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.
ecapdeville: My new Nikon D600 is coming home... I was a Canon user until all my gear was stolen in my last trip to Stockholm (7d and 1D MkII, 24-105L and 70-200 2.8L) last August. So with no gear to use I am going to Nikon and straight to a FF body this time. I choose the D600 over the 6D because the Wifi and GPS are not my priority and because I am loosing jobs because I don't have cameras to shoot with. My next Nikon body will be a D300s for the sport pics... I miss Canon but I am really excited to try Nikon for the first time... greetings...
Both the Canon and Nikon are as good as each other, the extra features won't make a difference.
Ecapdeville - I think you probably meant to post in the Nikon D600 comments, it's not really relevant here. Good luck changing systems though!
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 :)
shleed: I honestly don't get why people bitch and moan about a camera that not only they don't own, but does not exist at this very moment. What is even more stupid are the people who think their photography career is over because Canon didn't give something that appeals to a few brickwall-shooting gearheads.
I'm going to take the less retarded route and form my opinion AFTER trying it. Until then, I'm going to... take photos!
This fight is hilarious, I'm with you Shleed - they're only basing it off features, which is what attracts the general publics attention. If Canon have chosen to lessen things in terms of some of the features... maybe there's the chance that they've made a better camera? Who knows. No one will know till December. THIS WAIT IS AGONISING
Richard: Not sure why they keep mentioning the D600. The D600 resolution, feature set compete with the 5d3, not the 6d. The 6d is a 2007 digital rebel with a FF sensor. The D600 is a modern camera with higher resolution, FPS, and pro like features. This camera should have been called Rebel XTFF.
Richard - does the 6D have the same puny grip as the Rebel series? No? Ok, it's not a Rebel then. The camera ergonomics can play a big role in the operability of a camera, and I can't wait for the 6D because it's going to be a massive upgrade from my 5D.
Also, I've printed a 1.5 meter wide image from my 12mp 5D, and they look absolutely stunning. The difference between that and 20mp, and then 24mp for that matter, will be very very little.
It all depends on each persons needs photographically though.. my needs are probably a little less demanding seeing as I rarely burst mode etc (the larger buffer and speedier operation is going to be fantastic though).
We'll wait till the reviews come out... everyone here may be pleasantly surprised by its usability, something more important than features any day.
Alec_c: Canon is, with clear determination, offering as less as possible.Was looking for years to replace my old 40D and felt cheated with every new apparition: 50D with low IQ, 60D with cheapened and crammed construction, not mentioning the crap IQ due to too many pixels and AA filters, 7D balancing a great construction and set of features with the incredible low IQ , similar to 60D. And now this ... poor IQ, cut to bone features, stupid GPS and WiFi and cheap and harder to operate controls.I'll be voting with my pocket - Canon will still not see any of my money. What makes me really angry is this bleeding of consumers trapped by lenses in their universe. And lack of hope ... these vampires got their strategy worked out and will, likely, stick to it.
How can you say the 6D has poor image quality when the current samples available are pretty damn good? It's full frame, it will definitely have good IQ. But no one can tell once we get our hands on our own cameras.
Just wait till the camera comes out, it might be surprisingly fantastic, despite its comparative lack of features (all I can see is lack of pop up flash and only one SD card slot, the focus points wont make much difference if they're clumped in the same area as each other).
But anyway, good luck shooting!
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.
andrewins: This camera will be a good choise for me. I shoot only with a central spot and don't need intervalometer :) At this time I have 60D and few lenses: Canon: EF-S 60, EF-S 18-200, EF 100-400 and Tokina 11-16. I think I will keep 60D as a camera for macro- and telephotoscens and will use it with EF-S 60 and EF 100-400.
The 6D will serve as a landscape camera. But I will have to buy Canon EF 17-40 or Canon EF 16-35 lens for this purpose. Unfortunately that means that I will have to get rid of EF-S 18-200 and Tokina 11-16 :(
It is rather comfortable when you have two cameras for different kind of scenes at the same time. You don't need to change lens rapidly when you notice interesting bird or animal while taking pictures of a landscape.
The most best way would be three cameras among wich the third one would be also 60D attached to macro lens. But unfortunetely all this equipment together with tripods, filters, flashes requires one more unit... a person to carry all that stuff :(
I've played with a Tamron 10-24mm EF-S style lens in stores with my 5D, and it works pefectly fine - but at the widest setting (up until around 15mm), it has massive vignetting as the image circle isnt designed for full frame.
If money is an issue, your Tokina should still work quite fine :) and you could get around 10mp ultra-wide-angle landscape images after cropping in (and it also allows you to crop in at say a 16:9 aspect ratio or something wider, so you actually get more than 11mm worth or wide-angle).Enough of my blabbing, but I'm pretty sure that if you keep your Tokina, it should work on your 6D, but it'll require a bit more effort in Post-production than if you got the 17-40mm.
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...
dmshaposv: Sorry guys, couldn't resist...
It's funny that it's being sold as a consumer camera, but I doubt those consumers will get better pictures than their 60Ds and things like that. Maybe better than their 600Ds and things but not by much.
So in the end, most consumers wont even use half the features either camera offers, as they wouldn't know how to use the camera.
I think all this negative talk about the 6D is making a bit grouchy towards everyone dissing it.
In the end I'm starting to feel a bit pained if the Nikon has better DR and low light capabilities than the Canon, as then its lower MP would amount to nothing.
Or more, in the end, if it has better DR than my 5D I'll still be immensely happy with it.
JimSab: Tell me why everyone is complaining, and justify to me how one could get a better A2 print with the Nikon as opposed to the Canon (I haven't even printed past A3+ actually).
I only expect to hear crickets, because if you're a good photographer, you will get good images out of any camera you use. If you're not, then do a course and learn. Your camera is useless if you think its million bells and whistles will help you get better pictures.
If a Pro is complaining, then maybe you aren't earning enough money to get a 5DmkIII and should improve your business to afford it.
I'm starting to think it's almost a good thing what Canon has done with its "lack" of focus points, because if it's true and one can get accurate focus in moonlight, that's solved many many problems in itself.
I wish everyone would stop complaining, go outside and take some fantastic photographs your camera (no matter what it is) is capable of.
I have a 5D where the VF is around 97% or something, in the real world it makes absolutely no difference - the 3% that I don't see just helps me be slightly more lenient with my cropping when I capture the image. It doesn't hinder the quality of image capture - its VF will still be better than ANY APS-C VF due to its massive size, you'd be able to see a lot more detail than before.
Pretty sure the 6D gives one everything one needs to use their imagination to get good images - that's just how I feel though.Coming from a 5D, I guess it's why I'm one of the only ones extremely excited over the 6D - it's got everything I've ever hoped for. I was so excited I wanted to read everything everyone had to say about it, and most are just nit picking that it's not as good as the nikon spec-wise. When they either already own a camera that's good enough for their needs or probably wont need that abundance of features anyway.
We'll just have to wait and see how they perform against each ohter...
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.