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

I don't understand why more people don't use the two dials to move the AF points around. It's much faster since you can go around the dial in a continual motion to get across from one side to the other side of points vs moving one point for every thumb hit.

Hi DaviSto,

Wow, quite surprised by the aggressive responses!

I have been enjoying my gear and fell off the forums which I previously learned a lot from - however reading photography forums leads to gear envy...

I posted because although the 6D Mark II is a solid camera on the face of it, I was trying to explain why it has been negatively received by some reviewers and users like me.

A camera alone doesn’t make anyone a great photographer, but for the type of stuff I do Canon isn’t the best choice at the moment.

I am frustrated about it because I love the Canon ergonomics, build, colours and glass.

My A7r III arrived about an hour ago, I am at work so I haven’t opened it yet.

My choice doesn’t make anybody else’s choice invalid or stupid. I was very close to getting the 5D Mark IV. I’m keeping some of my Canon glass because some of the Sony glass is worse and/or expensive. I’ll use an adapter. If Canon catch up in a few years I’d happily go back.

Hi

I’m not talking about studio portraits but candid/event portraits. I agree you don’t need eye focus for studio work.

If you have fast lenses then the DOF can be very narrow. Go to a DOF calculator and see how much is in focus on a 85mm at f1.2 from 1.5m on a full frame. If you don’t have accurate focus on the eyes you ruin the shot.

If you shoot at f4 on APC with wide lenses then your DOF is big and you can focus anywhere on the face.

Regarding spread of autofocus points, it means more focus and recompose which Means you trade off composition against speed of taking the picture.

DaviSto wrote in post #18538142
He doesn't have a Sony. Quite likely he doesn't have a camera, except for perhaps his 'phone.

Ha, don’t worry I am fortunate to be able to have a lot of gear! I have spent a lot on Canon gear and I have spent a lot of effort learning how to use it. It’s provided me and my family with a lot of joy.

I’m actually keeping the 70-200 f2.8, 35mm f1.4 and 24-70 f4 to use on the Sony with an adapter. I’m sad to sell the 85 f1.2 and 135 f2 but I don’t use them as much although I love the pictures I get with them.

Sorry if my decision making upsets you!

Very well said. Liked.

Jai.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18538188
I do not understand what you are saying, or insinuating, here.

There are many times when a photographer will want to focus on something that is out near the edge of the frame. I mean, we often / usually want to place our subjects way off-center, don't we?

And we also know that focusing and recomposing can lead to the subject not being in the absolute sharpest, clearest focus. Plus, focusing and recomposing takes time, especially when we have huge lenses mounted on a tripod and clamped down into rigid position.

So we would prefer to focus directly on the subject when it is in the part of the frame we want it in - this is much better than focusing and recomposing.

If the focus points are clustered near the center of the frame, and we want to focus on something out near the edge, and focus/recompose isn't ideal, then how would the centralized points be the fault of the photographer? Aren't they truly a shortcoming of the camera itself?

.

You use 'we' quite a bit here, Tom, you got a mouse in your pocket?

A great deal of photography isn't convenient, I do what I need to do. And relying on my equipment to do my job isn't one of those things.

saea501 wrote in post #18538534
You use 'we' quite a bit here, Tom, you got a mouse in your pocket?

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean about a mouse. . I use "we" because I am referring to the collective community of photographers, not just myself. . I am talking about what photographers generally do, and I am but one of those photographers, so "we" seems to be the most appropriate pronoun to use.


.

saea501 wrote in post #18538534
A great deal of photography isn't convenient, I do what I need to do. And relying on my equipment to do my job isn't one of those things.

Photo gear is comprised of tools that help us do our job. . If a tool does not help us do a particular job that needs to be done, then we will seek a tool that does help us do that job.

For those who prefer shallow depth of field and who shoot moving subjects and want to place them way off-center, tools with AF points that extend out toward the edges of the frame are more useful tools than those which only have AF points clustered in the center.

For example, if a bird is flying erratically and one wants to place it off toward the right side of the frame, and one is shooting with a very thin depth of field (let's say 600mm at f4), then how would one shoot this without an AF point being way off to the edge where one wants the bird to be? . If one wants the bird to be in the absolute sharpest, most precise focus, having an AF point right on the bird at the moment the shutter is released is really the only viable option.

