6d2 is here.

As per Canon, the only pro cameras are the 1D*, regardless of the fact that many pros are working with other cameras.

In my opinion, what really makes a pro camera is:
- State of the art image quality.
- Reliability (i.e. can be used in any field condition for as much time as needed without failing). Note that whatever the field is, reliability requires two memory slots.
- Customizability (i.e. tune the camera to optimize the experience in the field).
- Maximum comfort (i.e. use advanced materials to minimize weight and size).

Note that I didn't mention features like fps and resolution. Indeed, some pros require high fps, while others prefer high resolution (which still comes at the cost of lower fps). Seems odd to me that Canon does not have two different 1D* (pro) cameras: one tuned for fps and the other for resolution.

As far as the 6D2 is concerned, it clearly isn't a pro camera for the reasons I have mentioned above. Especially, any responsible pro should never use a camera with a single memory card slot.

Small, quality wasn't great, had to wait for it to come on, and wasn't obvious what was in focus so I had to trust the fact the camera was getting it right, felt more comfortable using the rear screen to be honest, I will say the A7SII was the best, but, not for me, too alien....

Uhm... keep in mind that most users cannot distinguish an MP3 file from the uncompressed original. The very few humans who can, do enjoy uncompressed files stored on flash memory.
Flash memory killed the CD, it wasn't the MP3.

... and the fact that Betamax required two tapes to record a movie
Some marketing genius probably thought that this way they would have sold twice the tapes and possibly limited video piracy.
Unsurprisingly, VHS won the war.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18421249
Uhm... keep in mind that most users cannot distinguish an MP3 file from the uncompressed original. The very few humans who can, do enjoy uncompressed files stored on flash memory.
Flash memory killed the CD, it wasn't the MP3.

... and the fact that Betamax required two tapes to record a movie
Some marketing genius probably thought that this way they would have sold twice the tapes and possibly limited video piracy.
Unsurprisingly, VHS won the war.

I thought VHS winning that battle was in large part due to the porn industry. Sony learned their lesson and went straight to porn industries with blu-ray to "donate" equipment to get them to side with blu-ray over hd-dvd

Scoobert wrote in post #18421285
I thought VHS winning that battle was in large part due to the porn industry. Sony learned their lesson and went straight to porn industries with blu-ray to "donate" equipment to get them to side with blu-ray over hd-dvd

That is debated, but I also think it may have played a big part in the game.
... oh, and possibly the lower dynamic range (sorry, couldn't resist).

Scoobert wrote in post #18421285
I thought VHS winning that battle was in large part due to the porn industry. Sony learned their lesson and went straight to porn industries with blu-ray to "donate" equipment to get them to side with blu-ray over hd-dvd

I seem to remember that HD-DVD was an argument for winning out because more porn studios authored for HD-DVD (the licensing was cheaper). It's more attributed that Blu-ray got more market shares due to a cheaper delivery format with the PS3 and major film studios backing blu-ray.

With VHS, cheaper licensing for porn and longer record times are both factors for why it was favored. Betamax was still used by TV stations, so it didn't die the way HD-DVD did.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18421197
Seems odd to me that Canon does not have two different 1D* (pro) cameras: one tuned for fps and the other for resolution.

Seems to me that's what the 1D & 1Ds were. And then Canon sort of merged them and launched the 1DX.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18421249
Uhm... keep in mind that most users cannot distinguish an MP3 file from the uncompressed original. The very few humans who can, do enjoy uncompressed files stored on flash memory.
Flash memory killed the CD, it wasn't the MP3.

It is NOT that very few humans hear MP3 vs. CD quality, it is that modern young listeners cannot distinguish 3" speaker Bluetooth speakers from 10" speaker quality!

Standard audio CD sample rate is 44.1kHz, which gives a frequency response up to 20kHz, and CDs allows for a theoretical signal-to-noise ratio of 93dB. CD translates to the equivalent of 1411.2k bps
MP3, on the other hand, is a 'lossy format' and lossy formats always exhibit some quality loss, because the audio content exiting the decoder on playback is not the same as the audio content that originally went in to the encoder. Depending upon MP3 signal source, MP3 is presented at 64-256k bps. The initial goal of MP3 was to produce 'acceptable' results when coding at 128kbps. That's a data reduction of over 90 percent, removing high-frequency content above about 16kHz. The MP3 format has a reputation for making bass and low-frequency content sound weak, and also exhibits the 'swirlies' in which the hi-hat and cymbals exhibit moderate grainy swirling.

... and the fact that Betamax required two tapes to record a movie
Some marketing genius probably thought that this way they would have sold twice the tapes and possibly limited video piracy.
Unsurprisingly, VHS won the war.

Huh? Betamax had long mode recording options, just like VHS! The L-750 tape could record 90 or 180 or 270 minutes depending upon recording speed, just like T-90 recorded 90 or 180 or 270 minutes.
VHS 'won the war' largely because JVC made the format relatively less expensive than Sony for licensing production of equipment and media.

