« 'Amazon Basics' Flash Update | Main | Nikon Lets the Bleeding Show »

Tuesday, 14 February 2017


I bought my 6D exactly four years ago and I'm pretty much astonished that it's still a current model. The DSLR obsolescence curve has clearly flattened out.

As an owner of the original 5D (yes, still), this is slightly disheartening. I've been eagerly awaiting the 6D MK II (or whatever it would be called). My plan was to either: A) buy a used 6D once the replacement drops the prices a bit or B) Buy the replacement itself if I felt the sensor improvement was enough to warrant the outlay of cash.

Not sure what I'll do if this is true. I'd like to get a more modern FF body but definitely have neither the need nor the budget to spring for a 5D4. I guess I'll be looking at a used 6D but I feel like this would bump up the used prices on that.

Thanks for your comments on the 6D mark II that-might-never-be.
I wonder how many full-frame fans followed the 5D path – a winning recipe which proved to be so lucrative for Canon – until the 6D release. This, plus the soft landing of the digital revolution... it must have caused many headaches to their marketing strategy guys. Maybe thanks to the competition, all their pondering has dissipated and they have realised it is time for action...

Buying cameras is becoming truly exhausting.

I still use my 6D as a back-up or when I don't want to carry my 5DmkIV for non-pro stuff(its so expensive I hate risking it).
The 6D still makes great photos that none of my commercial clients ever complained about - its main problem was its lack of build quality and its crippled button set on the back. It sucks at focusing too. Great sensor - terrible body.
I'd have to say though, for the price it might be the best consumer camera ever.

This is a camera that I have vacillated over since introduction. It seemed to me, perfect. The problem.....I own no Canon lenses. I would hate to see it go away; as it stands as a monument to the one time in my life I have successfully overcome impulse pertaining to throwing away money on a camera I did not need.

Maybe "mirrorless" is a way for Canon to finally get back to the size/weight of that fun AE1 film body they sold a ton of way back in the day.

Shame if true; the 6D has the proper size, balance, price and features- and is probably, no definitely, the best looking DSLR out there. What I fancy I'd get if I were just starting out and wanted to experience a DSLR.

If the 6D is discontinued, look for it to quickly attain minor cult status, as the original 5D (5D Classic) has done. It's a great camera.

I've been a user of the 6D's direct competitor — the Nikon D600 — since it arrived back in 2012. At the time, the specs had me thinking that the D600 was a better camera. Since then, I suffered the notorious oily shutter issue and still have more trouble keeping the sensor clean than with any other body I've ever owned. The autofocus is alright but definitely not as good as other AF systems in Nikon's lineup. The ISO button is in a maddening location and hard to change quickly. And it's one of those cameras that I just never connected with. I like the results from the D600 but I don't like the camera itself.

My local camera chain — Mike's Camera — offers a test drive day biannually at the local zoos. Representatives from most of the major camera and lens makers are there with gear to try out. On one occasion I tried the 6D. I have to say that I was really smitten with how quiet the camera was and how it didn't do much to get in the way of taking pictures. It may not measure as highly in some areas as the D600 but the user experience was much more enjoyable for me. If I didn't have to deal with the pain and financial loss of swapping a complete camera system (which I've already done too many times in the past), I very well might switch cameras. So it's kind of sad that there won't be a successor to what I feel is a competent if overlooked camera. It will be interesting to see which direction Canon will go.

I don't know what Canon may or may not do if they kill off the 6D.

If they release a FF mirrorless, are they going to do this just so they can say it's mirrorless? From a practical perspective, putting out a FF mirrorless in place of the 6D doesn't any sense at all if Canon is not going to deliver the advantages that a mirrorless design actually enables: i.e., smaller, lighter and more compact lenses.

If they don't, and expect customers to use the existing bulky, large and heavy FF DSLR-based lenses, then the "compelling value proposition" of mirrorless largely goes away. Who wants to shoot with a Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II on an even smaller body just because it's mirrorless? Frankly, I don't foresee Canon developing and manufacturing a completely new, dedicated set of mirrorless-specific lenses given their very poor track record of releasing dedicated APS-C lenses.

This reminds me of a comment I made here while ago regarding their newly released EOS M5: In the 60's, Chevrolet put the Corvair, an air-cooled car, to counter the market share they were losing to Volkwagen. They incorrectly assumed customers that were buying Volkswagens because they were air-cooled. Their folly and downfall was in not understanding customers didn't care at all whether Volkswagens were air-cooled or not, what they wanted was economical, reliable, and durable transportation.

