peevee1: Strange camera. On the one hand, it is clearly aimed at a non-professional - GPS, Scene modes, light weight, simplistic AF system... On the other it drops articulated screen and built-in flash... what's Canon's problem?
I agree on alot of that. The thing for me though, as an XTi and 60D owner who knows how to control noise at high ISO.... where is the attraction to buy this camera? The Nikon D600 has many of the features that would tempt me, but im reluctant to switch systems.
I think I will be sticking with what I have for the next couple years. In fact I finally got a nice ultra wide angle lens for aps-c, so I see even less reason to 'upgrade' to FF.
JMichaelsPhoto: 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.
"It's damn-near $1500 cheaper" Where are you shopping? A quick pricegrabber search to compare the bodies shows a difference of $721 - $876 depending on who you trust. Amazon is usually considered reliable though....
Good point photoshopuser. I complained alot about this cameras lack of certain features, but the more I think about it im starting to get more interested/excited.
For the night time photographer you get...
• GPS to know where you are and what direction your facing. Very useful for star trails.
• -3 ev center point auto focus. Canons (supposedly) most sensitive AF ever (even if it is only on 1 point)
• ISO 102,400 and claims of 1 full stop ISO improvement over any previous EOS model
I would have liked to see a built in intervalometer, but since I already have one thats not really an issue for me. You can buy them on Amazon for $15.
I still wish Canon would have included some more features like Nikon did with the D600. But the 6D may actually fill a certain niche in the market very nicely. Have to wait for the full reviews AF and image tests to see.
JazzMasta: It seems to be a winner if you care for- image quality- low light capability- fast auto focus- good build
Not so good if you want- brag about specs to the neighbour- choosing between hundreds of focus points- taking lots of pictures per second and spending days cleaning the harddrive
Luckily I care most about the first 4 :)
The Auto Focus is important for IQ. Dual memory cards are important when shooting events to make an immediate backup incase one card fails so you don't get your @ss sued later. Frame rate is important for capturing that 'special' moment in action photography...and Nikon has a camera that looks to do all these things BETTER at the SAME price. Oh and the built in intervalometer means not having to buy/carry around so much extra equipment during night photography shoots.
IF Canon would drop the price to $1700 on this thing it would fit into the market alot better given the competition. But at its SRP it just doesn't make sense.
LeeDo: WOW the negativity!! This camera was designed and meant to be used for landscape and portrait photography. Hence the FF sensor. I have the 7D for macro, sport and wildlife. I also own all L series glass, a big plus for use with this camera. I chose the 7D for its size which fits perfectly in my hands, and the 6D is just a smidgeon smaller and lighter. PERFECT! I plan on using the two bodies for their intended purposes. And THANK YOU CANON for giving us Wi-Fi and GPS!! This will force other manufacturers to do the same. Two sorely lacking functionalities on all other DSLR FF cameras. The simplistic button functionality is a godsend. I don't need a billion buttons performing this and that. The inclusion of a popup flash and AF assist lamp would be a waste on this camera. The sensor will more than make up for these omissions. The 6D is just what I have been waiting for to complete my kit. And you can bet Canon will sell millions of these things! The sales figures will be the tell all.
Technically the 6D is not quite full frame. The sensor is a smidge smaller than the 5D Mark II & III at 35.8 x 23.9mm. That is the same size as the original 5D sensor. Im not sure what the pixel pitch is compared to the 5D Mark III though.
I hope your right though LeeDo. I'll wait to see reviews, if the auto focus performs better in real world shooting than it sounds like on paper, and the ISO performance is a couple stops cleaner than the 60D...then it'll start looking more interesting to me.
I would rather have features I will use. A built in intervalometer rather than GPS., dual card slots (backup for weddings/events, one for video one for pics, one for JPEG one for RAW, for overflow) instead of wifi which is really to slow for uploading gigabytes of data in a hurry.
They could have at least given it the same auto focus as my Rebel XTi. 9 point all cross type.
Going back to the intervalometer. Why isn't Canon putting this in there cameras? It costs nothing to do, it could be done with a software update, and its extremely useful for astral photography which I do alot of. Nikon is doing it.
It seems Nikon is designing their cameras with the photographers needs in mind, while Canon is intentionally crippling their equipment. I think Nikon's market share is going to grow ALOT this next year.
skisagooner: Am I the only one who thinks the 6D makes sense when lined up with the 60D, 7D and 5DIII?
The only thing that doesn't make sense is the name of the camera. It should've been 9D. Now everyone is expecting it to be a camera between the 7D and the 5DIII, while it's really basically a 60D with a full frame sensor.
So I'd put it somewhere between a 60D and a 7D. You can't sort it according to price because of the FF sensor!
