Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Should

People living in the internet oversee that a guy like Casey Neistat
calls the 6D MkII "the ideal vlogging camera", which probably
triggers more sales than any of you enthusiasts ever imagine.

Despite all your appallment, it sells very well.

Diltiazem said:

As expected discussions have moved from the topic of the thrad: innovation.
Let us stick to the topic and see how Canon compared with others in last ten years or so.

Canon's two noteworthy innovations during this time, DPAF and BR element used 35/1.4 II. Most agree, DPAF is the best compared to other AF implementation in video or live view.. BR seems excellent, but available only in one lens.

What is Nikon's innovation during this time? Can't think of any.

How about Sony? People mistakenly attribute many new or relatively new features to 'Sony innovation'.
On sensor ADC? Not a Sony idea.
BSI? No. They were not even first to implement it.
IBIS? No again.
Pixel shift to increase resolution? No.
Mirrorless ILC. No.
Is there anything noteworthy Sony innovated in last 10 years? Can't think of any. Yet, internet pundits keep repeating the myth and we all believe in it.

I think Canon's image problem (among some users) stems from the fact they were late in implementing on chip ADC (DR issue) and mirrorless ILC. Canon is also blamed for limiting video features in ILCs. Some confuse limitation of features with lack of innovation. Not the same thing.

I do hope that Canon innovates more, especially in connectivity. People should be able to upload pictures in internet from the camera. And Canon should match or exceed Nikon in fast action AF for still photography without delay.

Click to expand...

Love your user name, I did my honours thesis on inhibition of drug metabolism by diltiazem metabolites.
I think you are confusing 'innovation' with 'invention'. For all that Sony didn't invent the things you list, how many other manufacturers are selling a full-frame ILC with IBIS using a BSI sensor with on-sensor ADC?
Is it not innovation to actually build and sell a product with capabilities nobody else's product has?

Quackator said:

People living in the internet oversee that a guy like Casey Neistat
calls the 6D MkII "the ideal vlogging camera", which probably
triggers more sales than any of you enthusiasts ever imagine.

Despite all your appallment, it sells very well.

Click to expand...

You're probably right, and the 6D2 is probably a perfectly fine tool for many uses. I'm far more appalled at Casey Neistat than I could ever be with a camera, what a tool of the highest order!

dsut4392 said:

Diltiazem said:

As expected discussions have moved from the topic of the thrad: innovation.
Let us stick to the topic and see how Canon compared with others in last ten years or so.

Canon's two noteworthy innovations during this time, DPAF and BR element used 35/1.4 II. Most agree, DPAF is the best compared to other AF implementation in video or live view.. BR seems excellent, but available only in one lens.

What is Nikon's innovation during this time? Can't think of any.

How about Sony? People mistakenly attribute many new or relatively new features to 'Sony innovation'.
On sensor ADC? Not a Sony idea.
BSI? No. They were not even first to implement it.
IBIS? No again.
Pixel shift to increase resolution? No.
Mirrorless ILC. No.
Is there anything noteworthy Sony innovated in last 10 years? Can't think of any. Yet, internet pundits keep repeating the myth and we all believe in it.

I think Canon's image problem (among some users) stems from the fact they were late in implementing on chip ADC (DR issue) and mirrorless ILC. Canon is also blamed for limiting video features in ILCs. Some confuse limitation of features with lack of innovation. Not the same thing.

I do hope that Canon innovates more, especially in connectivity. People should be able to upload pictures in internet from the camera. And Canon should match or exceed Nikon in fast action AF for still photography without delay.

Click to expand...

Love your user name, I did my honours thesis on inhibition of drug metabolism by diltiazem metabolites.
I think you are confusing 'innovation' with 'invention'. For all that Sony didn't invent the things you list, how many other manufacturers are selling a full-frame ILC with IBIS using a BSI sensor with on-sensor ADC?
Is it not innovation to actually build and sell a product with capabilities nobody else's product has?

Click to expand...

Diltiazem continues to save life. I am sure you know better than I do.