If Canon puts out a mirrorless body to replace the 6D, is it because they are building an "air-cooled car" for the sake of it, or are they really going to figure out, and more importantly ACT on what customers actually want?

Regarding Fuji: the most likely reason Canon feared Fujifilm was because Fuji singlehandedly took down Kodak. Any company that can provide the leadership, vision and marshall the resources to do that is a company to be reckoned with.

Makes no real sense unless they also announce a new series of mirrorless lenses (full frame) to go with it. Adapting current EF lenses is of course possible, but then why bother.

Canon's habit of crippling certain models to protect others from a feature standpoint is what pushed me to leave the brand after almost 20 years of using Canon. Just as I was seriously considering Nikon as the alternative, along came Fuji and the X series. Made the switch and am glad I did. Canon?....meh

The trouble with Canon making their entry-level 135-frame camera a mirrorless-only camera, is that in one fell swoop they will be making DSLR the high-end product and mirrorless the entry-level product; creating an upgrade path for APS-C DSLR customers that goes DSLR=> Mirrorless=> DSLR; introduce a range of lenses that doesn't fit cheaper or more expensive models; and require new 135-frame entrants to use an adapter, with its attendant-but-small image degradation, to access their pride and joy the EF range (unless the 135 mirrorless has a turret lens mount like the Sigma sd Quattro and doesn't compete on compactness with Sony's A7).

Which of the above do you think they will want to do?

The M5 is close to an 80D with mirror removed. They did not replace the 70D with it. I expect the same strategy to be used for 135-frame bodies.

If true, this would disapppoint me greatly. I'm a 6D owner, and while I don't jump on the upgrade bandwagon at the earliest oppprtunity, it would be good to know that when the price was right there was something to move on to. There's no way that I can justify the cost of a 5DIV, even to myself!

Why don't I switch to Sony if I want more? Well, I could, but I keep hearing Thom Hogan's words advising against switching ringing in my ears. And in any case, the 6D just feels right. I've been a Canon EOS user for a long time, ever since the original 650, and I think I would find it very hard to adopt to something that worked differently.

Perhaps I need to start really babying the 6D - I might be using it for a long time.

Two brief comments.

For Fujifilm, a company that thrived on its cropped sensor systems but had no full frame bodies, adding a "mini-MF" system was arguably a much better move than adding a "me too!" full frame system. Things are more complex for Canon.

About that "mini-MF" designation: A number of photographers are using it as a straightforward and logical way to describe systems larger than 24mm x 36mm but smaller than traditional MF formats. Try it. Eventually "mini-MF" rolls of the tongue quite nicely.

G Dan Mitchell

If Canon were to jump into the medium format market then they would relinquish their lens userbase lock-in which would make it harder for Canon to compete ( a bad thing for Canon ) because photographers would have to buy into a entirely new lens ecosystem ( or maybe a good thing for Canon ).
On the other hand if they were to make a 31x31mm square sensor mirrorless camera most of the ef lenses would work with it and I would consider trying Canon again.

@Stephen Scharf: I believe the main benefit of a mirrorless camera is the EVF. The reduction in body size and the loss of mirror-slap are secondary. Mirrorless cameras still need lenses that are pretty much the same size, but they don't need to retro-focus [as much], which should improve the optical ability of the lens a little.

I own the expensive and excellent Sony A7R2, but wouldn't mind seeing more competition in this segment of the market!

And just arrived in my inbox, Canon announces three new cameras.

Eos M6

Eos T7i

Eos 77D

No medium format .....


Smaller/lighter lenses are not a feature of mirrorless, they are a feature of smaller sensors. It's just that most of the mirrorless cameras sold are based on smaller-than-FF sensors.

I like Wayne's comment about resisting the temptation to jump brands to the 6D! Now that is a reason to love a camera! And Christopher recalling the AE1 -- definitely an excellent camera, but in that case, it was Canon following the lead of Olympus with the OM1/2 and Pentax with the smaller cameras it then issued (ME, MX?). Stephen's note on the power of Fuji in taking down Kodak is one I never thought of and very relevant.

But the business of a full frame mirrorless. A couple of commenters dismiss it as though it is a gimmick. Sorry, guys, mirrorless is now very mature and it offers some real advantages. Silent operation for a start. Wouldn't it be nice to have press conferences without the speaker being about drowned out by the machine gunning of the SLR mirrors? Ever try photographing a singer?

