22 hours ago
 |
SiliconVoid
Lives in
AK, United States
Joined on
Mar 9, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
AP7: Canon 6D compares well with Nikon D3200, both has 11-point AF system and both are entry level camera.
Nikon D3200 is lighter, and may have better low light and DR performance (even though it has APS-C sensor). D3200 also has built in flash and flash sync 1t 1/200 sec (vs no flash and 1/180 sec for Canon).
Canon 6D has no other advantage than DOF as a travel camera.
The cross-points of an AF system are for tracking, they are not for focusing on subjects away from the center of the frame. You want something on the right, left, top, bottom of the frame to be in focus instead of the center - move the AF point over there and press the shutter!
wetsleet: It seems a heavy price to pay for what, a smidge of shallower DOF, on the occasions when it is even wanted. For that you pay extra for the camera, you pay in spades for the lenses, and it's too darn heavy to want to carry all day.
So at this budget I just don't get it. You're trying to save a few hundred on a body which will cost you thousands extra in lenses.
Maybe if they would just bring out a really fast portrait lens for APS-C to satisfy that all important shallow DOF for when it actually counts. Actually a standard 50mm f1.8 probably fits the bill, almost.
It makes me wonder, how did the term "full frame" ever gain acceptance, with its self-appointed insinuation that there is something innately correct or complete about the format coupled with the implication that smaller formats are a sub-standard compromise.
The D800 begins to suffer from diffraction at around f/8 yes.. Check Nikon's information..
They posted a great users guide on how to maximize the resolution capabilities of the D800, where in the same guide they reference the noticeable diffraction threshold of its high mp sensor.
Jahled: Nice camera Canon, let down only by it's AF system, a factor that I hated about the 5D2, and it's SD card slot. Other than that, it looks lovely. I might have considered getting one as a back up to my 1DX's, but these factors have killed it dead in the water, for me personally.
Technically you do not even need autofocus (believe it or not) but as it is an autofocus capable camera it really only needs to do one thing - autofocus on the subject behind the AF point, even if there is only one point available.
It is obvious that Canon has targeted this camera towards the enthusiast, a tier that is interested in learning about photography and doing so on a traditional format. They are not marketing this to the sector who is looking for the latest camera to do everything for them.
BTW, this is NOT the same AF system as the 9-point single cross-type 5DmkII. Even if it was though, the general AF issues with the 5DmkII had to do with accurate focus in lower light, NOT because it only had 9 AF points... I personally cannot attribute a single missed shot to the AF system in my 5DmkII, and that is over years of shooting.
Peter CS: Way too little, too late! Would have bought the 5dMarkIII at up to $3200. Now instead the D800! Fortunately, have both Nikon and Canon glass. Too bad that Canon has missed the boat for the second time this year...
...all I read is you want more mp.
sandy b: Look to the right at the Top cameras chart.
What is your point??
By your assertion (clicks equal superiority) then the 5DmkIII was a total success because months after the D800 and 5DmkIII were announced the D800 dropped off that chart completely - while the mkIII was still listed up to the recent announcements (DPR only lists the top ten).
VivaLasVegas: As a long time Nikon user, this is a traumatic day for me. The newly released D600 can ONLY focus -1EV in low light, that is a full TWO stop behind 6D, WTF. To add salt into injury, they've also regurgitated the flawed D7000 AF into the new D600.
As for (Vegas).. Dude, if you are the type of 'photographer' that looks to jump ship every time a new body comes along perhaps you need to explore another hobby - photography is obviously not what you should be spending your time or money in.
I can guarantee you that either the 6D or D600 is exponentially more capable than your ability to use them...
VivaLasVegas: As a long time Nikon user, this is a traumatic day for me. The newly released D600 can ONLY focus -1EV in low light, that is a full TWO stop behind 6D, WTF. To add salt into injury, they've also regurgitated the flawed D7000 AF into the new D600.
Always makes me chuckle every time someone rebuts with 'I haven't seen the problem, obviously doesn't exist'.... Just like with the D800..
It doesn't mater whether 'you' experienced any issues, if the manufacturer acknowledges an 'issue' then it was an issue.
The D7000 had issues with hot pixels and AF, the D800 had issues with AF points.. You can live in denial all you want, you can also go the manufacturers website and see what they did to address the issues..
marike6: I can't imagine why Canon would release a FF DSLR and cut corners on the viewfinder. Doesn't the 7D have a 100% viewfinder? I know the D600 has one, as does the D7000. Heck even the Pentax K-30 has a 100% Pentaprism viewfinder.