Anyway... I wish I'd wake up one day to find the 6D lying beside my bed, because I'd never buy it.... way too much for a student. I'll just stick with my S100.
lol I know how you feel about the price thing. Im a student right now too, so things are tight. I've voiced some dissapointment and criticism about this cameras specs... but if I woke up with one lying next to me I would be pretty damn excited! =)
I think I'll be sticking to my 60D for another year or two. Maybe I'll get that Sigma 10-20 lens I've been lusting after for the past 2 years.
The more I compare the 6D to the 5D Mark II and Nikon D600 the less reason I see for its existence. I would either switch to Nikon, or get a 5D Mark II as my next camera. The extra 2 stops of high ISO are the only thing that look interesting.
Also im disappointed in both the 6D and D600 for having the auto focus points so clustered near the center. I suppose thats an unavoidable side effect of trying to make the camera bodies smaller. But I would rather have a larger camera body like the 5D or D800.
I'll wait for the tests, but im going to keep my eyes out and if the 5D mark II drops to $1700 i'll grab one. Heck, there available for $1900 most places already.
gsmithfam: Disappointed. Well that does it for me. Sad to say that I'm strongly considering leaving Canon now. I'll wait on the testing for image quality to make my final decision but based on the specs I'm switching to Nikon and getting the D600. I'm just tired of having a camera that is good enough. I want the best, and for quite some time now Nikon is clearly putting out better equipment.
I agree. The one thing that I see, and this will have to wait till reviews are in for comparison, is the high ISO. Canon is giving this thing ISO 102,400!!! 3 stops over my 60D. If this also means that it will have 2-3 stops cleaner ISO performance than my 60D....then night/astral photographers may have a good reason to consider this camera. But that is still just an IF....
T3: There are a lot of people who are whining about only having 11 AF points, but I still only use the center AF point 95% of the time. As long as that AF point is reliable, I'm fine. I'd much rather have the built-in GPS than a bunch of AF points randomly selecting where to focus. And I'm sure I'll find a good use for the wifi too. It's a connected world we live in, and I think every camera should have GPS and wifi moving forward. I think the GPS and wifi are very strong selling points in today's market, and it's something that many people here are underestimating.
No its not, but not everyone is going to have 3 or 4 camera bodies. I've done action work with my Rebel XTi and gotten good results at 3 fps. Im just saying, the AF cripples an already crippled camera even more. One less reason to want to 'upgrade' from my 60D.
If your shooting action photogrpahy you might change your mind... not that 4.5 fps is fast, but the AF cripples it even more.
KHemmelman: Am I misreading something? It states "11 point AF system" but only the "center" point is a cross type? And then it's only 'vertical line sensitive' with a f/2.8 lens?? My 40D has 9 cross type points. What gives with the 6D? Is there really only 1 cross type on this camera???
Yeah, only 1 cross type.... my Rebel XTi has a better auto focus. I sort of took it for granted that Canon would stick the 7D auto focus system into their entry level FF. I'll be sticking with my 60D for the next year or two and wait for the 6D Mark II....or pick up a new or used 5D mark II.
Ace Disgrace: Its funny how much negative comments from a noob in PS or should i say who have zero knowledge in the SW. How much can u judge from a 2D image in its real distance if ur not the one who took the photo? So many people think they know so much about photography that they can judge which one is real or not. Be real and embrace the technology. Be thankful somebody is sharing their knowledge in these things.
One thing I do like about CS6 is the new oil filter. I ran that filter on one of my old landscapes to give it more of a painted look.
With careful masking, removing (deleting to prevent bleed) the trees, then layering things. Im not saying its impossible to create a fake DOF change. Will it look the same as shot at a shallow DOF to begin with? Probably depends a bit on the complexity of the scene. In general? I would say no. Bottom line, this is nothing revolutionary and does not take the place of shooting the image with the DOF you want to begin with.
I think that first shot with the flowers gives a false impression of what this filter in CS6 is capable of. That image had already been shot at a shallow DOF and was simply accentuated a bit by additional blurring.
My galleries can be seen here http://www.pbase.com/cpilecky
I am not a newb as people like to say. I am a professional graphic designer. I am finishing my first book. I know how to use Photoshop. Ok? Can we stop calling people names?
Heres a rough of the cover http://www.pbase.com/cpilecky/image/142431292
The 'technology' is not going to be able to make an F/16 shot look the same as an F/2.8 one. As I pointed out before, look at the trees on the cityscape shot. The top half of the tree is blurred out as if it is receeded further into the distance even though it is on the same focal plane as the rest of the tree..... How anyone can look at this tutorial and tool as some sort of revolution is beyond me. And yes I have the beta of CS6 also.
The tilt shift effect with the guy on the stairs is not very good. Its to obvious where the edge of the blur is. Also the top half of the trees wouldn't be blurred like that. Its not realistic and its distracting. These additional tools may prove useful under some circumstances, but the way they are being shown here is not very good IMO.
It would be much easier, and you would get much better results, if you just knew how you wanted to take the shot in the first place and then did it that way. When your doing the shoot if your not sure if you want a shallow DOF or not take one each way and then decide later.