Anyways, I understand innovation as a NEW idea or method and translation of these ideas or methods into new products and/or services. Samsung was the first company to use BSI in a sensor larger than phone sensors in NX2 although they didn't invent it. Similarly, Pxel shift, IBIS etc was first used by other companies. We can say, Sony uses other people's new or already implemented ideas into their products and everyone call them innovative. Canon made DSLR video popular, but Nikon used it first in a DSLR. We can say Canon made it popular, but we shouldn't say Canon was innovative in this regard.
BTW, no one says Nikon is not innovative despite the fact that they are not.

Ive been a pro for over 15 years.

I would just like to say that I love my canon gear. It has never once failed me shooting daily and it takes the abuse and keeps shooting. Thats what I need and thats why I shoot Canon.

I also love the glass and they have a lens for almost every eventuality.

I also shoot a lot of differing genres of photography. Motorsport, commercial, events etc so I have a range of cameras and each one has its uses. I currently shoot with 6DMKII 7DMKII 70D and have just received a 5DMKIV.

I actually went an interesting direction. I had the 5DMKIII but it was stolen and went to the 6DMKII. The 5 was in my mind almost the perfect camera with a few downfalls in IQ but I rarely had too much issue. The 6DMKII although has lost a card slot the AF system isnt as good the IQ in my mind is better in the usable range.

The cost to replace the 5DMKIII was around 2k at the time and the 6DMKII has all the features I needed from the 5 plus the tilt screen. A feature I have been craving from a FF body for years. I bought the 5DMKIII at launch so had it for 4 years, didnt really want to spend 2k for another when it feels like an old camera. The 5DMKIV although again improves the III it didnt do enough to warrant almost double the cost over its predecessor (at the time).

The 6DMKIIs IQ shortfalls only rear its head when you push it to the very limit and its high ISO capabilities are tremendous. As a pro I haven't got close to the limit yet. Im very much a get it right not fix in post kind of guy and if you shoot this thing right it does very little wrong. I think if you learned the trade and can master light in a given situation DR isnt as much of an issue as the internet makes out. If im in a situation where the light isnt good I wont just shoot it and hope for the best later like these stupid pulls internet reviewers show. Thats not why you employee a professional and any 'pro' that does this sort of work is pulling the wool.

I use a lot of light modification which generally means pulling 3-4 stops of shadows or exposure is void to me.

It has incredible colour and the bump resolution really helps all my lenses feel that touch sharper on this body.

The reason I went in this direction is that there is no doubt that the 5DMKIV is one of the best cameras around but it was twice the price at the time and I really didnt feel it was worth the money over the 5DMKIII and I was looking for something that would aid me in image making, allowing me to get images that were difficult with the 5DMKIII rather than just buying a newer body with slightly newer tech. The screen on the 6DMKII is that feature for me.

At around £3k for the 5DMKIV and I paid £1489 for the 6DMKII on release day. The slightly better shadow recovery wasn't really worth twice the cost to me.

Another reason is that it was the end of the wedding season and in the winter months I generally shoot lots of standard commercial imagery. I have taken a contract to photography PPE, all studio work and I have also been shooting pubs, bars and restaurants. This doesn't require shooting in adverse conditions mostly on a tripod and is super chilled in comparison to event photography.

The 6DMKII is far better because of the tilt screen. British pubs are tight and even with 16-35mm i find myself up against walls most of the time so the screen makes my life so much easier, same with getting slightly odd angles, no more lying on the floor etc. It really has made my life a lot easier, my back and knees certainly!

I also shoot motorsport and i took the 6D along and they have certainly tweaked the AF because it hits and hits really well especially when you set the AF up properly. Basically has the same options as the 5 series but no presets so if you know what you are doing you just dial it in. I had no issues at all with it and shot with my 7DMKII and came home with more in tack images with the 6 than the 7.

Granted the one card slot isnt ideal. In actual practice I have never had a single card go on me, ever! Shooting roughly 500k images on each body ive owned before retiring it. In my mind its not really a huge issue, but I look after my cards and swap them out for new ones fairly regularly. On the other hand shooting events it is not wise at all, as there is no way to go back. Like I said one camera is not the answer and I use different gear for different situations.

