canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => EOS Bodies - For Stills => Topic started by: koolman on January 02, 2013, 05:26:40 AM

Title: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: koolman on January 02, 2013, 05:26:40 AM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: rwmson on January 02, 2013, 07:33:30 AM
A lot of us Canon owners have been wondering the same thing.  ;)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Canon-F1 on January 02, 2013, 08:44:50 AM
? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

you mean the 6D AF system is not as good as the AF from the D800?
but but..... it has 1 cross point AF.. not?

and it has an SD card slot!!!!
many consumers are puzzled with two memory card slots .. especially when they are CF and SD.

when you are lost in a cave using your -3EV middle AF point and your camera will be rescued 5 years later .. your family will know your last steps.... thanks to GPS.

:)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Axilrod on January 02, 2013, 08:54:13 AM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

That's kind of subjective.  But I will say if you move to Nikon everything is backwards.  Dials, focus ring, even the way the lens screws on is the opposite direction.  Changing settings?  Opposite direction of Canon.  Also it can be difficult to find certain Nikon glass, while pretty much everything Canon makes is plentiful. 

And do you really want to shoot RAW on the D800 and use up 1GB for every 4 pictures you take?  And what did people say about the D800 vs 5D Mark III?  And who won camera of the year?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Canon-F1 on January 02, 2013, 08:58:54 AM
And do you really want to shoot RAW on the D800 and use up 1GB for every 4 pictures you

you could buy plenty of HDD space for the money you save (compared to the 5D MK3).
wasn´t it your voice i heard in all the screams for a big MP camera last year??
or maybe i just mixed up your nick.

Quote
take?  And what did people say about the D800 vs 5D Mark III?  And who won camera of the year?

the D800, if you ask the customers, is liked more ... see DPreview poll.

and when you say "camera of the year" well there are a dozend magazines and institutions who give such a title... you have to say to which you refer. 
 
http://www.eisa.eu/award/27/european-camera-2012-2013.html (http://www.eisa.eu/award/27/european-camera-2012-2013.html)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RLPhoto on January 02, 2013, 09:15:17 AM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

Save your dough and buy a used 5D2+glass or a 5D3.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: MK5GTI on January 02, 2013, 09:57:19 AM
the 5Dc is a 20D with FF sensor.

the 5D2 is more like a 40D/50D with FF sensor, to be fair....

but like others, i think there are tons of Canon user waiting the 6D to drop to ~1500 mark, or something like the D600 with 24-85 @ $2000.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: kubelik on January 02, 2013, 10:02:11 AM
as of today there is a separate thread titled "Canon has Refurbished 5DIII for $2240": http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12006.0 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12006.0)

I'm assuming this isn't a troll-post, but I'm kind of surprised because the refurb thread is one that is currently active and shows up on the front page.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Canon-F1 on January 02, 2013, 10:09:08 AM
as of today there is a separate thread titled "Canon has Refurbished 5DIII for $2240": http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12006.0 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12006.0)

I'm assuming this isn't a troll-post, but I'm kind of surprised because the refurb thread is one that is currently active and shows up on the front page.

and?
for example, when i come here i go directly to the forum not the frontpage.

and why should it be trolling?
what canons charges is a joke compared to the competition... no need for trolling.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: kubelik on January 02, 2013, 10:11:14 AM
and why should it be trolling?
what canons charges is a joke compared to the competition... no need for trolling.

I stated that I was assuming that the OP was not trolling.

and, if you read his post, he states that the 6D is non-competitive against a refurb D800.  the price I pointed out is a refurb 5DIII listed for less than the D800.  how is what canon charges "a joke", when it is for an equal camera, at lesser price?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Promature on January 02, 2013, 10:15:51 AM
as of today there is a separate thread titled "Canon has Refurbished 5DIII for $2240": http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12006.0 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12006.0)

I'm assuming this isn't a troll-post, but I'm kind of surprised because the refurb thread is one that is currently active and shows up on the front page.

As the author of that thread, it was not a troll post.  I use dealsea.com and slickdeals.net and I think both of those sites posted the link, which I reposted in the thread here.  However, it is true that the deal is no longer available. 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Cfunkexplosion on January 02, 2013, 10:50:22 AM
If this isn't a troll post, then are you are sincerely asking complete and anonymous strangers to convince you to buy a certain brand of consumer good that you clearly don't want to purchase?

