6D mark II...Did we make a mistake?

SixDeeFan wrote in post #18532389
6D mark II...Did we make a mistake?

Only you can answer that question for yourself, as everyone's needs and expectations are/were different.

What is it that you bought the 6D2 for? . Does it do that job done in accordance with the expectations you had when you decided to buy it? . If so, then you did not make a mistake. . If it doesn't do the job you bought it to do, then you did make a mistake.

What other photographers and websites have to say about it really doesn't matter at all, because they have no idea what you need the camera for and what your expectations were.

.

PJJ205 wrote in post #18532399
I have a lot of hobbies, from sports to photography. I’ve never seen a community so obsessed with having “superior” gear and putting down other companies products as I have within photography communities.

You are so right! . And this is very discouraging to me.

In other hobbies, people are most interested in the activity itself - in the actual doing of the hobby. . They discuss techniques, strategies, ways to hone one's skill, etc. . They even plan meetups to do the hobby together. . This is true of so many hobbies, including camping, hunting, canoeing, golf, painting, skiing, fishing, quilting, fantasy football, hiking, etc.

In photography it is not like that, because so many people are more interested in the gear and its specifications than in the actual activity of photographing things or the images themselves. . So it makes me think that many so-called photographers are actually more like camera collectors than photographers, because the cameras themselves seem to be of more interest than the photos that they take with them.

The folks who are so obsessed with discussing the gear itself are really missing out on the whole point of photography, which is the photos. . It's not called cameragraphy, it's called photography.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18532994
You are so right! . And this is very discouraging to me.

In other hobbies, people are most interested in the activity itself - in the actual doing of the hobby. . They discuss techniques, strategies, ways to hone one's skill, etc. . They even plan meetups to do the hobby together. . This is true of so many hobbies, including camping, hunting, canoeing, golf, painting, skiing, fishing, quilting, fantasy football, hiking, etc.

In photography it is not like that, because so many people are more interested in the gear and its specifications than in the actual activity of photographing things. . So it makes me think that many so-called photographers are actually more like camera collectors than photographers, because the cameras themselves seem to be of more interest than the photos that they take with them.

The folks who are so obsessed with discussing the gear itself are really missing out on the whole point of photography, which is the photos. . It's not called cameragraphy, it's called photography.

.

Hobbies are different as its not the gear but the activity (e.g. stamp collecting, no real gear but the focus is on the stamps, and whose is better, rarer etc). If you view photography as art then how do artists (painters for example) interact with each other. I have no idea except what I see anecdotally- loners who do their own thing and then wonder why nobody buys their paintings until they are dead. I don’t see painters (the artist kind) arguing over which brush/paint/canvas manufacturer is better.

I think that photography is more like sports, where the gear is almost as important as the player. The difference being that the better the player the equipment matters less. Take a sport like downhill skiing. Comparing equipment from the 50’s 60’s to todays equipment is like night and day. Put an expert skier on the old equipment and they will figure out how to use it. Take a beginner and it will be a nightmare and questions of why am I doing this - nobody loves me and I could be stamp collecting. And there is a ton of ” my gear is better than your gear”. Ski companies are like car companies. If their sponsored skier (car) wins a race on the weekend they are selling new skis (cars) on Monday. Even though the skier (and the wax applied by the ski tech), is the reason not the boots bindings or skiis.

In the end it is how you use the gear and your vision, that determines if the photo is good, more than the gear itself. Although a bad lens or a camera that does not work properly definitely affects the outcome, may be salvaged in post.

Gear to day is so good compared to what came out of the 50’s 60’s and 70’s that arguing which is better seems ridiculous.

I agree today its difficult to find a bad camera from any of the major players.
And I'm sure fstoppers like every other camera reviewer , or reviewer of any type of products likes to get views.

But is it worst camera of the year?..
Being worst camera of the year doesnt make it a bad camera in my opinion

I'm looking at it purely from a $$ to camera ratio.

Again, put aside what we think/know about the need for clicks/revenue.
And let's look at some of the points made..
According to some 6d2 sales have been sluggish at their original price point .. now that it has come down some and especially at its peak lowest price (1350) it started to sell very well... Or alot better atleast

Its like a lot of these made-in-china lenses that are coming out now they're actually pretty good for their price point but if you took the same lens and put a Canon name on it and a red ring around the end we would all say it's an absolute piece of garbage I guess it's kind of the same thing here
I think it's only worst camera of the year because of its price not because you can't get wonderful pictures from it

We all know on this forum there are many people still using some pretty old technology and still capturing beautiful images regardless of dynamic range or whatever other pixel peepers issues

Any way at the end of the day we determine for ourselves whats a good buy and what isnt ..
I'm sure there are many that would think I'm a fool for spending so much on cameras and not making any money from photography

PJJ205 wrote in post #18532399
I have a lot of hobbies, from sports to photography. I’ve never seen a community so obsessed with having “superior” gear and putting down other companies products as I have within photography communities. Every single day I come across some idiotic comment about how inferior so-and-so’s products are compared to their own and how so-and-so is crap, but half the people that say these things don’t dare share their own images or show anything that leads me to believe that they have even actually owned, used, or seen any of the products or companies that they are bashing. Basically, take this stuff with a grain of salt. If you are happy with what you have and know what it can do, a bunch of random strangers that are looking for validation online shouldn’t sway your opinion. I’ve never seen or used a 6DII, but I’m not going to assume that it is straight garbage just because the internet says it is.

This is fact. I agree that most of the negativity by 'reviewers' are simply regurgitation of comments read elsewhere on the internet and not by those that actually own and use this equipment. Look at the 6DII thread......is it full of crappy pictures made by a camera with no dynamic range? That would be no.