Now wedding season is coming back and my first one is in March I have bought a 5DMKIV because for weddings and events having dual card slots is imperative you cant mess around with a day most hope to be the only one.

After using the 5DMKIV I still dont think its an incredible upgrade over the III obviously it is an incredibly rounded camera the IQ is excellent and has lots of the newer features which makes day to day image making a joy. It is like others have said so easy to pick up and shoot and processing the images I can use the same presets which makes life so easy. The other thing that is nice is the body design with the AF selection etc although you can get around this with the top and circualr mode dial on the 6DMKII in tandom for AF selection the AF stick on the 5 series is far better and a lot easier to use in time sensitive situations.

The main thing is when you remove the upgrade in IQ and some of the newer features like GPS and WIFI it doesn't help me make hugely different images over the III. I dont look to the camera to produce miracles but there is no denying that certain features do make image making easier and when you shoot all day every day those features are very much welcome, save time get in and out quicker and make more money.

For this reason the 6DMKII is probably one of my favorite Canon cameras thus far. It is super underrated if you liked the 5DMKIII you would love the 6.

Just a shame the reviewers only focus on shadow pulls rather than the camera as a package for image making.

If you want to read some of my real world thoughts I did write make a thread with the initial impressions with examples etc shooting real jobs etc.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33212.0

I'm not a pro shooter, but I am an enthusiast with the means to buy whatever gear I want.

I sold my Canon gear (several L lenses and a FF 6d) because a) I wanted video capabilities b) IBIS c) smaller form factor d) focus peaking e) hi-res mode f) continuous innovation in the firmware releases, not just a sad static development model.

Of the four photogs I talk to on a regular basis, a few years ago it was a 3 Canon 1 Nikon split. In recent years, they've all moved, 2 Sony FF, 1 Fuji, 1 Panasonic. All of those moves were driven by features and the view that Canon and Nikon were both declining.

That F-Stoppers article is idiotic - completely devoid of marketing reality. Perception translates to confidence, and the negative perception is already locked in. People like me have already left, because of real gaps in the product feature set. That will, over the next couple years, accelerate. As it accelerates, even diehard pros will look to systems like Sony, that offer better features, comparable glass options, and a solid future.

I will say I miss the Canon menus. It's pretty sad at the same time though, that the menu system is the only thing I miss

Hi. Here are a few thoughts about canon line up for videographers.

I'm a profesional videographer for almost 20 years. Over this time I've shot with a variety of cameras. the best camera I've ever used was the c100, I've also work with the c300 but the increase on weight makes it hard to manuver, for documentary and wedding work.

This year, making the switch to 4K I bought two cameras from other manufacturers, although I would rather have bought a canon camera, as I like my previos purchase and the use of c-log, but canon has no camera on their entire line that i could consider as an option. Here is why:

- the c200 would have been the the natural progresión. But based on my previous experience with the c300, that kind of weight for that form factored it's a problem. Once you put a couple of receivers even the c100 can get a bit heavy, at that point it start to get unstable for the monopod as well. For me the weight and size of the c100 is the max I used. This isn't just me but the documentary directors I work with hey have notice that we work faster with lighter set ups, so they demand the use of small light equipment. Also wedding customers they ask for unobtrusive cameras (dslr type). so that's the c200 option gone.

There is a couple basic things that I look for in a camera.
- A profesional picture profile - log
- Intechangeable lens mount - basic
- Light weight and small form factor (max c100 weight and size)- as requested by directors and customers I work for.
- Tilt or swivel LCD. ( I think this will be helpful for photographers too as I keep seeing photographers holding their camera really uncomfortably when using live view) plus I don't see the point of using an external monitor when you are going for a light and portable set up.

Those are 4 really basic specs, that every manufacturer has 3 or 5 options to chose from. and that I know canon has none.

there is a couple of updates over the past years that have been really welcome and they are really helpful for us the videographers, like the DAF and IBIS.

TLR, so if what I say has been stated already, I apologize.

