Nikon D600 vs. Canon 6D in Low Light?

Many points here are true but many ara biased and many purely theoretical and "fanboyish". OK, look, I´m in a Nikon camp now because when I was buying my latest stuff, Nikon simply offered more and better things for the money (D700´s AF was way better than 5D´s, Niko had new 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 lenses which Canon had no aswer to). But I´m totally brand-unbiased - I have been shooting with both systems for years and if buying today, I would get Canon, no problem with that, they are just stupid tools for me OMG.

So look... Here are some FACTS (not fanboy´s scream or dream) to consider:

1) Nikon´s sensors are better today. Yes, not just the charming D800´s resolution but also the dynamic range - e.g. when applying a local "darkening/lightnening" in post-process you can do much more without being punished by colored noise/noise like from Canon´s file... Depends how extensively you are going to "juice" the RAW file in the post-processing - if you are, Nikon sensor is visibly better.

2) Nikon´s JPEG engine sucks. That was true in the past and unfortunaley is still true today. Well, the truth also is NIkon´s default setting is really "default" (practically no adjusments) while Canon is know for applying heavy contrast and sharpening alghorithms into their JPGs but anyway - Canon´s JPG simply do look better and their JPG engine is really better.

3) Noise.... Again, for JPG, Canon is the king. This again relates to their fabulous JPG engine. Yes, looking at high-ISO JPGs, Canon´s may seem about 2 stops better but also note that it is at the expense of applying strong denoise alghoritms (and smudging all the fine details!). But in RAW, the results among 5DmkIII, D600 and D800 are about the same at the same picture size, really. Because of this I could easily pick any of those cams as a greal low light cam. Purely for low-light work, personally I would pick Canon 5D mkIII because it´s the best balanced cam on the market today, because its AF can really work in low light and in hand it feels somewhat fastest overall.

4) NIkon´s quality control went down with D600/D800 introduction. That is true and that is shame! OK, yes, many folks have "no problem" but there IS a SIGNIFICANT number of those who have.... and Nikon´s infamous attitude is "being quiet". On this account, personally I would not recommend you to buy Nikon today.

5) Every lens has sample variations. Even 70-200 lenses, yes, I have tested that and they do. Always perform a basic lens test to make sure you don´t have a decentered one like dpreview had with their Canon 70-200/2.8 II lens test for instance (ok fanboys, this is just an example, Nikon has those too).

6) The hype about the new Canon 24-70/2.8II is overrated. Yes, it is much better lens than its predecessor and excellent lens overall. But it is only very slightly better than Nikon´s 24-70, I would say sometimes (some copies) even not this. And Yes, I have compared them (2 copies). Also, look at the www.photozone.de lens test, they are - unlike many other sites - really independent, unbiased, reliable and their results have been corresponding to my experience for years. Also, C24-70II is heavily overpriced for what it can do - well, look at the test at photozone.de yourself. Nikon´s 24-70 is better value.

7) Nikon´s service is nightmare. Yes. And so is their attitude towards repairs - longest waiting period and the most expensive in the end. It is even worse today than it used to be and again, another strong reason (at least for me) not to buy Nikon today. Roger Cicala on his blog put it precisely: "....If I buy Nikon right now, I’m in effect saying it’s fine that you stopped selling parts, made most of the independent shops stop working on Nikon, upped your repair prices, slowed your repair service, and lowered quality control. You were right to do so, because here’s my money." Totally agree. You cannot change their attitude by complaining, it´s been proven uselsess. But you can with your money!

8) Judging overall qualities, I don´t think you would get a really better value with 6D + 24-70II from Canon.... D600 + 24-70/2.8 is still better value IMHO (also the price considered). But for the sake of point 7) and 4) yes, I would do the switch today.

Personally I strongly recommend you to take the plunge and invest in 5DmkIII + 24-70/2.8II lens. Unless a reagular, heavy RAW-post process is extremely important to you, you will get a totally universal, greatly balanced combo of minimum compromise and with working quality control from the factory (except the lens, even of this price class - always check/test it as I wrote). I know the price of the mkIII combo is much more but hey - after many, many years of using a real quality, the initial "terrible" investment will have become ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE (and actually saves you the money because you won´t be tempted to switch again and to sell what you have with terrible losses), believe me - I paid and lost a lot to learn this lesson.

Good luck.