You don't have to use the 6D2 to know its capabilities, since it is a digital machine and its performance is easily monitored statistically through various tests.
I agree with the prior assessment that at its list price of $2000, it wasn't the best value that Canon has produced in the past few years. That would have been a much better Fstoppers title, but yes, it appears they are just producing clickbait.
That being said, a camera 5 years later that is priced about the same as its predecessor, but performs fairly identically to that predecessor and other older cameras, with a couple of APS-Cs that actually do a bit better in at least DR, just wasn't the value many were hoping for, regardless of whether they actually needed better or just had the perception they needed better.
In technology, that is never really the issue. It is that newer technology beat out old technology, at hopefully roughly the same price as the previous gen, that is the basic expectation we have today with technology, vehicles, appliances, tools, etc. Cameras are basically appliances, or tools.
The 6D2 beats out the 6D in a few areas, but either matches or even loses out in other areas. That isn't what we collectively expect to see from Canon when they release newer models, is it? It certainly isn't what we demand based on countless threads each release iteration when we talk about what the next model needs to bring to the table.
Now with the new prices being 20% or more lower over the past few months, the 6D2 has seen a renewed interest. That seems to show that the price was too high at launch for what it offered, and the lower price point is really where it needed to be in the beginning.
saea501 wrote in post #18533089It's not the camera that takes a great photo.
However in the right skilled hands, better tools make for better deliverables, ALWAYS. I, however, am not a judge of how good or bad a photographer any given person that complains about the 6D2 might be. That isn't my place.