6D and D600: The real issue with dynamic range?

Mornnb wrote in post #15991229
Not really because on a wide angle you can shoot fine without IS at 1/30 or possibly even 1/20. The only reason you want IS on a wide angle is video, to help stabilise handheld video. And I assume this is the reason Canon introduced these lenses.

When shooting a stationary subject at 1/30 or 1/20 in the evening/at night you're using a rather high ISO value. Thanks to IS you could get away with a lower ISO value which means less noise. And that is always a good thing.

Mornnb wrote in post #15991229
The point remains, with Nikon's dynamic range and wide angles, Nikon is really the obvious choice for landscape shooters.

True, but there are also many great landscape pictures taken with Canon cameras, so it doesn't mean people should never use Canon cameras for landscapes. It just takes more effort/workarounds because of the limited amount of DR at low ISO.

jdizzle wrote in post #15991243
Ergonomics is a big deal for some. I do like Canon ergonomics but, that can only go so far. I've grown accustomed to Nikon's layout that it has become second nature. I can still pick up a Canon and figure out the basic controls (M mode, ISO, SS, etc.).

Well, with ergonomics I don't mean the layout of the buttons or the menu. I could also get used to that. I really mean the shape of the camera. My hands don't like it.

jocau wrote in post #15991283
When shooting a stationary subject at 1/30 or 1/20 in the evening/at night you're using a rather high ISO value. Thanks to IS you could get away with a lower ISO value which means less noise. And that is always a good thing.



True, but there are also many great landscape pictures taken with Canon cameras, so it doesn't mean people should never use Canon cameras for landscapes. It just takes more effort/workarounds because of the limited amount of DR at low ISO.

Well, with ergonomics I don't mean the layout of the buttons or the menu. I could also get used to that. I really mean the shape of the camera. My hands don't like it.

I understand that. It too felt weird holding a Nikon camera at first but, I'm used to it now. When I hold my D4 bodies everything feels comfortable. Holding my D800/E took some getting used to as well. The D600 is similar in ergos as the D800/E but, smaller and lighter. It's nice not having to carry a bulky camera sometimes. When I had the Leica M9 it was my first time trying out a RF and loved it. The feel is certainly different which also takes getting used to but, I'm looking forward to getting the new M and using that as my walk around camera.

Edit: If you love your Canon cameras then stick with it. I certainly couldn't wait for Canon any longer. I recently moved up to a Phase One IQ260 and have all the DR I'll ever need.

elitejp wrote in post #15990068
so like others have said there are workarounds for increasing dynamic range for a canon dslr however i would just prefer to skip the workarounds and start off with a cam that has better dynamic range to begin with. Not to mention any workrounds you can use for the canon you could also use for the nikon. When it comes to dynamic range Nikon is definitely ahead of Canon.

And when it comes to high ISO shooting, the 6D is definitely ahead of some of the most expensive Nikon cameras. So all depends on what you want from a sensor.
---------

That said, there are a few things with can do, including: Spending our time on this forum arguing about camera features, dynamic range, pixels, and the like, or spend time taking pictures with whichever camera we have.

It seems that some of us get stuck on wishes. The whole thing amounts to this: one can buy the most sophisticated camera out there and still take crappy photos, while another person can buy whatever camera he or she can afford and still take the most amazing photos. If one is a lousy photographer, the equipment one uses, regardless of brands or features, is not going to make a difference.

Rafromak wrote in post #15992139
And when it comes to high ISO shooting, the 6D is definitely ahead of some of the most expensive Nikon cameras. So all depends on what you want from a sensor.

The only complaint I have with the 6D is the AF. It locks like a turtle. I know this bcoz' I borrowed one from CPS. It sorta reminds me of the 5Dc/5D II.

jdizzle wrote in post #15992196
The only complaint I have with the 6D is the AF. It locks like a turtle. I know this bcoz' I borrowed one from CPS. It sorta reminds me of the 5Dc/5D II.

Yes, it does not have the best AF for AI-Servo tracking. Canon could at least have incorporated an AF system closer to the one on the 7D. But I imagine that Canon will produce an improved 6D to keep pace with the Nikon D600.

Rafromak wrote in post #15992271
Yes, it does not have the best AF for AI-Servo tracking. Canon could at least have incorporated an AF system closer to the one on the 7D. But I imagine that Canon will produce an improved 6D to keep pace with the Nikon D600.

I can tell you that the 6D is one of the best center points I've ever used.

1xSHOT wrote in post #15992350
imho: I look at it as more of an updated sensor replacement for the 5Dc/5D II.

- I like the 6D for what it is: Affordable FF, Capable High ISO, Sensitive Center AF Cross Point, Compact, Lightweight = Travel/Everyday.
- Mount a 40mm STM & To me its a great everyday all around or traveling light FF DSLR.