Enjoy the meal.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: unfocused on January 02, 2013, 11:07:17 AM
That is easy, they don't!

Canon have a superb ability to make what people actually want, Nikon make the things they think people want. The difference is subtle but very important...

This is something that I've been trying to explain for months.

The 5DIII was targeted to a very specific audience – wedding and event photographers. That doesn't mean it isn't a fine camera for general use, but rather it was designed and marketed with a specific professional audience in mind. Wedding photographers are about the only large population of professional photographers remaining today and they are in a very competitive market where small differences are critical to gaining a competitive edge. The 5DIII was designed to offer a competitive edge (clean, high ISO).

On the other hand, I have been unable to identify any professional market for the D800. Again, it's a fine camera, but what competitive advantage does it offer? I suppose if you are in the business of producing wall- or billboard-sized prints the extra resolution of the D800 offers an advantage. But the market is miniscule compared to the wedding and event market. And, for many professionals the high resolution and resultant files sizes can actually be a disadvantage, given that the end-use of the majority of images today is the web and not "art" prints.

Canon was able to charge a premium for the 5DIII because they knew the professional market they were targeting would pay the premium in order to secure a competitive advantage.  As "private" says, Canon made a product that people actually wanted.

For products like the 6D and the D600 the differences are less significant because both are targeted to consumers, not professionals, so they are sharing and competing for essentially the same customers. Canon did their market research and determined what features and price point they were comfortable with. Nikon did the same.

If someone feels that Nikon better fits their needs than Canon, have at it. No manufacturer is ever going to produce a product that meets the needs of 100% of the market 100% of the time.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: robbymack on January 02, 2013, 11:10:43 AM
Depends what you are into. If low light af, high iso performance, wifi, and GPS are important to you then the 6d is clearly not inferior. If you care about low iso dr and mega "pickles" then the Nikon is clearly not inferior. Pick your tool and start shooting with it. Both options are very capable and this nonsense over which is "better" is a subjective exercise.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 11:21:26 AM
I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

Are you considering the whole package, including the price and quality of the lens(es) you'd use on the D800?  The Canon 24-105L is an excellent kit lens...neither the Nikkor 24-85 nor 24-120 are as good (unless you like CA and mushy corners on your FF images).  If you're going to get a 14-24/2.8 and shoot mostly landscapes, the D800 makes a lot of sense.  For general use, IMO, Canon offers better choices. 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Albi86 on January 02, 2013, 12:02:48 PM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

If you don't plan to spend several grands on those few lenses which have no Nikon or 3rd party alternative, then buy a Nikon.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Sony on January 02, 2013, 12:08:25 PM
Better lenses give better images. What do you want in photography? Good pics or what? I switched from Nikon to Canon just because of better images. It cost me but Im happy now with my tough decision. Nikon's lenses arent as good as Canon's. If I were you I would stay with Canon's lenses and move up. It's reality.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bdunbar79 on January 02, 2013, 12:18:24 PM
What practical or business advantage does the D800 offer over the 6D?  I can't think of any if you already have Canon lenses.  And vice versa if you already had Nikon system.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: cliffwang on January 02, 2013, 12:26:19 PM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

If you don't have any EF lens, switching to Nikon may work for you.  Nowadays, third party lenses are amazing.  If you think the following lenses are you going to use, you could switch to to Nikon.

14-24(Nikon)
24-70(Tamron)
70-200(Tamron)
35mm(Sigma)
50mm(Sigma)
85mm(Sigma)

If you need other lenses, you have to consider Canon.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 12:39:37 PM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

Save your dough and buy a used 5D2+glass or a 5D3.

I keep seeing this same post by RLPhoto in response to the 6D over and over.  I consider RLPhoto a solid and talented photographer who consistently offers great advice here, no offense is intended by my comment but...  his response to the 6D is out of character for him because it indicates an assumption opinion apparently based on specs that isn't backed up by first hand experience.  And the repeated posting of it seems to indicate a desire to prevent others from making a mistake in purchasing the 6D.