I can assure you that Canon doesn't care, they know it doesn't make any functional difference..
However as many review sites, and the pubic relying on those sites to tell them what is good/bad, what better way to have the camera classified at one end or the other. As this is an entry-level camera (albeit in the FF realm) that will help the masses better define it at the lower end, possibly causing them to want to upgrade at some point to the mkIII or whatever comes around later...
ZEROrhythm: This is the 5dII the 2nd. Everyone is just going to use center point focusing like the MK2. Not a bad price for the retail price. MK2 came out around $2,800, hopefully this will drop down around 1,700. I can see it selling once canon realized no one will pay $2,100 for something like this when they can still get a Mk2 for a cheaper price.
Oh yeah.. I hate when I can't 'automate' my creativity.... O.o
Tony Hall: I think most of us take photos of people (or cats, lol). How about some skin tones?
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/img/sample01/img_02_l.jpg
http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/img/sample01/img_03_l.jpg
(The fisherman by the way would have been an outstanding image had he been looking out to the ocean instead of at the camera, lol)
Amazing how many people do not understand what higher ISO sensitivities are 'really' for...
Sure, there are situations where you want/need to capture an image in low lighting such as this, and this is very acceptable noise performance (compare the same shot with the D800 then view at 1:1 pixel, you won't see better performance). However it is not the primary purpose of higher ISO...
The real reason for higher sensitivities is to maintain shutter speed for your subject. Situations where you could very well capture a properly exposed image at 1/60s at ISO100 but because of movement you need to bump the shutter up to subject freezing speeds. In those situations you will not have the visible low detail artifacts and noise, even at 1:1 pixel peeping, because there was enough light to begin with just not for the faster shutter speed desired..
It would be great if the masses would stop worrying about whether a camera can capture images, hand-held, at 1/125s shutter speeds, in the dark.. =/
....and Nikon's FX world welcomes it's D90!
Bravo!
Greg1975: Is it just me, or is the beach scene (10th image) on the D600 samples (Nikon's site) really noisy for ISO100?
Also, to address the dual SD 'issue', even though I'm invested in CF, I'd much rather have dual SD than single CF. I think the dual SD was as much about minimizing footprint while standardizing on one card type as it was about being the upgrade path for D7000 and related users.
Just an improperly exposed shot..
Probably done intentionally to enhance the shadows and amber/bronze of the setting sun reflecting on the water... (believe it or not, you can push/pull exposure - in camera - to create much of the same look you get from software HDR processing) ;=)
*Especially in a shot like this where it is not intended to be pixel peeped..
wisep01: yay!!! $2000+ buys you USB 2.0 (not 3.0), no inbuilt GPS, no inbuiltWifi, no ethernet (LAN) connectivity, limited 3 shot exposure bracketing (+-6EV), artificially limited 1/4000sec shutter speed. By comparison, my 7 year old canon point and shoot with its pitiful 1/1.4'' sensor size can do more than 10 stop bracketing and focus stacking, and shoot at 1/30000 a second.
Have not at least a few of us come to desire (or expect) such features in a "high-end" camera that has come out in they year 2012?
-It would be great if the D600 was less than ~$2000, but it is actually very reasonable for an entry level FF digital body compared to any alternative options for FF.
-Fewer people have USB3 hardware than you may think, not a major feature priority, won't be transferring ~80mb raw files, not to mention if speed is the absolute do or die capability for you then get a card reader.
-You don't need GPS, it is a gimmick feature best kept at the p&s level.
-You don't see wifi and lan built in Nikon's highest bodies (any brand actually) why would you expect an entry level FF body to have it.
-Just about every DX and FX sensor has greater dynamic range than your 7-year old Canon p&s, therefore you can get from one exposure of this sensor what it takes a 10stop multi-exposure from your p&s.
-You really - really - do not need 1/8000s shutter speeds, much less 1/30000s. Stop comparing marketing features.
OMG..
The endless whining about how this could have been done better...
The reality is that no camera, ever, will have every feature and capability everyone wants - or thinks they need. It would not be possible to make such a camera and stay within a cost range of all those interested in such a fantasy camera.
The only comparative detail of this body is the maximum shutter speed...