Big SLR lenses on a mirrorless body? Lots of m43 mirrorless users are happy to use longer SLR lenses because there are lots of excellent big lenses out there which they either have in hand from DSLR days or they were able to access fairly cheaply. Check out NZMacro's bird and boat racing pix shown on the m43 forum at DPReview. He uses one of the smallest m43 bodies, the E-M10, with big Canon lenses, manual focusing and manual exposure. Oh boy! Stunning results!

The fact is, though, that in long lenses, mirrorless lenses aren't going to be much or any smaller than DSLR lenses. In shorter focal lengths, yes, the mirrorless's reduced back focus can be a help in lens size reduction.

I don't know whether the 6D development cap marks the end of the line for a certain kind of Canon; I do know that mirrorless is the future of photography. FF is the last real hold-out area against mirrorless technology; time for the defenders to start checking whether they have any bullets left in their ammunition pouches. :)

Cheers, Geoff

For doubters about what a tiny m43 camera can do on the end of a big Canon lens, here's a link to Danny's (NZMacro) DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6164163503/photos#page=1

Speedboats on page 3.

That bloke's pictures make me green with envy! Love 'em! LOL.

Cheers, Geoff

Rumours are fun:) If Canon introduces a FF MILC, they would have to:

1. Introduce a new lens mount, and new lens line. With the intermediate adapter to EF mount.

2. Keep the FE mount. I believe this would make more sense, who says MILC needs to be smaller than DSLR? The 6D is already a nicely sized FF camera, removing the mirror would make it a bit smaller, while keeping the EF mount.

3. Canon has stated many times that they will only consider mirrorless once they can offer the same performance has their DSLR line of cameras. PErformance in terms of AF, fps, etc. They seem to be at that turning point, witness the EOS M5.

Here I was hoping a MII model would have a mechanical mirror lock, Eye controlled focus(like the EOS3) and ISO 25 with excellent sharpness & dynamic range.
The current model works fine. Images look good. Camera is lightweight and does the job.
Maybe Canon could do more or what Fuji does and tweak the software for more improvement after we have the gear?

This post has prompted me to see what I have done historically.

A1 (35 mm film)
10d (at launch)
20d (at launch)
40d (at launch)
40d + 5d (at 5d launch … not worth trading in 40D)
40d +5d2 (at 5d2 launch, )
A7 + 5d2 (looking for a travel camera, gave away 40d)

For what I need, I do not see value in trading 5d2 for 5d4.

Next camera ….
A9 + 5d2

Maybe Fuji medium format or Sony A9. I have a lot of Canon lens so Sony A9 is most likely to preserve a foot in Canon camp and preserve lens investment.

If the A9 works out then I will probably migrate from Canon to Sony lens and sell Canon gear. As the A9 is only dream-ware right now ... who knows.... but I do not see Canon releasing a product anytime soon which is a natural upgrade path for me.

I will not consider Canon mirrorless offering until they have a decent set of lens for their mirrorless offering.

Where ever did this rumor come from? This was brought up on the Canon Rumors site and was discussed and then trashed a couple of months back. I do not believe it myself. The 6d was a good seller for Canon and an excellent camera for most people. It was a great size and weight too.

I have had my 6D since they first released it. Last year I had my shutter and mirror box replaced. This was not because it was malfunctioning, but because once it has reached over 220,000 shots, CPS recommends the service as preventative. I have added about another 50,000 since then. I really like the size of this camera, especially compared to my old, original, 5D with the battery pack. The auto-focus definitely isn't the best, but is fine for what I use it for.

Now, if Canon took the guts from that camera, and put them into a mirrorless body, I would throw my credit card at them. I have been seriously looking at moving to Sony purely based on their mirrorless bodies. I don't see how grumbling about the size and usability of a smaller body as a detriment. Mirrorless is just the natural progression of DLSR. Unless there is film spinning in the body, it is a digital format. Why not embrace that?

EVFs make a great tool. The ability to see what the camera sees is fantastic. The fact that the camera isn't waiting for a large mirror to swing up and down makes for blazing shooting speeds in a compact, cheaper package. Image stabilization in-body is an amazing feature. Why not put the money going towards IS in lenses go towards improved optics. Having IS in lens is akin to stereo manufactures adding more lights and buttons to make their receivers seem 'more-better'. How about they just loose the 'features' and just make them better.

Let the mirrors stay in the uber-rugged Pro bodies. I would love to be able to carry around a small, light body with a great full-frame sensor. They already have the 6D as a donor, just stuff the guts in a new body.

The comments to this entry are closed.