My first Canon DSLRs--well, if I'm honest my first SLR was a Minolta, the I moved to Nikon when that got stolen, but that was 30 yrs ago--and I do agree that the Canon lens lineup is amazing. I got back into photography with a passion in 2009. I had a 40D. I added a Nikon D90 because it was ranked so highly on DXOMarks. It was better in some ways than the Canon--the 40D was boring but completely reliable--but trailed in certain aspects. I just looked back on some of my shots, and--shocking surprise--the Canon's skin tones were better. However, that may have been as much if not more due to the lenses. On Canon, I shot with the 135L, 85 1.2 L II, and 100mm L. It took me a while before I acquire pro-grade Nikon lenses.

I continued to shoot dual systems for most of the last 9 years. I loved the DR of the Nikons (I moved to D800E then D800) but still preferred the ergonomics of the Canons. Nikon continued to improve in multiple areas including color, but I did not see similar improvements on the Canon side.

By last year, I sold my Canon 5DM3 and was down to just the 80D. I was primarily a Nikon guy, but wasn't ready to give up my Canon glass. The 80D showed promise and, from what I heard, the 5DMIV had closed the gap even more. If Canon repeated their history of not releasing a camera with inferior IQ, then the 6DMII would be at least as good. That entry-level FF body would nicely compliment my Nikon kit. But that was not to be. To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. I won't rehash all my negative thoughts about this offering, suffice to say that I finally considered selling my Canon lenses.

Then Sony released the A7rIII. I was reticent about working with a third system, but the possibility of a high-megapixel body with excellent AF, state-of-the-art IQ (both at base and high-ISO) that could shoot 10 fps was extremely enticing. What closed the deal was the ability to adapt my Canon class.

To keep it short, the transition has been extremely successful. The Sony is excellent with the Metabones adapter. I can shoot my 24-70L II and 100-400L II lenses for everything except birds in flight, and erratic action shots. Okay, the camera also struggle with adapted lenses in low-light photography. So, it is impossible to completely rely on Canon glass, but it is a fine short-term solution.

But the image quality. All I can say is, Wow! Color is superb straight out of camera and requires little PP. Skin tones are excellent, far better than Nikon. I may even like them better than Canon's, but I'm still experimenting.

What I've stated is not groundbreaking. Canon is producing cameras with IQ tech from 2011-12. Competitors are hungrier and have moved on. I'm glad that I've been in a position to take advantage of the advances.

So, to address the topic on the table, does Canon need to innovate more? For commercial success, probably not. Canon continues to release phenomenal glass--the 35L II is a prime example (pun intended)--and their service to pros is best of breed. Moreover, their marketing, name recognition, and ubiquitous presence at major sporting events almost assures their continued dominance for another decade.

But that's not the same question as should I continue to support them. I'm seeing tremendous improvements in usefulness, functionality, and IQ over my 5DMIII. I don't know if the Sony makes me a better photographer, but I do know that I leave a shoot with more keepers and IQ (rendition, clarity, DR, and resolution) that I never dreamed up with earlier kits.

From the discussion, it seems to be people are not satisfy with current Canon execution on their "innovation". In the prosumer and professional category, hypothetically let's assume that 33% are not happy with Canon lackluster or crippling innovation. And that of that 33% half of them decided to jump ship or not buying (holding off buying). That is revenue loss each time Canon executes their new series, and each generation could less likely buying Canon. I am in that category that I decided to suspend buying until current camera dies before I decide to buy another Canon or jump ship.

shutterlag said:

Of the four photogs I talk to on a regular basis, a few years ago it was a 3 Canon 1 Nikon split. In recent years, they've all moved, 2 Sony FF, 1 Fuji, 1 Panasonic. All of those moves were driven by features and the view that Canon and Nikon were both declining.

Click to expand...

Well, gee whiz...that's a really big sample of the global market. Four. Are you saying that you four are representative of the global market? Copy/paste "define:hubris" into a Google search.

shutterlag said:

That F-Stoppers article is idiotic - completely devoid of marketing reality. Perception translates to confidence, and the negative perception is already locked in. People like me have already left, because of real gaps in the product feature set. That will, over the next couple years, accelerate. As it accelerates...

Click to expand...

