be realistic, RAW file size is so huge that it doesn't make any sense to transfer wireless. You know wireless technology is still not there yet. Its the same like wireless charging, improved but still very slow.

Milkod2001, Ivan, you're both wrong.

o 802.11n is up to 300 Mbps, or 30 MB/S.
o 802.11ac is to 1 Gbps (1000 Mbps or 100 MB/S)

A 6D's RAW file is under 30 MB; allowing for network overhead, under 802.11ac 1 image a second is perfectly reasonable to expect. You might do better if your wireless network is operating well. You could probably even get close to that under 802.11n under optimum conditions, such as a direct WiFi connection to the host computer.

Many times, I only *have* one image to transfer.

By the way, USB speeds:

o USB2 is 480 Mb/S or 48 MB/s
o USB3 is 5Gb/S or 500 MB/s

So unless you've got USB3, 802.11ac WiFi is faster. Even if you're running 802.11n, it's only about 1/3 slower. Totally worth it to not have to mess around with cables and card readers and put mechanical wear on your camera.

BTW, the USB jack on my 6D is dead. I wore it out plugging the cursed USB cable in and out. A working RAW WiFi transfer would have saved my camera.

fyngyrz - Assuming there are 8 Bits in each Byte, shouldn't your numbers look like this?

300 Mbps, or 30 MB/S --> 300 Mbps, or **37.5 MB/s**
1000 Mbps or 100 MB/S --> 1000 Mbps or **125 MB/s**
480 Mb/S or 48 MB/s --> 480 Mb/s or **60 MB/s**
5Gb/S or 500 MB/s --> 5 Gb/S or **625 MB/s**

Also, aren't these "theoretical" speeds? Meaning, the actual speed is probably about half.

"The performance of Wi-Fi networks practically never approach these theoretical maximums. 802.11b networks, for example, generally operate no faster than about 50 percent of theoretical peak, around 5.5 Mbps. Likewise, 802.11a and 802.11g networks generally run no faster than 20 Mbps."

"The disparity between theoretical and practical Wi-Fi performance comes from network protocol overhead, radio interference, physical obstructions on the line of sight between devices, and the distance between devices. In addition, as more devices communicate on the network simultaneously, its performance will also decrease."

it takes me up to 5-6 secs. to transfer roughly 100MB of D810 NEF and HQ JPG files through usb3 cable. Your numbers are cool but in reality through wifi it would be at least 30-40 sec. not to mention to deal with dropping connections and all that crap. Wifi tech is still not there, i wish it was.

2 parter because of comment length limits; part 1:

Miilkod2001, I routinely transfer 6D files of about this size (~30 MB) over my wifi direct from source-machine/SSD to destination-machine/ramdisk; it only takes a second, two at the most. But even if it *did* take 30 seconds, it'd be better than dragging out a cable and putting mechanical wear on the camera.

gfergo: note I mentioned with network overhead. There's quite a bit of bandwidth consumption that goes on that isn't actually the data itself.

Part 2 of 2:

As for theoretical speeds, WiFi typically approaches its maximum potential bandwidth when the endpoints are physically close, there is little interference, and the filesystems involved are fast (I use a ramdisk to completely eliminate that last issue on the destination system.)

"Typical" accounts for the very large number of sub-optimal setups out there, not any inherent limitation of WiFi transfer rate itself.

The good news for the kind of application we're talking about here is that it would be absolutely typical for the camera to be within inches or just a few feet of the receiving unit with a direct connection.

Of course, if you try and shovel this stuff through any combination of over a busy network, or through a lousy router, over longish distances / multiple links, or to/from a slow filesystem, etc., things go south very quickly. So... don't do that. :)

let me make part 3 of 3 for you. When you would be transferring files directly from camera to PC through wifi it would very likely drain battery very quickly after 20-30 file transfers of 30MB files. Trust me, i hate cables but wifi is not reliable option just yet.

milkod2001, Okay. However, wifi can utilize built-in transmit power control based on connection quality, like any RF data transfer method.

Again: if I have a few images to move, I'm okay with some battery consumption anyway. Better that than wear.

