Still can't get over it 6D autofocus 11 points

maverick75 wrote in post #16034727
You guys should look up how many focus points $40,000-50,000 Medium Format cameras have...

Why? Is there anyone shopping in this price range that is not aware that medium format cameras are generally not well suited to many fast action genres where SLRs excel?

I think most people understand that more money for a camera does not always mean it is better at every possible thing.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16036748
...I think most people understand that more money for a camera does not always mean it is better at every possible thing.

You mean like a 5DIII versus a D800?
Or, maybe a 6D versus a 7D?
Like that?

RTPVid wrote in post #16036968
You mean like a 5DIII versus a D800?

These cameras are very close in price, although they (to my mind) are targeted a bit at different customers.

I don't know.....like that?

I guess I'm still puzzled. The guy I first quoted seemed to be trying to make a point that very, very expensive MF cameras have limited (or none at all) autofocus systems.

My point.....so what? Excellent AF performance is not the calling card of these MF cameras, as fast action shooting is not their intended use.

And so back to the point I was making.....the most expensive camera you can possibly find may not be the absolute best performing camera at all possible things. MF digital cameras basically suck at sports photography despite their hefty price tags.

For that matter, the Leica M9 sucks for sports too even though it costs as much as a 1DX.

I'm not sure why this is confusing to people. AF performance is important to some people shooting some things, and in cameras that are aimed at that market then better AF systems will command a price premium.

There are other customers shooting other genres who don't give a rip about AF performance. If these people have the money and the need for what is on offer, they may be clients for Leica or one of the MF options.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16036992
I'm not sure why this is confusing to people. AF performance is important to some people shooting some things, and in cameras that are aimed at that market then better AF systems will command a price premium.

There are other customers shooting other genres who don't give a rip about AF performance. If these people have the money and the need for what is on offer, they may be clients for Leica or one of the MF options.

Pretty much.

What you need determines what you must have. However, note that having some other things in addition to that won't hurt anything as long as there aren't any tradeoffs to get them that would affect those things you really do need.

Hence, it doesn't hurt to have a good, fast, and flexible autofocus system as long as you didn't have to trade something that matters to you in order to get it.


I, personally, tend to gravitate towards cameras that have more built-in still shot capability (I don't care about video and wouldn't use a DSLR for it even if I did because the ergonomics just aren't right for it) because I don't want the camera to ever be the limiting factor in what I can photograph. This is why I found the 7D to be (with the exception of vertical banding in the very deep shadows and lack of focus-point-linked spot metering, and both of those are relatively minor issues overall) essentially the perfect camera for my purposes.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16036748
Why? Is there anyone shopping in this price range that is not aware that medium format cameras are generally not well suited to many fast action genres where SLRs excel?

I think most people understand that more money for a camera does not always mean it is better at every possible thing.

RTPVid wrote in post #16036968
You mean like a 5DIII versus a D800?
Or, maybe a 6D versus a 7D?
Like that?

Glad someone got the point

It's the reason I'm getting that exact camera, 1 focus point is all I need.

Can't get everything. I think it's a very good camera for the price. The money was in making it full frame. My understanding is that it's about equal to the 5d mkII, with some extra features.

jonnydonut wrote in post #16040566
Can't get everything. I think it's a very good camera for the price. The money was in making it full frame. My understanding is that it's about equal to the 5d mkII, with some extra features.

People aren't thinking with rationale whatsoever. Remember the cost of the 5Dc when it was released? It was $3K IIRC.

jonnydonut wrote in post #16040566
Can't get everything. I think it's a very good camera for the price. The money was in making it full frame. My understanding is that it's about equal to the 5d mkII, with some extra features.

Much better than the 5D Mark II, the high ISO performance is much improved and the AF system is more sensitive. In fact in high ISO noise and shadow raising, the 6D is slightly better than the 5D Mark III.