Sorry, but what is completely devoid of marketing reality is your post. The reality is that Canon has gained market share over the past few years (how many times do I have to post that simple fact before it sinks in?). So the market reality is that people aren't leaving Canon, in the overall market (and neither Canon nor Nikon give a crap about you and your three buddies). That trend may reverse, but so far the evidence points the other way.

Companies will make their business decisions and each photographer will buy what is best for him/her, and the chips will fall where they will. I don’t get the fan passion for company A or company B. If you don’t work for one of the companies, or own their stock, just do what is best for your personal situation. The market will grind out the winners and losers.

neuroanatomist said:

shutterlag said:

Of the four photogs I talk to on a regular basis, a few years ago it was a 3 Canon 1 Nikon split. In recent years, they've all moved, 2 Sony FF, 1 Fuji, 1 Panasonic. All of those moves were driven by features and the view that Canon and Nikon were both declining.

Click to expand...

Well, gee whiz...that's a really big sample of the global market. Four. Are you saying that you four are representative of the global market? Copy/paste "define:hubris" into a Google search.

shutterlag said:

That F-Stoppers article is idiotic - completely devoid of marketing reality. Perception translates to confidence, and the negative perception is already locked in. People like me have already left, because of real gaps in the product feature set. That will, over the next couple years, accelerate. As it accelerates...

Click to expand...

Sorry, but what is completely devoid of marketing reality is your post. The reality is that Canon has gained market share over the past few years (how many times do I have to post that simple fact before it sinks in?). So the market reality is that people aren't leaving Canon, in the overall market (and neither Canon nor Nikon give a crap about you and your three buddies). That trend may reverse, but so far the evidence points the other way.

Click to expand...

I am not saying Canon is doomed, and I am not going anywhere as I just received my 500f4 yesterday. That being said the market is mature and Canon gaining market share in the past may not reflect what happens going forward as that gained market share regenerates. I have no desire to change brands, but I did give some thought to the Nikon D850. Once canon gives me a good full frame sensor, 10fps and a tilting screen I will be happy for a long as it works.

I do find it frustrating that unless I buy a low mega pixel 1dx2 I cannot get even two of the three asks above from Canon. I would gladly pay 1dx2 money for a new 5d, maybe the SR2, with a fast frame rate, no AA filter, and a tilting screen.

I am happy with my 6D and Canon lenses, but I can understand frustration with 6DII. It is obvious that Canon has a new sensor technology and every camera after and including 80D has it. But from some reason Canon decided to not put this new sensor in 6DII, whereas every other camera in FF and APS-C lines after 80D has it already. Whether it is for cost or for differentiation (protecting 5DIV) reasons, the move is highly questionable.
6DII is a great camera otherwise from my point of view, exactly as it should be. But the new sensor tech would just do it even better, considering this is everywhere else in the line.

reef58 said:

I am not saying Canon is doomed, and I am not going anywhere as I just received my 500f4 yesterday. That being said the market is mature and Canon gaining market share in the past may not reflect what happens going forward as that gained market share regenerates. I have no desire to change brands, but I did give some thought to the Nikon D850. Once canon gives me a good full frame sensor, 10fps and a tilting screen I will be happy for a long as it works.

I do find it frustrating that unless I buy a low mega pixel 1dx2 I cannot get even two of the three asks above from Canon. I would gladly pay 1dx2 money for a new 5d, maybe the SR2, with a fast frame rate, no AA filter, and a tilting screen.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who truly uses their equipment and is honest thinks things are perfect. There are lots of things about Canon that I wish were better and I've certainly made that clear. A few highlights: The 1DX series is a dust magnet; Canon's autofocus could be better; the 5DIV metering is poor under certain conditions; the lack of illuminated focus points on the 5DIV can be a real pain; APS-C noise performance could be improved; and most importantly:

All manufacturers ought to be embarrassed by the lack of features and poor connectivity in comparison to smart phones. And, if you don't think that is having a negative impact on professionals, you have your head stuck in the sand.