Also, wireless charging is a very useful and desirable feature. Otherwise you just move the wear and tear from the cables to the battery hardware, sigh.

My phone has wireless charging... it's awesome.

The bottom line is there's no reason for it not to be available.

...actually, as commented, the OP knows all they needs to know about the Nikon bodies referenced. - Neither the D610 nor D750 provide an AF button on back.
What you obviously do not know is how an AF button is supposed to work. When you 'reassign' the function of the AE/AF button on the D610 and D750, losing that buttons original functionality, you ALSO lose the ability to AF the camera using the shutter button.... O.o
On the Canon you have a dedicated button that takes priority over the shutter button, and you are free to use either anytime you wish without having to go back into a menu to 're'enable the shutter button.

No 4K, AF points highly clustered to center of screen.

BenInUK because you can't always use the screen?

doesn't the direction button around the set button do the same thing. Grant it isn't dedicated but does the same purpose.

As useless as that joystick is in most operation I agree that it is a little extra that sure helps to zoom through the menus.

I have a 40D left at the studio with the joystick, a few 70Ds without and 5D Mark IV's with it. When I grab a 70D I sure miss the quickness of having it even with the other cameras I only use it once in a while.

This camera is supposed to live up expectations for 4 years. It gets great dual pixel technology a great touch screen and articulated screen, yet no 4K. If you really stuck with 1080 make it great, sharp, 10bit high fps. But no, just your average 1080. So typical.

Good comment and thinking Samuel C

I agree with Samuel C. People have different needs. A camera like this meets my needs very well.

Well said Samuel C. My clients could care less about me having the best spec sheet. I need usability and reliability.

While I agree with the general idea, calling out pretty much any other camera with superior specifications for the same money offering gimmicks rather than reliability seems a pretty defensive position.

Samuel C. One of the most insightful comments I've ever seen here.

Of course, those specs/features are valid as tools. Even so, some of my favorite photographers of people currently shoot old film cameras (6x6, 6x7, 645) and they create stunning portraits and make good money. Those old film cameras have "zero" in the way of specs. No 20 fps, no eye focus, no ibis, no 4K, no nuthin'. Some photographers just know what they need and what's actually useful *to them*. For some, the 6D2 is spec'd very nicely because it offers what they actually want to use, and it will deliver the exact results the they want to achieve.

@zlatko
Agreed. And many just discretid them because realistically are new way of shooting they never bothered to learn about or they just hold on tight their old school shooting assuming all the new is gimmick. Or simply on denial.

Sure, but Canon is no Leica. If you are charging the $$$ it better worth it. Based on your reasoning, wha is the motivation of purchasing a 6DII over a 6D?

@Samuel
I do have cameras that I enjoy a lot. I believe that the 6DII is also an excellent camera, it just fall shorts of many things for the asking pice. Nevertheless because of people like you Canon will be able to reel in their cash.

@ Samuel
Sure I do not argue that and taste in ways of shooting.
Professional photographers, in general, need to keep competitive and as such keep on developing skills associated with new camera capabilities allowing improving their services and expanding the creative horizons. I.e. Silent electronic shutter makes a huge difference in many events, from weddings to golfing etc.
Just saying.

@Samuel
Your argument is very week. How many today would give up a smartphone? How many have ever thought of a smartphone 20 years ago?
I shot a wedding 2 weeks ago with my A9. Not a single click throughout the ceremony, you had to see the response to that. You will see soon enough bans for clicking cameras in certain events and ceremonies. Have you ever shot golfing? If not clearly you have no idea of what means a clickless camera. What are your credentials as a photographer? No offence, but some of your observations seem to be in line with possibly a passionate hobbyist, not a pro.

Credentials please?
Good to know you attended weddings, did you shoot any?

@Samuel C
Thank you for providing your background experience. I do not need to see samples of your work or anything else, I trust your word, I am simply getting tired of people here venting all sort of bs without factual experience.
I do not disagree with your point of view. Just I believe there are many different types of photographers and many are getting on the market now as new professionals. I believe these are more enticed by gear that is more progressive and less conservative. I think many photogs used to old school photographic tools do not realize the potential of some of the new camera features, mirrorless especially. This does not detract from taking fantastic pictures with cameras that do not break ground in technology.

