Canon admits massive label blunder on 6D - someone put the 6D label on the 70D MkII!

spacetime wrote in post #15006257
2.3/10

This

Submariner wrote in post #15006053
Negative Points:-
- Lightweight 2/3 Mag body
- undersized body
- Too small VF - should be 100%
- Pathetically specified AF system - should have been the 5DMk III's
- No back-2nd wheel
- No Mirrorless technology
- Far too expensive
- No 1080p 50 or 60 fps
- No continuous AF in movie mode
- Too expensive for what it is
- No MFA
- Marketing disaster will drive people to look at Nikon and then all the smart ones will do a complete re-evaluation and go Sony [especially all those with EFS lenses - no I'm definitely not advocating EFS compatibility on a FF]
- WIll scare customer base by the lack of groundbreaking technology on the Sensor/AF front.
- Should have had some wireless radio flash system built in [no I didn't say a built in Flash]
- Shutter life reduced to 100,000 from say the 7D's 150,000 - has the rest of the build quality dropped.

ok so first you complain that it's smaller body than the 5d3mk3 (I guess as you havn't said so) but that's the idea behind a cheaper FF camera!
it could have been full mag the top needs to be plastic so wifi and gps can work, simple enough for ya.
No mirrorless tech, but wait you said it's too small, what do you want? a FF mirrorless camera that's the same size as a 5Dmk3. Then what's the point of mirrorless. the idea behind mirrorless is to reduce the size of the camera but that wouldn't keep you happy.
there's one company that has made a ML FF camera and that's Sony. But that camera doesn't have a removable lenses. The only reason Sony made it was so they can be "1st"
Yes of course that makes sense to have the 5dmk3 AF system on a 2k Body. oh wait that's the same AF that's on the 1Dx also, gee anyone thinks your expecting far to much.

Oh wait you are. this camera isn't a replacement for anything. it's a FF camera that's cheaper than 5Dmk3. To do that many things have to change. some features have to be less than the bigger brother. Understand this do we?

Um, it''s actually an 8 Way Push thingy.

I like the simplicity of the top deck, and the FF and all that is good. The FF Sensor, No Built-In Flash, Low Light capability (-3 EV) draw me even though I'd like to see the price drop about $400. It would be a decent camera for my particular needs. The ISO Range would be a huge upgrade for me, over my 40D's. But in general, I'd like to see the following as minimum specs on any Semi-Pro SLR:

1/250th X Synch
1/8000th Max Shutter Speed
5 FPS
100% View Finder
All Metal body (WiFi and GPS reason for Plastic Top Plate here though...)

The price WILL drop by 400$. This is the introduction price.

But then it would cannibalize the 5D III sells. This is the low budget Full Frame...

Earwax69 wrote in post #15006835
The price WILL drop by 400$. This is the introduction price.

But then it would cannibalize the 5D III sells. This is the low budget Full Frame...

Yup and when this camera drops to 1600 there will be 5D2's going for 1,000-1,200

Talley wrote in post #15006891
Yup and when this camera drops to 1600 there will be 5D2's going for 1,000-1,200

Why? 5DII is a better camera - 5DIII is the 5DII replacement, this is an 'entry level' FF. When they are discontinued 5DII's will go for $2000.

Actually, I'm rather glad that canon sold so many 5DII's, maybe we'll at least be able to get a decent sub $2000 camera for a while yet. I'd also be fine with them dropping to $1200 so if anything happens to mine in a few years I'll be able to get a replacement.

Submariner wrote in post #15006460
Looks like i'll have to save for a 5DIII

Noooooo! Please, please, please buy a Sony, or a Nikon, or anything that isn't a Canon. I'm sure we could have a whip-round to supply the funds.

How can anyone quote a lightweight body as a negative?
Do you like backache?

Would've liked it to be even lighter personally.

Omg it's an entry level FF people....get over it

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15006770
ok so first you complain that it's smaller body than the 5d3mk3 (I guess as you havn't said so) but that's the idea behind a cheaper FF camera!
>> Yes I see that as a negative point for manouvering decent [=big and heavy] L series lenses. Since when must a cheaper camera be smaller? Wish you could swing a deal when I replace my SL, obviously you'd be able to convince the salesman that the SL should be cheaper than the VIto Van - because it's a lot smaller!