What I find frustrating is a) the broad stroke claim that Canon is less innovative than others, when what people are whining about is that Canon didn't put every available feature into its entry-level camera; b) the assumption that just because I want a particular feature Canon is stupid/greedy for not giving me the feature I want; and c) that minuscule differences in sensor performance at the edges of utility makes a camera worthless and matters to anyone in the real world.

exquisitor said:

I am happy with my 6D and Canon lenses, but I can understand frustration with 6DII. It is obvious that Canon has a new sensor technology and every camera after and including 80D has it. But from some reason Canon decided to not put this new sensor in 6DII, whereas every other camera in FF and APS-C lines after 80D has it already. Whether it is for cost or for differentiation (protecting 5DIV) reasons, the move is highly questionable.
6DII is a great camera otherwise from my point of view, exactly as it should be. But the new sensor tech would just do it even better, considering this is everywhere else in the line.

Click to expand...

When the original 6D came out, the internet lit up with complaints about the antiquated autofocus system. When it actually got into users' hands, they found it actually performed fairly well and the camera sold incredibly well once its price settled in to what the market would bear.

Canon fixed the major complaint of the 6D with the 6DII, giving it a much better autofocus system. Now the internet is lit up with complaints about the sensor. And once again users are finding that it actually performs quite well. The price is also settling down to what the market will bear.

We don't have inside information the cost of the 5D IV vs. 6D II sensor, although we do know that the 5D IV sensor is really something special -- providing excellent shadow recovery; while also providing nearly as good of noise performance as the 1DX II, even though it has a lot greater pixel density.

I strongly suspect that that 5D IV sensor is an expensive component and offering that same performance in a camera that is half the price would not be feasible.

tomscott said:

For this reason the 6DMKII is probably one of my favorite Canon cameras thus far. It is super underrated if you liked the 5DMKIII you would love the 6.

Just a shame the reviewers only focus on shadow pulls rather than the camera as a package for image making.

Click to expand...

My experience with the 6D2 has been extremely positive. I came to it from some years of using a T3i, so my perspective will differ from that of the pros and gearheads, of course. I like tinkering with controls, but I find that the autofocus and autoexposure work really well under challenging circumstances.

I didn't use the swivel screen on the T3i that much until the August eclipse, just a few months before I bought the 6D2. I have used the tilt screen on my G7X II a lot as I travel and take pictures inside domes and up through spires. After those experiences, I wouldn't want to be without the feature.

Crocuses have come up in front of my house. They are tiny little flowers close to the ground. I've been taking pictures of them using the non-IS 100mm macro I already had. I found that using autofocus and autoexposure and framing on the tilt screen worked really well, and I've posted some of the pictures in the macro flower pictures thread. I had not tried hand-held photos in the macro range before (other than an unsuccessful attempt at chasing around a bumble bee). So I have been amazed at how well all this works, just holding the camera near the ground and aiming the screen up at my face. And yes, for a pro shoot of the flowers I would rig some sort of tiny tripod or reversible one or something and set everything manually and preview depth of field. But for just some nice pictures of little flowers in my front yard, working quickly before the light changes, this all worked just great. I did use aperture priority some of the time and tried different looks at f/5 and f/16. I found I even liked the painterly effect of the picture where only the very front of the flower is in sharp focus.


My first outing with the 6D2 was to a Chinese lantern show at a botanical garden. As it got dark I was taking very contrasty available light shots and video hand-held using the kit 24-105mm STM, and got surprisingly good results. I thought this was a fun shot of a friend making a selfie:


Some day I do hope to be able to reproduce the problem with dynamic range that has so many panties in a knot, but until then I am going to keep enjoying taking pictures rather than worrying about what chip is where in the camera.

Fundamentally I'd agree. Canon doesn't need to innovate, but what it does need to do is too improve performance in several areas:

AF lags behind Nikon significantly. Accuracy is fine, but the system seens unable to recognise the subject as well as the more intelligent system in Nikon cameras, and Canon AF tracking simply can't keep up with the subject anywhere near as well as Nikon. I've extensively tested 5DS, 5DMkiv, D750, D810 & D850 with 100-400mm Mkii and Nikkor 80-400mm lenses respectively, side by side, and the Nikons win hands down every time.