I've shot about 4000+ images so far with the 6D I've owned for about a month.  I also own the 5D3, 60D, 40D, 30D and original 5D.  I've shot the 5D2 as well.  The 5D3 and 6D are the first NIB bodies I've purchased.  I normally purchase most of my equipment used.  I agree that the current Canon prices are ridiculous.  I purchased the 6D because I find the 5D3 low light performance and AF to be lacking.  In another month or two I will likely sell either the 5D3 or the 6D.  If Canon somehow magically fixes the 5D3 AF I would be inclined to possibly keep it but as things stand now, unless I do a lot of sports shooting (which I don't), the 6D will easily win this decision.

I can assure you that IMHO (based on actual use) the 6D is not a repackaged 5D2, 20D or whatever is being assumed.  The 6D IQ is comparable to the 5D3 IQ and the 6D is superior to all other cameras in low light.  The 6D simply works great as an entry level (or even mid level) FF camera.  Everything I have read from actual 6D hands-on use and reviews is positive.  My knee-jerk reaction to the 6D spec sheet several months ago was also negative.  But I gave it a chance and I'm glad I did.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 12:42:08 PM
and there are enough tests that show that nikkors are often better then the equivalent canon.

Which ones?  24-70?  Canon wins (with the MkII, that is).  24-105?  Canon wins.  70-200/2.8?  Canon wins.  TS-E/PC-E 24mm?  Canon wins.  Pretty much the entire supertele lineup?  Canon wins.  UWA zoom?  Nikon wins.  Macro lenses?  Toss-up on quality, Canon wins on variety.  Fast primes?  About an even split.

So, where's the list of 'often better' Nikkors?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 12:53:00 PM
I agree with neuro - Canon has been known for their exceptional lens lineup for years.  Nothing necc wrong with Nikon if that's the system you're invested in but if you're just starting out, Canon is hard to beat on lenses and Canon adds/updates lenses on a consistent timeline.  Canon has recently increased their new lens prices but hopefully that will change in 2013.  The quality is still there, it's just a little too expensive for new at the moment.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 12:58:30 PM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

+1  true.

Canon plays it safe nowadays and makes incremental moves since the past 2 decades. They used to be a lot bolder (remember the FD to EF mount jump?). Big dog syndrome has set in since the 90's.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 01:19:05 PM

and there are enough tests that show that nikkors are often better then the equivalent canon.

 This is patently false, Canon by reputation which translates to the obvious supremacy in market share owns the consumer and professional SLR lens market today...you have to move up to higher formats to see other players and Canon wisely doesn't dabble in those markets. So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example). This is the typical behaviour of a confident company that says "see what I can get away with...suck it up".

Nikon had a leg up in the UWA zoom range...but somehow I think this will be rectified very very soon by Canon. ;)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 01:27:35 PM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

+1  true.

Canon plays it safe nowadays and makes incremental moves since the past 2 decades. They used to be a lot bolder (remember the FD to EF mount jump?). Big dog syndrome has set in since the 90's.

I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...

'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'

... even means.  It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years.  And many seem to agree.  What am I missing?  And if this is the case, why is Canon equipment still in their bag?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 01:37:13 PM

and there are enough tests that show that nikkors are often better then the equivalent canon.

 This is patently false, Canon by reputation which translates to the obvious supremacy in market share owns the consumer and professional SLR lens market today...you have to move up to higher formats to see other players and Canon wisely doesn't dabble in those markets. So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example). This is the typical behaviour of a confident company that says "see what I can get away with...suck it up".

Nikon had a leg up in the UWA zoom range...but somehow I think this will be rectified very very soon by Canon. ;)

Canon is a very large company with many divisions besides photography.  They have a lot of resources to draw from to produce exceptional products.  I completely agree that they do whatever they think they can get away with with regard to price and small annoyances like omitting hoods, etc from $1K lens offerings, etc.  That is the irritation I feel when buying Canon these days.  They send the message with these habits that they don't really care about your pocketbook or loyalty because they assume they will have both anyway.  It's a bit insulting.  And since I don't make a living from photography, I occasionally wonder why I even bother.  Sometimes selling everything and just going back to having a single body and 2 or 3 good lenses and a flash sounds mighty appealing.  Take that Canon!  (Me = insignificant consumer insect shaking tiny insect fist at mighty Canon juggernaut.)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 01:44:09 PM

I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...

'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'

... even means.  It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years.  And many seem to agree.  What am I missing?  And if this is the case, why is Canon equipment still in their bag?

This is not a personal attack on Canon's overall quality...just calling it like it is... 6D is a safe move up introducing some new features... it is an incremental move...not a revolutionary move by any means...that's what the comment made by me and others means...

