Should I buy a Canon EOS 6D Mark II? The Canon EOS 6D Mark II is a better camera than its predecessor, but how much better? If you own a 6D, is it worth upgrading? And even if you don't already shoot with a 6D, does the Mark II make a better upgrade, or a more sensible second body than the camera it replaces? In this article I'll be attempting to answer that question from the point of view of photographers considering the 6D Mark II either as a replacement, or a supplementary body to one of several Canon and Nikon DSLRs.
I'm not comparing against equivalent mirrorless options in this article, but if there's a camera you particularly want to see stacked up against the EOS 6D Mark II, you should check out our camera comparison tool.
I own an EOS 6D - should I upgrade to a 6D Mark II?
Assuming you've owned your 6D for a few years and you've had decent use out of it, I'd recommend upgrading to the Mark II if you have the funds. While you shouldn't expect it to be a huge upgrade in terms of image quality for most day to day shooting, the Mark II is noticeably faster and offers a more streamlined user experience. Its AF system is much better, and the addition of a fully articulating touch-sensitive LCD and Dual Pixel AF alone will be game-changers for some photographers. Dual Pixel AF offers some of the most accurate autofocus, face detection and subject tracking - for both stills and video - we've ever seen.
Compare the Canon EOS 6D Mark II to the original 6D
If, on the other hand, you rarely need live view and you're happy with the 6D's AF system, you should probably just save your cash and buy a new lens or two instead. The increase in resolution from 20 to 26MP is modest in practical terms, and for everyday photography the original 6D still holds up pretty well.
Of course, your needs may vary. If you get the chance to rent or borrow a Mark II, go for it. You might find that improvements like the revamped AF system (now with 27 points that focus down to F8), more seamless live view and touch-screen make more of a difference to you than you expected.
I own an EOS 5D Mark III - should I buy a 6D Mark II?
On balance, I'd say yes. If you replace your 5D III with a 6D II you'll get a faster, lighter camera with a (slightly) higher resolution sensor, a much more usable live view feature, and amazingly accurate autofocus in both live view and video. Be aware though that if you shoot sports or action, or anything where a wide AF array is useful, you might find the 6D II's smaller PDAF array coverage a bit limiting.
One area where the 6D II's AF system exceeds that of the 5D III is when it comes to wildlife photography: the former offers 27 AF points that focus with lens+teleconverter combinations offering maximum apertures of F8. Only the 5D III's center point works down to F8.
The 6D Mark II also adds built-in Wi-Fi and GPS, which in my experience are features that photographers tend to only really appreciate once they've used a camera that offers them.
One counter-argument is that the 6D Mark II probably won't represent a huge step up in terms of image quality, at least at low / medium ISO sensitivities. While the more modern 5D IV offers greater dynamic range, indications are that the 6D Mark II's Raw latitude is basically in line with that of the 5D Mark III, albeit without the banding problems.
Compare the Canon EOS 6D Mark II to the 5D Mark III
Another possible point in the 5D III's favor is that while the 5D-series has earned a reputation for reliability over time, the 6D Mark II is an unknown quantity at this point. It is weather-sealed though, so you should be able to use the 6D II for travel and outdoor photography in moderately wet conditions.
If you're itching to replace your 5D Mark III, you should also consider the 5D Mark IV. It's more costly than the 6D II but offers nice extras like an AF positioning joystick, greater resolution and the option to shoot 4K video.
I own a 5D Mark IV - should I buy a 6D Mark II?
Oh, you already own a 5D Mark IV? Then stick with it. The only sensible reason that I can see to replace your 5D IV with a 6D Mark II would be if you really, really need that articulating rear LCD (or GPS, for some specific reason).
As a second body, on the other hand, the 6D Mark II has a lot going for it. It's relatively lightweight, and more compact than the 5D IV, but offers excellent image quality for everyday photography. It also boasts a superb live view implementation, which makes it really useful for tripod-mounted shooting. Don't expect the same dynamic range or absolute resolution as the Mark IV (the 6D II is actually somewhat behind the 5D IV in base ISO dynamic range), or 4K video, but for most purposes, the 6D II will probably keep even the most demanding pixel-peeper happy.
Compare the EOS 6D Mark II to the 5D Mark IV
If having a second, backup camera matters to you (maybe you're a wedding or events photographer, or perhaps you just tend to lose cameras) the 6D Mark II would make an excellent choice alongside a 5D Mark IV.
I own an 80D - should I upgrade to the 6D Mark II?
That depends on what lenses you have for your 80D, honestly. If you have a decent set of lenses that you're happy with, the upgrade to full-frame might be more painful than you'd expect. Not only will any EF-S lenses physically not attach to the 6D Mark II, but replacing your favorite glass with full-frame equivalents will add a lot to the total cost of upgrading.
In most respects, you can think about the 6D Mark II as basically a full-frame version of the 80D. The biggest benefit of the 6D Mark II is when it comes to image quality, but even then it's not a slam-dunk. Being full-frame, the 6D Mark II generally offers better image quality across most of its ISO sensitivity span, with one odd exception: the 80D actually has better dynamic range at low ISOs because of its more modern sensor technology (though you'll only notice this difference in Raw).
