Craig76

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

http://www.pbase.com/cpilecky/image/142345550

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.