JMichaelsPhoto

Many of us photographers sure are an unimaginative bunch when it comes to change but personally, I like Flickr's new landing page and overall layout. As a former pro account holder, I was happy to see the implementation of a free account with 1 terabyte of storage included with full resolution sharing- which pretty much negates the need for the old "pro" account. After a while of being dormant, I didn't see the benefit of continuing to pay for a pro account and I see no reason to pay $50 now for an ad-free experience when ABP (Ad Block Plus firefox plugin) is free and blocks all the ads in the first place. I prefer the finished layout of the new flickr to smugmug's portfolio account, which I was considering, at $80 annually, and I still wouldn't own my domain, so this new flickr is a pleasant and welcome surprise.

The reason I've only ever purchased one olympus and will never again was the fact that I paid so much money for the E-P1 when it first came out, like $900, and in 6 months the E-P2 was announced for $600. And again, a new PEN digital is now exorbitantly expensive as the first and there's absolutely no reason for most people, even those interested in mirrorless cameras, to buy one. It's not the prettiest, it's not even the most advanced. I honestly do not understand this company, or why they believe people will just run out and buy their cameras when there are much better options out there. You're either a m4/3 fanboy and will stand behind any piece of crap that olympus makes, or you're an enthusiast who already has a bunch of cameras and for me, I've got no incentive to buy this camera. I've got an E-P1 already and replacing it for $1300 isn't an option for me. I use my Nikon D7000 more anyway.

Could achieve the same effect for a lot less money with a lensbaby.

I don't really care what you think is appropriate, Vic. I made my statement irregardless of your opinion of it. If you're too lazy to research current events in your own state, that's your fault not mine. The facts are there to whomever chooses to find them. And lets be honest, Vic....it wouldn't be the first time a state police agency was mistaken about its own investigations or what it chooses to make public knowledge. Fortunately for us, the freedom of information act means we don't need the statement of the Conneticut state police chief. Draw whatever conclusion you want, but don't lecture me about what is or is not appropriate in an internet forum because I could give a sh!t.

This Nikon is pretty slick....and this is coming from a canon guy, pretty slick indeed. I like it. It has everything a $1200 DSLR should have, great resolution, speed, ISO performance, *don't care about video*, classic Nikon slick-handling (I shot both a D80 and D90), a great AF system....it is honestly, quite taxing to read all of the Nikon guys complaining about this camera! And where did dpr find these writers? You guys are almost as bad as those dudes at engaget. You'd have to be blind not to spot the differences between the D7000 and D7100....um, 16mp vs 24? It used to be that resolution was the ONLY advance we saw in a camera, especially at this level. You dudes should be lucky Nikon is building this camera for you....maybe me too if canon doesn't figure something out at this price point. I'll wait to see what they do with the 70D and it'll be on! Good show, nikon.

This issue reflects a greater problem evident in mass media today, the fabrication of facts to suit the agenda of the reporter. And there isn't a single news source immune from it. Take a look at any news outlet on any issue, if you can honestly say that what you see is impartial, as it was observed, the facts and only the facts, you are as naive as you are incredibly stupid. For example, to this day, it is still being reported that Adam Lanza used an AR-15 to shoot those kids in New Town despite a coroner's report lacking any evidence of the sort, along with conflicting reports that the rifle was even present at the scene. It's all about the spin. If it can't be proven otherwise, the media is content to draw whatever conclusion that supports their agenda. This guy [Pellegrin] knew exactly what he was doing. He was making a statement. Which is fine. It is editorial at best, nothing more. So don't call it journalism.

Except, neither of those cameras have on-chip phase detect autofocus capability and the ability to switch between it and contrast detect automatically, nor the larger sensor, or faster lens (the G15 does have a faster lens, but not the larger sensor), worth $200 alone to anyone smart enough to discern this camera from a dressed up compact such as the G15 and P7700...plus, a useful viewfinder with info overlay. I think there's a bit more to it than the "old-school" look and feel. This camera is absolutely worth $600 as an "advanced" compact. Which ironically, is what the G15 and P7700 are both supposed to be. Fuji has proven it's willing to put useful tech in it's cameras, instead of canon and nikon's incremental features that aren't really useful. If this commands a premium, there are people who will gladly pay it.

Totally agree. Besides, the 5D (original, mark I) had the same AF layout with 9 points and was perfectly useful to many photographers for many years, still is in fact for a lot of people. AF points are a gimmick, IMO. All you really need is the one in the middle. And the 6D's is more sensitive than even the 5DIII's. There's something to be said about that.

These are things you should have known going into buying to be honest. You can't honestly say you weren't already aware of the button layout, media card format, max shutter, build material, AF setup, and VF coverage BEFORE you bought it, could you? How are these things a let-down when these are the specs of the camera? A let down is when you thought high-ISO would look better, or it's really slow, or maybe it didn't turn on when you first bought it.....not discovering specs you already knew the camera had before you bought it...So why bother if these things are an issue? You're one of those people....

Why hasn't this camera been in-depth reviewed yet?

Comparing brands is like comparing apples to apples, IMO. So the Nikon D600 is a little faster, has more focus points, a few more pixels but the pictures that come out of it are all green and whatnot. I mean, okay...it handles better, is faster, has dual card slots but it takes green pictures. It's probably not all that bad but every reviewer out there isn't too keen on nikon DSLR's right now. Canon is on a roll it seems, and for the 6D...it's predictable that your thoughts on it mirror the thoughts you had on the 60D. I own a 60D and I'm probably one of the kind of owners Canon wants to buy this camera and in my opinion, the same reason I decided to go with the 60D over the obviously better 7D will be the same reason I decide to go with the 6D over the 5DIII- price. It's damn-near $1500 cheaper, still FF, and class competitive IQ and ISO performance with a really sensitive center AF point- class leading, in fact. So the choice is an easy one for me. I like nice pictures.

