Canon eos 6d offically announced

I really think the 6D is a big FAIL from a feature and price standpoint. At $2000, who is Canon targeting?? Me as a 7D user wanting to upgrade to FF, but with Rebel like features. No way. How about the Rebel user. Spend more than 2X the body, plus a new set of lenses (potentially). Not likely. The only way the stat sheet can look good for the 6D is if they REDUCED the cost to say $1200. The IQ of the 6D may indeed by better than the 7Dand Rebels but if only incrementally, then HO HUM.

chantu wrote in post #15006614
I really think the 6D is a big FAIL from a feature and price standpoint. At $2000, who is Canon targeting?? Me as a 7D user wanting to upgrade to FF, but with Rebel like features. No way. How about the Rebel user. Spend more than 2X the body, plus a new set of lenses (potentially). Not likely. The only way the stat sheet can look good for the 6D is if they REDUCED the cost to say $1200. The IQ of the 6D may indeed by better than the 7Dand Rebels but if only incrementally, then HO HUM.

Comments like this annoy me, you can't compare it to crop cameras in features and price. Full frame is a feature that has a big price tag. It's pretty much a full frame 60D optimised for landscaping, and the full frame consequently raises the price significantly.
You want your cake and to eat it too, a full frame for the price of a crop with the same features.
I agree with you that the image quality gain of full frame is slight and not really worth it if you already have a good crop, but that is a different argument. And the 6D serves it's purpose well, an entry level full frame.
I eagerly await to see detailed tests on the 6D, and whether it's dynamic range and shadow recovery performance is matched well with the -3 EV autofocus, it may turn out to be an awesome landscape camera.

Seems like a lot of not liking the 6D specs. An entry level FF never made sense to me because Canon somehow needs to make the 6D have $1500 fewer features/assets than the 5D III. So, they did that and everyone is unhappy.

Actually, the price of silicon has come down (the sensor), so there really should not be huge premium for a larger sensor. Same goes for the electronics, more memory perhaps and faster processor, but nothing that would require 2.5 X the additional cost as compare to a Rebel. I really think the 6D is priced artificially high and the marketing folks are simply pricing between the 7D and 5D regardless of actual manufacturing cost. I would even hazard to guess that the 6D is cheaper in cost vs. the 7D.

Mornnb wrote in post #15006634
Comments like this annoy me, uou can't compare it to crop cameras in features and price. Full frame is a feature that has a big price tag. It's pretty much a full frame 60D optimised for landscaping, and the full frame consequently raises the price significantly.
You want your cake and to eat it too, a full frame for the price of a crop with the same features.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15006669
Seems like a lot of not liking the 6D specs. An entry level FF never made sense to me because Canon somehow needs to make the 6D have $1500 fewer features/assets than the 5D III. So, they did that and everyone is unhappy.

You dont have to remove much, The people that need, and i mean, NEED things like the 63 point AF will spend the extra to have those things

Really all Canon HAD to do was despec the focus system, make it slower in terms of burst shooting, and remove the second card slot... And really, that is what they did

Why people are unhappy is because on paper the AF system looks eh, But we dont know how it works in practice yet, I expect in practice, its going to get a lot of surprised "Wow this works REALLY good"

Every camera has its own audience/market, stop complaining if you are not going to buy it. Canon is a multi-billion dollar company they know what they are doing.

chantu wrote in post #15006683
Actually, the price of silicon has come down (the sensor), so there really should not be huge premium for a larger sensor. Same goes for the electronics, more memory perhaps and faster processor, but nothing that would require 2.5 X the additional cost as compare to a Rebel. I really think the 6D is priced artificially high and the marketing folks are simply pricing between the 7D and 5D regardless of actual manufacturing cost. I would even hazard to guess that the 6D is cheaper in cost vs. the 7D.

The price of making them might be less than it used to, but i bet an APS-C sensor still costs less to fabricate because of economies of scale, They sell more rebels and other APS-C cameras than they do FF models, Additionally each FF model in Canon's lineup uses a bespoke sensor which means not even THOSE are being shared amongst models...

That said, Id have to question how much a Canon 18mp APS-C unit like used in the T4i costs compared to the Sony 16mp used in the K-7, D7000, NEX-5R, NEX-5N, NEX-6... ok theres too many cameras to list, You get the picture....

KenjiS wrote in post #15006531
Couldnt he have at least gotten to try out the AF and say if it seems to work ok or not?

no point. haters still gonna hate, "oh ignore, it's not done in the lab".

Im predicting the 6d outsells the d600 2:1. Image quality trumps paper specs every time! I'd be really surprised if it doesn't beat the d600 in IQ, DR and high ISOs.

This body should settle at $1,900 and they're gonna sell a ton of em.

Drozz119 wrote in post #15006712
Im predicting the 6d outsells the d600 2:1. Image quality trumps paper specs every time! I'd be really surprised if it doesn't beat the d600 in IQ, DR and high ISOs.

This body should settle at $1,900 and they're gonna sell a ton of em.

The D600 has the same DR as the D800. No way this camera can touch the D600 in DR. Sorry. Not happening.

Osa713 wrote in post #15006685
Every camera has its own audience/market, stop complaining if you are not going to buy it. Canon is a multi-billion dollar company they know what they are doing.

A lot of people could be complaining because lets face it, theres a lot of folks unhappy with Canon's recent decisions, Competetors are releasing things they want to buy instead and are simply sick of waiting for Canon to come up with their answer, or Canon's answer is a disappointment to them... Some people really were sitting here with $2100 in hand hoping Canon basically makes a FF 7D, And honestly, I think Canon could have done this but theres probubly a reason they didnt... the 19pt AF from the 7D might not have worked so well in an FF body for whatever reason

Of course with every release theres always the initial "IT SUCKS" phase, the bodies we keep lauding over and mentioning... the 7D, the 5DIII and the 60D...all had a lot of criticism leveled against them.. The 7D especially, in fact if I remember right, I was one of like 3 people defending the 7D and saying its going to be one of the best cams Canon put out... Cut to now and a lot of folks agree with my initial statement

so...5DII will die soon ? -- Canon 5D II with 24-105 Lens - $2499 , Canon 6D + 24-105 - $2899

hmm....i was hoping to learn from t1i to upgrade to mark....confusion started again...oh well..

at first i was hesitant......now I've warmed up to it......

KenjiS wrote in post #15006725
The 7D especially, in fact if I remember right, I was one of like 3 people defending the 7D and saying its going to be one of the best cams Canon put out... Cut to now and a lot of folks agree with my initial statement

Amen..i should have listened to people like you at earlier stage....

Mornnb wrote in post #15000723
97% viewfinder coverage and only 11 AF points? Well there's still a reason to buy the mark iii...

I've never understood the obsession wrt trival VF coverage differences, but the 11 AF points -- you've got to be kidding. 4.5 fps is also disappointing. I figure this is the body that the 5D2 should have been, but I imagine they had to cripple it so that people would still buy the 5D3.

I'm curious to see how the high ISO performance is, and if it suffers the classic low-ISO shadow noise that's so embarrassing in the 5D3.