Yesterday Canon announced the 6D Mark II, the long awaited update to the almost five year old original 6D. Although a massive update from the original, some of the features (or lack thereof) are leaving many scratching their heads. Chief among them is the omission of 4K video. The internet has noticed.
The 6D Mark II is a curious beast. While I have no doubt that it will be a great performer, it's lagging behind other manufacturers in a big way as far as innovations go. Check out the videos by Kai Wong and Jared Polin for other perspectives, but in my opinion, including a fully articulating screen gives the appearance of wanting to compete with other manufacturers in the realm of video. In short, it's suffering from an identity crisis. For video, it's woefully lacking in features when compared to the equally priced Panasonic GH5. If it's a stills camera the Nikon D750 is clocking in at $200 cheaper with similar features plus dual card slots. In short, who is this thing for?
Canon needs to realize that we live in a world where the quality of almost every new camera out there is incredible and innovation is everything. It's not enough to come out with a "good" camera anymore. Being full-frame isn't enough to make you special, especially at such a high price point. 4K should have been a no-brainer. Nikon's D500 does it for $100 cheaper. Yes, it's a smaller sensor, but it's also a far more robust camera. Essentially this is an 80D with a full frame sensor at almost double the price. What?
The 6D Mark II is the very definition of a missed opportunity. Even doing a 5D Mark III "light" with 4K video, flippy screen, and a single card slot at $1599 would have been better than this. That could have been a gamechanger. But this? I don't know. What do you all think?
It makes sense to me! The C100MKII doesn't have 4k, it helps create space for the other products without taking market share from the 5D and 1DXII
Unfortunately for Canon, its competitors aren't following the same strategy. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, and even Nikon (They're starting to get it), are all putting advanced video features into their DSLR and Mirrorless bodies.
Canon is free to draw a line in the sand to protect their "precious cinema line" But not everyone wants to pay 7000 dollars for 4k Video. And pros nowadays are making a living doing both and demand gear that can keep up with their needs.
@ Chad Rollins You seem to forget that there is competition who give it all and don't hold back. Sony also has a line of cinema cameras but they put really good 4k video in their cameras. Canon seem to think that they are the only one out there.
Yea youre missing the point, people can go out and buy a Panasonic for $600 and get 4k
I mean, let's get realistic. Canon seems to think they still run the show. The 5dmk4 may have 4k but it is more a gimmick. It has a 1,74 crop and the most ridiculous codec you can imagine. Even a 600 dollars Panasonic does a better job.
I am probably wrong, but could it be that Canon is trying to draw a line between their video systems and still cameras? Only crossing that line in their pro-level devices? But what do I know, I rarely shoot video with my DSLR, and only if specifically asked to so by a past customer of my still services. And I have never shot 4K.
I agree, why cut off your hand by giving lower level cameras the same features as the pro level cameras without the costs? People are greedy.
Because all of your competition in this competitive field is offering more value? Even Nikon's starting to see the light.
Sony's just going to keep taking everyone's lunch money.
I don't think Canon is missing their lunch money. And good for Sony playing catch up.
It's just a freaking joke! Like literally, a slap in the face to those who aren't brainwashed by the Canon name. We can see through the thin veil of stupidity and realize this is not an 'upgrade' but a minute incremental way of squeezing more money from customers who just don't know any better. Check out my video on why Canon literally dropped the ball big time: http://bit.ly/6dmkiijoke
I literally wish you knew the meaning of the word 'literally'. They 'figuratively' dropped the ball, in your opinion.
I often feel like Canon has dug themselves into a ditch by creating so many different models. I also question why they don't try to make some statements as they watch Sony climb towards the throne. They have the technology, and their strategies to push filmmakers to the c-series is not working very well since the people buying DSLR's are so focused on small body sizes.
Well, they've been doing business, successfully mind you for several years and it seems to be working. Not that they get everything right, every time, but I think they know a little bit about the business at this point. Gotta have different price points for different levels and budgets.
I agree, and I'm a Canon person so I want them to stay on top. I just would love to see them play the game of innovation a little stronger than they have.
Canon is coasting on previous sucesses
I see it as 'the internet" wanted the either the specs of a 5D IV for the price of this camera or a an 80D priced camera with a better and bigger sensor. Seems kinda unrealistic to me.