I also said in a different thread that once the 6D price settles down from the initial high, it would be a good value and a competent camera in its own right.

I may be a Canon user, but I don't believe in mindlessly defending Canon at every turn where every single thing they do is the second coming that needs to be venerated and praised to high heavens. Sometimes what they do is just plain ordinary or market driven and that's ok too.

I use Canon because I like the overall platform. I call the 6D an incremental move because it is.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 01:57:06 PM
.... Sometimes selling everything and just going back to having a single body and 2 or 3 good lenses and a flash sounds mighty appealing.  Take that Canon!  (Me = insignificant consumer insect shaking tiny insect fist at mighty Canon juggernaut.)

Oh but that will be like cutting one's nose to spite the face....so when push comes to shove, neither I nor you would want to go back to the early years...

But... "shaking tiny insect fists at Canon"....all of us users have been there at some point and can empathize I am sure.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: ScottyP on January 02, 2013, 01:58:43 PM

I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...

'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'

... even means.  It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years.  And many seem to agree.  What am I missing?  And if this is the case, why is Canon equipment still in their bag?

This is not a personal attack on Canon's overall quality...just calling it like it is... 6D is a safe move up introducing some new features... it is an incremental move...not a revolutionary move by any means...that's what the comment made by me and others means...

I also said in a different thread that once the 6D price settles down from the initial high, it would be a good value and a competent camera in its own right.

I may be a Canon user, but I don't believe in mindlessly defending Canon at every turn where every single thing they do is the second coming that needs to be venerated and praised to high heavens. Sometimes what they do is just plain ordinary or market driven and that's ok too.

I use Canon because I like the overall platform. I call the 6D an incremental move because it is.

Geez.  I'm all for not sparing Canon any well-deserved criticism, but "a repackaged 5D2 which is in turn a repackaged 20d, only with a FF"?  You gloss over the swap from crop to FF pretty dismissively, and then you gloss over the gain of a stop or 2 of low-light performance between 5D2 and 6D (and I guess 3 or 4 stops between 20D and 6D) as if they were nothing.  What, exactly would constutute a meaningful advance, assuming the end result will still look like a camera and do what a camera does?  I suppose all these cameras are still black, and still have a shutter button, so there is nothing groundbreaking like, what, mounting 3 lenses at the same time, and maybe a tractor beam, or the ability to resurect one's ancestors?  :)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 02:00:06 PM
6D is a safe move up introducing some new features... it is an incremental move...not a revolutionary move by any means...

Sometimes what they do is just plain ordinary or market driven and that's ok too.

Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc. 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 02:04:10 PM
I suppose all these cameras are still black, and still have a shutter button, so there is nothing groundbreaking like, what, mounting 3 lenses at the same time, and maybe a tractor beam, or the ability to ressurect one's ancestors?  :)

Yes, and don't forget including hoods for each one of those three lenses :P
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: awinphoto on January 02, 2013, 02:52:52 PM
I know, seriously, canon is so overpriced... oh wait let me play with my new 100mm 2.8L Macro... sweet... i mean damn them for twisting my arm to buy an overpriced lens... 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 03:08:55 PM
OK, now this is more like it!  Some fun posts!  I particularly will be on the waiting list for the tractor beam feature!!  Especially if it will track my eye movements and re-pose or levitate the subjects I choose!  I think the tractor beam would be very handy in low light for stabilizing the moving subjects.  Sort of like the next logical step in IS technology!  (Not only does the new IS system dampen camera/lens movement for 4+ stops of exposure advantage, it also stops the subject for another 4 stops!!)  This might be problematic in dance recitals, stock car races and pro sports where "IS Free" zones would need to be enforced.  This would unfortunately free up people to use their cell phones since all the enforcement attention would be paid to watching for IS users!   :D

Alright, I got that out of my system.  Sorry for taking the thread off topic.  But I didn't mention sharing software so hopefully I'll be alright....
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RLPhoto on January 02, 2013, 03:29:58 PM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

Save your dough and buy a used 5D2+glass or a 5D3.

I keep seeing this same post by RLPhoto in response to the 6D over and over.  I consider RLPhoto a solid and talented photographer who consistently offers great advice here, no offense is intended by my comment but...  his response to the 6D is out of character for him because it indicates an assumption opinion apparently based on specs that isn't backed up by first hand experience.  And the repeated posting of it seems to indicate a desire to prevent others from making a mistake in purchasing the 6D.

