Here is the way I see it. Why would I buy a 4 year old camera with old technology?
But that's the problem, the camera's core technology is the same. It's the same sensor as 4 years ago and the AF, though re-designed, is essentially the same as well. Wi-Fi and GPS are nice features but are they enough to distinguish the 6D from the MkII? For some I suppose it is.
$300 difference to me is not a whole lot and dont throw the "you can buy used" card on me because I will not buy a used camera. So many things that can go wrong no matter how well it was taken care off.
Because the 5DMkII can still be bought new. You do not have to go to the used market to get one. A 4 year old new 5DMkII is essentially the same as the brand new 6D for less money. Sure the 6D has some improvement, but there are others the MkII does better.
Full frame obviously, and since I will be new to full frame I believe this is the perfect beginner camera for that (Even thought I been shooting for many years and I know what I'm doing)
New technology, I think the WiFi and GPS features are really cool and I can see my self using them a lot.
And lastly, I own a 60D now, which has almost the same button layout and same size. Uses SD cards and same LPE6 batteries that alone will save me some money.
Don't get me wrong, the 5D I & II are amazing cameras but to each their own. No reason to go bash what people buy. After all everyone has their own reasons as why they pick certain products and people should respect that.
Those are good reasons and as I mentioned, for those that are not shooting a FF body today, the 6D might be a perfect upgrade path. But the original contention was that 5DMkII owners were bashing the 6D and though I think bashing is a bit strong, I tried to show why a MkII owner would be really disappointed in the camera. For me, a 5DMkII with GPS and WiFi is not a 4 year development project. It's almost as if Canon panicked after seeing the D600 and asked their engineers to toss something together quickly.