Canon 6D - Full-frame body, $2100 at launch

[mark_s.4]

<p>Are there any informations about the new sensor? I really would like to know if the dynamic range has increased compared to 5dII & 5dIII. Where can i find raw sample images? <br>

...and, i know that most people don`t mind, but why the hell does it offer only a <strong>single-axis</strong> electronic level?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>have gone backwards or at best stayed the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no evidence for this statement at all - how can you possibly know? - unless you judge an unimportant decrease in number of pixels as significant (I am guessing this is the basis of your complaint).</p>

[dana_stanley]

<p>As long as Canon keeps working on boosting ISO and keeping the noise down I'm with them.<br>

Wi Fi awesome,<br>

no built in flash that's fine,<br>

GPS doesn't matter to me,<br>

Digic 5 MK11 has the 4 doesn't it,<br>

4.5 5 fps that's pretty close,<br>

does anyone really need 32 points,<br>

SD card that's a good thing.<br>

20 MP instead of 24; I'm not sure why, but if it reduces noise then it's a good thing to me, <br>

movies, all good,<br>

smaller and weather sealed I like.<br>

I would consider this a great upgrade to my 50D. When the 5DMK111 shot up by $1000.00 over the MK11, I thought an upgrade was out of the question for a long time. Now it is on the horizon again. I guess any lenses I get will be for full sensor, and I won't be buying anymore CF cards.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>There is no evidence for this statement at all - how can you possibly know?</blockquote>

<p>How can I know? - simple deduction. The only possible explanation for the reduction in megapixels and using a different sensor to the 5D markII or 5D mark III is that Canon is deliberately trying to differentiate the 6D sensor to appear worse in a "headline" sense. That way 6D users can't claim the IQ out of the 6D is identical to the $1100 more expensive 5D mark III on the basis of using the same sensor or alternatively so that no 5D III users feel ripped-off because Canon introduced a much cheaper model with the same sensor.<br /> I doubt in practice there will be much difference between the two, but the downgrading of the megapixels can only really be explained by a marketing decision.<br /> Do you really think this sensor will be a noticeable improvement over either the 5D mark II or III? If not then Canon sensors have basically had little improvment since the 5D II.<br>

And my statement was not a complaint but rather an observation as to why Nikon users might be happy with the D600, while Canon users might feel let down with the 6D.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>This is indeed useful feature but the 5D2 also have it. Are there any more features? [Yakim Peled]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have a look here:</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2012-04-dslrs.htm</p>

<p>The 5D2 according to Ken does not have a "Quiet Mode" (I know, I said "Silent shutter mode".</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>How can I know? - simple deduction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

In other words, your answer to Robin's question is that you have no evidence for your statement, regardless of how many words you throw at it.</p>

[dogbert]

<blockquote>In other words, your answer to Robin's question is that you have no evidence for your statement, regardless of how many words you throw at it.</blockquote>

<p>Actually no. Deductive reasoning is one way of establishing the likelihood of something being true. It is used all the time in analysis. Empirics is another way.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>The only possible explanation for the reduction in megapixels . . .<br>

. . . downgrading of the megapixels can only really be explained by a marketing decision.</i><P>

This isn't simple deduction--this is an unsupported assumption. Another possible reason the 6D uses a different sensor is that Canon has developed a less-expensive, more-efficient manufacturing method for the 6D sensor. We don't really know, but my deduction is at least as likely as yours.