I've shot about 4000+ images so far with the 6D I've owned for about a month.  I also own the 5D3, 60D, 40D, 30D and original 5D.  I've shot the 5D2 as well.  The 5D3 and 6D are the first NIB bodies I've purchased.  I normally purchase most of my equipment used.  I agree that the current Canon prices are ridiculous.  I purchased the 6D because I find the 5D3 low light performance and AF to be lacking.  In another month or two I will likely sell either the 5D3 or the 6D.  If Canon somehow magically fixes the 5D3 AF I would be inclined to possibly keep it but as things stand now, unless I do a lot of sports shooting (which I don't), the 6D will easily win this decision.

I can assure you that IMHO (based on actual use) the 6D is not a repackaged 5D2, 20D or whatever is being assumed.  The 6D IQ is comparable to the 5D3 IQ and the 6D is superior to all other cameras in low light.  The 6D simply works great as an entry level (or even mid level) FF camera.  Everything I have read from actual 6D hands-on use and reviews is positive.  My knee-jerk reaction to the 6D spec sheet several months ago was also negative.  But I gave it a chance and I'm glad I did.

My only experience with the 6D is an hour in a camera store, (the camera exchange in SA), and I was not impressed because it felt exactly like the 5D2 but alittle nicer. I also realized using why it doesn't have a joystick because you will only be using the center point for accurate focusing. Set it and forget it. The outer points are
Ok If your at f/4 or so. Still a bit hit or miss.

Strange that the 5D2 is very similar in this main AF aspect. Even the t4i has all cross type AF points! What gives? If they have it the 7D AF system minimum, well I'd probably have one.

I'd rather buy a 5D2 + L lens than spend the cash on the 6D. This is my opinion, and that's my feelings on the camera. I apologize if I may of offended you rusty, but the 6D AF performed no better than my 5Dc or rebel XSI I've used years ago. Perhaps in super low light it will show its magic, but my 5Dc was also fantastic in low light w/ center point AF selected.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: jp121 on January 02, 2013, 03:42:45 PM
I too 'jumped' from the Rebel T2i (550D). But I bought the 5DM3 at full market price.

Price will (almost) always reflect current purchaser demand. Basic economics the price consumers will actually pay intersecting with how much the producer can actually (or are willing to) supply.

Canon & Nikon technology will always keep up with each other, as best they can, with strong consideration towards their core markets.

If you're not happy with their current line-up of product offerings (or the price you will pay), then obviously, you are do not fall into one of their current target markets. This will change over time as prices adjust to market forces.

If you are truly interested in photography. ie the actual photographs as a result of the camera person's skill and expression.

Then I suggest you list your photography goals and the technology that will best help you achieve those goals. Select the system that you feel will best assist you.

Remember cameras come and go. ie you are prepared to ditch you 550D and move on. The high price of lenses and accessories (spent over time) will force you to stick to either Canon or Nikon.

If it is the trophy object (camera, car etc) that gets your rocks off. Then does it truly matter which camera you actually purchase... Buy the one that says WOW to you and makes you walk that bit taller.

The only reason that I buy Canon was that when I was prepared to buy my first dslr, the 550D was the best in the market, at a price that I was willing to pay, at that specific moment in time. I am now invested into the Canon system. I choose not to know anything about any other Camera manufacturer, as I am not prepared to devalue what I have already spent.

Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 03:54:38 PM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

Save your dough and buy a used 5D2+glass or a 5D3.

I keep seeing this same post by RLPhoto in response to the 6D over and over.  I consider RLPhoto a solid and talented photographer who consistently offers great advice here, no offense is intended by my comment but...  his response to the 6D is out of character for him because it indicates an assumption opinion apparently based on specs that isn't backed up by first hand experience.  And the repeated posting of it seems to indicate a desire to prevent others from making a mistake in purchasing the 6D.

I've shot about 4000+ images so far with the 6D I've owned for about a month.  I also own the 5D3, 60D, 40D, 30D and original 5D.  I've shot the 5D2 as well.  The 5D3 and 6D are the first NIB bodies I've purchased.  I normally purchase most of my equipment used.  I agree that the current Canon prices are ridiculous.  I purchased the 6D because I find the 5D3 low light performance and AF to be lacking.  In another month or two I will likely sell either the 5D3 or the 6D.  If Canon somehow magically fixes the 5D3 AF I would be inclined to possibly keep it but as things stand now, unless I do a lot of sports shooting (which I don't), the 6D will easily win this decision.

