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

andrikos wrote in post #15012625
Kenji, I think you might not be the target audience for the 6D.
Like you said, I think it'll be great out in the wild (at least as good as the D600) but the 5D III would be the product for you (and me).
I'm saving up for that...

The 5DIII is basically a digital EOS 3, The camera I've wanted for ages..thats why it feels like "settling" to buy a 6D

jdizzle wrote in post #15013053
This image is just for experimental purposes only and to me this is testing the DR of the D800 EXMOR sensor. Editing was done in LR4 and the usual suspects to up the exposure in the shadows. This is an extreme example but, I always ETTR as much as possible.

Nah, I get the DR thing, That is amazing you can do that kind of thing with the D800 and still have something -useful- afterwards and i can perfectly understand why some people want that, Also DxOMark tested the D600 and its the 2nd best DSLR out there after the D800/D800E.. You'll be happy with it because you do a LOT of landscape shots and those cameras -are- the best for that right now... Eventually Canon will catch up most likely

For you, and some others you simply have the option to play both fields easily (by either having the money to own both systems or by virtue of less lenses or lenses that trade better against a Nikon system)

For me, its the system, I can get quite a few lenses in Nikon that are equal to what I have now sure, But I cant match my 70-200 and I'm not happy with the alternates, the 70-300 is a neat idea but I cant help but feel im just going to be dissatisfied with it after a while, my only option is a 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikon one at least will put a huge dent in my budget and mean sacrificing another lens... Not to mention eventually I wanna throw a telephoto into the mix and thats an area Nikon, at the moment at least, lacks much option in (Crap 80-400, No-VR 300 f/4 prime..) That said, I'd love the R1 flash system

The only thing I hate and get very mad at in regards to sensor performance(And i do believe its a Dynamic Range issue) is the tendency for red to go VERY weird on the 7D, Blowing the red channel is so absurdly easy to do losing all the detail on a red subject, given i shoot flowers thats kind of an issue.... I -do- know Nikon handles this better (From playing with the D3100 all those times) I just work around it.. Besides the 5DIII could fix the red issue anyways

arj wrote in post #15013127
Interesting discussion. I think there are a few points to it.

First of all - Canon has a major advantage above Nikon and Sony and any other SLR manufacturer and that is the lens lineup. I mean, endless choices, superb IQ etc etc.

See post above, Thats a huge reason I stick to Canon, That said, Sony has some really interesting options in their lineup (The 70-400 is actually supposedly unmatched, the 135mm f/1.8 is drool-worthy...)

I dunno if Canon sensor tech is "bad" it was king of the hill for a long while after all, But notice that Canon hasnt come out with a real "Next gen" sensor, its clinging to its old sensors still, Canon is fighting todays battle with old tech, the Sony sensors killing Canon right now are mostly brand new ones...

I dunno, the EOS M is interesting, Its pretty small..but i do agree it might be a bit too late here, the NEX system is growing and m4/3 has an unmatched lens selection

Roger said it a few months ago and i agreed with him, I've felt it for a long time as well, Sony is the new Kodak, Sony is the new 800lbs gorilla in the imaging space... and to be honest, I dont think they really care about selling the sensors to Canon its that Canon is just too proud/misguided to ask, or Canon has something up its sleeve... I think the recent moves by Sony are just the first time others are seeing what me and others were already perceiving, Sony isnt a joke, Sony isnt "third-place" and the Sony system itself has the potential to dominate everyone

I like Sony, Always have, Almost bought an a700 actually...was happy I didnt when the 7D came out though

match14 wrote in post #15013613
Apologies if this has been posted already.

http://www.dxomark.com …-for-sensor-image-quality

My first thoughts were, 'it did not take them long to test this camera'.

Indeed... This is what I was talking about, Nikon had D600s in peoples hands for weeks obviously, DPReview was playing with it enough to have tons of samples up already and DxOMark conveniently has tests up when the cameras are in stores, This is how things in the modern electronics world work and Canon needs to realize that DSLRs are electronics, Not just cameras...

Look at smartphones, Engadget already has an iPhone 5 review up, its not shipping yet, Galaxy SIII, One X, and Galaxy Nexus reviews were up only a few days after announcement before you could even buy one...

jthomps123 wrote in post #15013182
Its time Canon users cleansed their souls, admit, and move on - or move to Nikon. Nikon is drinking Canons milkshake right now, in almost every way, and its not even debatable. The roles were once reversed (and Nikonians were doing the same thing your are now - knowingly wrong), and probably in a decade the role might reverse back, but insignificant moral victories here and there cant change the fact that Nikon is class of the camera industry right now - and they're cheaper to boot.