I have been a Canon user for a long time and still am now, however I am slowly moving to Sony because I am tired of Canon making 3 steps forward and 2 backward. I agree with many that Canon cameras feel more polished and mature, yet Sony offers compelling features that Canon do not. Every day I get the chance of picking a Canon or a Sony body on my way out, and generally it is a Sony that I grab.

@Samuel C
out of curiosity, what Sony cameras did you try?

@Samuel C
no criticism, but without experience with the FF models and especially the A9 i feel you have a bit of a skewed opinion of Sony cameras. The A9 especially, pulls considerably away in usability, I believe that if Sony (and I am sure they will, it is already rumoured to have the same AF system of the A9) quickly starts trickling down some of the features and ergonomics of this cam to the A7 line Canon and Nikon need to get real serious in forgetting small refinements per camera iteration. This is why I think the 6DII, designed to last 4 years on the market, feels falling short with an imminent a7III release. Sony will likely have one more release with the 6DIII release too.
Something to consider is the fact that Sony cameras are designed to be operated very differently from the typical DSLR. Also, they have a fairly steep learning curve and require much customization to get the most out of them.

Many features available in a camera like the A9 are often overlooked by conventional DSLRs shooters, who generally are unable to realize the real value in every day shooting just because they have not experienced, trained, or bluntly ignored such things.
For instance, the DMF AF mode (AF with manual focus assist) is a default AF style in DSLRs with most current lenses. However Sony has a specific AF setting that enables focus peaking through the EVF. DSLRs manual focus is utterly useless via the OVF. If you did not try the A9 DMF you cannot really comment on how effective this is. There are many other examples like this that photographers that had no experience or superficially used such cameras fail to recognize. They compare DSLRs to Sony mirrorless as if they were both apples. They are not. I feel that many like apples and dislike oranges simply because they did not try the oranges or did not put much effort in acquiring such taste.

Personally I used for many years and still use Canon flagships cameras, and I loved and appreciated shear speed, ergonomics, construction quality, the heft. My 1DX now sits in my bag all the time as backup, coming out only when I need a third camera or need best tracking speed on my long Canon telephoto lenses.

I haven't tried the new A9, but I did own and use the A72 and found a poor user experience. I couldn't rely on it to start up fast enough. I couldn't rely on the AF in low light. The menus were poorly designed and the controls left a lot to be desired. The AF system sorely needed a joystick (new on the A9). The only real advantage for me was the small size, but I wasn't willing to give up usability for small size. In terms of user experience, the A72 couldn't keep up with the old and reliable Canon 6D that I still have. Now I would gladly try the much improved A9 if it were priced like the 6D ($1400), but it isn't.

yet they don't know how to put them in their golden a7/9 series line up..

The problem is, it has almost identical specs as the D610... that was released *years* ago. LOL

The D610, like most Nikon dslrs, are made in Thailand, whereas the bulk of Canon dslrs are made in Japan. If you can't tell the difference in build quality, then by all means get the cheaper Nikon. I can definitely see and feel the difference.

Sony meh, maybe work, maybe not, maybe specs

Not just pros, those on holidays. Who wants to take their camera on a holiday and it has problems. Canon cameras work.

Flicker detection was Canon innovation and now Sony and Nikon copy. Who was innovative there.
There are two kinds of specs. True and almost true. All the companies use both...
Sony A9, 20 FPS, well if you use 12bit on a new lens and only this combination.
Canon 5 axis stabilization, only in video and only digital.

Sony A7S????

A7S is hardly old, and even the successor is 2.6k

A7S just hit the 3 year mark and was $2500 new.

We're talking available new price tho. And 3 years is not that old

The question was what other sub $2k cam offers FF 4K, and I gave an answer.

It isn't that simple...

You know what I meant lol. Functionality and specs of the G85 or GH5 with a full frame sensor ;)

Sony already made that camera.