I can assure you that IMHO (based on actual use) the 6D is not a repackaged 5D2, 20D or whatever is being assumed.  The 6D IQ is comparable to the 5D3 IQ and the 6D is superior to all other cameras in low light.  The 6D simply works great as an entry level (or even mid level) FF camera.  Everything I have read from actual 6D hands-on use and reviews is positive.  My knee-jerk reaction to the 6D spec sheet several months ago was also negative.  But I gave it a chance and I'm glad I did.

My only experience with the 6D is an hour in a camera store, (the camera exchange in SA), and I was not impressed because it felt exactly like the 5D2 but alittle nicer. I also realized using why it doesn't have a joystick because you will only be using the center point for accurate focusing. Set it and forget it. The outer points are
Ok If your at f/4 or so. Still a bit hit or miss.

Strange that the 5D2 is very similar in this main AF aspect. Even the t4i has all cross type AF points! What gives? If they have it the 7D AF system minimum, well I'd probably have one.

I'd rather buy a 5D2 + L lens than spend the cash on the 6D. This is my opinion, and that's my feelings on the camera. I apologize if I may of offended you rusty, but the 6D AF performed no better than my 5Dc or rebel XSI I've used years ago. Perhaps in super low light it will show its magic, but my 5Dc was also fantastic in low light w/ center point AF selected.

Thanks RLPhoto.  Of course I'm not offended, just a bit confused.  I tend to agree with most of your posts and I like your style.  So for that reason, I have been a bit confounded by your thoughts on the 6D.  Personally, I have never been able to learn much about a camera body in the store other than seeing how it feels in the hand and how the menus and controls work.  Otherwise, I have to shoot some stuff in real world use to get an idea about whether I prefer the camera.  I love the original 5Dc and I think the 6D is more similar in use to the 5Dc than the 5D3 is.  The 5D3 is more complicated due to its AF features, etc.

IMO, as I use the 6D and the 5D3 side by side, I am starting to lean toward a similar thought as yours except I would rather own the 6D + L lens instead of paying the price of the 5D3.  (Unless my primary use required the superior 5D3 AF in action shots.)  The IQ of both cameras for normal photography is very close.  And one of my favorite features is the Silent Shutter which is identical on both cameras.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 04:18:07 PM
I call the 6D the "warmed up 5D2". Slightly microwaved in a BPA-free container ;) Its not a knock on the Camera, when they sell it for $1299 in a year during Christmas, I promise to pick one up :P
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 04:29:47 PM
As I use both camera bodies, I agree that Canon is charging too much for the 6D but if that's true, it must also be true that they are charging WAY too much for the 5D3.  Both bodies are overpriced.  As I use both, I am finding that for my use, I am starting to prefer to be gouged less with the overpriced 6D than the 5D3. 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: schnellergt on January 02, 2013, 04:56:59 PM
I just registered to reply because I feel I can contribute something. I've been a member of Fredmiranda/POTN/DPreview for at least 6+ years and have been using Canon digital cameras for 10 years. A 5DII is currently in my bag. I would call myself a near-professional hobbyist :)

To be honest, I have been disappointed with Canon lately. I get the feeling they offer us the scraps from their table, at a slow pace (for the tech world), and they charge outrageously for this technology. I frankly think they are arrogant and don't listen to their customer base much at all. Whereas, I think Nikon does. Every product of Nkon's since the D700 has outclassed Canon in terms of features. For example, it was Nikon that started pushing dual memory card slots for entry- and mid-level cameras. Nikon has put considerably more pressure on Canon as of late and we Canon users should be thankful for this.

I also think that Sony (Nikon) sensors are superior to that of Canon in two key ways:
1. Analog-digital converter integrated directly into the sensor chip
2. 3D color matrix metering: exposure metering system, operating on data from a dedicated  RGB sensor

Every kick sick of Canon's overblown red channel?