This logic assumes that folks outside of pros and SLR devotees (whatever that means) are a relevant group of people to begin with as your overall sentiment is very short-sighted. The answer to Canon and Nikon's dilemma is not the "mirrorless" game. I mean, if that's your game...fine. Speak for yourself bro. The problem isn't the SLR platform. It's technology. Because the only mirrorless cameras that come close to rivaling a DSLR in terms of sheer usability are out of the price range of people who would be interested in a canon 3x zoom P&S-android phone. Canon and Nikon don't need to offer such cameras in quantity as such cameras will always be simply a niche product for social media junkies and technophiles. Your comment doesn't even belong here....a camera phone being a game changer for Canon. So quality can take a back seat to wireless carrier branding as in the mobile phone market, as if Canon would ever consider such a ridiculous game to enter into...

If you're the kind of photographer that uses such tight tolerances in dynamic range to differentiate between a good shot and a useless shot in contrasty conditions, you should have learned the zone system to properly expose the frame in my opinion. Because at that point, it isn't the limitations of the camera that's your problem, it's you. No offense, but if you're comparing the 6D to the D600 in that regard, the difference in dynamic range assumes the camera is limiting you when as a photographer, it's your job to figure out how to expose the frame without 2.5 bits of dynamic range making that distinction for you- also my opinion. In real-world situations, this difference isn't, or shouldn't be a delimiting factor in sticking to the system in which you're already invested. Either way, if you want to go to Nikon, it's not like my opinions are going to dissuade your choice. You're just looking for a good reason to do what you've already decided you want to do.

I think you're reaching for any excuse you can to justify going to Nikon. I don't really get what you mean by 'lens compatibility'- Nikon's attitude toward lens compatibility isn't that great, especially in their lower end cameras. By compatibility, I'm assuming you mean with manual focus lenses. I shoot a lot of fast manual focus glass and compatibility was the main reason I left Nikon for Canon. With an adapter ring, I'm using a Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 on my 60D, on which I've found greater creative license to shoot whatever old glass I can find for a good price with no issues whatsoever. Couldn't do that with my D90 in AE. And those bits of dynamic range you're talking about precludes one's ability to shoot in RAW to preserve shadow and highlight detail. I would hardly consider that, or any of the reasons you gave enough to reinvest in another camera system, especially considering the market for used equipment being what it is. It wouldn't be worth it to me.

..."The result is the kind of conservative, slightly unimaginative design that's become the company's hallmark. It's still bound to be a very good camera, of course; just perhaps not quite as good as it could be."

That's what they said, and continue to say, about the 60D. But I've preferred the 60D to the 7D in not only ergonomics, but price as well. And yet, it provides the level of performance that I've come to expect from a modern canon DSLR. I mean yeah, it doesn't have 5000 focus points, but then again, I'm old enough to remember the single split-prism rangefinder with a contrast ring around it in the middle of my FE2's focusing screen. And I don't photograph the rain. So I'm pretty excited about the 6D and I'm looking forward to seeing what it's capable of before passing any judgement. I think it would make a fitting companion to my 60D.

I'm itching to own this camera. But I'm going to wait until all the bugs get worked out before I do. Never buy the first of anything.

No, what's amazing is the freedom people can have when they stop looking at f/stop numbers. Your comment precludes the notion that you don't have a bias for fast lenses, and their perceived value. Of course, you're entitled. But take note of the fact that as sensitivity improves (the inevitable result of Moore's Law), the need for lenses faster than f/3.5-5.6 solely for the purpose of retaining high image quality in low light becomes unnecessary, allowing manufacturers to put less emphasis on overall lens design to accommodate a faster max. aperture, and more emphasis on better optical design, higher refractive index glass, and better/faster focusing capability. Should that technology be cheap, or free because it's housed within a "slow" lens? I think not.

Personally, I'm excited about this new camera. I've never been a person too concerned with megapixels. I currently shoot with a canon 60D after shooting with both a nikon D90 and canon 5D for years. 12 mp is all I ever needed. Now, with the 60D, I am learning what the extra pixels mean to the work that I do. This may be a progressive learning experience for me, so I have no preconceptions of pixels when I see a new camera come out. Because if you look at it in the way that many are, with both the release of the 5DIII and D800, the expectations for the next iterations will be even higher. But if you don't have a concept for your personal needs, what good will those pixels be now, or in the future? The things I am excited about are the AF system and expanded ISO capability. Those two features alone make this camera quite interesting indeed (to me). I'll be saving my pennies.

@marike6

I try to stay away from absolute statements from an armchair perspective when I describe what I think about a camera. Everything is relative, opinions withstanding. I can however say that I respectfully disagree with your statement about the D3x, in terms of high-ISO capability as compared with even the 5DII. But that's just because I actually shoot canon cameras, as opposed to pixel peeping sample images on the web. I have shot nikon as well, and agree that the D3 and D3s both have better performance in that respect. But they are of course, roughly half the resolution. Which is why the debate is often rhetorical. You're comparing tools used for different purposes using the same standard, which illegitimizes your position. As I wrote, on paper the 1DX is a better camera. There should be no debate there until canon releases the 1DX for scrutiny.

@HowaboutRAW For nearly double the resolution, the 5DII's lowlight capability is a relative tradeoff. While we're on the subject, lets not overlook the D3x in lowlight compared to the 5DII. That nikon fails against a junior camera in every case. Just sayin...