[dogbert]

<p>The different sensor may be explaned by a different manaufacturing method, but that means additional R&D to establish that method and separate production runs for 5D and 6D sensors both of which would add to costs.</p>

<p>I doubt the reduction in megapixles is due to cost factors, given where the price of the 5DII has been for quite a while.</p>

<p>I any event I have been accused by two people of having no evidence for my statement that the 6D sensor has gone backwards or stayed the same compared to the camera it replaces.</p>

<p>Going from 22-23 megapixels to 20 is clearly a reduction in absolute resolution, however minor. If that is not evidence I don't know what is.<br>

But you are all far too literal. I made that post to explain why Nikon users might feel Nikon suprised on the upside with the D600 and why Canon users might feel a bit let down with the 6D in comparison.</p>

<p>Everyone happy now and can we move on?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt the reduction in megapixles is due to cost factors, given where the price of the 5DII has been for quite a while.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You don't seem to have any understanding of semiconductor manufacturing.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>...But the 1D-X has only 18 Mpix, a step down from the 21 Mpix of the 1Ds3. It's the lowest resolution full frame Canon, as well as the most expensive - costs twice as much as the highest resolution Canon DSLR.</p>

<p>Which leads me to believe we can't conclude anything until the camera has been released.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>It is possible that I may not <strong>seem</strong> to have an understanding of semiconductor manufacturing. On the other hand I do have an Engineering Degree and a Masters degree in Economics.<br>

Where did you do your training exactly?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I worked for ten years for the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer. My graduate work in electrical engineering was at MIT. I hope that satisfies your curiosity. It's not something I bring up unless directly asked since it has nothing to do with what I do today, but it did give me the ability to actually understand semiconductor manufacturing.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>The 1D-X was produced so as to no longer have a split line between the 1D and 1Ds line. Its sensor resolution was reduced to get the processing speed up. Its sensor was indeed a compromise in terms of resolution rather than an improvement.</p>

<p>Anyway this has totally degenerated into a dicussion about the sensor. We need to move on.</p>

<p>I can understand why to many of you the 6D is a world beater - for many Canon can do no wrong. I can also understand why some people, including me, think it is a bit of a lame offering. With few more features that I particularly wanted I'd have been thrilled. At $1700-$1800 at launch I'd have been pleased. Now I'll wait for the price to drop or the 6D markII. BTW when do you think that will be out?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I worked for ten years for the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer. My graduate work in electrical engineering was at MIT. I hope that satisfies your curiosity. It's not something I bring up unless directly asked since it has nothing to do with what I do today, but it did give me the ability to actually understand semiconductor manufacturing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then we have a lot in common. :-)</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I don't think the 6D is a world beater. I don't think it's meant to be a world beater. I think the 5D line is being split into two, and going forward from here the 5D will be the intermediate FF camera with features nearer to the 1D line, and the 6D line will be the budget FF, or Full Frame Rebel as some have called it.</p>

<p>As such, to me anyway, it makes tons of sense for Canon to spend R&D dollars to design a FF sensor where a primary goal is to bring down production costs. I expect the 6D price to fall rather quickly. I think Canon is planning on selling a lot of these cameras, more than they sold of the 5D line.</p>

<p>...That's how I'm reading it anyway. In any case I'm not surprised, or disappointed, that the 6D is in some ways better than, and in other ways worse than, the 5D2. It's a new model line. It's intended for a new market.</p>

[abbas_haider]

Some where I have read that canon is not planning to stop 5Dii from production.

 

I don't know with release od 6D I think it will or you will end up with 3 FF bodies in the market which I prefer with

additional price drop.

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p> This is indeed useful feature but the 5D2 also have it. Are there any more features? [Yakim Peled]<br>

Have a look here:<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2012-04-dslrs.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2012-04-dslrs.htm</a><br>

The 5D2 according to Ken does not have a "Quiet Mode" (I know, I said "Silent shutter mode".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it won't be the first time KR is writing things which are, to put it mildly, not 100% correct. Have a look at page 120 in the 5D2's manual: It actually has 2 modes of silent modes.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

[mike dixon]

<i>The only possible explanation for the reduction in megapixels and using a different sensor to the 5D markII or 5D mark III is that Canon is deliberately trying to differentiate the 6D sensor to appear worse in a "headline" sense. . . .<p>

The different sensor may be explaned by a different manaufacturing method, but that means additional R&D to establish that method and separate production runs for 5D and 6D sensors both of which would add to costs.</i><P>

Let me see if I've got this straight: You think Canon will go to the expense of creating a different sensor in order to make the 6D look worse (in fact, you're so certain of it that you repeatedly insist that's the only possible explanation), but you don't think they would go to that expense in order to reduce their production costs?

