Price of 5D MarkII and 6D

The rebate on the 6d goes up to $300 starting tomorrow, making the new price $1599 at places like B&H. Also, the "Street price" at CPW is now $1339.99 - this from an authorized dealer with the Canon USA warranty. That price might sway your decision.

The 5dmk2 meets most of my high demands due to my subject matter (slow/static subjects).

The 6D easily meets that same criteria with the advantages of better iso performance. On the same note I'd be also investing in some ND filters because I do hit the 1/8000 region when shooting primes. 1/4000 to me is a serious kick in the rear end that really throws me off. However if I did own one I would work around this problem and lug ND filters if I see a potential for an issue. Stopping down my lens limiting some creative control is a no no for me.

If the 6d was more like the Nikon d750 package (more expensive) I'd totally just deal with 1/4000 limiation because its a different beast to the 6d.

Both 6d and 5dmk2 are killer cameras but in the current world its a bit of a pig. Latest offerings are shining in bells and whistles and tech. When the 6d was first introduced it was a product that needed revision straight out of the gates.

Between the 5dmk2 and 6d.....5dmk2 has very good iso performance but 1/8000 is my preference between the two bodies. However as I said if I owned a 6d and lugged extra gear (nd filters) that will be a "better" package overall due to the iso performance of the 6d.

I got my 6D, brand-spankin' new, for $1,499 at a Christmas sale last year. As mentioned, Canon sells it refurbished for $1,519. With the exception of 1/4000 max, it is a much better camera than the 5DII. Better noise profile, way better auto-focus, better ISO controls. I really like the one button/one funtion setup, too. I don't use the WIFI or GPS, but they are there for folks who do. Can't do that with a 5DII.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17288100
I got my 6D, brand-spankin' new, for $1,499 at a Christmas sale last year. As mentioned, Canon sells it refurbished for $1,519. With the exception of 1/4000 max, it is a much better camera than the 5DII. Better noise profile, way better auto-focus, better ISO controls. I really like the one button/one funtion setup, too. I don't use the WIFI or GPS, but they are there for folks who do. Can't do that with a 5DII.

Yes I agree that the 6D is a great Iso performer. My only complaint is the 1/4000 shutter speed.

My testdrive with the camera was brief. I didn't feel the AF to be worlds better than my 5dmk2's but maybe because I was in relatively decent light with primes and fast f/2.8 zooms.

The whole point of Canon limiting the 6d with 1/4000 is to dissuade many individuals that are critical on the max shutter speed. Using ND filters is not an option for me. However I guess you could use auto iso and see how thing go with shutter speed as you run/gun outdoors or pay critical attention to iso settings.

I'm a canon user but after playing with a Nikon d750....this is where I will set my differences aside and happily accept a 1/4000 limitation. The 5dmk2 and 6d is an extremely capable great camera but it really does show its age against fresh bodies built currently. Even the 6dmk2 will very likely not meet the same performance of the d750 if Canon rolls with the "typical" rate of evolution.

Most cases most folks wont show distaste to 1/4000.

Just helped a friend pickup a 6d w/ 24-70L f/4IS, 35 f/2IS and 430exiii for a "family kit" to document family and social gatherings. They didn't seem to be concerned with slower 1/4000 max shutter speeds.

I'd happily use a pair of 5dmk2's to shoot a wedding. Having the 5dmk3 as primary and 5dmk2 as secondary worked extremely well. This is where I'd love to pickup a 6d for indoor events work to be paired with my 5dmk3. As a secondary body I would appreciate the high iso capabilities.

As this competitive world gets tougher and tougher after playing with a sony A7s I'm jaded. 6d/5d3 is a light sponge but the sony is a light "maker" in how it performs with its 12mpx sensor in pitch dark situations. I just have to point out that tools are all about choices......

AlanU - I've made this comment a few times on POTN. My 6D will lock focus quickly, with a peripheral AF point (which I seldom use) in light my 5Dc would hunt in with the center point. Caveats: I bought the 5Dc used, perhaps it was defective. But it does have the same AF as the 5DII. That is what I base my comparison on. The 6D is a center-point shooter's (me) dream.

I don't think anyone would even notice the 1/4000 limitation shooting at f/2.8 and smaller. When I move to the 6D, I moved to primes. In bright outdoor light the 6D is incapable of f/1.4 at ISO 100. I've had safety-shift bump me up to f/2.2 and 2.5. I think f/2.8 would be pretty safe. And there is always ISO 50, which I detest on moral grounds. Couldn't Canon have just made it go to 1/8000?