It could have been full mag the top needs to be plastic so wifi and gps can work, simple enough for ya.
>> Oh so to make wi fi and GPS work it's got to be plastic! Funny I've had GPS in my last 5 Mercedes and they are fundamentally metal and glass. And before you say it the anti radar trap had trouble with the shielded/heated windscreen - so it came with a tiny remote ariel. How about a ring antenna running around the base of the camera!

No mirrorless tech, but wait you said it's too small, what do you want? a FF mirrorless camera that's the same size as a 5Dmk3.
>>That would be perfect! The extra space could be used internally for cooling so one gets more than 30 mins of video. When I last checked sensor performance was affected adversely by heat, so might even aid noise control in stills.

Then what's the point of mirrorless. the idea behind mirrorless is to reduce the size of the camera but that wouldn't keep you happy.
>> I guess you missed the point of mirrorless, a] massive reduction in cost of mfg [er that equals survival] b] vast improvements in Video, c] faster frame rates d] on screen display improvements i.e. live view mirror doesn't have to be swung out of the way

there's one company that has made a ML FF camera and that's Sony. But that camera doesn't have a removable lenses.
>> What does the A99 have then?? check out Google!
The only reason Sony made it was so they can be "1st"
>> Hmmmm we agree on something 1st in technology then 1st in Marketing then logically 1st in market share/profit.

Yes of course that makes sense to have the 5dmk3 AF system on a 2k Body. oh wait that's the same AF that's on the 1Dx also, gee anyone thinks your expecting far to much.
>> I could have happily lived with a cut down version say 19 AF points. But as Canon are behind Nikon and Sony in AF Sensor technology this is one area I personally would have gone overboard if I was Canon. It would also have wiped out the negative feedback of say the poor AF and soft images reported on the 7D [and before you all over react - I love my 7D for the money - but I recognize it's not an easy camera to get to grips with - hence the volumes of bad press].

Oh wait you are. this camera isn't a replacement for anything. it's a FF camera that's cheaper than 5Dmk3. To do that many things have to change. some features have to be less than the bigger brother. Understand this do we?

>> Gosh would never have guess that one; what I'm saying is select the elements you cut out to fundamentally leave a wow factor.

In comparison I think generally the reception by most people to the 6D could be summed up as 'fundamentally underwhelmed'. And that is dangerous because if you can't convince a Canon fanboy then you really have lost the race!.
Conversely if you look at the reception to the Sony A99 it is [apart from the price factor - being a tad too expensive] it was " Brilliant can't wait to get one".

I can imagine your reaction to that last paragraph 'well anything would have been better than what Sony have now'.
Well I've got a Sony A77 and it has some amazing benefits for the money. before you knock it try it- you will get a shock!

Sure my comments were designed to stir people up and possibly make them think objectively. Why - simply put, if we are critical of this camera then I think it will make Canon get their game together and stay on top. I really want that, as my main long term investment is in the L series lenses and the good service and support of Canon UK.

But I think the new Sony AF and Image Sensor technology is way ahead at the moment [thats why Nikon chose it for their top DSLR's]. It also has a significantly lower cost of manufacture. Canon ignore that at their peril.

Anyway there was no need to get rough personally "simple enough for ya", especially when you had made such glaring judgemental errors.
You are entitled to your opinions, and if you want to buy one please do.

Naturally we are all in the dark to some extent, who knows maybe Canon have come up with some awesome technology that means 11 non cross hair sensors are much better than 61. But then Marketing hype is important if you are going to win the financial war.

Personally I'll sit on the fence [quite happily with my newish 7D, which seems to get better by the day]

I guess the 6D's sales volume figures and the share price will be the judge.

Inchpractice wrote in post #15007698
How can anyone quote a lightweight body as a negative?
Do you like backache?

Would've liked it to be even lighter personally.

This is a good point.
Personally it seems that everything gets thinner and lighter - and for me fundamentally things don't last as long. My experience is weight = strength = quality.
So I will pay the weight penalty.

But I also realise, the older population is growing, has much more disposable income and dont want the extra weight. Similarly as more and more women have better paid jobs [lets face it at least in the UK the girls outperform the boys in school... so it's only a matter of time before they dominate the workplace!] they may prefer the lighter weight too.

I'd hate to have to make that decision as a camera maker - I'd just go by poll results, what do the majority want or make a Lightweight version to appeal to that sector.

I guess you're new around here.

So people were expencting 5dIII specs for only $2k?