6d2 is here.

Wilt wrote in post #18420617
In spite of the fact that Canon EOS cameras have used vertical travel metal blades, with all speeds electronically controlled, the max speeds and X-sync speeds are different

Shutter Speed:
EOS 650 --1/2000 max. X-sync is 1/125 sec.
EOS 620 --1/4000 max. X-sync is 1/250 sec.
EOS 1 -- 1/8000 max. X-sync is 1/250
EOS 1Ds -- 1/8000 mx. X-sync is 1/250
EOS 5DIV -- 1/8000 max. X-sync is 1/200
EOS 6D -- 1/4000 max. X-sync is 1/180

You forgot to add

1D3 1/8000 max XSync 1/300

And while we're at it
Why do the rebels/80D have 1/4000 & 1/8000 1/200 & 1/250 Same APS-C/24MP Seem likes specification difference to me.

If you notice, all the cameras I originally listed were FF size EOS models, whereas the models you added were APS-H and APS-C. My point of the original list was that there were very many different 'full frame vertical metal blade' shutter specs in the EOS history, as a counterpoint to the 6DII comments complaining about 'crippled spec' shutters. the 6D is certainly not the first time a shutter has been 'crippled' compared to the highest spec camera model.

Wilt, fair enough. I like you even if you are a marketing guy
However, marketing-driven companies are eventually going to fail, while technology-driven companies will take over.
Most great companies are technology-driven, and have a marketing team following the directions of a technical CEO.

In other words, move the decisional power of a tech company to non-technical people. and you got your recipe for disaster.

I think Canon will lose its leadership in photography in a couple years. They are clearly no more interested ($$$) in the field, as the field is becoming a niche. The 6D2 is a clear esample of "let's milk the sh*t out of our dying BU until it dies".
Good thing for Canon investors... maybe. But I am not one of them (and quite frankly I doubt I'll ever be, given the spirit of that company).

CheshireCat wrote in post #18420996
Wilt, fair enough. I like you even if you are a marketing guy
However, marketing-driven companies are eventually going to fail, while technology-driven companies will take over.
Most great companies are technology-driven, and have a marketing team following the directions of a technical CEO..

Only true if there are competitors with equal or better performance. Canon was alone at the top for quite some time but recently there have been several competitors that have not only matched Canons performance but in many aspects surpassed.it.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18420996
... The 6D2 is a clear esample of "let's milk the sh*t out of our dying BU until it dies"....

I sort of get the same feeling with their latest release.

Agreed with that, but after spending two hours looking at an A7, A7s, Xpro2, XT2, I'm sticking with Canon. The EVF just freaked me out, they just didn't feel right, the menus baffled me, but the Fuji build quality did impress. But then I looked at the 5D4, worth spending another £2000 on that? Nope, so I stuck with my 5D3. But then, the Fuji and Sony results are so very good, and I saw a bloke having great fun with his XT2 yesterday....... Aaaargh!!

You have to have all three - good technology, good products and good marketing/reading what the market wants. Clearly, you've got to have the technology, but I've worked 27 years in high tech on cutting edge R&D and I've seen many a tech company with incredible technology falter because they either couldn't turn their IP into a product the public wanted, or couldn't read market trends.

Canon has a history of supplying hardware that is more capable than what they enable for the consumer.

Are you implying that Canon has deliberately introduced downstream read noise in the 6D2 sensor (in firmware using a random number generator) that they can then remove with a firmware update, if they think the market/user base requires it? This would be almost Machiavellian.

I have been reading the image analysis of the 6D2 found over at TDP, he seems cautiously optimistic about the IQ of the 6D2 compared to the 5D4. 26MP isn't much different from 30MP so it comes down to noise character and DR at base ISO.

I still maintain that Canon has manifestly failed to define what they mean by 'entry-level FF'. A FF DSLR is by definition not an entry-level camera (that would be the Rebel series). To me, this term applied to larger sensor cameras implies current-tech sensor with other features (AF, memory cards, video, build, etc.) minimal; the 6D fits this description. Does the 6D2 fit this description? You tell me.