People expect competition between the brands at all price points
I've seen a lot of crappy 4k. Canon probably tried it and didn't like the results. If it's just a marketing limitation then Magic Lantern will have a hack. If not then maybe video quality is more important than specs to them. Image quality is my first concern, which is why I didn't hesitate to buy a 5D4 days after this announcement.
What do I think? Well... I think armchair pundits have been shouting that Canon is making poor decisions, and stating various consequences ranging from almost no consequence to "they're going out of business because of this", for several years now - but Canon's market share is over 45% and growing! I think the kind of people who read FStoppers, watch YouTube "previews", and generally know the specs of cameras and lenses before the company announces them thanks to rumor sites are, from a total market perspective, practically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Finally, I think that the VAST majority of people do not have the desire nor the hardware/software to do anything with a 4k file - so it's inclusion as a feature is unimportant to them (see my first point, above).
Jonathan, you hit the nail on the head! I talk to people all the time who have no need for 4k - and everyone says that Canon is stupid... well you know what? They are NOT stupid! They have a shit load of marketing that tells them they're right and the market continues to buy their cameras from Canon.
Filming in 4K for 1080p output can be a wise decision, as it allows for cropping, zooming, and stabilizing without losing quality. However, as Jonathan noted, I don't have the hardware to efficiently edit 4K video.
This is what happens when you get big, fat and comfortable.
Yup, they gain market share and sell a shitload of cameras while they sit back and laugh at all the folks who say they're going down the dumper.
I don't understand why everyone is so bent out of shape about this. There's 3 things to consider here. First and foremost, this is a STILL IMAGE camera! Considering it's previous incarnation, this is a significant upgrade to make up for what was a really lacking camera, even compared to it's rival, the Nikon D600/610.
Secondly, it's a base camera, a camera designed for those who want to break into full frame still photography who want to own Canon. In a camera like this, video is thrown in essentially for shits and giggles. About the only error Canon has really made is overpricing it, although I suspect the price will drop fairly quickly.
Finally, this is CANON we're talking about here. If you want 4k video from Canon, well, you're going to have to PAY for it, because Canon has dedicated video cameras in that resolution, and they are steering you right to them if you want to see a Canon plate on your 4k camera.
But let's face it, it's now 2017, and the video revolution that started with the Mk II and Magic Lantern is long over. It's a Panasonic and BlackMagic world now, and if you want 4k video, you're sadly looking in the wrong place in 2017.
So move along now, because there's nothing to see here...
I've got the 1dx mark 2, the flagship. Even so, it's a terrible camera for 4K video and stills. I want a camera that can do both well. Why can't Canon give it to me? Sony do it with ease.
Terrible for 4k? I know plenty of pros and high paid shooters that will disagree with you... they keep doing the jobs and quietly getting the work instead of whinging on the 'net.
The 4K codec impractical for event and wedding shooters. This was obviously done on purpose to protect the c300.
And yet you bought the Canon and not the Sony..
I shoot 4K and stills for a living. I got the 1D because my largest client bought it for me. I've had a year of the Canon 1D to compare to a year of the Sony A7R2. The quality of the 4K footage is almost the same, but the Sony has a much better codec and does not crop into the footage. By the way Planet Mich, I keep getting work, but I complain on the net too, because I want Canon to rectify this issue. I truly want to stick to Canon. What else can we possibly do to get heard?
Here they wont here you, I can assure you this with 100% certainty.
I know that they won't be reading f-stopper comments, but if frustration levels get high enough amongst Canon users, surely they will listen to their customer base?
Sadly no... Unless a competitor is eroding their market share they wont do it, chances are they would do it with a camera up in the food chain, their pro line (like when Nikon released a full frame sports/PJ camera, the D3, they had to catch up, as an example)
In the meantime they want to "force you" to the C300, if you need 4K.
Then buy the sony, I don't see what the problem is. Is sony not good enough?
The problem is a 10K investment in Canon glass. The ideal camera would be a Sony body with an EF mount.
If you have 10k invested in Canon glass, anything bellow a 5D MK III is not what you're looking to buy.