I've been an audio addict since about 1964. I worked in that industry for many years and I can say that it is very similar in the sense that the gear and specs obsession is unbelievable. Differences in 1 or 2 db or 2 or 3 milliseconds.....and that results in the all too familiar cracks of......this just blows away that. or '....the difference is just incredible!'

When, in fact, the difference is only on paper. Does it make a difference in the final resulting sound or, in our case here, image? Again, that would be no. Heck, I remember when the 5DIV was released there were many expressing their 'disappointment. '....oh, they should have done this or that....it would have been soooo much better' Good grief...gimme a break.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18532815
I'm confident that 99% of the people screaming about the dynamic range "issues" actually never lift shadows or pull highlights. Ever. And don't even benefit from the technology gains.

Very best,

And, most likely, have never used a 6DII.

If you can't take most any camera from Canon's or Nikon's or whoever's product line up and go out and make spectacular, wall hanging images with it, then you simply suck as a photographer.

Set your mode dial to the magic green box and go out and take your snapshots. It's not the camera that takes a great photo.

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 #18533089
It'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.

If you buy quality equipment it’s all going to give good results. Just two years ago my 35L lens was part of Canon’s holy trinity. Then when the version two 35L was issued my lens became junk? As far as I know it still takes great images.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18532815
I'm confident that 99% of the people screaming about the dynamic range "issues" actually never lift shadows or pull highlights. Ever. And don't even benefit from the technology gains.

True, but depending on what features you use and what your white balance is, the camera can do a significant amount of pushing under the hood.

HTP is a one-stop push. ISOs 125, 250, 500 are a 1/3-stop push. Very low f-numbers can induce a push up to about 2/3 stop with 6D2-size pixels, to hide the fact that the microlenses lose much of the extra light that you should get when you go to f/2.2 or so, and wider. In daylight, yes daylight, the blue channel is pushed 1/2 stop for WB, and the red channel is pushed a stop. In many artificial light sources, or shady areas, one or more color channels can need to be pushed as much as 3 stops just for WB.

Combine all those things, and you already have very restrictive exposure latitude when sensor DR is low at low ISOs.

One of the best things one can do for their photography is to stay away forums/blogs/reviews/Y​ouTube, and go out and take photos. It's a breath of fresh air for your mental well-being.

MatthewK wrote in post #18533126
Best thing one can do for their photography is to stay away forums/blogs/reviews/Y​ouTube, and go out and take photos. It's a breath of fresh air for your mental well-being.

Yeah it is!

MatthewK wrote in post #18533126
One of the best things one can do for their photography is to stay away forums/blogs/reviews/Y​ouTube, and go out and take photos. It's a breath of fresh air for your mental well-being.

That's what I am missing! This winter in New England is brutal, with temperatures about 10 to 0F (it is about -12 to -18C). And a massive snowstorm today. I really need to go out to do shooting. I just have a real feeling that my 100-400 II is rusting from misuse!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18533091
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.

The initial price was right, but the camera failed to come up to the (unrealistic) exectations that the 6DII would outperform the best of the newest 5D bodies in IQ by a large margin -- for a second time. They failed to recognize that the same unit sales erosion of the 5DIII by the 6D, so that less profit margin went back to Canon for each 6d body sold in place of a 5DIII could not be tolerated again by Canon.
So the 6DII was less of an incremental performance jump (vs. the 6D) in their minds, while they ignored the fact that the 6D was already almost at the level of the newest 5DIV in IQ. So Canon had to discount the 6DII so as to appease the minds of the disappointed public, to overcome the unrealistic expectations of the 6Dn buying community about IQ vs. the 5DIV.
The public wanted 6DII IQ > 5DIV IQ, but the management expectations of profit margins for the entire lineup demanded 5DIV IQ > 6DII IQ, as the positioning of the family members mandated.

Whatever the technical reason, demand was low and supply high, and now the price is right for it to sell. Sales are always about expectations and whether products live up to it.

The 6d2 DR was really the nail in the coffin, whether folks needed more DR or not, and the fact that the 6d2 technical graphs matched the 5d3 nearly perfectly, making it look like it was employing old tech. True or not, doesn't matter, the list price wasnt reflective of its capabilities.

The other camera released on the same day has been enjoying great reviews.

Wilt wrote in post #18533558
The initial price was right, but the camera failed to come up to the (unrealistic) exectations that the 6DII would outperform the best of the newest 5D bodies in IQ by a large margin -- for a second time. They failed to recognize that the same unit sales erosion of the 5DIII by the 6D, so that less profit margin went back to Canon for each 6d body sold in place of a 5DIII could not be tolerated again by Canon.
So the 6DII was less of an incremental performance jump (vs. the 6D) in their minds, while they ignored the fact that the 6D was already almost at the level of the newest 5DIV in IQ. So Canon had to discount the 6DII so as to appease the minds of the disappointed public, to overcome the unrealistic expectations of the 6Dn buying community about IQ vs. the 5DIV.
The public wanted 6DII IQ > 5DIV IQ, but the management expectations of profit margins for the entire lineup demanded 5DIV IQ > 6DII IQ, as the positioning of the family members mandated.

I always had the impression that the 5d3 was very popular and sold very well.. regardless of the 6d.

rantercsr wrote in post #18533609
I always had the impression that the 5d3 was very popular and sold very well.. regardless of the 6d.

It did. Because even though the 6D had (slightly) better image quality than the 5D3, the 5D3 still beat the 6D badly in just about every other category. (AF,Max shutter speed,sync speed,etc..) This caused people to hope for the same thing with the 6DII and 5DIV. However, with all of the other improvements made on the 6DII, if it would have had equal image quality to the 5DIV, it would have really cut into sales of the 5DIV.