My Musing on the 6D vs D600... And Canon in General right now

jdizzle wrote in post #15083429
Here are some test shots I posted (D600) from ISO 1600 all the way up to 25600. The last sample is noisy (25600) but, look how well it cleans up in post using LR4's luminance slider. No loss in detail.

https://photography-on-the.net …p=15081225&post​count=8369

Hard to argue with those shots. I do not have a preference in ergonomics of one over the other. I've owned a D90 and a 60D. Looks like I'm heading back to the dark side.

d.tek wrote in post #15083628
That is absolutely incredible. I just have a hard time switching camps when I already have a few lenses. I will certainly lose a few of my lenses when I switch to full frame, but, that ISO performance is making me consider the switch more and more.

Agreed, and i dont use high ISO that much... I stick to ISO800-1600 with occasional dips to 3200, Not because i wont use the high ISO on my 7D, but because i simply never -need- it with fast lenses...

d.tek wrote in post #15083628
That is absolutely incredible. I just have a hard time switching camps when I already have a few lenses. I will certainly lose a few of my lenses when I switch to full frame, but, that ISO performance is making me consider the switch more and more.

yo be honest, you should really wait until you see the results of the 6D before making up your mind. It's only a couple of months before that happens and if at that point you still like the D600 then you never know it might be cheaper by then.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15084494
yo be honest, you should really wait until you see the results of the 6D before making up your mind. It's only a couple of months before that happens and if at that point you still like the D600 then you never know it might be cheaper by then.

11 focus points and 1 cross-type kills it for me. I understand they can't give away the 5D3 AF at that price point, but c'mon.

bjyoder wrote in post #15078986
But for those people who don't have the same needs as you - indeed, for those who have different needs and requirements from you - Canon still has an edge in lenses to fit one's specific need. If I prefer to go out in the day, and don't want to haul around a 70-200 f/2.8 and all the glass it needs, Canon has the 70-200 f/4 variants. What about the MP-E 65mm? The awesome range of TS-E lenses?

KenjiS wrote in post #15079673
The f/4L IS gives me a good, sealed, pro-quality lens with rapid AF speed and no compromise to the optics in a package thats half the weight of the f/2.8 variant, Not to mention a few hundred cheaper... Do I wish I had sprung for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS instead sometimes? Yeah, Not gonna lie the extra stop would be handy SOMETIMES, but other times, Not so much... I can usually switch out to my 100L if i need the extra stop after all

Nikon lacks telephotos, You either get the 70-300 VR (Which while I admit looks like a very nice lens, I'm not sure its as good as a 70-200 f/4L IS) or you get the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, Theres nothing in between those two lenses, Nikon doesnt have VR on its 300mm f/4, and it doesnt have a 400 f/5.6 either, The 80-400 is a sick joke compared to the 100-400...Nikon loses at the telephoto game (Unless you have the cash for the big superteles in which case the teams are really even)

On wides, the 16-35 f/4 VR is pretty pricey compared to the 17-40 f/4, Its better optically but its also a fairly big lens in comparison (The thing dwarfs the 17-35 f/2.8 for crying out loud..) The 14-24 is deservedly legendary... Wide angle is Nikon's game, plain and simple

The new 24-70 f/2.8L II is expensive, but its also the best 24-70 on the market, None other can really touch it, Its sharp corner to corner at f/2.8 and doesnt get better stopping down, Its price is likely to come down once supply shortages end (Though it will still be about $2000 id guess)

I clearly understand what you are saying and it is all subjective and you just keep on proving what I just said about Canon users that "We have lenses" theme. I guess that is the best that you can come up with.

To be clear, I am not convincing anyone to jump ships. Keep what you have, but if you are on the verge of shifting, resistance is futile.

elrey2375 wrote in post #15084565
11 focus points and 1 cross-type kills it for me. I understand they can't give away the 5D3 AF at that price point, but c'mon.

I can understand it on paper that the D600 may look better.

But the cross points in the D600 are closly packed together as shown:

^- i think it depends on what you're doing, For action stuff having more focus points to "fill in the gaps" means you are less likely, in theory, to have a "dead spot" where you lose the eye of your subject or that small part of the thing you're trying to focus on

But for other types of shooting, you'll probubly be sticking to the outside of the D600's points, actually i've seen a few folks with the D7000 saying they put it in the 11-point mode (IE, only 11 points selectable) because it makes selecting the focus point a lot quicker...

I think i've used every AF point on my 7D sure, But I use some a LOT more than others

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15084585
I can understand it on paper that the D600 may look better.

But the cross points in the D600 are closly packed together as shown:

http://photo.net …-first-impressions-review

that I don't think it's going to be that much of a difference between the 6D and D600.

Nikon have typically put more autofocus points in to appeal to those that desire high focus points. However Canon have a different view. I just care about it getting focus lock and the fact that on paper the 6D can do -3EV then to me I can see that when tests are done on countless blogs and youtube etc that they are both going to so close to being equal it's not going to matter.

Even though the AF points are tightly packed, the outer points lock fast in low light. I've done my test on all AF points and haven't seen it hunt.

^ and despite having less AF points it will be interesting to see how the 6D will do the same in low light using the outer points.

I can't change as it would cost to me much, but I see people saying one is better than the other when the other hasn't even been on the market 1 day let alone available for testing.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15085167
^ and despite having less AF points it will be interesting to see how the 6D will do the same in low light using the outer points.

I can't change as it would cost to me much, but I see people saying one is better than the other when the other hasn't even been on the market 1 day let alone available for testing.

Better for them is a better way they could put it..

KenjiS wrote in post #15085171
Better for them is a better way they could put it..

doesn't mean the camera is any better than 6D

Does anyone know how the 5DmkII fares against those ISO samples from the D600? If the 5D stays around 1700, and performs *almost* as well as the 6D, I would rather spend that extra 400$ on glass. I'm looking for better ISO and low-light performance as my 50D isn't anything to rave about in that department.

d.tek wrote in post #15085628
Does anyone know how the 5DmkII fares against those ISO samples from the D600? If the 5D stays around 1700, and performs *almost* as well as the 6D, I would rather spend that extra 400$ on glass. I'm looking for better ISO and low-light performance as my 50D isn't anything to rave about in that department.

Compared to your 50D you're probubly looking at 3-4 stops of improvement, IE if you'll use ISO800 now, 6400-12,800 would be good

I'm expecting the 6D is going to be good at 12,800...

Man, this is the most serious I've been about jumping to full frame, and now there are options, haha.

KenjiS- I agree with 99% of what you are saying, sadly it seems that the gear war is starting up again haha.

Nick