Full-frame for low-light - 6D or D750?

rfe777 wrote in post #17834162
WIFI and smartphone are not important for me, only tilt-screen.

Well ,as the D750 has a tilt screen and the 6D does not you now have the answer as to which camera to buy,......

rfe777 wrote in post #17834673
huh?

Why not consider 2 devices if those devices will offer more options than swivel screen alone, and most likely, you have one of those devices always with you (phone).

rfe777 wrote in post #17833588
May I ask why did you do that?

I wanted a camera with a better sensor for my needs. You couldn't pay me to go back to Canon

Seems like you have your answer.
You want a tilt screen and think you need mucho mega pixels. . D750 is your only choice. Sony A99 has all you need but you haven't mentioned that one.

WElll ... you could always hang on for a while and see IF/when canon comes out with the successor to the 6D. Maybe it will rival the Nikon D750.

rfe777 wrote in post #17833274
Hi

Don't know, these cameras are mainly for video as far as I know. And, 12 megapixels is not enough (and yes, I know that great photos have been made with even less, bla bla bla). Even my first DSLR, the Canon T2i, had 18 megapixels.

False, but a common misconception.

And 12mp is more than enough. I went from an 8mp DSLR, 18mp, to 20mp, to a 16mp backup (X-E1) and now to a 12mp sensor (a7S) and the a7S is better in every way.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17833280
They are stills cameras, with video capabilities. Not the other way around.

18MP is meaningless.

What do you do with your images? Print large 30x20's? Ever? Do you print anything greater than 16x20? Or even 8x10?

Being serious, what you do with your image at the final display is what matters, and if it's not a large print, and unless you're doing seriously big greater than 75% crops or something, you'd be hard pressed to need more than 8~9MP for most applications today. Printing, more megapixels can be helpful, if you're not cropping significantly already.

I have a 4MP and 6.3MP pair of cameras that still take excellent quality images for general display and reasonable print size (upwards of 8x10).

Again, if you print, I can see the argument for more and more megapixels.

Anyhow to the more important point, lower resolution on a large sensor means bigger photo buckets. This is why the A7S and cameras like it (1DX, etc) have lower resolution. They do it to gain significant ISO performance and signal to noise ratios. If you really want a low light performer, this is more the category you're looking at.

12MP can print 16 x 24 very nicely.

I print big 16's from my 13MP 5D all the time with sharp eyelashes.

So what are you doing with your 18MP or higher files ultimately at the end of the day? That's what matters.

Very best,

This. In fact, I have a very nice 20x30 taken with my 8mp 20D hanging in my living room that I get compliments on all the time.

rfe777 wrote in post #17833287
I rarely print, only viewing my images on my PC and online. However, what does concern me is the tonal range of the 12 megapixel sensor, which MAKES a difference between this one and a 20 or 24 megapixel one.

Someone has seriously very drastically lead you astray...

The a7S has WAY more DR and tonal range than most cameras on the market, especially most of Canon's offerings. My 6D was great at high ISO, I often praised it for it, but the a7S is a leap ahead of it.

ISO 12,800, no noise reduction

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/stXi​AX

JeffreyG wrote in post #17833862
The demands on a web / monitor viewed image are so minimal, it seems like you are over-thinking this. When viewing anything online, you are compressing the hell out of the image file. For sure the number of pixels on the sensor doesn't matter. A 6 MP camera would be plenty. Second, instead of trying to get a camera that looks great for noise when viewed at 1:1, why not just apply some heavy NR? Relative to a web-sized image view, NR will not destroy any visible detail. And finally, I'd not bother getting the expense and compromises of a FF camera when you are only shooting for the web.

Pick the highest performance crop camera that you like for ergonomics, use NR, and shoot. Web / monitor images are so un-demanding that you should have no problem getting excellent pictures. You seem to be shopping for an F1 racer to drive around the block. Heck, I have some images that are out of focus and won't make a decent print, but that look fine on a monitor.

THIS.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17834046
It does... WIFI and smart phone.

Not at all the same thing.

eddieb1 wrote in post #17835498
Why not consider 2 devices if those devices will offer more options than swivel screen alone, and most likely, you have one of those devices always with you (phone).

