Canon 6D Mark II: less DR than any smaller sensor camera, even M4/3

[Paulo Bizarro]

So, Paulo, what is your typical kit now and its weight, vs your similar focal length kit with the 6D and its weight?

The last kit I had with Canon included a couple of 6D cameras, plus several lenses: Zeiss Distagon 21, EF 16-35 f4, EF 70-300L, 100 macro IS, 50 f1.4.

Since early 2015 I pruned my shooting to travel, landscapes, people. Today I have the A7, A7II, Tokina Firin 20 (fantastic lens with f2 aperture), ZA 55 f1.8, FE 85 f1.8 (no need for the Batis once this gem came out), and I will complement this with the G 90 Macro and be done with it.

One year ago I climbed Pico mountain, in the Azores (the highest mountain in Portugal), with an overnight camping stay. I carried the two cameras with two primes in a small Lowepro backpack, plus all the camping gear, food, mini tripod, etc. A lot less weight and size.

[NancyP]

So your weight savings have come in pruning the number and type of lenses, as well as the weight difference in comparable lenses and in cameras. 6D, ~720 grams. A7RII, ~ 625 grams; Zeiss Distagon 21 mm ~750 g, Tokina 20 mm 430 grams; Sony 90 mm and Canon 100 mm macros a dead heat at 630 grams each.

This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.

[John Cothron]

I suspect the 6DII will do just fine.  Would I buy it? No, but I've been shooting the 5D series for years.  There are cameras with better sensor technology for sure, but I suspect if someone has already bought into Canon mount glass, and they want to be in this price range (2k) they will buy the 6DII.

Having said that, I don't understand why Canon seems to have moved a tad backward with the 6DII regarding sensor technology.

[John Cothron]

The last kit I had with Canon included a couple of 6D cameras, plus several lenses: Zeiss Distagon 21, EF 16-35 f4, EF 70-300L, 100 macro IS, 50 f1.4.

Since early 2015 I pruned my shooting to travel, landscapes, people. Today I have the A7, A7II, Tokina Firin 20 (fantastic lens with f2 aperture), ZA 55 f1.8, FE 85 f1.8 (no need for the Batis once this gem came out), and I will complement this with the G 90 Macro and be done with it.

One year ago I climbed Pico mountain, in the Azores (the highest mountain in Portugal), with an overnight camping stay. I carried the two cameras with two primes in a small Lowepro backpack, plus all the camping gear, food, mini tripod, etc. A lot less weight and size.

I somewhat envy your weight savings   Carrying around 4-5 Zeiss metal lenses does get a tad heavy at times, although I still say they are worth it!  Still, if I had some serious packing to do I would probably carry a 16-35 f4, Zeiss 50 MP, and a 70-200 f4 and call it a day.

[RichDesmond]

So your weight savings have come in pruning the number and type of lenses, as well as the weight difference in comparable lenses and in cameras. 6D, ~720 grams. A7RII, ~ 625 grams; Zeiss Distagon 21 mm ~750 g, Tokina 20 mm 430 grams; Sony 90 mm and Canon 100 mm macros a dead heat at 630 grams each.

This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.

The shorter flange distance does let a mirror-less wide angle lens be smaller/lighter than it's SLR counterpart. So if WA lenses are a major part of your kit then that matters. But from normal on out it really doesn't make a difference.

[Paulo Bizarro]

So your weight savings have come in pruning the number and type of lenses, as well as the weight difference in comparable lenses and in cameras. 6D, ~720 grams. A7RII, ~ 625 grams; Zeiss Distagon 21 mm ~750 g, Tokina 20 mm 430 grams; Sony 90 mm and Canon 100 mm macros a dead heat at 630 grams each.

This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.

Size matter a lot to me too. I can carry easily 2 cams + 2 primes in a smaller backpack when trekking or hiking. I have also went to a lower sized tripod and ball head. Everything counts. Of course if you go for f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms, the size and weight of lenses is not different.

But for sure, you just need to check the size of the recent Sony FE 12-24 f4 versus the Canikon counterparts, to see the advantages.

[scooby70]

This basically confirms my impression that the format size dictates weight, and that there is little inherent advantage to mirrorless weight-wise for most items. Zeiss is an outlier.

I think it's best to stop reading spec sheets and instead handle, carry and use the kit and then decide if any bulk and weight savings are significant.

I never had a 6D, my FF Canon was the original 5D and my current A7 is in a different league bulk and weight wise.

[BJL]

The shorter flange distance does let a mirror-less wide angle lens be smaller/lighter than it's SLR counterpart. So if WA lenses are a major part of your kit then that matters. But from normal on out it really doesn't make a difference.

Yes, that is the main advantage in bulk, along with modest reduction of body bulk (more relevant to those who carry two bodies).