Again, "we", "our", and "us" are used to refer to the collective photographic community.

.


.

saea501 wrote in post #18538534
You use 'we' quite a bit here, Tom, you got a mouse in your pocket?

A great deal of photography isn't convenient, I do what I need to do. And relying on my equipment to do my job isn't one of those things.

if you're the one paying for said gear, you should look for some convenience.

Things like that flippy screen, increased AF coverage/ability, faster framerate, touch screen, that's why people buy the 6D ii. If those convenient features werent offered, then why buy it?

for many folks, the initial price wasnt worth it for that feature set, so they weighed their options, which could be another brand or a different model of the same brand.

Or wait for the price to drop 20% or more in only 6 months after its release... putting the 6D2 at the price point that made sense to more photographers.

If Sony's eye AF can lock on to the eyes of a bird, now that would be awesome

rantercsr wrote in post #18534354
that sucks .. weird tho , my rebel t4i (650d) still produces very nice images.. well atleast when i point it at something worth taking a photograph of ..

i don't kid myself though , i know in an IQ competition it will lose to the latest rebel cameras , (or equivalent 2017/18 apsc entry level )

luckily my photos aren't judged like that by myself or others.. not when it comes to content atleast

Puleez, oh come on. You should know by now that you can't take good photos with anything but a 5DIV. Geez!

If you wanted the 5D MK IV joystick, yes the 6D II does suck
If you're annoyed that you keep hitting metering mode button rather than ISO, yes, the 6D II does suck
If you expected better image quality than the top of the line Canon bodies yes the 6D II does suck
If you expected amazing innovation from Canon then yes, the 6D II does suck
If you expected amazing improvement in DR then yes, the 6D II does suck
If you expected no work as a photographer to produce beautiful images then the 6D II does suck
If you paid full retail then yes, the 6D II does suck

If you did your research before purchasing you would know its strengths and weaknesses, and if any of them is an issue for you and you did purchase then yeah, you made a mistake. The rest of us got another fine Canon camera that will do the job it was intended for. I liked the original 6D just fine (and remember the same whiny posts about it too). I prefer my 5D III over the 6D II, I like the 5D IV best. But I can still do my job with any of them, because

PJmak wrote in post #18534374
Every single camera is able to produce art.

Choose your tools based on what you need to do, not some lame-arsed clickbait article.

Peace.

Nethawked wrote in post #18549479
If you wanted the 5D MK IV joystick, yes the 6D II does suck
If you're annoyed that you keep hitting metering mode button rather than ISO, yes, the 6D II does suck
If you expected better image quality than the top of the line Canon bodies yes the 6D II does suck
If you expected amazing innovation from Canon then yes, the 6D II does suck
If you expected amazing improvement in DR then yes, the 6D II does suck
If you expected no work as a photographer to produce beautiful images then the 6D II does suck
If you paid full retail then yes, the 6D II does suck

If you did your research before purchasing you would know its strengths and weaknesses, and if any of them is an issue for you and you did purchase then yeah, you made a mistake. The rest of us got another fine Canon camera that will do the job it was intended for. I liked the original 6D just fine (and remember the same whiny posts about it too). I prefer my 5D III over the 6D II, I like the 5D IV best. But I can still do my job with any of them, because

Choose your tools based on what you need to do, not some lame-arsed clickbait article.

Peace.

I wish I could like this post more than once. This sums up everything nicely. I used a 5DIII for several years, and never had a problem with the DR of that body. I knew going in that the DR of the 6DII was very close to the 5DIII. Since a lot of what I do is portraits, where I control the lighting, DR is not as important to me as other things. I also did not buy at first when the price was $2000. I was able to get a Canon refurb special for under $1200, and when it arrived it looked as if it was new. I knew the limitations going in, and I also knew about the improvements going in. I have absolutely no regrets with my purchase.

Yes you are so right , you will usually find these type of people on this type of forum

Hi I have both the 6d and 6d2. What I’m going to do is post several photos and let’s see the smart a—-s tell me which photo belongs to which camera