Canon eos 6d offically announced

I can't afford to switch and I'm ok with sticking with Canon. If the auto focus and the ISO performance is better than the 5D2 then I will get the 6D eventually. For what I do having wireless tethering is pretty useful.

msowsun wrote in post #15003880
Your 17-50 won't work on a 5D2.

(or a D7)

Agreed --- I tried my Tamron 17-50 on the 5d2 and the mirror box hits the back of the lens.... Not a good sound.

davidc502 wrote in post #15003902
Agreed --- I tried my Tamron 17-50 on the 5d2 and the mirror box hits the back of the lens.... Not a good sound.

Really? It didn't do that when I tried on my 5D I, but the vignetting was crazy.

996gt2 wrote in post #15003853
Cross point by definition is sensitive to both horizontal and vertical contrast, whereas a standard AF point (like 10 out of the 11 points on the 6D) is only sensitive to contrast in one direction. It would be quite hard to make a standard AF point better than a cross point.

yeah, I know what cross points AF are and even though non-cross points may or may not as good as cross points, AF technology could have advanced in the last couple of years that we can hope those non-cross points are not as close as cross point...let say around 85-90% good...that may do.

As references, those non cross points on those 1D series are really good.

well all that information was great and very sad.

Man I really want to replace my T2i. I never liked it. I always thought it had a problem I even sent it to Canon they said it also had a problem. They told me they fixed it but still I never liked it. where do I go from here?

sonnyc wrote in post #15003919
yeah, I know what cross points AF are and even though non-cross points may or may not as good as cross points, AF technology could have advanced in the last couple of years that we can hope those non-cross points are not as close as cross point...let say around 85-90% good...that may do.

As references, those non cross points on those 1D series are really good.

That's true but AF technology has improved for cross-point AF too. So a non-cross-point will still be markedly inferior to a cross-point. I think 85-90% is on the high side if you are comparing to a recent model like the 60D.

Did anyone notice that the 6D's sensor is a bit smaller than full-frame?

davidc502 wrote in post #15003902
Agreed --- I tried my Tamron 17-50 on the 5d2 and the mirror box hits the back of the lens.... Not a good sound.

Weird. I thought the hitting is reserved only to EF-S lenses (the ones where the rear element protrudes deeper into the body)

I think a big issue on this board is that people put too much merit on the specs on the cameras. I agree that AF is important in some cases, and some of the specs do need to be top notch to get certain results, but what I've found is that when people have such high expectations, they are more likely to be disappointed.

This is going to sound weird, but this trend can almost be compared to BDD (Body Dysmorphic Disorder). Spending enough time criticizing flaws can do more harm in certain cases.

The main questions should be: "Does it work for what I want?" and "Is it worth the money?"

You constantly see people bashing the 5D2's AF system, and every single day I see people with ridiculously amazing photos using the AF system. If someone else can achieve that quality, then you have the chance to achieve it as well.

I see the 6D as the Rebel version of the Full Frame cameras. Sure, it is 2000 bucks, but I think used it would be a good, almost better, option when deciding between a 5Dc or a 6D simply because it is a newer production.

People call cameras tools, but I would rather call it an instrument...I say this because you can have the most amazing and expensive guitar, but you can still suck. So let the results speak for themselves.

996gt2 wrote in post #15003838
I put these specs in another thread, but I thought it would be useful to have them here as well so that you guys can objectively compare the two. Remember, the prices are the same ($2099).

All of these specs are taken from Nikon/Canon's sites. CanonRumors has some false information on the 6D right now on their site.

D600:
-24 MP Sony Sensor
-39 Point AF with 9 cross points (in a 3x3 grid in the center)
-Built in flash with wireless flash commander
-5.5 FPS
-1/4000 sec max shutter speed, 1/200 sec max flash sync
-Dual SD card slots
-100% viewfinder coverage, compatibility with DX lenses
-Optional wifi/GPS
-Non-Touchscreen

6D:
-20MP sensor
-11 Point AF with 1 cross point (the center one)
-No built in flash
-4.5 FPS
-1/4000 sec max shutter speec, 1/180 sec max flash sync
-Single SD card slot
-97% viewfinder coverage, not compatible with EF-S lenses
-Built in Wifi/GPS
-Touchscreen

Where are you seeing that it is touchscreen? DPR's hands-on review specifically says there is NO touchscreen and I don't see it mentioned anywhere on Canon's site either.

Interchangeable focussing screens - now that's quite something.

SoCalTiger wrote in post #15003980
Where are you seeing that it is touchscreen? DPR's hands-on review specifically says there is NO touchscreen and I don't see it mentioned anywhere on Canon's site either.

Oops, corrected.

I'm still not sure what's up with limiting it to 1/4000 sec shutter speed. Come on, Canon! You can do better than that.

Growingshort wrote in post #15003978
I think a big issue on this board is that people put too much merit on the specs on the cameras. I agree that AF is important in some cases, and some of the specs do need to be top notch to get certain results, but what I've found is that when people have such high expectations, they are more likely to be disappointed.

This is going to sound weird, but this trend can almost be compared to BDD (Body Dysmorphic Disorder). Spending enough time criticizing flaws can do more harm in certain cases.

The main questions should be: "Does it work for what I want?" and "Is it worth the money?"

You constantly see people bashing the 5D2's AF system, and every single day I see people with ridiculously amazing photos using the AF system. If someone else can achieve that quality, then you have the chance to achieve it as well.

I see the 6D as the Rebel version of the Full Frame cameras. Sure, it is 2000 bucks, but I think used it would be a good, almost better, option when deciding between a 5Dc or a 6D simply because it is a newer production.

People call cameras tools, but I would rather call it an instrument...I say this because you can have the most amazing and expensive guitar, but you can still suck. So let the results speak for themselves.

The problem with your argument is that the D600 has considerably better specs (and most likely a better sensor) than the 6D for the exact same price.

If someone offered you an iPad 1 for $500 or an iPad 3 for $500, which one would you take? This analogy has a lot of carryover when you compare the 6D vs. D600. Can you do just about everything on the iPad 1 that you can do on the iPad 3? Of course you can. But which one would you rather have if both cost the same?

So, unless you already have a huge investment in L glass, I don't see why someone would not consider jumping ship.

citro wrote in post #15003944
Weird. I thought the hitting is reserved only to EF-S lenses (the ones where the rear element protrudes deeper into the body)

the 17-50 IS an EF-S lens. not made by Canon, but Tamron specifically made it for crop bodies.

a $400 17-50 that performs as well as the Tamron does on a FF body would be awesome.