Note that the "wide angle" bulk advantage includes zoom lenses whose range includes wide angles, as with standard wide-tele zooms. So the very common walk-around kit of "body with standard zoom lens" benefits.

[BernardLanguillier]

I just don't get this weight story... I am doing fine with my H6D-100c, 3 lenses, a pano head and a tripod.

You guys need to do some serious working out!

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paulo Bizarro]

I just don't get this weight story... I am doing fine with my H6D-100c, 3 lenses, a pano head and a tripod.

You guys need to do some serious working out!

Cheers,
Bernard

Ok, good for you. My days of travelling with EOS1V plus two f2.8 zooms are done and over with:)

[Martin Kristiansen]

My last Canon was a 6D. A commercial decision. I used it to photograph catalogue work. Thousands and thousands of images. In three years just over 200 000 actuations. All in studio. Nothing ever printed bigger than A4. It did the job and I wasn't fussed if it should break or get stolen. Didn't need any kind of auto focus and dynamic range was controlled by my lighting. It needed to be replaced simply because of the actuation count and I can understand someone buying a 6D II as a replacement. It will do the job.

Not everyone buying a camera is upgrading or chasing newest bleeding edge technology. Loads of us simply don't have a need for that. We just making a living.

Having said all that the 6D was my least favorite camera of all time. No character and no excitement to using it. To break myself out of the rut I changed systems. It was a smart move.

[BernardLanguillier]

Ok, good for you. My days of travelling with EOS1V plus two f2.8 zooms are done and over with:)

I guess it does indeed depend on your starting point. I used to do 1500m vertical with a D3x, 300mm f2.8, zeiss 100mm, pano head and the heaviest Gitzo carbon tripod... on top of all the equipment needed to survive in the wild.

And there are many guys much crazier than me out there.

Cheers,
Bernard

[NancyP]

Bernard, why yes I do need to work out. 

[BernardLanguillier]

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review/4

It may be the first time I see a camera not getting at least a DPreview Silver award...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paulo Bizarro]

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-review/4

It may be the first time I see a camera not getting at least a DPreview Silver award...

Cheers,
Bernard

From their conclusion:

"With all of that in mind, the EOS 6D Mark II is a classic Canon DSLR. Is it particularly exciting? No, but really, neither was the original 6D aside from its fairly accessible price point. What the 6D Mark II is, though, is a solid, well-built camera that is capable of producing great images while improving upon its predecessor in almost every measurable way."

If I had a stable of Canon lenses, I would rather take this camera, than other cameras that have better DR at low ISO, but that had 3 recalls so far, or oil splatter problems on the sensor:)

[BernardLanguillier]

I believe that you would most probably buy a Somy a7 II instead... Even with Canon lenses it features a better AF, better sensor, more compact design,...

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

I believe that you would most probably buy a Somy a7 II instead... Even with Canon lenses it features a better AF, better sensor, more compact design,...

Cheers,
Bernard

If you had a stable of Canon lenses, you'd be better off buying a 1Dx2 (or 5D4) and A7r2. One to track things that move, one for resolution for things that don't move, all using the same set of lenses.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I believe that you would most probably buy a Somy a7 II instead... Even with Canon lenses it features a better AF, better sensor, more compact design,...

Cheers,
Bernard

I did move from Canon 6D to Sony A7 and A7II, but not because of better AF. It was because I looked at the system in 2015, and in 2 years it matured enough in terms of small high quality, affordable, lenses.

Otherwise, I would still be happy using the original 6D:)

[BernardLanguillier]

I did move from Canon 6D to Sony A7 and A7II, but not because of better AF. It was because I looked at the system in 2015, and in 2 years it matured enough in terms of small high quality, affordable, lenses.

Otherwise, I would still be happy using the original 6D:)

Exactly. And you would have taken the exact same decision 2 years ago if you had owned a 6DII instead of a 6D, right?

The comparison btwn Canon and Nikon is not very relevant, because the switch is costly however superior the Nikon may be, and new entrants in the SLR world are likely to go mirrorless.

So the only hope for Canon is pretty much to convince 6D users to buy 6DIIs, right? Who else would do such a thing? Canon APS-C users wouldn't be able to use their lenses on a 6DII, they will go Sony or Nikon if they prefer cameras with OVFs... and take a fact based decision.

But Canon also has lots of marketing cash... and many buyers will based their decision on biased information... I just feel sorry for them. I would think that you and I agree that leading them towards better solutions such as the Sony offering will help them, right?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

I completely agree with you Bernard. When my 6D came to the end of its life I didn't want to replace it with a new one and decided to go mirrorless. . My decision was made easier by the simultaneous need to replace aging glass. Sony it was. If the 6D mk II was around at the time it would have in no way tempted me.