No, I mean that in things related to sync speeds and max shutter speeds, and other areas where people assume the build and engineering doesn't support these things, we have seen capabilities in the hardware exposed through custom firmware where the camera has capabilities that Canon doesn't expose. For example the 50D could do raw video. The card hardware and bus speeds (UDMA 6 Compact Flash card slot, 133Mb/s) were more than adequate in fact to support this.

There are other cases as well. Now in the case of the sensor, if the 6D2 does indeed sport an on-chip ADC that is the "same" as the 80D, 5D4, etc, then I have no theories on why files would be inferior under ISO 800 when compared to bodies already in the marketplace.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18421114
if the 6D2 does indeed sport an on-chip ADC that is the "same" as the 80D, 5D4, etc, then I have no theories on why files would be inferior under ISO 800 when compared to bodies already in the marketplace.

There's more to a sensor than the ADC.

welshwizard1971 wrote in post #18421015
The EVF just freaked me out

What is exactly that freaked you out ?

True, but that feature is the biggest sensor feature change, for Canon, in the last three years, along with DPAF.

As for 'crippling', there is the case of Canon releasing v2.x firmware for the 7D essentially doubling the RAW buffer among other things. Clearly those capabilities could have been enabled from the get go, but were not. They were only enabled because Canon felt they needed a bit of a refresh letting them delay longer in releasing the 7D2.

Canon could deliberately introduce downstream readout noise at lower ISOs for product differentiation purposes. It wouldn't be difficult to do.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18420996
Wilt, fair enough. I like you even if you are a marketing guy
However, marketing-driven companies are eventually going to fail, while technology-driven companies will take over.
Most great companies are technology-driven, and have a marketing team following the directions of a technical CEO.

In other words, move the decisional power of a tech company to non-technical people. and you got your recipe for disaster.

I think Canon will lose its leadership in photography in a couple years. They are clearly no more interested ($$$) in the field, as the field is becoming a niche. The 6D2 is a clear esample of "let's milk the sh*t out of our dying BU until it dies".
Good thing for Canon investors... maybe. But I am not one of them (and quite frankly I doubt I'll ever be, given the spirit of that company).

A smart company is strongly driven by technology, but it needs to cater to the desires/wishes of its users!
Technology is NOTHING of no users think they NEED that bit of technology. And good Marketing can indeed CREATE/INCREASE DEMAND for something among users, even if they did not previously realize a desire for it.
But high tech does NOT always appeal to the users...

• witness MP3 vs.CD, the higher quality loses in the consumer demand for convenience in compact digital storage
  
• witness the VHS vs. Betamax, the higher quality Betamax lost to the greater consumer demand of a broad variety of players at lower prices
  
  

This can indeed be the case. I worked for AT&T Bell Labs back when the old AT&T was the national phone system. I can assure you we had all kinds of technoid gadgets, no name recognition, and a marketing department that would struggle to sell furnaces to Eskimos.

russbecker wrote in post #18421073
I still maintain that Canon has manifestly failed to define what they mean by 'entry-level FF'. A FF DSLR is by definition not an entry-level camera (that would be the Rebel series). To me, this term applied to larger sensor cameras implies current-tech sensor with other features (AF, memory cards, video, build, etc.) minimal; the 6D fits this description. Does the 6D2 fit this description? You tell me.

Clearly 'entry level' means 'priced more affordably for the hobbyist' who cannot write off equipment depreciation as a business expense.
Where it gets murkier and murkier is defining what feature levels can be demarked as 'for hobbyist' vs. 'for professional'

• it used to be that a PC connection was used for cable connection to studio strobes, but then hotshoe adapters or radio triggers changed that
  
• it used to be accessories like interchangeable focus screens might be considered 'professional', but then transmissive displays changed that
  
• it used to be interchangeable viewfinders (waist level vs. prism vs. high eyepoint vs. metering) were 'professional' but then in-body metering becoming a norm changed that
  
• it used to be high speed motor drives and 250 exp. magazines were 'professional' but then digital cameras with 1000-pic capacity and >5fps changed that
  
• clearly the presence/absence of a joystick or PC cord connection does a poor job of motivating 'pros' to get a 5Dn rather than the 6Dn.
  
  ...like automobiles, the list of what is in 'the cheapest cars' (vs. the most expensive) grows and grows, making it harder to define what demarks KIA vs. Audi in the feature list!