Is anyone really HAPPY with the specs of the new Canon 6DII? (Page 8): Yep. Agree. And for that reason, threads like this are pretty useless. They pontificate on why a camera is good...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Peterff wrote:

Yep. Technology gets complicated, don't it!

Yep. Agree. And for that reason, threads like this are pretty useless. They pontificate on why a camera is good or bad based on individual perceptions, guess work, misinformation, and personal expectations before it's even released. They rarely address the most important question IMHO, which is how do the final results look.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Kuzano wrote:

The innovative camera makers are Olympus, Fujifilm and Sigma. The rest are poor at best at innovation. Both Canon and Nikon show their lack of innovation by their mediochre advances and attitude/reluctance to do enter the field of mirrorless.

It's simple if you pay attention. Who innovates?

Innovation is not the most important thing in this industry. Image quality, ergonomics, responsiveness, even just the way something looks and feels (Fuji has done well here) are quite important.

Ask any Leica owner how important "features" are.

jmvaugh Loc: Albuquerque

This topic reminds me of a high school debate or a SCA battle. You go in with your battle sword and fight for the honor of the fair maiden (Sony, Canon, Nikon.....). No death or blood, just a few hurt feelings. Good way to amuse myself on a hot July afternoon and it costs nothing.

TheDman Loc: USA

CHOLLY wrote:

CAN they be used?

SURE THEY CAN.

And since the 6DII is used mostly for portraiture and landscape photography... you know; where manual focus is acceptable... then those lenses will work just as well as on a native body and give BETTER image quality with the mirrorless cameras.

... as long as your adapter doesn't flake out on you, which I would never risk in a million years.

TheDman Loc: USA

asiafish wrote:

I think the 6D2 and 5D4 (also lacking 4K video) must be like catnip to this guy.

5d4 has 4k video.

TheDman Loc: USA

mwsilvers wrote:

Yep. Agree. And for that reason, threads like this are pretty useless. They pontificate on why a camera is good or bad based on individual perceptions, guess work, misinformation, and personal expectations before it's even released. They rarely address the most important question IMHO, which is how do the final results look.

Exactly. There are only about 4 camera specs I care about: dual card slots, image quality of the sensor across the ISO range, weather sealing (never enough), and if I can get a few more megapixels without sacrificing quality then great, as I print large.

I could care less about autofocus points, focus peaking, video, WiFi, jacks, ports, or whether or not there is a mirror in it. When I'm in the middle of Gljufrafoss and my camera is getting drenched with spray, it better work and it better look good. And it may be a while before I can charge a battery, so the longer that lasts the better.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

mwsilvers wrote:

Yep. Agree. And for that reason, threads like this are pretty useless. They pontificate on why a camera is good or bad based on individual perceptions, guess work, misinformation, and personal expectations before it's even released. They rarely address the most important question IMHO, which is how do the final results look.

Yep!

Just don't tell that to the advertising or PR department.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

TheDman wrote:

5d4 has 4k video.

That camera has very good low-light performance, and that is its standout video feature. Otherwise, the 4K video on the 5D4 gets weak reviews. It isn't very sharp compared to competitors. And it has a 1.74X crop factor when recording 4K video. That sort of negates the purpose of using a full frame camera for video production. You carry around all that weight, and pay all that money, when you could have phenomenal video for less.

If I bought a Canon dSLR, it would be for stills and occasional, casual, one-off video clips. For serious video these days, I'd go for the GH5. It's a lot more bang for the buck.

http://www.personal-view.com/downloads/GH5_Presentation.pdf

TheDman Loc: USA

burkphoto wrote:

That camera has very good low-light performance, a... (show quote)

Oh I know it doesn't get good reviews, but it has it.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

It's typically the way Canon markets. Two steps forward. one back. Gotta love the in-body IS though. That is a huge move for Canon. I'm guessing that feature is a reason for a super premium price for an entry level FF camera. Just one more reason why Sony is taking Canon to the woodshed.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

sirlensalot wrote:

It's typically the way Canon markets. Two steps forward. one back. Gotta love the in-body IS though. That is a huge move for Canon. I'm guessing that feature is a reason for a super premium price for an entry level FF camera. Just one more reason why Sony is taking Canon to the woodshed.

The only reference to in body IS I've is for video only and it is electronic not mechanical. A few people have indicated it also applies to stills but I see no evidence of that. Where are you getting your information from? Please provide a link if you can.

chaman

Hey, everyone, what is that thing on the floor? It something hideous, foul smelling??? Is that....? Yes, it is!! Its CHOLLY's dignity!!

What can it be said about this clown that has not been said before? I bet, that one thing that will torment this useless soul in the following months is that quite probably that camera he is once again mocking will sell much more than his beloved Sony A9. BTW, when will you be getting one? You will right? Or is t too costly for your broke ass? Now that I think of it.....is cost of Canon premium equipment one of the reasons you have created this obsession and delusion of pathologically criticizing EVERY Canon product there is?

I bet this poor camera will not have the banding issue like the A9 and will run as cool as a cucumber too! Those are the things that will probably make CHOLLY stay awake at night. Why, instead of these stupid attempts to get attention you dont go and ACTUALLY shoot a camera? Then BLOW us away with those super awesome images as a byproduct of your superior intelligence and......LOL!.....talent!

Where is your work? Where are those awesome images you must be producing? Hey, there are my images! I produced them with that primitive equipment you love to hate, so I expect yours will be so much more impressive.....I cant wait to see them! Dont you guys agree??!

*starts eating popcorn to enjoy the show of idiocy CHOLLY will produce in the following posts*

BebuLamar

chaman wrote:

Hey, everyone, what is that thing on the floor? It... (show quote)

How can he have any pictures? He didn't even order the camera yet.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

sirlensalot wrote:

It's typically the way Canon markets. Two steps forward. one back. Gotta love the in-body IS though. That is a huge move for Canon. I'm guessing that feature is a reason for a super premium price for an entry level FF camera. Just one more reason why Sony is taking Canon to the woodshed.

How can you say Sony is "taking Canon to the woodshed" when their market share is so small compared to Canon or Nikon?

Capn_Dave

sirlensalot wrote:

It's typically the way Canon markets. Two steps forward. one back. Gotta love the in-body IS though. That is a huge move for Canon. I'm guessing that feature is a reason for a super premium price for an entry level FF camera. Just one more reason why Sony is taking Canon to the woodshed.

Actually is is cheaper than when the 6D was first introduced. With more stuff than the 6D.