full-frame glass would find it a great option. I also seriously doubt it converted full-frame shooters from other brands in any significant numbers.

Again I've never used one of those, but look in any SLR or DSLR and look through the viewfinder of a Leica M. I know which one is brighter, and I don't care which SLR you choose.

Speaking of specs, here are a few of my favorite images, taken with two cameras and one lens. The cameras are both Leica rangefinders, the color ones the M-E (same as M9) with an 18MP CCD sensor known for poor high-ISO quality, poor dynamic range and absolutely gorgeous color. The black and white images are from the Leica M Monochrom (1st generation CCD) which is also 18MP and in fact the exact same sensor as the M9, but with the bayer filter removed for pure black and white.

The important part is the lens, which fails miserably in every spec except speed, which at f/1.5 is quite fast. It is a 5cm (50mm) Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar made way back in 1937, focused using a rangefinder (neither camera has live view). It is a 7 element lens of very primitive design, WITH NO COATING and air bubbles in the glass (they all had air bubbles back then).

All images shot with the ancient lens wide-open, where it has some serious field curvature, lacks resolution and flares horribly if bright lights even think about looking at it. Oh, no post-processing other than exposure as I ALWAYS underexpose in camera to protect highlights (vital on the Monochrom).

Mrs Kimura by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1000238.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1000212.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1001077 by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1001062.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1003267.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr


And here are two more, with much better gear. Leica M-D with 24 MP CMOS sensor and the latest version Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux, also wide-open and focused manually with the rangefinder.

L1002374 by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1004802 by Andrew F, on Flickr