6D Dynamic range??

I would definitely go with the D600.

I hear you get free oil changes with it too!

lannes - there is a significant rumour canon have a new production process for the 6d sensor with a smaller node size. This will hopefully put them closer to nikon/sony/expeed.

RobDickinson wrote in post #15264965
lannes - there is a significant rumour canon have a new production process for the 6d sensor with a smaller node size. This will hopefully put them closer to nikon/sony/expeed.

Canon knows they fall short when it comes to DR, if this was the case and they had a new sensor that helps with it don't you think it would be something that they would be boasting about to help sell the 6D??...

Problem is they are always boasting about more dynamic range and lower noise.

Its just hard to tell at this point if its smoke and mirrors or a real change.

Many refer to DR but ignor the fact that DR changes as you change the iso
At base iso the nikon is much better not so at hi iso
As stated before if you expose correctly you are 90% done with either system
For me i like the ergo of canon much better and honestly in most cases if the result is bad in most cases it is my fault not the gear

Which is why canon can claim better DR but still get slaughtered by nikon.

I'd prefer 2-3 stops more DR at base ISO over 1/2 a stop at ISO 6400.

RobDickinson wrote in post #15265276
Which is why canon can claim better DR but still get slaughtered by nikon.

I'd prefer 2-3 stops more DR at base ISO over 1/2 a stop at ISO 6400.

Yep, for us landscapers it is base ISO or nothing. For those who say just expose properly just don't know what they are talking about.

Today with my 5d2, I need to use a GND filter for over 50% of my photos. Many times I use a 2-stop filter. It is these times if I has more dynamic range like the Nikon sensor has that I could do away with the GND filter all together. Sure there are scenes containing even a greater exposure range and would require a GND filter to get the entire range, but for sure the number of photos requiring a GND filter would be reduced using a sensor with more dynamic range.

RobDickinson wrote in post #15265276
Which is why canon can claim better DR but still get slaughtered by nikon.

I'd prefer 2-3 stops more DR at base ISO over 1/2 a stop at ISO 6400.

Exactly, how often are you shooting Landscapes at 6400 or higher ISO's??? Never, at least not for me. Well unless I"m doing a shot of the Milky Way or something but thats about it.

This landed on my brother in laws desk this morning. He's not allowed to take it from work yet but assures me its awesome. Hopefully he can sneak it, and some Zeiss glass out in a few days time for me to have a dabble
Sorry bout the quality but it was sent by mobile phone.

i,m sick of looking at pictures i,ve taken and thinking dam if only i had more dynamic range, 


I would say wait for the camera to come out and be reviewed. Download and play with some RAW files before deciding.
The dpreview guys have some D600 RAWs and i played with them and found the DR to kick anything canon has to offer. even the high ISO stuff looked excellent. The dissapointments i found though is the AF spread is very condenced into the centre of the frame. Not so much an issue if youre a landscaper. Also read about persistent dirt gathering on the top left side of the sensor which can be annoying for a landscaper

boerewors wrote in post #15265443
I would say wait for the camera to come out and be reviewed. Download and play with some RAW files before deciding.
The dpreview guys have some D600 RAWs and i played with them and found the DR to kick anything canon has to offer. even the high ISO stuff looked excellent. The dissapointments i found though is the AF spread is very condenced into the centre of the frame. Not so much an issue if youre a landscaper. Also read about persistent dirt gathering on the top left side of the sensor which can be annoying for a landscaper

Ya I read about that dust issue, that seems rather annoying for sure. And as for the auto focus points clumped together it's not a huge issue for me right now, down the road the it might become an issue however.. I'll give those RAW files a shot at dpreview, seems interesting, thanks

omer wrote in post #15265247
...............As stated before if you expose correctly you are 90% done with either system

For me i like the ergo of canon much better and honestly in most cases if the result is bad in most cases it is my fault not the gear

I think you hit the nail on the head omer . Exposure is much of the ball game. And if you shoot RAW you can gain a little bit more from that technique. Add in some exposure layer adjustments in PS and you are closer yet.

A lot of my shots are scenes where I make use of all the DR I can. Including using 2 graduated filters and pushing shadows 2-3 stops.

I often shoot multiple bracketed shots in these situations but it has its limits.

omer wrote in post #15265247
Many refer to DR but ignor the fact that DR changes as you change the iso
At base iso the nikon is much better not so at hi iso
As stated before if you expose correctly you are 90% done with either system
For me i like the ergo of canon much better and honestly in most cases if the result is bad in most cases it is my fault not the gear

It's those subjects where the DR of what one wants to capture exceeds that of the camera's DR that there is no such thing as expose "correctly" - something will be missed. The wider the camera's DR the fewer times this will happen. Some people love to capture situations with wide DR , others rarely encounter them given their style and subject matter.