just saying i reckon those images are to die for
this is the real thing, this is the real thing, yeah yeah yeah, this is the real thing, real thing yeahhhh
love these images
Image 19 a winner in my eyes, Vast
fdfgdfgdgf: This video is full of crap
agreed, the narringtion was pathetic. Just loads of irrelevant information (garble) As conveyed on the video, I would expect the D4s to be as good as it looks, considering, body only price tag of $7553.00 NZD That price is equivalent to four x D600 bodies. By the way a D600 is what i use, and absolutely recommend i.e. value for money read dpreviews review will tell you all. Did have dust/oil on sensor, Nikon did look after me and replaced the shutter and related components with D610 s. I was also informed by service agents if the same problem re occurs Nikon will replace with D610. I have taken several thouand images since the repair and all is good with the camera (yes i do sensor dust/oil check tests)
Stephen_H: Just another thought, if I'm art-directing the photographer, how can the photographer claim to have created the image?
I've conceived the conceptI've chosen the message it needs to conveyI've set it upI've chosen the lighting schemeI've hired a stylist to fine tune everything else
All the photographer is doing is making sure that all my efforts aren't wasted by being technically skilled and proficient in his art.
If I can't to claim to have "created the image", then I'm going to give Nikon more credit for making the image than the photographer who trusted his light meter, followed the manual that came with his camera and pressed the shutter.
Perhaps there needs to be a distinction between commissioned commercial work where the photographer is just doing what he's told to do, and the more creative, self-inspired artistic photographs where the photographer has genuinely created everything in the final content?
I also forgot to mention composition, really the photographer creates the whole sense and mood of the brief by capturing what the client wants,that's the art of photography, just as a painter of landscapes, portraits, architecture, street scences and the like do.Give us copyright? Oh yeah.
I'll think you will find that a photographers photographer does in fact create the mood of the picture, i.e lighting, movement, design in or out of a studio, but probably on most occasions has been given a brief by the client on what they want, but I would say that 9 times out of 10 the client wouldn't know how to achieve the desired result.So I think that it's only fair for the photographer to have the copyrights, unless the opposite is agreed by both parties.
bertibus: So if I pay a photographer to spend x hours over a period of x weeks to obtain a certain genre of photo(s) for me, I do not own the work that I have paid for? And he / she can use them (the photos) as they see fit, provided that I am also allowed to use them? Is that correct?
The way I see it, this is pretty much as you have stated.When my daughter got married she and her husband got to choose any number of photos they wanted i.e. so much $ per photocopy in other words they never received any of the negatives and only the photos they paid for.The photographer entered some of the photos in a professional photo competion and won, needless to say he the photographer didn't ask the bride & groom for permission to do so.The thing is they didn't realize or read the small print in the contract that, the photographer had full rights to their images.This may have been something that this professional photographer had in his contracts as a standard clause, and or writes up in is wedding photo contracts. I don't know what the law is in New Zealand regarding these matters
I like it lots
Donnie G: While I admit to having been entertained by all the nitpicking done by the camera spec sheet engineers here about a camera that isn't even in stores yet, and therefore, isn't available for real world evaluation by end users or product lab testers, I also have to admit to not knowing what all the fuss is about. It just seems to me that if you feel that the Canon 6D has a feature set that meets your needs, then you will start saving up to buy one, as I'm doing. On the other hand, if you feel strongly that another brand, such as the excellent Nikon D600, fits your needs better, then you should be saving up to buy it, or some other camera that fits you fancy, instead of beating each other up about the head and shoulders over design decisions made by design and engineering professionals who have proven time and again that they know a whole lot more about camera design and economics than any of us who posts here. It's all about choices, isn't it? So choose! :)
Canon fan using a EOS 5 (.35mm film format with USM-EF Lens) looking to change to DSLR.the problem is the nikon 600D spec is way more better on paper, and than the canon 6D i.e looking to change to a canon 6D means putting up with a very closely priced nikon D600. Admittedly, probably best to wait for actual reviews by dpreview and other evaluations etc.
Sergey Borachev: Look at this comparison of the 6D and the D600. It is not funny!
I reckon you`re right on track there sad joe, very disappointing. I also am a Canon user and looks like I`ll be changing to Nikon or shelling out for a Canon 5D MK11.The thing is Nikon appear to be way ahead on all there cameras when comparing like for models & money for money.I believe Nikons been ahead of the pack for approx at least 6 years, when taking the into account.
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.
It would`ve been easy for Canon to make an awesome all round semi-professional camera by just adding a FF sensor onto the 7D and calling it the 6D, what do you reckon ??I think a lot of people with Canon gear would have been a lot happier then they are now i.e the new canon 6D YEAH RIGHT !!!
Luv this photo, such vitaliy awsome !!
George Veltchev: Hey folks , see my gallery here: http://www.treknature.com/members/mwmod99/ .... most of the images there has been shot with the central focusing point activated only ..... in 95% of the cases, my Canon 5D MarkII has been very accurate, so based on my personal experience I think that even the simplified auto-focus of the new 6D should be even better than than my old 5D MarkII.
you are not comparing apples with apples i.e money wise
das7282: Is it just me or does the 6D seem like a 7D downgrade with the only thing really better being the full-frame sensor? As for the WiFi? GPS? Don't want it, don't care.
canon should have kept the same spec as the 7D but changed the sensor to full-frame now that would have been a good camera
AP7: Canon 6D compares well with Nikon D3200, both has 11-point AF system and both are entry level camera.
Nikon D3200 is lighter, and may have better low light and DR performance (even though it has APS-C sensor). D3200 also has built in flash and flash sync 1t 1/200 sec (vs no flash and 1/180 sec for Canon).
Canon 6D has no other advantage than DOF as a travel camera.
do any canon dslr s` have eye controlled focus points like the canon eos 5 (.35mm neg film format) SiliconVoid, if cross-points are used for tracking the subject only, and theres less of them than in other dslrs` surely this would ultimately create inferior focusing? I`m looking to buy a DSLR for the !st time, my present SLR is a canon EOS 5 (.35mm neg film format) It looks to me that between the Canon 6D and the nikon D600 that the Nikon D600 is superior all round