Because that's a massive pain in the tail... how is carrying a phone around and having to pull it out, switch on WiFi, waiting for it to sync then balancing it with one hand on each device (which would be an even bigger PITA with MF btw) sound at all the same thing as just simply flipping a screen out?

I'm with the OP on this one thing; flip screens are incredibly useful, it's extremely frustrating going back to camera that doesn't have one after using one for a long time.

OP, if you want to listen to reason, keep using your a6000... since you probably won't, get the d750 because it's cheaper than an a7S and has a flip screen.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17837014
False, but a common misconception.

And 12mp is more than enough. I went from an 8mp DSLR, 18mp, to 20mp, to a 16mp backup (X-E1) and now to a 12mp sensor (a7S) and the a7S is better in every way.

This. In fact, I have a very nice 20x30 taken with my 8mp 20D hanging in my living room that I get compliments on all the time.

Someone has seriously very drastically lead you astray...

The a7S has WAY more DR and tonal range than most cameras on the market, especially most of Canon's offerings. My 6D was great at high ISO, I often praised it for it, but the a7S is a leap ahead of it.

ISO 12,800, no noise reduction

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/stXi​AX DSC02493.jpg by Lucas Graenicher, on Flickr

THIS.

Not at all the same thing.

Because that's a massive pain in the tail... how is carrying a phone around and having to pull it out, switch on WiFi, waiting for it to sync then balancing it with one hand on each device (which would be an even bigger PITA with MF btw) sound at all the same thing as just simply flipping a screen out?

I'm with the OP on this one thing; flip screens are incredibly useful, it's extremely frustrating going back to camera that doesn't have one after using one for a long time.

OP, if you want to listen to reason, keep using your a6000... since you probably won't, get the d750 because it's cheaper than an a7S and has a flip screen.

lol don't lose hope on me

You may have a point... After reading all the replies so far, I've also came to the same conclusion. I will use the A6000 for the time being, and see what Canon & Sony will bring up on 2016. If there won't be anything significantly better than the D750, I'll probably get it (although coming back to OVF and not having a WYSIWYG before shooting will be a PITA. There isn't a perfect camera, is it?). I'll have to check further about what you said about the A7S though. Thinking about it, there is a reason why the 1DX and the D4S don't even have 20 mp and still give cleaner results at high ISO than almost any other camera (except the A7S of course).

rfe777 wrote in post #17837074
lol don't lose hope on me

You may have a point... After reading all the replies so far, I've also came to the same conclusion. I will use the A6000 for the time being, and see what Canon & Sony will bring up on 2016. If there won't be anything significantly better than the D750, I'll probably get it (although coming back to OVF and not having a WYSIWYG before shooting will be a PITA. There isn't a perfect camera, is it?). I'll have to check further about what you said about the A7S though. Thinking about it, there is a reason why the 1DX and the D4S don't even have 20 mp and still give cleaner results at high ISO than almost any other camera (except the A7S of course).

That sounds like a solid choice. I love my a7S, but it just doesn't seem necessary for what you're doing. For web images I'm more than happy with shots from my X-E2 which is why it sees probably the most use these days.

I have to agree i have shot with 12MP for years on my D700 and printed 24-36 posters from the files and done billboard ads with the 12MP images. I have sold hunderds of 16x20 prints and every other size.
Shot hundreds of weddings and portrait sessions with it. The D700 at 12MP has been one of the best cameras i have ever owned and i have have had a lot of them.

I just got the Nikon D500 at 20MP more then enough MP for anything i would even print in any size.
I shoot weddings, portraits, sports and just about anything.

Here is two from the D500 just playing with it.

I really don't see how the 6D compares to the D750. The D750 is better than the 6D is every way possible. Faster, more megapixel, better DR. WAYYYYYYY better focusing and tracking.

Hell, I'd take the D750 over the 5D mark 3. It beats the 5D3 is almost every way as well.

To me this is a no-brainer.

If you're invested in Canon, maybe wait for the 5D4. I'm sure it will be nice.