Canon 6D

[Chrissp]

Digicame-info just updated the specs:

Viewfinder coverage:97%, Magnification:0.71X
Size: 144.5x110.5x71.2mm
Af: A new strong low light detection model

5D2 has a 98% viewfinder coverage, D600 is 100%
The new released Pentax k-5 II claimed their 11 point AF detection range is from -3EV, so Canon has a similar one?

97% coverage? *shakes head* ... oh well ...

 

[eggie87]

Digicame-info just updated the specs:

Viewfinder coverage:97%, Magnification:0.71X
Size: 144.5x110.5x71.2mm
Af: A new strong low light detection model

5D2 has a 98% viewfinder coverage, D600 is 100%
The new released Pentax k-5 II claimed their 11 point AF detection range is from -3EV, so Canon has a similar one?

Mehhh the specs are becoming more n more blehh..besides the low light sensitivity sensor...speculation anyway

 

[tecnica]

97% VF, if it's true then it's the deal breaker for me.

 

[ageha]

97% VF, if it's true then it's the deal breaker for me.

Not really for me, my EOS 300 has just a 90 percent coverage viewfinder.

 

[eggie87]

Not really for me, my EOS 300 has just a 90 percent coverage viewfinder.

Well for an older camera like that it's still fine..but for a new camera...that's not a good thing ..end up having to try to estimate the edge of the frame all the time

 

[ageha]

Well for an older camera like that it's still fine..but for a new camera...that's not a good thing ..end up having to try to estimate the edge of the frame all the time

At 97%? Common, that's 1.5% at every edge.

 

[tecnica]

Not really for me, my EOS 300 has just a 90 percent coverage viewfinder.

i'm coming from a 7D which has a great VF and AF system.

if i want to get a full frame body, it must possess these 2 components plus better stuffs.

 

[eggie87]

At 97%? Common, that's 1.5% at every edge.

Lol well it may be only 1.5% but still..Lol end up having to use lv to get 100%

 

[ageha]

Lol well it may be only 1.5% but still..Lol end up having to use lv to get 100%

You must have very steady hands, I can't see the difference.

 

[ricleo]

The body design looks like a combi of the 5D3, plus the 5D2 prism coverplate shape. Could be real except for the lens which looks photoshopped onto the body

If it was fake, the author was very meticulous to change the location of the microphone, shape of the 6D logo plate and the USB covers to be different from the 5D3 and any other EOS DLSR on the market.

Most recent "leaked" specs (as of Sept 15th, 10:30 am: GMT -5 -- 10:30 pm GMT +8):

• A new 20mp sensor
• Full Frame
• 4.5fps
• ISO Range 100-25600
• DIGIC5+
• APS-C Sized body
• Weathersealed
• SD Card
• Built-in Wifi & GPS
• 11 AF Points, f/2.8 Cross-type in the center.
• 3″ LCD
• Full HD (1920×1080)
• Available December 2012
• Price: $1999 USD Body Only (Speculated price)

The specs don't appear to have changed much from the last set of "rumoured" specs. The speculation now is "when" will we hear the official version from Canon?

I hope that Tuesday will be the day.

 

[tecnica]

You must have very steady hands, I can't see the difference.

a landscape photographer will be able to see the difference.

good for you if you can't.

 

[Anthony Lee]

i'm coming from a 7D which has a great VF and AF system.

if i want to get a full frame body, it must possess these 2 components plus better stuffs.

97% of full frame coverage is different from 100% of APS-C coverage. The other aspect to consider more critically is the VF magnification.

 

[ageha]

97% of full frame coverage is different from 100% of APS-C coverage. The other aspect to consider more critically is the VF magnification.

Yeah, the magnification is much more important to me but I guess it will be around 0.7x again.

 

[eggie87]

You must have very steady hands, I can't see the difference.

Haha yeah sadly I'm quite observant about the framing..cause if i blow up the image to actual size on my computer it would be like a whole cm+ on all sides extra which didn't show on my vf..so in the end i have to crop out the stuff i wasn't suppose to frame in.

 

[tecnica]

97% of full frame coverage is different from 100% of APS-C coverage. The other aspect to consider more critically is the VF magnification.

what i want is to be able to see 100% what is put through by the lens.

i don't want to second-guess the amount of coverage whenever i take a photo.

with the 7D's VF, WISIWIG, everything within the VF is the same as the preview seen on the LCD screen.