Dynamic range and noise control at high ISO are still poor when comparing equivalent models e.g. 5DS vs D850. OK, the 5DS is 3 years old now, but the 5DMkiv which only has 30MP is still inferior to D810 and D850 in terms of low ISO DR and high ISO noise reduction.

Noise and vibration - although silent shutter mode is much better than normal mode, it remains noisy and reduces burst speed. In comparison to most mirrorless cameras it is archaic - wildlife and event photographers in particular want and need a camera that operates in near silence, and retains high burst speeds.

I've used Canon professionally for 7 years. I love the reliability, the ergonomics, the ease of operation, the stunning lenses and the pro service. I'm not considering a system change despite very strong challenges from Nikon and Sony. I don't want any radical changes in control layout of general design. I don't need radical innovation.

But I do want significant and overdue performance improvements as outlined above, and it's difficult to understand why Canon seems unable to meet these demands.

unfocused said:

exquisitor said:

I am happy with my 6D and Canon lenses, but I can understand frustration with 6DII. It is obvious that Canon has a new sensor technology and every camera after and including 80D has it. But from some reason Canon decided to not put this new sensor in 6DII, whereas every other camera in FF and APS-C lines after 80D has it already. Whether it is for cost or for differentiation (protecting 5DIV) reasons, the move is highly questionable.
6DII is a great camera otherwise from my point of view, exactly as it should be. But the new sensor tech would just do it even better, considering this is everywhere else in the line.

Click to expand...

When the original 6D came out, the internet lit up with complaints about the antiquated autofocus system. When it actually got into users' hands, they found it actually performed fairly well and the camera sold incredibly well once its price settled in to what the market would bear.

Canon fixed the major complaint of the 6D with the 6DII, giving it a much better autofocus system. Now the internet is lit up with complaints about the sensor. And once again users are finding that it actually performs quite well. The price is also settling down to what the market will bear.

We don't have inside information the cost of the 5D IV vs. 6D II sensor, although we do know that the 5D IV sensor is really something special -- providing excellent shadow recovery; while also providing nearly as good of noise performance as the 1DX II, even though it has a lot greater pixel density.

I strongly suspect that that 5D IV sensor is an expensive component and offering that same performance in a camera that is half the price would not be feasible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, 5DIV is great. It is possible that Canon had a choice between high DR sensor with worse high ISO performance and "normal" DR sensor with great high ISO, and they have decided for latter one.

This is highly subjective of course, but I find focus system even on 6D completely fine. I use a manual focusing most of the time anyway (with EG-S screen), which slows down the things and provokes more thoughts about composition. In fact I like to use old medium format cameras from 60-80s just for this reason.

Overall, I think Canon delivers a solid product, and I understand from their management standpoint that they need to meet ROI requirements, but I think they are making poor decisions when they purposely hold back features on their higher end cameras that should be included, and as a consumer I find it very annoying.

For example, why didn't Canon use a UHS-II card slot in the 5D Mark IV, and why doesn't the 5D MK IV have the same translucent red LED autofocus points as the 1DX MK II. Lastly, both the 5D MK IV and 1DX MK II should have backlit buttons on the back of the camera, like Nikon offers on their high end cameras.

I am a long term Canon user. Love their glass and the mechanics and durability of their bodies. There is no denying that they have fallen behind in the sensor field. I just paid 3200 for a Canon 5D4 which I love but from all the reviews I have read and I have reviewed many the 5d4 is about equal to the five year old Nikon 750, a camera that sells for half the price of the 5D4. I was planning on buying a 6d2 but the vast majority of reviewers and I read over 15 reviews on this issue, the new 6D2 addressed the autofocus issue but equipped the camera with a sensor with less dynamic range than the original 6d. Canon rumors also predicted that the new 6d2 sensor would have improved dynamic range and it would have two sd card recording slots. Wrong on both counts. Canon hurt itself with that release I would have paid 2500 for a 6D2 if it had two card slots and a sensor equal to the Nikon D750. Canon has the resources to clean up on the mirrorless market if they ever got serious about it. They finally produced a good body in the M5 but have a minimal native lens offering of mostly slow zoom kit lenses.