6D all the way.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17288449
Couldn't Canon have just made it go to 1/8000?

They could have. But you have to consider canon's motivation behind the 6D. The 6D was built to be a full frame counterpart to the XXD line, a full frame 60D if you will. That allowed them to push the 5DIII into a more professional price point and feature set. The 6D exceeded the semi pro expectations with image quality, iso performance, an the low light focusing on the center spot. But canon intentionally hobbled it in a few ways to keep the 5D3 the choice for certain pro applications, hence the shutter speed, slow sync speed, and lack of a pc sync port.

Geo,

Canon will never put 1/8000 in a 6dmk2. This would disrupt Canon's bean counters strategy. When Canon introduced the 6d they have the technology from the 60d to add 9 cross type point but refused to simply throw it in a introductory full frame. Even when the 5dmk2 came out they could have added 9 cross points but Canon likes to be behind the times to delay "bells/whistles" to their loyal customers.

If Canon made a 6dmk2 with 1/8000 and older 9 cross type focus points that would kill 5dmk3 and future 5dmk4 sales. Most consumers and even wedding photogs would NOT feel like paying extra 1000-1500 more if a 6dmk2 can do majority of slow / static subject shooting with 9 cross type AF. You can see this same train of thought with Nikon putting a 1/4000 limitation in a D750.

Coming from the 5dmk2 I'll find myself using "focus/recompose" even with my 5dmk3 when run/gun gets fast paced. I have no issues with focus using that "bad" technique.

Next on my shortlist is the sony a7s.... or I'll happily wait for an A7s mk2 (anticipating internal image stabilization.) for a high iso machine.

Back to the 6d and 5dmk2 decision. For myself I really just like to have 1/8000 so this is the benefits of the 5dmk2 when I use fast primes (although not ideal to shoot wideopen in bright available lights). This is where the 6d should really "not" pose much of a major issue all of the time.

This is the reason why I picked up a 6d kit for a friend of mine.

In my tool box I just "prefer" having the 1/8000 specs.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17288619
They could have. But you have to consider canon's motivation behind the 6D. The 6D was built to be a full frame counterpart to the XXD line, a full frame 60D if you will. That allowed them to push the 5DIII into a more professional price point and feature set. The 6D exceeded the semi pro expectations with image quality, iso performance, an the low light focusing on the center spot. But canon intentionally hobbled it in a few ways to keep the 5D3 the choice for certain pro applications, hence the shutter speed, slow sync speed, and lack of a pc sync port.

It just seems like it would have made more sense (to me) to use the 6D as the 5D3 (and keep the 5D line having a basic AF system) and take what became the 5D3 and launch it as the 3D. Ah well.

AlanU -
I would have preferred 1/8000, but not at the expense of buying a 5D3. Lots of money for little return for a center-point snap-shooter like me. Funny, I never need 1/8000 on my 60D. It gets used mostly with the 15-85 and 70-200 OS.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17288674
It just seems like it would have made more sense (to me) to use the 6D as the 5D3 (and keep the 5D line having a basic AF system) and take what became the 5D3 and launch it as the 3D. Ah well.

You are talking semantics, and not good marketing. The 5 series has a large and durable fan base. The 6D isnt that much better than the 5DII, in fact if you read the initial reactions to the 6D it was decidely mixed as many of the 6D stats were not an improvement on a 4 year old 5DII. So the 6D was not going to satisfy the 5D enthusiasts and it made no sense to abandon the 5D reputation in favor of a 3D, which has some marketing flaws due to people mistaking it for 3 dimensional capability.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17288787
You are talking semantics, and not good marketing. The 5 series has a large and durable fan base. The 6D isnt that much better than the 5DII, in fact if you read the initial reactions to the 6D it was decidely mixed as many of the 6D stats were not an improvement on a 4 year old 5DII. So the 6D was not going to satisfy the 5D enthusiasts and it made no sense to abandon the 5D reputation in favor of a 3D, which has some marketing flaws due to people mistaking it for 3 dimensional capability.

Yes, but then everything would line up nicely in my head, and I'd be happier.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17288828
Yes, but then everything would line up nicely in my head, and I'd be happier.

Seek help

gonzogolf wrote in post #17288831
Seek help

You do know that was a joke, right?

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17288839
You do know that was a joke, right?

So was my reply