The real issue with 6D and 5Dm3

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #15010585
This.

I'd argue that the 6D falls into the same category.

Both are fine cameras in their own right, but when compared against the competition in the price range both fall short.

Simple solution then. Get the competitor and problem solve.

dingie256 wrote in post #15008729
Everyone is very excited, disappointed, and everything in between about the comparison between the 6D and 5Dm3. Look folks, the real issue is:

The 6D should have been called the 5Dm3.
The 5Dm3 should have been called the 6D.

DONE!

You have that wrong, the better camera gets the lower number.

The EOS 6D should have been the EOS 5D3
The EOS 5D3 should have been the EOS 3D

But this wouldn't have solved any whining because just like the 60D wasn't the expected upgrade to the 50D in lew of the 7D, the 6D (Should have been 5D3) isn't the expected update to the 5D2 in lew of the 5D3 (should have been EOS 3D)

Actually I got mine off of ebay about 2 weeks ago for $2800. Purchased from an authorized Canon dealer, USA warranty and all.

I'm surprised at everyone saying it's not an improvement over the 5D Mark II. My guess is that those who are saying that haven't used a Mark III. The 5D Mark II is junk. Sorry but it has the exact same build and feel of a XXD series as well as the same crappy autofocus system. I can shoot at 12,800 ISO and I get CLEAN images, something I couldn't do with the Mark II at 6400 ISO. It focuses every time, even in low light. Just holding the Mark III it feels like a solid upgrade, more like a 1D body. I was in the "it's priced too high" camp until I had Canon loan me one and then I knew it was worth it. I paid $2000 for my Mark II through Calumet on ebay with the Canon battery grip two years ago. I sold it for $1800 after 2 years of use. So for $200 I used my 5D Mark II for 2 years. I didn't mind paying $1000 more for the Mark III. It's a very worth while upgrade.

Mark1 wrote in post #15010397
its not anywhere at that price.

The real question he is asking is "in 6 months, when the price drops to $2800, is it priced right ?"

maximus_73 wrote in post #15009135
the issue is here:
Nikon D700 to D800 is a major upgrade in almost all categories.
Canon 5DMkII to 5DMkIII is not a major upgrade comparing to Nikon.
Nikon D600 vs. Canon 6D, based on some sample pictures were taken from both cameras, D600 is clearly a winner.

A couple of years ago- I actually took a look at the Nikon series.. Without looking at cost- I found that their series was oldish in that it was relatively low MP, and feature wise- also kind of low. Comparing them at that point in time- Nikon appeared to have been stagnant for quite some time. .. Now, since Nikon is releasing stuff- now their "crap" is golden ? Sorry... Wasn't even incremental upgrades- just way behind...

Now as far as the 5D III vs 5D II- not being a major upgrade- let me leave it at this;
I'd rather sink $3500 into a 5D III rather than $2200 into a 5D II (or 6D ). I'd rather have stayed crop - going from a 7D to a 5D II- is kind of back pedaling.. The 6D- in my opinion, is not much more than a slightly reworked 5D II - with enough differences to delineate the 5D III from it. Am I happy about the 6D ? Don't really care about it. It'd probably be better off if it never existed.. I'd rather Canon bring out a cheap wireless dongle like Nikon did for their line- than for them to develop one more camera choice. Oh, yeah, they have the wireless file transmitter things- way overpriced - not worth it. That's about the only thing I saw- feature-wise that I liked new about the 6D. Actually, the introduction of the 6D only goes to devalue the 5D3's bought earlier this year.

And - if maximus believes that the d600 is a winner- go get it.. I looked at Nikons a couple of years ago- didn't like what I saw... The introduction of a single good camera or two- is not enough to sway my decision.

drive_75 wrote in post #15010635
Simple solution then. Get the competitor and problem solve.

Not quite as simple as it sounds when you're invested in the system.

I do love the types that protest the protest, though. It's as if you're not allowed to suggest that Canon may have made an error... even in threads dedicated to that topic.

Regardless, I opted for the other simple solution - just buy the camera that is better than the competition at its price point...

dingie256 wrote in post #15008729
Everyone is very excited, disappointed, and everything in between about the comparison between the 6D and 5Dm3.

I'm not. I'd not heard or read about a 6D until about 5 minutes ago

Um?

Canon got it right ppl

5D3 is the next 5 series camera... What's after 2? 3!!!

6D is full frame, (rated above the 7D), but not as well equipped as the 5D...
Therefore the 6D is between the 7D and 5D... And what number is between 7 and 5??? 6!!!!

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #15010740
Not quite as simple as it sounds when you're invested in the system.

I do love the types that protest the protest, though. It's as if you're not allowed to suggest that Canon may have made an error... even in threads dedicated to that topic.

Regardless, I opted for the other simple solution - just buy the camera that is better than the competition at its price point...