Something else to mention, I'm a former Nikonian, I started with a Nikon and came to Canon because, at the time, Canon was kicking their arse, This was also around the time I decided to get a lot more serious and invest in some serious gear, at the time Canon had IS in more lenses, Canon had USM drives in more lenses, Canon had a series of f/4 pro lenses, and Canon had the 100-400, 300 f/4L IS, 400 f/5.6L and 70-200 f/4L

Right now Nikon bodies are better, But on the lenses, I'm not so sure, They have some great new glass yes, and some of it is better than the equivalent Canon, But they still lack a lot of glass as I've said above, for me switching isnt just getting the equivalent piece of Nikon glass, because at least one of my lenses has no Nikon equal so its more like "How do i piece mail together a few Nikon lenses to do what Im doing with this one lens"

The problem is most specifically my 70-200 f/4L IS, Nikon has 70-200s, but they're f/2.8s, Thus bigger and heavier, not to mention more expensive which is bad when one is trying to switch over to a new system and get as many lenses as possible, Many folks threw up the 70-300 VR as an alternative, Alright, I concede thats pretty useful, I do use my 70-200 with a TC after all, Except I can take the TC off and still have an f/4 70-200 in most situations to get back the extra speed

Of course I suppose the counter to THAT is that im shooting APS-C and that the 70-300 would be roughly equal on a D600 to what I'm using a 70-200 for right now... and if i want shallow depth of field i just use my 105 VR instead, Fair enough


....Ok so maybe i just defeated my arguements against it... but still not sure its something i want to do

match14 wrote in post #15013613
Apologies if this has been posted already.

http://www.dxomark.com …-for-sensor-image-quality

My first thoughts were, 'it did not take them long to test this camera'.

Ouch, thats what I was speaking about. If those are true, then the A99 will beat the 5D mk III despite the translucent mirror. Those differences are huge!

So the D7000 is not as good as the 60D? Is that why the D7000 still sell like hotcakes and you can buy the 60D for less than a T4i? Look at what you get for you money people, don't fault Nikon because they're willing to give you more for you money, even when it can come at a cost of their higher end models. This is the reverse with Canon, look at the 6D, 97% viewfinder, 1 sd slot, weaker af than the 7D, no built in flash, no headphone jack, 3in lcd vs 3.2, I call this CUTTING CORNERS. The D600 give you ALL of that for the exact same price even though I suspect prices will go down big time just like the case of the 60D vs D7000.

Having said all of that, a camera body is just a small part of your camera system. Canon is great because they have an entire line of F4 L lenses that Nikon doesn't have. I would not switch system at all just because one camera body might be better than another, bodies will get replace every 3-4 years. It's pointless bringing in lenses and stuff when compairing 2 camera bodies, look at the features, look at the cost, and make a comparision that way. It's ok to admit that another camera body seems to be better and give you more bang for you buck, no one forcing your to change system and the camera don't take pictures, people do. You will not be a better photographer if you change from one system to another, period.

Whoa whoa whoa.. I did NOT say the D7000 was -worse- than the 60D, I said that the 60D was NOT as bad of a camera as people made it out to be, and the the AF was -faster- than the D7000 and didnt seem to be any less accurate

I ALSO said that the D7000 was NOT as good as the 7D, Because a lot of people at the time DID compare the two cameras

As for your criticisms on the 6D

-On the rear screen, keep in mind the Canon 6D has a 3.0" 1040k screen, the Nikon screen is bigger, but lower resolution at only 921k, Id say at best this is equal, but certainly not "cutting corners"

-No Built-in flash, This is a valid criticism, as many people going to this might want a built in flash to at the very least trigger an external flash, Canon should have compensated by adding in the radio for their new 600RTs in body, But they didnt

-Dual card slots, its a wash, I'm really not sure how many people who buy these cameras really are going to use them...

-97% viewfinder, I see this as Canon trying to keep size/weight down, Which if I get the 6D's intended market, is a good thing, its a travel cam, and its lighter and a little smaller than the D600, Could also be that they just reused the viewfinder from the 5D II to keep costs down...

