I think most of the people on this thread need to go back to English class.. I can't take anyone's comments seriously when they can't spell properly.
That's my main issue with these cameras, the users, it's not the cameras fault if you're taking shitty pictures!
Well done Casio, you've made a camera for idiots and old people. Because everyone will still prefer to use their phones.
20mp, WHAT THE ****?! Nobody in that market needs even 10mp, nobody ever asked for it.
The compact camera market is just getting more and more f***ed. The cameras haven't gotten faster, better or more reliable than ones from 5 years ago. My 6mp IXUS 60 is probably faster than this piece of s***.
Palleman: I had a lot of fun with my Olympus OM-D EM-5. Top-feature is (for me) the Focus with detected face and identify eyes.
If I had my way, cats would be the only thing I'd ever photograph
travelwalk: I'd like to post a big NO to the lemming-like rush to drop viewfinders from virtually every new camera except for SLRs. It assumes that every user has rock steady hands and shoots inside or in the shade.
It's also a symptom of the major problem of lack of creativity among current camera designs - hordes of me too cameras that provide little in the way of new ideas or significant image quality improvements.
That's why I skipped my annual camera upgrade this year.
Hardly anything has changed in the past 5 years, that's old news.
7enderbender: Oh, and just because somebody in a marketing department somewhere knows what "the future" is should drive my decision? I'm not intrested in EVF and mirrorless. It's good for what it is but I'm still not interested. Yes, "modern" optical viewfinders often stink. But that doesn't make looking at a screen any more desirable. I can't see myself buying anything Sony for a number of reasons. And I looked carefully the last time around when I had to make a "system" decision. And I will not buy the Fuji X-E1 either. No optical viewfinder, no business from me. While it's still possible at least. We've see enough denigration of quality already thanks to the gizmofication of photography.Oh, and the 6D I would only consider as a backup emergency body. I don't really get that either. Weird priorities with a lot of this stuff these days.
I'm sorry but the need to see what the exposure will look like is unncessary for anyone serious in learning the disciplines of photography. I'm 21, but I'm an old soul, I love OVF's.
Todays cameras are making photographers lazier and lazier, I have a camera where everything is manual, you guess the exposure (or used a separate light meter), completely guess the focus (by distance, nothing else), and I managed to get perfect photos on the medium format film.
Film cameras taught photographers to judge the light, brightness and colour etc - they learned to intuitively judge exactly what they needed to do. Today people just press a button and hope for the best.
OVF's have a DOF button for one, if there aren't any horizons then images don't need to be PERFECTLY straight (or you just need better eyes).
OVF's have as much DR as our eyes, EVFs don't. The simple fact is that you risk missing a potential image because it was "in the shadows" or "blown out" in the EVF.
shahid11235: War between Canon and Nikon fans.. (to be continued) :-p ;-)
It's funny because it'll never end, and the same images will always be produced by both brands, of exactly the same quality XD
Hugo808: Once again everyone whines and niggles that the low level pixel shadow detail isn't as good as blah blah from blah blah. So what, no-one ever looks at pictures that close anyway! If your photos were any good people would be too stunned to care about that nerdy crap.
View these pics at a proper size and they look great, as usual, and no different from anyone elses.
I'm pretty sure sports photographers wouldn't buy this camera, and wedding photographers would shoot in Raw if they were smart.
The 6D's images are a fuckload better than pretty much any APS-C camera, and there are a lot of other things a FF camera has to offer over a crop camera. It's not just those two specs that matter.
If people were careful with their exposures then the 6D's "limited" DR wouldn't be a problem.
I'm pretty sure the comparisons b/w the MkIII, D600, D800 and 6D are splitting hairs - no one in their right mind could tell much of a difference in a massive ISO 6400+ print, they'll be enjoying the image for its subject matter.
People have gotten HQ 1m wide prints for over 6 years now with their DSLRs, all that's really changed (i'm mostly basing this info off my 5D) is the ease of use, automation, speed and ability to shoot in no light.
If you want to heavily crop images, you probably should've gotten a better lens for the job, like they would've 10 years ago.
Peoples comments make me laugh. Yes it's all personal opinion and now you have reason to complain because the JPEG images don't look good at 100%, because ALL of you are going to print 1m wide images from this camera in Jpeg where it will be the only time this "fault" will be visible.
The 5DmkIII's raw images were astounding at all ISO's (bar 102400 because that's stupid).... and it seems that the 6D's images might ALMOST be slightly better at high ISO.. which is fantastic! In Raw that is, I don't care about jpeg.
I still cannot WAIT till I buy this camera. I don't need the "Extra features" of the Nikon, I like Canon and always will. Besides, if the main thing is the lack of focus points - it makes little difference if both cameras' focus points are in a similarly small area of the frame.
I enjoy people's winging though, it makes me laugh, you should go study optimism or something :)
An interesting note - I vaguely heard a few people having quality issues with their Nikons, or something like they're not built well? I don't know.
