There's a lot to be said for the capabilities of mirrorless cameras today, with myriad autofocus options and other features at your fingertips. But there's also a lot to be said for simplicity, and it's in this regard that Canon's EOS 6D was the perfect expression of what a camera should be.
That may be a hot take, but I'm not alone in that thought. London-based portrait photographer Martin Castein feels very much the same way about his 6D.
As someone who worked at Canon during the 6D's heyday, like Castein points out, the specs on paper don't favor the 6D. It only has 11 autofocus points, and in actual use, only the center one can actually focus well (though, compared to other cameras, that point focuses really, really well). This pales in comparison to its more expensive contemporary, the 5D Mark III, which sported a 61-point system derived from the 1D series. The sensor is only 20 megapixels, also down compared to the 22.3 megapixels on the 5D Mark III. In what seems silly to say now, it shot only on a single SD card slot compared to the 5D Mark III's CF/SD card slot combo.
But then there's the stuff that's buried a little further on the spec sheet: the 6D was the first Canon DSLR to feature built-in Wi-Fi, which was a game changer for shooting remotely with a phone or transferring photos. The SD card slot on the 6D was actually faster than the one on the 5D Mark III because of its UHS-I support. And finally, somewhat surprisingly, the 6D's sensor, though slightly down on resolution, had some of the "magic" of earlier Canon sensors, with dynamic range that brought it pretty close to what Nikon was achieving with its cameras at the time—a welcome difference for Canon users who often struggled in this area. As Castein points out, the megapixels don't really matter here; it's that intangible image quality that does.
While landscapes and scenes like the one above were the best for the camera, I ended up using it for everything from wildlife to sports. I spoke with my dollars. I owned an EOS-1D X, a 5D Mark III, and a 6D, and the 6D outlasted all those cameras before I eventually moved entirely to mirrorless.
Check out Castein's video above to get his take on why the super-simple 6D is a camera for the ages (and I'm sure Fstoppers' own Andy Day would agree), and leave your thoughts about the 6D in the comments below.
11 AF points clustered in the center. Bleah. That’s what drove me to the 1-series.
Yeah but that center point was absolutely magic. I sold my 1D and kept this because it was so small, light and just worked.
Yeah, this is a strange choice for "peak DSLR." If this is peak it's pretty obvious why the DSLR was/is doomed.
Have you ever used the camera? I mean yes, mirrorless brings so many advantages but this was still a great camera, having used almost every DSLR that Canon ever made.
I didn't say it was a bad camera, and yes, I did use one. But please tell me why this is the "peak" DSLR and not something clearly better in every respect like the Nikon D850? Is it the best Canon DSLR you ever used? I know, it's an opinion piece, but for me it makes no sense. We disagree, and that's OK.
I have used a 6D, almost from its introduction. It will be panned by equipment snobs, and there are a lot of those. What I liked about the 6D? Almost everything. The most glaring flaws, IMHO, is that it had only one card, which never was a problem, but I can see it being a problem if someone got a card that was flawed, and the focus points. It worked fine if I had the time to carefully focus. It didn't if I was following something that moved fast. But then I used a 35mm camera for many years and we had to train ourselves to follow focus.
So, for the equipment snobs among us, the camera is MUCH more capable than you are. This is a great camera, it yields great images in the hands of a careful user. It is a tremendous, and reliable back up or a good value entry level camera for a beginner. Mine is now my backup, but it will still get significant use.
...and the thing is, when the file goes into LightRoom, or whatever you use, then to Photoshop, and then to the printer, no one will know, or care, what camera was used. Whether a low end full frame camera like this, or the most high end camera ever made, at 156x20, or even 30x40, no one will be able to tell which camera it came out of.
They'll know if the camera missed focus. I didn’t work with the 6D, but I had a pair of 10Ds, then 40Ds, then moved to 1D & 1Ds (Mk I, II & III) for better AF. Now, I understand camera nostalgia - I hated to part with my Contax G2 and its fabulous 21mm lens - but looking at what’s on the market now, the 6D is not a good camera for event work. There are a bunch of reasons why my subsequent Micro Four Thirds and then Sony FE kits have been way more productive.
Additionally, there are probably lots of D750 and D850 shooters who would take issue with crowning the 6D.
I seriously beg to differ. You said it, you have never used the camera, so you don't know.
What exactly do you differ about? Tell me where I went wrong above.
As for what I know, its AF points are laid out in the same central diamond shape as the 40D, with no points at the intersections of thirds, and that pattern was the main reason I ditched a pair of 40Ds for a 1D and 1Ds. I was just tired of the old center-focus-lock-recompose-shoot routine when shooting hundreds or thousands of event photos. The ability of mirrorless cameras to focus ANYWHERE in the frame was a major selling point for me, and there is no way I'd go back to the diamond pattern. I'd rather use an original 1D, from 2001, with its 4MP and ISO ceiling of 800.
I understand appreciation for an old workhorse that served well, but I think Wasim is leaning a bit too far over his skis with the "peak" designation when the 1DX was released a year earlier and was a much higher performance machine in every way that matters to sports, wedding and event shooters. The 6D offered good IQ at a decent price, but it was otherwise a "prosumer" camera, and that's not enough to make it the "peak DSLR" in light of others that came before and after it and were much better in many ways.
This is why I try to avoid make absolute claims about "the best" anything online: someone else always has a different use case for which my assessment is irrelevant.