Compare the EOS 6D Mark II to the 80D
Because of its larger sensor, the 6D Mark II will also allow you get shallower depth of field, which is useful for portraits, but again this will depend in part on your choice of lenses. And shallow depth of field on APS-C is perfectly achievable - a cheap EF 50mm F1. 8 on your 80D is an excellent portrait lens, for example.
If you have the money, and you really want a 6D Mark II, don't let me stop you. But if you don't, I'd recommend honing your craft with the 80D, and waiting a while until you can afford some extra lenses to really make the upgrade worth it. You'll need to add a high-quality full-frame lens or two (or several) to the 6D Mark II to really get the best out of it.
If you're still rolling with an older APS-C body though, like the 60D or a Rebel-series DSLR, the 6D Mark II will offer a better experience all-round. Again - just remember to factor in the cost of new lenses.
I own an EOS 7D Mark II - should I upgrade to a 6D II?
The 6D Mark II and 7D Mark II are very different cameras, for several reasons. For one thing, the EOS 7D Mark II was designed to be a pro-grade, fast-action camera. As such it's very tough, very fast, and its all cross-type AF array covers much more of the frame while offering 20 additional points and it offers Canon's 'iTR' tracking system.
The 6D Mark II is no slouch, but if you use your 7D II to shoot sports and action (or kids, or large groups of people) or you need to work in adverse weather conditions, the 6D Mark II probably isn't a sensible upgrade. Quite apart from a lower framerate and (possibly - it's hard to be specific) less sturdy construction, you'll also lose the handy 1. 6X focal length increase you've been enjoying with the APS-C format 7D II.
Compare the EOS 6D Mark II to the 7D IIBeyond this (and at the risk of repeating myself), I'm going to give much the same answer here as I did in the previous slide. Whether the purchase is worth it is mostly a question of what lenses you already have, and how much replacing them with full-frame equivalents (as necessary) would cost, on top of the $2000 you'll be spending on the new camera. Your 7D II is still worth something to someone, but probably nowhere near what you paid for it when it was new.
If on the other hand you use your 7D II for portraiture, landscapes or event photography - or video - you might find that the 6D Mark II's extra resolution, better low light performance and much more flexible live view / movie implementation make it worth the upgrade. Despite the bigger sensor, you won't gain anything in terms of low ISO Raw dynamic range, though.
I'm thinking about buying a Nikon D610 or D750 - should I get an EOS 6D Mark II instead?
I'm going to assume that if you're considering these cameras, you're not already committed to either a Canon or Nikon lens system. Because if you are, just buy whatever camera you already have the right lenses for.
But if you haven't already picked a side, your choice is really just between the 6D Mark II and the Nikon D750. The D610 is a poor option by comparison, unless you find a really good deal on a lightly used or refurbished one (in which case - go for it).
The 6D Mark II and D750 are pretty similar cameras, all things considered. The 6D Mark II's major advantage is its vastly superior live view feature, and Dual Pixel autofocus system in live view / video modes. The D750's live view implementation is basic by comparison and its non touch-sensitive rear LCD isn't fully-articulating, either (although some people do prefer tilting designs).
Compare the EOS 6D Mark II to the Nikon D750
The areas where the D750 outperforms the 6D Mark II are far greater Raw dynamic range (by around 3 EV more), and a better viewfinder autofocus system. If you're intending to shoot sports or action, the D750 offers both state-of-the-art '3D-Tracking' AF and low light AF capability. The D750 also offers a more sophisticated metering system. It includes modes such as highlight-weighted and spot-metering that's linked to the AF point, and also feeds scene information to the AF system to support with face detection and subject tracking.
In most other respects the 6D Mark II and D750 are pretty evenly matched. Both offer a similar maximum continuous shooting rate, with similar battery life, and both are similarly small and light by the standards of full-frame DSLRs. Both shoot acceptable HD video, but Dual Pixel AF and a fully articulating screen mean that doing so is both easier and more enjoyable on the 6D Mark II than it is on the Nikon. The D750 has a built-in flash, though, which can be very handy.
I'd recommend visiting a camera store if you can, and handling them side by side. Both are excellent cameras, but the chances are one of them will just feel 'right'.
I want to shoot more video - should I consider the EOS 6D Mark II?
In some respects, the EOS 6D Mark II is a very capable video camera. It's certainly lots of fun to use. Dual Pixel AF and a fully articulating, touch-sensitive rear LCD make for a very fluid, enjoyable user experience. For professional or aspiring filmmakers though, it has some serious limitations. There's no headphone jack for audio monitoring, which is a shame, but the lack of focus peaking, zebras or log, along with an inefficient video codec (a perennial complaint about Canon's DSLRs and one the company seems in no hurry to address) are bigger handicaps. And of course footage is limited to FHD/60p only. If you need 4K, you'll either need to look higher up Canon's DSLR range, to the 5D IV and 1D X Mark II or to other systems altogether.
As such, I wouldn't recommend buying the 6D Mark II just for video. There are better cameras on the market if this is your main use case (and if you're committed to the Canon EF system, the EOS 80D offers pretty much the same specification for less money).
Did I miss anything? Leave a comment.
. dpreview.com2017-7-19 16:15