The reason I quantified that with 'comparative' is because it has absolutely no impact on functionality. Cameras have been made and photos taken for over a hundred years without the need for 1/8000s shutter speeds. Unless you are taking pictures of the sun at wide open apertures (wrong approach), white poster boards in the sun (pointless), or enjoy looking at oof razor thin dof landscapes (even more pointless), there isn't a need for super fast shutter speeds. You simply need to learn photography and stop whining how the latest camera can't compensate for your lack of knowledge, technique, and experience...
Griffo59: Great but I want something with a similar build quality to the D300(s) and this isn't it. And no! I don't want the D800 - too many pixels.
There are actually valid arguments for lower mp, so how about not contributing to the ignorance and annoyance of the thread with assertions of ego-epeen perspectives on mp superiority..
kewlguy: IQ must be good, but at $2800 it will also serve very well as a neck hanger...sort of cheaper version of M9
Not to mention being able to change lenses with an M9.. Hardly a fair trade for the lower cost..
Sony steps up to the plate, knocks the dirt from their cleats, a practice swing to loosen up while assessing their competitor...
Its a swing, and miss! Strike Two..
I understand completely the 'digital age photographers' only have to see the technologically lazy marketing tags on a product (Digital, Electronic, Power Drive, EVF, etc) and think xxx product is the end all be all, the next greatest thing... but I'm sorry.. with no real viewfinder - not even some hybrid implementation with optical for standard and wide angle lenses, then an EVF mode for zooms - is a major fail at this product level. And please do not even attempt to argue the pixels the EVF has.. The human eye (by comparison) has an infinite pixel level, and therefore no EVF will produce the clarity and zero-lag of an optical viewfinder.
This toy, like Sony's recently announced ~$2700 fixed-lens mirrorless keychain fob, represents only one, functional, thing - fostering competition.
For that alone I applaud Sony.
Sony steps up to the plate, knocks the dirt from their cleats, a practice swing to loosen up while assessing their competitor...
Its a swing, and miss! Strike one.
The 'benefits' of a full frame sensor are all but lost without the ability to change lenses. A 35mm lens is just barely a wide angle lens. Sure it will be much wider than any APS-C user has seen on their cameras with a 35mm lens, but even the traditional/standard objective length for a wide angle is 28mm.
Back in the day there was a demand for 'film holders' with fixed lenses (justifiably at ~35mm also) but that market was met specifically because they were LESS EXPENSIVE.. Does Sony really think consumers want to spend as much as a good quality professional grade SLR only to end up with a fixed lens camera..? No lenses.. No viewfinder.. Not even EVF.. Not even a hybrid rangefinder style viewfinder.. A ~$2700 point and shoot..! Really?
The only positive, functional, thing about this will be the fostering of competition.
hoggdoc: @ALL for a few bucks more you can have a µ4/3's camera that will kick this camera's butt. Not to mention the ever expanding selection of µ4/3's lens from various sources.
Why Canon and Nikon both always plays this ours idea is better than your game all the time causes me to wonder about their market research.
For the record I am a long time Nikon shooter, but have fallen in love with the picture quality and dreamy film like look produced by my Olympus OM-D M-E5. Which BTW is a nearly PRO level quality of build, unlike this chunk of plastic Canon is trying to sell for $800.00.
The Oly can easily compete with pro-level APS-C Sensor Canons and Nikons. For that matter you would be hard pressed when comparing images from A Nikon D3 FF body with top quality glass and the OM-D M-E5.
If Nikon's success with the Series 1 cameras is any indicator, Canon's offering will meet the same lack luster response from the buying public.
The Canon 18mp APS sensor is one of those sensors you mention the OM-D trying to compete with, it is the very reason Canon keeps refining and reusing it instead of upgrading to something else at this time. Not sure what you think Oly is capable of that this (yet to be released) camera cannot do in image quality. However if it is ultimate image quality you are after in this form, the X-Pro1 takes all in this category to school.
Lenses?? Olympus does not have even a fraction of the lenses available from Cannon given that you can use every EF lens Canon makes - and with FULL functionality. Not to mention all the same third party lenses adaptable to any of the other mirrorless cameras.
Strange you mention build quality, and without even reading this hands-on review. This 'first entry' by Canon has a full magnesium body.. Kudos to Oly for the VF though, it still needs to be optical. Maybe you can make a better comparison when Canon releases their (~15th?) mirrorless camera like Olympus..