- I have never felt limited with the AF system of the 30D, 50D, 5Dc, 5D MKII for 90%+ what I need. BBF & Recompose

- Before the 5D MKIII, 6D, D600, D800 = We had the 1Ds MK-series & 5D MKII. The 5D MKII was "IT", last time I checked people are still creating some incredible photos from both.

- Had a 7D, Loved the options, the AF, FPS . . . but, kinda treated it like any other DSLR. If I got into sports, dance, motorsports, etc. photography I'd consider something with a little more power in the AF department again.

- I considered the D600, but felt the 6D was a better fit for me. Watched/Read almost every review on Youtube/forums, handled both, compared specs, etc. Have always been blown away from well executed images from both Canon & Nikon crop & FF so imho, still takes a creative eye to get it done. Pictures to me never screamed Nikon or Canon, especially after PP. Gear can only get you so far.

Its always fun to compare & have a brand loyalty: Chevy vs Ford, Nikon vs Canon, this vs that, etc vs etc.

Each of these FF DSLR cost appox. 2K, just make the most of what you can with whatever you choose.

Different tools for different jobs . . . . To each their own

. . . . sorry, caffeine kicking in

I never was a fan of focus recomposing unless I'm using a Leica M. If I have AF at my disposal, I'm gonna use it.

Here's some D600 ISO samples I posted a while back. Shot with the 85 1.4 G at f2.

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=15081274&pos​tcount=421

jdizzle wrote in post #15992415
I never was a fan of focus recomposing unless I'm using a Leica M. If I have AF at my disposal, I'm gonna use it.

Agree, if you can afford it, need it & have it = use it.
But, recomposing never stopped from making great images.

To each their own

i wonder how hard it would be to distinguish between these cameras if people posted photos from each and did not say which camera took the photos,,,,,,,,, it would be interesting to see if people really could tell the difference. i realize if pushed to extreme limits for each camera it "might" make it easier to tell which camera took a specific photo but, in capable hands isn't it kind of who took it, how they took it, etc, etc? or, i could be completely wrong! not a first, for sure,

jdizzle wrote in post #15992436
Here's some D600 ISO samples I posted a while back. Shot with the 85 1.4 G at f2.

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=15081274&pos​tcount=421

excellent as usual,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Kyles wrote in post #15992454
i wonder how hard it would be to distinguish between these cameras if people posted photos from each and did not say which camera took the photos,,,,,,,,, it would be interesting to see if people really could tell the difference. i realize if pushed to extreme limits for each camera it "might" make it easier to tell which camera took a specific photo but, in capable hands isn't it kind of who took it, how they took it, etc, etc? or, i could be completely wrong! not a first, for sure,

Do you go out of your way to shoot scenes your camera can't capture? Do you use techniques like HDR and filters to accommodate DR issues? I'd imagine you're processing likely takes into account what your camera can and can't do as well. All of these things lead to making your statement moot. If your camera can't capture it a particular way, you shoot a different way. That doesn't mean that the increases ability is useless or moot.

Kyles wrote in post #15992458
excellent as usual,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Thanks. Wanna see some magic dynamic range?

Before:

Scatterbrained wrote in post #15992476
Do you go out of your way to shoot scenes your camera can't capture? Do you use techniques like HDR and filters to accommodate DR issues? I'd imagine you're processing likely takes into account what your camera can and can't do as well. All of these things lead to making your statement moot. If your camera can't capture it a particular way, you shoot a different way. That doesn't mean that the increases ability is useless or moot.

so does one camera out preform the other? yes. one has better auto focus, one has better DR,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, etc, do we do post processing? yes. does that make a difference? yes. so now where are we? the d600 has better DR,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, image quality? it appears the 6d does better at higher iso's? so the verdict is,,,,,,,,,,, ? how important is the DR difference, and to whom is it important and why? if it is important, then the d600 is your choice, correct? i am merely asking!

i still say, the images you make are what count the most in photography, if your gear prohibits the images you seek to produce,,,,,,,,,,, well then, thats important!

Kyles wrote in post #15992664
so does one camera out preform the other? yes. one has better auto focus, one has better DR,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, etc, do we do post processing? yes. does that make a difference? yes. so now where are we? the d600 has better DR,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, image quality? it appears the 6d does better at higher iso's? so the verdict is,,,,,,,,,,, ? how important is the DR difference, and to whom is it important and why? if it is important, then the d600 is your choice, correct? i am merely asking!

i still say, the images you make are what count the most in photography, if your gear prohibits the images you seek to produce,,,,,,,,,,, well then, thats important!

I agree. For my usage, the Nikon cameras imo is best all around performer when it comes to sensor performance. I have DR and high ISO performance all-in-one. Is that a bad thing? A lot of people here on this forum brag about how great Canon's high ISO performance when I can equally get the same results with my Nikon gear. If I pull out the DXO sensor measurments people walk away.