7D's VF:
1.0x/1.6 = 0.63 (63%)

6D's VF(rumoured):
0.71x/1.0 = 0.71 (71%)

iirc, the magnification is something to do with how big the subject appears within the VF(with a 50mm lens), relative to human eye?

so with the 7D's 100% VF i can see the full 63%. with the 6D, it is 71% worth of magnification, yes it is bigger compared to the 7D but with the former's 97% VF, i still do not see the full 71%, there will be 3% worth of coverage being left out at the sides of the image.

i'm not sure if you get what i mean, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[ageha]

what i want is to be able to see 100% what is put through by the lens.

i don't want to second-guess the amount of coverage whenever i take a photo.

with the 7D's VF, WISIWIG, everything within the VF is the same as the preview seen on the LCD screen.

7D's VF:
1.0x/1.6 = 0.63 (63%)

6D's VF(rumoured):
0.71x/1.0 = 0.71 (71%)

iirc, the magnification is something to do with how big the subject appears within the VF(with a 50mm lens), relative to human eye?

so with the 7D's 100% VF i can see the full 63%. with the 6D, it is 71% worth of magnification, yes it is bigger compared to the 7D but with the former's 97% VF, i still do not see the full 71%, there will be 3% worth of coverage being left out at the sides of the image.

i'm not sure if you get what i mean, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

I think everybody knew what you meant in the first place. It's just the question if it's important to your work or not. Anyway, if the 6D is cheaper than the D600 I don't see a problem cutting down the coverage.

 

[edutilos-]

a landscape photographer will be able to see the difference.

good for you if you can't.

Actually, landscape photographer who is really anal would probably not mind 97% VF coverage.

What with barrel distortion corrections for wide angles, liquification adjustments (or horizontal perspective distortion) when the nearest mass of land is actually quite close... Generally you will lose some amount of pixels when doing such corrections. Of course this is not to say that 90% VF is even better, but 3% VF coverage is a small thing and I really won't sweat it at all. At the end of the day, a camera is a dead tool... The photographer is an adaptable human being. If you really really want FF and you can't adjust to some give and take, then get the 5D M3 with its 100% VF coverage. If you have a budget, then it's just a matter of readjusting yourself to working with the 6D.

As eggie87 has pointed out, older cameras have quite crappy VF coverage... 100% VF coverage was something that was more recently emphasized. Yet so many beautiful photographs were produced in the past with 90% VF coverage, etc. Cheers.

 

[eggie87]

I think everybody knew what you meant in the first place. It's just the question if it's important to your work or not. Anyway, if the 6D is cheaper than the D600 I don't see a problem cutting down the coverage.

Think it will be more of whether u get ur bang for ur buck....or whether it's just way over priced for the minimal improvements...=s...anyway do u.all think having a sd card slot or cf slot is better?

 

[tecnica]

Actually, landscape photographer who is really anal would probably not mind 97% VF coverage.

What with barrel distortion corrections for wide angles, liquification adjustments (or horizontal perspective distortion) when the nearest mass of land is actually quite close... Generally you will lose some amount of pixels when doing such corrections. Of course this is not to say that 90% VF is even better, but 3% VF coverage is a small thing and I really won't sweat it at all. At the end of the day, a camera is a dead tool... The photographer is an adaptable human being. If you really really want FF and you can't adjust to some give and take, then get the 5D M3 with its 100% VF coverage. If you have a budget, then it's just a matter of readjusting yourself to working with the 6D.

As eggie87 has pointed out, older cameras have quite crappy VF coverage... 100% VF coverage was something that was more recently emphasized. Yet so many beautiful photographs were produced in the past with 90% VF coverage, etc. Cheers.

true this, in fact i'm going for the MK3. but with better advancement in technology i feel that we should be capitalising on it, of course that is if the budget permits one to do so.

i'm anal about VF coverage because i don't want to leave it to chances. no, not that i am a pro or whatsoever, i'm just another hobbyist who shoots for leisure sake.

 

[ageha]

Think it will be more of whether u get ur bang for ur buck....or whether it's just way over priced for the minimal improvements...=s...anyway do u.all think having a sd card slot or cf slot is better?

The AF system alone is worth the extra money if you need it. 3% in VF coverage is really just a paper tiger in real world but whatever. CF is faster and more expensive but makes only sense if the camera really needs the data transfer rates. If the camera can make use of SD's UHS-I I don't mind the cheaper SDHC/XC cards. Unfortunately the 5Dmk3 doesn't support the standard.