-AF system, Not fair to say anything about it as we havnt used it, The few snippets i've heard have been positive about it however, using words like "fast" "accurate" and "true to the marketing" So who says its "worse" than the 7D? it hasnt been tested yet, I will say its likely not going to be as good for action as the AF in the 7D or 5DIII but THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS CAMERA IS FOR... For low light and subjects that dont move much for all we know the 6D could be better

Also, developing a new AF module and sensor is expensive, Yet Canon did both for this model, The 6D is entirely made of Magnesium except for the top plate(The 60D is entirely polycarb), These are not cut corners, if Canon truly was corner cutting the body would be made entirely of plastic like the 60D, they'd use the AF module from the 5DII as its already been developed and long since paid for, thus it would cost them little to nothing to put in the body, They also wouldnt put GPS and Wi-Fi in the body, sure its cheap but we're cutting corners here...oh dont forget that screen, That screen probubly costs a bit more too, just stick an old one in there instead....

Actually maybe that woulda made people happy, Canon could have probubly cut the price a good $500 or so by doing all of that....

Technically I could accuse Nikon of cutting more corners, They took the entire back panel from a D7000, the body itself is almost exactly like the D7000, as in its mostly plastic with a few bits of magnesium here or there, they reused the AF module from the D7000, and the rear screen, and the sensor is from the D3X, The D600 is a D7000 with a full frame sensor stuck into it for an extra $1000... is a Full Frame sensor really adding $1000 of costs considering that everything else is off the Nikon parts shelf? it probubly cost Nikon almost nothing to "make" a D600 beyond the cost of the parts themselves, No R&D really...

Not being nasty to the D600 just pointing that out there, Both cameras have "cut corners" But then again, They're entry level, They're not supposed to be the best of the range

My 2 cents:

Sony is fighting to survive. Their electronics division as a whole has taken a beating over the past several years. They've gone from being the premiere name in entertainment, to now dropping far below Samsung and others. They have no choice but to innovate if they want to survive. I believe it's because of this that we've seen so many new and unique products coming out of Sony.

Canon might still be using the 5DII sensor, tweaked and adjusted for the 5D3 and 6D. Same goes for APS-C. Hopefully they have something in the pipeline for both FF and APS-C. I can't imagine them launching a new FF sesnor after just releasing 2 FF cameras though.

KenjiS, I don't think many of us at all are interested in the 6D, not if the 5D3 continues to show up on fire sales for under $2800, and the 6D priced at $2100. I can't imagine who would pick the 6D at that point.

KenjiS wrote in post #15015376
Technically I could accuse Nikon of cutting more corners, They took the entire back panel from a D7000, the body itself is almost exactly like the D7000, as in its mostly plastic with a few bits of magnesium here or there, they reused the AF module from the D7000, and the rear screen, and the sensor is from the D3X, The D600 is a D7000 with a full frame sensor stuck into it for an extra $1000... is a Full Frame sensor really adding $1000 of costs considering that everything else is off the Nikon parts shelf? it probubly cost Nikon almost nothing to "make" a D600 beyond the cost of the parts themselves, No R&D really...

Not being nasty to the D600 just pointing that out there, Both cameras have "cut corners" But then again, They're entry level, They're not supposed to be the best of the range

wow you're are being misinformed to the 10th degree here, the only similarity between the d7000 and the D600 body is that they both have magnesium upper and bottom plate, not a few bits, the entire bottom and top. The rear screen is similar to their flagship D4/D800, nothing like the D7000 or D3x. The sensor is a BRAND NEW sensor, 100% not from the D3x, just look at the Dxo score for the D600 vs D3x, night and day, unlike the 5Dii/5Diii which have very similar sensor score on Dxo. The D600 is in everyway a equal or BETTER camera than the D7000. A clear cut upgrade path to FF. Same cannot be said bout the 6D, if I'm shooting video, I don't know if I want to give up the swivel screen of the 60D or the headphone input and digital zoom function of the T4i. As a sport shooter I definitely wouldn't give up the fps and AF of the 7D. As a nature/landscape shooter you might want a better body in the 5Dii or even better, save up for the 5DIII which like someone had pointed out, now availablle for $2800ish?

Yeah, thus the "mostly plastic" the 6D is all mag except the top plate (Which is only so the Wi-Fi/GPS can work correctly) You make other good points, So yeah maybe my info is a bit off, But still, Both cameras on paper look just about as "crippled" as the other in the respective lineups... We cant comment on the image quality on the 6D till more samples come out...

And I'm not going to lie, Despite thinking the 6D isnt that bad of a camera, yes I looked at the D600, the reason was more because of ergonomics than performance or anything however, the 6D im unsure on, the D600 looks like it would fit in my hand nicer and control easier with my hands... thats all

I honestly haven't heard this at all from D800 owners on forums. Maybe some of the reviewers were afraid of the resolving power of the lenses or maybe they even showed that the Nikon trinity wouldn't out-resolve the sensor on paper, but they work beautifully irl. (note that I haven't used a D800 either, this is all from what I've read online.) People even say that the D800 makes cheap DX lenses look good when it's used in crop mode.