But it made me think - sometimes when two competing products have the same price but one has considerably more features... usually means that the one will more features has cut corners elsewhere, like build quality and quality control.
Just a thuogh, I'm not saying it's fact. But in the end, if the Canon is built more like a brick and is less prone to manufacturing faults than the Nikon, then it's clear what the better option would be. For those who have the option to choose one or the other.
I FINALLY got my amazing Sigma 24-70mm lens back, but I hate how it can't focus properly (or isn't calibrated with my camera). I can't WAIT till the 6D fixes this (which I'm hoping it will with its scope of adjustment.The smaller stockier size of the Sigma makes me still prefer it over the Canon, even if my copy isn't perfect.
I saw the Nikon in a store today next to the D800 (couldn't be bothered handling it though). My GOD it is TINY in comparison! For a Full Frame anyway. I handled the 60D which was on a stand thing, to which I'd previously done a photoshop comparison for a size idea and the 6D isn't much different.... I'm damn excited to get it one it's released, I just hope I have enough money by then to buy it straight away!
I'm ignoring its shortcomings, I played with the 7D and the extra focus points don't make a difference for me. Nifty but not necessary at this point in time.
I can't wait!
JimSab: I've followed DP Review for 6 years now (I'm 21 btw) and nothing has sparked my interest more.
I've come to the conclusion that the 6D was stripped of certain features to keep the size down - there used to be a time when the 5D (I bought it second hand 2.5 years ago for AU$1500) was the smallest they could go, but now they've created something smaller. I never personally warmed to the bulk and weight of the 5D.
I'm no doubt aiming to spend the next 6 months saving for it, because it has everything I need, my only problem with the 5D has been the lack of Micro Focus Adjustment - which the 6D has, and doesn't cost $3700 (I won't settle for the 4 year old MKII). My 24-70 had IRRITATING focus issues.
Also, I only need one focus point, I never trust the 50,000 points any camera could have, it will always focus on the closest subject. Not useful for me. -3EV is however a god send for my light painting photography.
Now, STOP COMPLAINING, GO OUT AND TAKE MORE PICTURES! ALL OF YOU.
Haha! a rather interesting thing BP
SJ - I've probably been over-cynical of everyone on these posts, and probably a bit harsh. Everyones opinion is valid, it's just interesting that certain features could be so important, back in the day everyone had manual focus and survived.We'll have to wait till the reviews come out for both cameras, as they might perform just as well as each other in all aspects, despite their differences (with Nikons only advantage being dual SD and popup flash that would be pointless anyway as it generally gives terrible results).But I don't think it's worth the money loss to switch systems - you might as well do some maths, and see if overall the 5DmkIII might be an option - depending on what features you're missing on the 6D.
I look forward to seeing how both cameras perform! But regardless, I'm getting the 6D and I can't wait!
Abhijith Kannankavil: Many peple are complaining here that 6D is even lower speced than a 7D. Yes. it is. In fact, the only camera a 7D owner may want to upgrade to (in canon lineup) without missing on anything is the 1D-x.
7D is their flagship APS-C. Whatever it is, it's a flagship still. Even after years after the launch, it's still attractive if you look for what you need (not what you want).
While 6D is the cheapest Full frame in canon lineup. It is an entry level model. Do not compare it with the flagship.
Only thing 6D will do better than 7D is low light pics. And the insignificant 2MP added to it.
Now THIS is an excellent observation. I forgot that difference between flasgship and entry level...
It's like saying "Oh, the Olympus OM-D has more features than the Canon 650D for a similar price".... but the OM-D is practically that type of camera's flagship whilst the 650D is basically the entry level option... with better low light in comparison.
I kinda think that its "only" 11 focus points may work better than Nikons 39, so long as the centre point is amazing as they say it will be.
I cannot WAIT to get my hands on the 6D regardless, SD card is fantastic for me, I never liked CF, and everything else ever in it... I only read these comments because I want to read everything about it, I'm being really impatient for a review to confirm how awesome it is...
Touche good sir!
Mind you, full frame is generally good for landscape and portrait work - which don't generally require extreme speed or heaps of focus points.
Full Frame sensors cost quite a lot of money, but I can't really make sense of that when Nikon have their camera out with its slightly better specs.
Oh well, I'm just really excited for this camera as it's got everything I'll ever need for a good few years (hopefully several years). And peoples opinions just make me realise how much they're interested in camera features than the fact that FF at such a price is unbelievably fantastic - it gives a different kind of quality image.
Maybe Canon had their reasons.... if their new 20mp sensor was a large investment for them, and is considerably better quality than Nikons choosing of the Sony sensor, then it's probably why the Canon wont cost much less than the Nikon despite the lack of features.
I still can't help but feel Canon is the Apple brand in the camera world.
I've followed DP Review for 6 years now (I'm 21 btw) and nothing has sparked my interest more.