Also, you're not earning any good will by, right off the bat, characterizing people who don't share your point of view as "equipment snobs".
You judged a piece of equipment you never used. It goes to what I said about the old Canon v Nikon, Fuji v Kodak. None of them are better. It's the user that learns to get out of the tool what it can do, and what they need it to do. What difference does it make to you anyway. I don't talk about camera store toys, only as I have to. I want to know about the photographs people make. Show me what you did with that camera, then I'll respond with much more congenial speech.
I don’t have to use the 6D to know that the AF points are not where I need them, when the layout is virtually identical to other Canons I have used.
As for “more congenial speech”? You STARTED with insults, refused to engage on substance, and are now headed rapidly downhill into keyboard warrior territory.
Don’t expect any further conversation with me. I’ve had enough of you.
On the Nikon side I owned a D600, D610, D700 and D750. I liked them all a lot, but my D600/D610, while on paper a competitor to the 6D with many more autofocus points across the frame, couldn't focus as accurately as the 6D's center point.
The D750 was a better camera, but mine was recalled a couple of times and there's something about the simplicity of the 6D that would make me give it the nod.
Understood. Thanks for the follow-up. I just can’t nominate a camera that’s almost entirely reliant on a single center AF point for the “Peak DSLR” title, especially for action and event work where the 1Dx series was clearly better-suited.
While I think the D850 is peak DSLR using objective metrics (that 3D tracking was amazing for the time), I’m also fond of the 6D. I only owned one D850 but probably had 3 or 4 of the 6D come and go over the fullness of time.
I don’t remember every camera I’ve owned but I tend to have fond memories of the ones that gave me memorable photos and those both did.
I jumped on the mirrorless bamdwagon and upgraded to my R6&RF lenses thinking it was what I needed to grow in my photography. But even today, after more than three years, I still miss the simplicity and easy, beautiful images that I got with my 6D. My biggest regret is letting it go. While mirrorless definitely has its benefits, there’s something to be said for a camera that just takes beautiful pictures without all of the bells and whistles. Low light performance was awesome for what it was and I never thought about the camera. I thought about the image I wanted and the rest just happened. Kind of sappy but hey there you go.
Ability to focus with the center point in extremely dim lit conditions is simply amazing. That itself was worth a lot. I am a simple hobbyist and still use the 6D. Great camera
I owned a 6D and my first impression was that having to go through menus was so much more of a hassle than the ease of using a manual film camera with it's simple setup. Ultimately having to calibrate for front/back focus and the lack of proper aids for manual lenses made me resent DSLR's. Just my personal viewpoint and the 6D was (and still is) a very capable camera.
I hate discussions, which lead to arguments, about equipment. It's just useless blather. The camera has worked great for me.
Insults lead to arguments, and you slung them without provocation. I think you actually enjoy arguments and useless blather.
Hmm, IMHO, not even close. There are several cameras I would take over the 6D including the 5D II, the 7D II, the D500, D850 etc. But that's just me. I've owned all of those cameras and others and no way was the 6D the peak of DSLR.
Oof. I pre-ordered the 5D II and owned it for four years and I can definitely say that the camera couldn't hold a candle to the 6D. It was good for its time but the files don't hold up today and the autofocus was even worse. I'd say the 6D can still hold up today (I sold mine a couple of years ago but was using it until the end just fine).
I owned a 6D but the D600, it's nearest rival was a superior camera. If I didn't need the 6D as a video b cam I may have gone for the Nikon but Nikon video was very poor at the time.
The 6D is a good camera, and a useful camera, but it is not, and never was, "the peak" - aka the very best - DSLR.
Why do writers so often take a good thing and ruin it by overstating a point? This author should not have used the word "peak" in the title. Nor should he have used any word that is synonymous with "superlative", "best", etc. "Features that Made the Canon 6D a Surprisingly Useful Camera" would have been a more accurate title.
A title being true and accurate is more important than it drawing people in.
Peak DSLR article saying the 6D is the best.
Nikon D850 - "Am I a joke to you?"
In all seriousness, Peak DSLR is either the D850 or the D780. The D780 might not have the resolution or AF of the D850, but if you flip up into Live View, it's Nikon Z camera with fast continuous AF and eye detect. The D6 and D850 can't do that.
and look at the results. a 440 word article generated over 3,000 page views. Not bad Wasim, not bad at all.
Trolling as a business model. Now we know your priorities.
Ha! What a camera. And that was a nice walk down memory lane. Thanks for the reminder! 😊
What a workhorse. In terms of value for money, it's definitely got to be up there. The muscle memory built up over years of owning that camera means that I still find that focus-recompose using a central focusing point is still the most efficient way of ensuring a sharp image. 😆 I don't know why Canon bothered including the other ten focusing points cos they were useless. 🤣
I feel all of this completely!
I still use since 2012. and it does all the work as expected.
I've been using my 6D for the past 10 years. Should I upgrade? Maybe, but I'm still happy with my results.
I've had the 6D as a backup for years and years and years. When I first bought it, it was not as capable as my main body, the Canon 1D Mark 4. Then when I switched from the 1D Mark 4 to a 5D Mark 4, the 6D was not as good as the 5D Mark 4, so it remained my backup body and never became my primary body.
So how is it that it is the "peak DSLR" if it didn't measure up to either of the two DSLRs that I used ahead of it?
In this context, "peak" means better than anything and everything else. Is there a chance that the word "peak" is not being used in strict coherence with its actual definition?