Also

You haven't used a D600 so what are you even talking about? I don't think anybody is expecting (or purporting) performance 100% on par with the 5D3 for 60% of the money. But I think a decent, not amazing, AF system is a very fair tradeoff for $1400. Especially since we can bank on the camera having excellent IQ, a nice size/weight and all. It's an extremely well-rounded camera for $2100. It's not a pro camera and it's not pretending to be.

Also I think Canon cameras usually have quicker AF acquisition than Nikons, but they're not often more accurate/better at tracking, which is what matters for moving subjects. The D600's AF system remains to be seen anyway--it's not exactly the same system as the D7000's.

foxesamu wrote in post #15019522
You haven't used a D600 so what are you even talking about? I don't think anybody is expecting (or purporting) performance 100% on par with the 5D3 for 60% of the money. But I think a decent, not amazing, AF system is a very fair tradeoff for $1400. Especially since we can bank on the camera having excellent IQ, a nice size/weight and all. It's an extremely well-rounded camera for $2100. It's not a pro camera and it's not pretending to be.

There were people in the 6D and D600 threads saying, verbatim, the D600 is a 5DIII for $1400 off and talking it up as if it was its equal... People did the same with the D7000 and 7D... Just cause something looks equal on paper doesnt mean it is

True..ish.. I think this comes down to which bodies you're comparing, a D7000 is better at -tracking- than a 60D most likely, But a 7D will beat the D7000 (...provided you get the 7D all setup correctly...)

jdizzle wrote in post #15013053
This image is just for experimental purposes only and to me this is testing the DR of the D800 EXMOR sensor. Editing was done in LR4 and the usual suspects to up the exposure in the shadows. This is an extreme example but, I always ETTR as much as possible.

Image edited in LR4 pulling shadows.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

That's pretty darn good Julian.

@ Kenji - very interesting article and while I'm at it let me add my 2 cents.

Re: lens resolution.

Here are the test data provided by lensrental.com using the D800.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …12/03/d800-lens-selection

If you look at the data, most lenses provide optimum resolution between f4 to f5.6. They all scored similar with Zeiss lenses. So does that mean that Zeiss lenses aren't up to the challenge? I didn't think so.

The other thing that you might have missed is that the Nikon DX lenses are still very much useable with both DX and FX cameras unlike Canon.

So, the point of lenses is subjective. Believe me that my current lenses can provide the resolution that I wanted to see. Even old lenses performs better because of the higher DR and resolution of the D800.

I agree that most people bash cameras even before they are sold. It is typical nowadays. Now that the D600 is released, most of the shooters are warming up to it.

^^I think Zeiss glass can take advantage of the D800/E sensor. Kenji, has seen my images with ZE glass but,he didn't mention in his OP. I'm definitely confident the D600 can do the same.

gqtuazon wrote in post #15022369
If you look at the data, most lenses provide optimum resolution between f4 to f5.6. They all scored similar with Zeiss lenses. So does that mean that Zeiss lenses aren't up to the challenge? I didn't think so.

Zeiss seems to think so, did you see their new line of lenses made pretty much especially for the D800? Since no other cams rival its resolution... the new 50mm f/1.4 Distagon is one of them (or was it a 55.. i forgot) But, yes as Julian said, the Zeiss glass on the D800 looks great

http://photorumors.com …-full-frame-dslr-cameras/

And funny enough that article was what gave me the idea that Canon is working on lenses, I saw LensRental's testing on the 24-70 f/2.8L II and I was like "Wow, those numbers on the MTF chart arent that far off from whats on the Nikon D800.. if these were tested in front of a higher res sensor.. I ponder how the MTF would read"

Sure the lenses do their best at f/4-5.6.. Most lenses will, but wouldnt it be awesome to get that kinda sharpness wide open and that?

KenjiS wrote in post #15025821
Sure the lenses do their best at f/4-5.6.. Most lenses will, but wouldn't it be awesome to get that kinda sharpness wide open and that?

That's more dependent on the photographer and how much subject isolation he/she wants.

jdizzle wrote in post #15022668
^^I think Zeiss glass can take advantage of the D800/E sensor. Kenji, has seen my images with ZE glass but,he didn't mention in his OP. I'm definitely confident the D600 can do the same.

I don't think that there is a camera where the Zeiss lenses don't shine. IF they don't, it is likely the operator's error.

@24mp, I think the Zeiss and the D600 can easily handle the resolution easily. From what I have heard, the D600 is very much easy to hand-hold.