No 'marketing genius', but merely technical limitations caused by selection of tape cassette size and recording speeds. Originally, Beta I machines (NTSC) were able to record one hour of programming at their standard tape speed of 1.5ips; the first VHS machines could record for two hours, due to both 1.31 ips.) and significantly longer tape. Sony had to slow the tape down to 0.787 ips (Beta II) in order to achieve two hours of recording in the same (smaller than VHS) cassette size, but this reduced Betamax's once-superior video quality to worse than VHS when comparing two-hour recording.

Wilt wrote in post #18421461
It is NOT that very few humans hear MP3 vs. CD quality, it is that modern young listeners cannot distinguish 3" speaker Bluetooth speakers from 10" speaker quality!

Its not even that. They can tell the difference, they just don't care. Same with DSLR vs smart phone. A smart phone is good enough for a lot of people. They can tell the difference, but the smart phone is more convenient.

Stregone wrote in post #18421479
Same with DSLR vs smart phone. A smart phone is good enough for a lot of people. They can tell the difference, but the smart phone is more convenient.

Haha that's me 90% of the time. Two things I always have in my pockets...wallet and phone. So if the moment comes up I can snap a pic within 3 seconds. I definitely can't say the same for my expensive, heavy camera and lenses.

I always miss the quality of my DSLR though.

I've got a nice SACD player, and with the proper equipment and native SACDs, can hear the difference in soundstage and harmonics. I think most the population would hear differences if they were presented with it. But mp3 gained market share because of the convenience and copying abilities. At least now with storage always getting bigger, people transfer higher bit rate mp3s or FLAC audio formats. For high quality speakers, there's always been some issues of marketing: look how the lay public views Bose as a high end speaker product (no highs, no lows, must be Bose); or flabby bass headphones Beats Audio.

I've always held the belief that quality is irrelevant for most people once it hits a certain level.

Ascenta wrote in post #18421487
Haha that's me 90% of the time. Two things I always have in my pockets...wallet and phone. So if the moment comes up I can snap a pic within 3 seconds. I definitely can't say the same for my expensive, heavy camera and lenses.

I always miss the quality of my DSLR though.

I have found myself using my phone camera more and more often. Convenience trumps quality.

Wilt wrote in post #18421461
It is NOT that very few humans hear MP3 vs. CD quality, it is that modern young listeners cannot distinguish 3" speaker Bluetooth speakers from 10" speaker quality!

Standard audio CD sample rate is 44.1kHz, which gives a frequency response up to 20kHz, and CDs allows for a theoretical signal-to-noise ratio of 93dB. CD translates to the equivalent of 1411.2k bps
MP3, on the other hand, is a 'lossy format' and lossy formats always exhibit some quality loss, because the audio content exiting the decoder on playback is not the same as the audio content that originally went in to the encoder. Depending upon MP3 signal source, MP3 is presented at 64-256k bps. The initial goal of MP3 was to produce 'acceptable' results when coding at 128kbps. That's a data reduction of over 90 percent, removing high-frequency content above about 16kHz. The MP3 format has a reputation for making bass and low-frequency content sound weak, and also exhibits the 'swirlies' in which the hi-hat and cymbals exhibit moderate grainy swirling.

Huh? Betamax had long mode recording options, just like VHS! The L-750 tape could record 90 or 180 or 270 minutes depending upon recording speed, just like T-90 recorded 90 or 180 or 270 minutes.
VHS 'won the war' largely because JVC made the format relatively less expensive than Sony for licensing production of equipment and media.

No 'marketing genius', but merely technical limitations caused by selection of tape cassette size and recording speeds. Originally, Beta I machines (NTSC) were able to record one hour of programming at their standard tape speed of 1.5ips; the first VHS machines could record for two hours, due to both 1.31 ips.) and significantly longer tape. Sony had to slow the tape down to 0.787 ips (Beta II) in order to achieve two hours of recording in the same (smaller than VHS) cassette size, but this reduced Betamax's once-superior video quality to worse than VHS when comparing two-hour recording.

Its all fairly irrelevant since most popular music is already heavily compressed when its recorded, and the radio stations and Sirius XM compress them even more. Sound quality has been important to me all my life and I've spent a considerable sum on music systems over the years. I generally avoid low res mp3 files. But, its amazing how much better even low resolution .mp3 files sound over my car stereo when compared to Sirius XM. Its the same with TV broadcasts. The auditory dynamic range people listen to and accept every day is so very limited. I'd be surprised if the limited dynamic range of the 6D Mark II will bother many people.

Stregone wrote in post #18421479
Its not even that. They can tell the difference, they just don't care. Same with DSLR vs smart phone. A smart phone is good enough for a lot of people. They can tell the difference, but the smart phone is more convenient.

Sadly, I agree with you.