I'm in the market to go full-frame from a Nikon d5100. I'm not heavily vested in Nikon DX so I've been taking a real close look at the 6D and D600. I shoot mostly landscapes, and really like the Canon's 'color,' and whole system a bit better than the Nikon.
My trouble is that i keep reading everywhere how much better the sensor is on the Nikon. Especially over at DxO, where the 6D's sensor is rated barely better than my older D5100, and in fact the dynamic range on the D5100 is 1.5 EV greater than the newer and full framed 6D. So I'm wondering from your experience, how much does this matter in real world shooting? Would the 6D really be a step back except in high ISO/low-light situations? Is DxO even that accurate or trustworthy, it seems all their top-rated equipment is Nikon?
thanks in advance,
I have a D600 and I think the 6D has better high ISO performance (above ISO 3200 or so). If you shoot RAW the difference lessens, but the 6D JPG engine does a better job and noise reduction. I think the D600 can resolve a slight bit more detail at low ISO. But this is mostly a pixel-peeping exercise.
As far as the DR thing, I don't think it matters too much if you have a handle on how you want to expose things. Any camera has trouble with high contrast strong sun scenes, you just have to choose how you want to expose the scene.
Honestly the camera that feels better in your hand, the features you like, and the lens selection that makes sense to you, is more important than lab tests. Personally I get the impression that DxO results are based on equipment-measurable quantities/qualities that don't seem to matter too much when just looking at actual photographs.
|LIKE A FLAG by DIM POL|
from Your City - Metal
|Clash by AnaxImperator|
|Mobius Arch by evanrassbcglobalnet|
from Light - Dark
|Road to the Galaxy by man4mopar|
from My Best Photo of the Week