I agree, but I'm referring to all of Canon's recent offerings, the 5D Mark IV, the 1DX Mark II and this new 6D. They just seem to have lost their minds when it comes to innovation.
Sony also has a cinema line but they're not afraid of putting video features in their cameras. And insisting that stills and video should be in separate cameras is just dumb. Yes, it's an extra, but it's one that a lot of people want and that most competitors are more than willing to provide.
Cars don't need music players any more than phones need cameras, but you're not likely to buy them if they don't have those features, right?
I'm a Canon shooter and I really don't want them to go the way of Kodak and Nokia. Sure they're doing well now, but so we're those two right before they fell.
Yes, but Canon doesn't care about that, if you want 4k canon, you're gong to have to pay for it. You can always buy a Sony, Panasonic, or BlackMagic camera however.
With a stronger processor than the 5D mark IV, I think it can handle 4k footage and a minimal crop. Is Canon going to make that happen and cannibalize their higher end DSLRs and Cinema line? No. Are people going to buy a Canon full frame camera at that price point? Absolutely.
I dont think anyone, especially loyal Canon shooters are asking for too much, when asking for a good hybrid camera for photo and video. This is the future of media. Sony and Panasonic has been able to do it and the Mark II was capable of creating amazing video with ML, so the tech is there.
It doesnt have to be the entry FF level 6D, but the 5D Mark IV and/or the 1DX should have proper video features. People that are interested in a hybrid camera, are not considering the C300 or anything in that class.
Kodak, Blackberry, Nokia and many other companies got too comfortable and didnt innovate and we all know what happened. Hopefully the competition lights a fire under them soon, rather than later.
Rant Over!
Exactly right. Why should I buy two cameras to do the job of one? The 1DX is as heavy and expensive as two cameras already.
I feel this camera would compete with the Sony A7ii or maybe the new A7 iii, however for that to happen it would have to be 500US cheaper ish. At least spec wise those two are quite similar. Sure the 6D is probably a bit tougher but not enough to justify the very high price.
the a7 mark 3 will have 4k video.
I kinda chuckle at how people over react with Canon's DSLR not featuring 4k, we already know Canon and Nikon are over protective of their pro line, silly move? Yup! But it has been like this for ages... And it wont change in the near future.
Also this is the 6D succesor, wr already know they wont put 4K in their entry level full frame DSLR, we are talking about Canon... (I am a Canon shooter -not fanboy- btw)
The specs have been "leaked" (yeah and the tooth faerie is real) for quite a while, so what's the surprise?
Then knowing this why get bent out of shape if it was expected? I repeat: it is a really dumb move from Canon, but it is nothing out of character from them.
BTW Every time Jared Polin or the Northups are mentioned as expert opinions a kitten dies...
Haha, I can't help but agree Re Jared.
I dunno... I mean how many of you stills guys need video, and I mean need video, not like every once in awhile video. I used to have a 5d4 and never used it for video, now I have a XT-2 and have yet to use it for video...
I can deal without 4k video but the AF points spread, single card slot, 1/4000th max shutter speed and 1/180 sync speed just made me not want it at all and just want to keep my 80d. 4K timelapse is a joke. You can do that with shooting regular jpegs with a high enough buffer and write speed on a card.
Those specs a lone are reason enough for me to not get it when I have an 80d that will be what I need for the work I do. Plus the $900 difference I can get a sigma art or tamron lens with good quality for with that difference
I knew the internet would react like this. If you want a video camera, BUY A VIDEO CAMERA !!!!!! There are a lot of video cameras on the market. Still photography and video are two different things completely. Everyone wants to shoot 4K video until they realize that they have to spend eight thousand dollars on a new computer not to mention the multiple eight bay hard drive arrays full of 8T drives. If you want speed though you're gonna have to build an array with the new faster SSDs and that's gonna cost you more than ten grand. So stop complaining that your two thousand dollar still camera doesn't shoot 4k video.
You're incredibly naive and severely misinformed. You can very easily edit and work with 4K video with a sub $2,000 PC, all day long. In fact, you can even get by doing it on about a $1,000-$1,500 computer pretty easily. The notion that you'd have to spend $8,000-$10,000+ to handle 4K video editing was quite clearly pulled out of that tight arse of yours.
its a canon camera, what to expect.. specs from yesteryear