Erik,
I am not protesting you. I think life is too short to be unhappy. You should be happy with what you have. It seems like you are unhappy about Canon. If that's the case then you should shoot Nikon and be happy. Company make cameras or equipment for the majority of the users. They compromise with features and cost to try to meet most people's need. They know and understand they can't meet each individual's need and want. It seems that most photographer think it should have this feature or that feature. If you ask 10 photographers about any new camera, they will all come up with 10 things that they rather have on the new camera. If you believe that Nikon made the perfect camera for you, go grab it. I know I would if it was perfect for me.

drive_75 wrote in post #15011081
It seems like you are unhappy about Canon.

No, I'm unhappy about a couple of decisions that Canon has made recently.

Overall I'm quite happy with Canon and have the gear that I want and it's from them.

I don't like Nikon ergonomics. I don't particularly like the Nikon lens lineup.

However, when comparing the 5D3 and the 6D to the direct Nikon competition (D800, D600) Canon has clearly, to my mind, made some tactical errors with regards to either features or price. In both cases the Nikon entry, on paper at least, is superior for a better price.

My worry is that this pattern will continue and that Canon will lose a competitive edge going forward which will have an impact on my investment...

Jon_Doh wrote in post #15009058
The real problem with the 5D III is that it is grossly overpriced for what you get. Granted, taken by itself it has great specs and represents a big improvement over what Canon offered in previous 5D bodies. But when you compare it with what you can buy elsewhere the the features in other cameras available for a whole lot less money, the overpricing becomes apparent.

The 6D is a good attempt at its price point and although it is missing some features that its competitors offer for the same money, it remains competitive nonetheless.

Actually when the 5D3 came out, the price point seemed high at the list price, however now that you can land one around the $3K mark, then as compared to previous 5D models and their prices months after their release, the 5D3 is a very good deal.

Price comparison shopping across manufacturers only works when you are fresh into DSLR photography and are just starting out, however if you are already in one camp or the other, there are other costs that have to be added into swapping brands, and that would put the price tag of the other side of the fence higher. Plus the grass is not always greener on that other side either.

There is your problem with Canon. Canon does not hold the concept of "direct Nikon competition" for any particular market.

Canon competes with Nikon (and everyone else) in terms of the full line of cameras. So to speak, they would say, "Our line of cameras best suits the DSLR market as we see it."

A number of years ago, for instance, the Canon Inc director of the camera division stated that the Kiss (Rebel in the US) was specifically designed for women and that the 5D was specifically designed to woo "enthusiasts" from film.

They are not looking at Nikon and trying to compete camera-to-camera with specific Nikon products, they are looking at particular segments as they see the market and designing products for each segment.

I suspect Nikon looks at the market the same way.

RDKirk wrote in post #15013351
There is your problem with Canon. Canon does not hold the concept of "direct Nikon competition" for any particular market.

Canon competes with Nikon (and everyone else) in terms of the full line of cameras. So to speak, they would say, "Our line of cameras best suits the DSLR market as we see it."

A number of years ago, for instance, the Canon Inc director of the camera division stated that the Kiss (Rebel in the US) was specifically designed for women and that the 5D was specifically designed to woo "enthusiasts" from film.

They are not looking at Nikon and trying to compete camera-to-camera with specific Nikon products, they are looking at particular segments as they see the market and designing products for each segment.

I suspect Nikon looks at the market the same way.

This is truth. No company competes on a one model to one model basis. They compete on/with the entire market. So to say "This is Nikons/Canons answer to the..." is not really true. It is more of "This is how Nikon/Canon fill a particular hole in the market in the way they see fit". Anything more is just flapping your gums asserting your own opinion. Not fact.

dingie256 wrote in post #15008729
Everyone is very excited, disappointed, and everything in between about the comparison between the 6D and 5Dm3. Look folks, the real issue is:

The 6D should have been called the 5Dm3.
The 5Dm3 should have been called the 6D.

DONE!

when the 5DM3 came out, people were referring to as a 5DM2.5. So to complete what you say, the 6D should be called the 5DM2.1

RDKirk wrote in post #15013351
There is your problem with Canon. Canon does not hold the concept of "direct Nikon competition" for any particular market.

I agree that both companies hold a view partially compatible with what you're saying, but to completely discount model to model competition in a given price range or class is disingenuous.

Both companies realize that there are a finite number of buyers in each segment and that they are going up against each other as well as other makers for each of those buyers.

The "entry level full-frame DSLR" segment now consists of the D600, the 6D and maybe a Sony.

If someone new to the market with a limited budget wants full frame they will look at those cameras and decide, based on price and specifications, which to buy.

In that segment, for those customers, Canon is losing the evaluation. They offer a lower-level feature set for more money.

The same holds true in the pro-sumer FF DSLR space.

Yes, loyalists or those already invested in a system will continue to buy their brand, but as more new folks buy one or the other the number of loyalists shifts...

offcamber wrote in post #15010723
I'm surprised at everyone saying it's not an improvement over the 5D Mark II. My guess is that those who are saying that haven't used a Mark III. It's a very worth while upgrade.

I totally agree with these statements. I have had the 5D2 for two years - and while it's hardly "junk" - indeed I loved it - the 5D3 is a MAJOR UPGRADE - particularly for those of us who struggle with the AF on the 5D2 and those who want a better low light camera. Period.