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>I'll stick my neck out here, but I don't want to be flamed please.<br>

It seems to me that FF DSLRs are going to be in the $1500 area soon. And with the top mirrorless coming in at $1k+, I see the demise of the Crop/DX DSLR. And that's no good for people at the lower end of the DSLR market. Its this demographic that may need to make a decision to adopt Mirrorless or go FF/FX.<br>

We can see a taste of that with Leica. Their decision to just have an "M" digital camera will allow them to add and enhance without a major re-branding exercise each time.<br>

If I was Canon I would be hoping that this trend continues. It would mean that there would only be one set of lenses for the DSLR range.<br>

I wonder if that's the direction?</p>

 

[steve_wagner1]

<p>Great backup</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>Let me see if I've got this straight: You think Canon will go to the expense of creating a different sensor in order to make the 6D look worse (in fact, you're so certain of it that you repeatedly insist that's the only possible explanation), but you don't think they would go to that expense in order to reduce their production costs?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think it's a possibility (but not overly likely), and is not without precedent. Many times, companies recognize that having an 'inferior' product is a good idea because a) it can drive and rationalize 'better' & 'best' pricing for superior products (ie. good -6D, better- 5D3, best!-1Dx), b) it can often open up new markets (ie crop shooters who want 'FF' glory, but can't afford it, or can't rationalize it).</p>

<p>I disagree w/ geoff's conclusions, but mainly because of the ISO specification, specifically 100-25600 (+H1, H2). Using larger photosites, they<em> may</em> have significantly improved the noise characteristics on the 6Ds sensor. They failed to significantly improve it on the 5D3. That<em> may</em> also have enabled them to improve DR of the sensor. They failed to improve it on the 5D3. However, if that were the case, I'd expect to be seeing Canon make a marketing push in that direction - ie. we'd already know it was coming.<br>

So yes. IMO this looks like a bridge camera w/ a 'compromised' feature set designed for a specific group of photogs. I think that the 'worse' sensor probably has much better noise control than the 5D2 and 5D3... (on the other hand, maybe I'm giving Canon to much credit ;-) )</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have a look at page 120 in the 5D2's manual: It actually has 2 modes of silent modes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yakim - pg120 of my (5D2) manual is about LV and 'face detection' mode (both are pretty quiet...). I for one would love to have a 'quiet mode' on my 5D2s, but have yet to find one (other than LV obviously)... If you know how please be specific! ...unless you are referring to shooting in LV, in which case nevermind.</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>The 5D III has a pixel area of 6.25·6.25 µm and does 6 frames per second of 22.3 MP = 133.8 MP/s. The 6D has a pixel area of 6.55·6.55 µm and does 4.5 frames per second at 20.2 MP = 90.9 MP/s. Both have one DIGIC 5+ with two 4-channel A/D converters. Slower A/D conversion (1.5x) is good and larger pixels (1.1x) as well. So the 6D may well perform a little better in the noise department. We don't know numbers about the fill factor, microlenses and quantum efficiency, though.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I worked for ten years for the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer. My graduate work in electrical engineering was at MIT.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Impressive résumé!</p>

[christopher_diao1]

<p>Can someone summarize the major improvement and advantage over 5DII? What's the disadvantage in comparing with 5DIII?<br>

HDR? What's the bracketing range?<br>

micro focus adjustment for different lenses?<br>

cpu?</p>

[christopher_diao1]

<p>Can someone summarize the major improvement and advantage over 5DII? What's the disadvantage in comparing with 5DIII?<br>

HDR? What's the bracketing range?<br>

micro focus adjustment for different lenses?<br>

cpu?</p>