Nikon D600: Are the "benefits" of this camera really worth it over the Canon 6D?

Started Dec 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
Redteg94
Senior MemberPosts: 1,546
Like?
Re: Nikon D600: Are the "benefits" of this camera really worth it over the Canon 6D?
In reply to Scorehound, Dec 29, 2012

Scorehound wrote:

I have been reading many comparisons of these two cameras for some time now, with many Nikon "fanboys" comparing these two cameras by using the D600's strengths as reasons to buy it over the Canon 6D, and Canonites saying that the 6D's Low Light performance and 5D mk III image quality as reasons to buy the Canon.

Now I see the obvious pluses of the Nikon, the 39 point AF being a big one, as well as some body features that I really like. But does the other stuff really matter?

I think the main obvious plus in favour of the Nikon is the low ISO DR and slight resolution advantage.

The AF system is a wash at best, IMO, since the 39 points don`t cover more of the frame than the 6D`s 11 points and the 9 cross-types are grouped directly in the middle. Both have customization of tracking sensitivity and both have MA. The 6D`s center point is more sensitive however.

- Is 5.5 FPS a major advantage over 4.5 FPS considering the Canon 5D mkII had 3.9 FPS and was quite possibly Canon's best "affordable" camera?

It makes a difference if you need it, but it`s a subtle difference for sure

- Is the 39 AF points just a gimmick or do more focus points really matter? Some Canon users say they only use the center point. Does it make a difference from Landscape shooters to Portrait photographers?

See above: more points can be useful and definitely the density of the points could help with tracking, but in this case the AF systems both cover the same area, neither has cross-type points off-center and the Canon has the boon of a better center point. IMO, there isn`t much difference between these in actual use.

- As far as low light / High ISO quality is concerned, does the 50-102,000 range really matter over the limited range of the Nikon D600? Is there a real quality difference in higher ISO usage?

There isn`t much of a difference between the 2 in high-ISO quality. The Nikon has less range, but image quality is similar.

The main reason I am asking is because I stand at a crossroads with my Canon 7D and my lenses, and although I am ready to make the jump to the 6D, I cannot get the Nikon D600 specs out of my head. IS there a real quality boost in the Nikon enough to warrant doing a complete system changeover?

Take note that I have been a Canon shooter since I started and have no idea what Nikon is like.

I`d try them both if I were you. I know both systems and prefer Canon ergos and like Canons lens system better as well, but everyone has different opinions on this matter. If the Nikons superior DR isn`t necessary, I would suggest the 6D, but again, it`s better to try them out and see for yourself

-- hide signature --

-Scott

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow