D600 Vs 6d...Wide-Field Astrophotography

Started Feb 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,512
Like?
Re: D600 Vs 6d...Wide-Field Astrophotography
In reply to joeblow1984, Feb 14, 2013

joeblow1984 wrote:

Wide Field Astrophotography (will not be using a tracking mount so need to keep exposures short via iso\aperture).

In that case you will probably have to take lens capability into account. 14-24 is the sharpest of all ultra wide angle lens at F2.8. it is significantly sharper than canon 16-35 and tokina 16-28 at F2.8 around the corners and edges. I think it is also sharper than most ultra wide primes at F2.8.

I've compared the two extensively but am having trouble understanding which has better high ISO performance (raw) at 3200\6400 and better shadow performance for something like Astrophotography.

at iso 3200, 6D takes a small lead in all aspect compared to D600. Based my observation if you use D600 and RAW, there is no point in using iso 12800 and 25600. it is better to just shoot 6400 and do the push yourself in post. that way the gap against 6d does not widen.

AF is irrelevant for me as this will be mostly for Landscape and because I'm coming from a X100 (so both will feel amazingly fast ). I've made a similar inquiry on the Canon side...sell me!

AF speed is similar on the two but that is not the end of the story, D600 has much better coverage and much better at tracking moving subjects with erratic movement. you may not have had use for it in the past but do not block yourself of this path for the future. When I bought my first DSLR sports and wild life was not in my mind, but situations did come up where I needed a camera that could do them.

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