Anyway, all this talk about Nikon led me to rent a D600+ AFS 24-70 2.8G combo from LensRentals a few weeks back. Based on the 4-day experience, I came to the following conclusions:

Nikon Pros (D600 vs 5DII):
Dynamic Range
Metering
AF speed & accuracy
Size & Weight
Availability of some nice, new "value" primes like the AFS 85 1.8G that is superior to the Canon
The best UWA zoom in the business: AFS 12-24 2.8G

Nikon Cons:
Menu layout
Comfort in the hand / grip
Overall build quality, fit & finish (Camera bodies and lenses)
Many lenses not as good as Canon's: 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 2.8L II IS, 85 1.2L II, etc.

In the end, I came away feeling that Nikon listens to its customers, wants more of them, is trying harder than Canon to get them, is making products that offer a better value in many respects, offers a product with a better sensor in terms of dynamic range and RGB metering, BUT (a big but) is trying to do all this at cut-throat speed and margins to the point that quality and customer service is suffering greatly. Whereas Canon charges a premium for products still mainly Made in Japan that represent a better long-term investment and will likely hold their value longer. Canon products are solid and if I were a field photographer, the choice would be easier in Canon's favor.

After my experiment with the D600, I came within a click or two of selling all my Canon equipment and switching, but I held back. I now read lots of dust/oil complaints with the D600 and this reinforces my impression of the camera's overall fit and finish.

My hope now is that either Nikon will come clean and do a recall, will release a "fixed" D600s, or Canon will fix its dynamic range and metering problems with the 5DIV and in the meantime I will continue to invest in good Canon glass.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: tphillips63 on January 02, 2013, 04:58:44 PM
I call the 6D the "warmed up 5D2". Slightly microwaved in a BPA-free container ;) Its not a knock on the Camera, when they sell it for $1299 in a year during Christmas, I promise to pick one up :P

I'd probably have a take a good look at that deal too if it happens!

Regarding the 5D Mark II, with it being EOL, how does that affect peoples decision VS the 6D?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 05:11:15 PM
Welcome to the forum schnellergt!  While this forum can't escape the occasional trolls, it's a good forum overall.

I like your thoughtful post describing your experience.  I think the 5D3 is a great camera and did respond to Canon customer demands, at least to a certain extent.  It's still overpriced however and to me, is disappointing in low light AF when that was supposed to be one its big strengths.  The fact that there are two or three distinct classes of user satisfaction in this area (No Problem, Just OK and Terrible) seems to indicate a QA problem in the 5D3 manufacturing process.  I myself moved from the Terrible to the Just OK class after I returned my camera for an exchange.  At this price range however, I wish there wasn't even a discussion about 5D3 low light AF performance except to question how it can be so good all the time for everyone without question.

So at the moment I am enjoying better low light AF with the 6D but I hope the 5D3 low light AF performance somehow magically improves after the next firmware update.  Otherwise, I'll probably stick with the 6D for the foreseeable future and maybe even sell the 5D3.

Thanks again for your input!!
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: x-vision on January 02, 2013, 05:17:13 PM
I call the 6D the "warmed up 5D2". Slightly microwaved in a BPA-free container ;) Its not a knock on the Camera, when they sell it for $1299 in a year during Christmas, I promise to pick one up :P

+1000

Canon spec'd the 6D as a $1500 camera but wants to sell it for $2099.
Well, not to me  8).
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: cliffwang on January 02, 2013, 05:18:43 PM
I call the 6D the "warmed up 5D2". Slightly microwaved in a BPA-free container ;) Its not a knock on the Camera, when they sell it for $1299 in a year during Christmas, I promise to pick one up :P

You won't see 1299 for 6D in two years.  If it drops to 1299, I will get one as a backup camera.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: awinphoto on January 02, 2013, 05:40:53 PM
You know... threads like this, to me, as a professional photographer, are humerous... all cameras mentioned in this thread from the 6D to 5d2/5d3 and D600 and D800... these are all professional cameras used every day by professional photographers...  Why on earth do professional photographers charge a small fortune for their services... overhead is a big reason as well as our time...  In the film era very few amateurs had SLR's unless you were really dedicated...  and even fewer had what would be considered a professional SLR...  I'm shocked how popular photography has become since the digital revolution where amateurs afford and buy top tier cameras and then gripe about the price...  It's a tool... a high priced tool...  It would be like me complaining that Profoto strobes are 3-4 times the price if not more of alien bee strobes when essentially they do the same function and size and such... Or tripods... Or monopods... or imagine a carpenter bitching that a table saw costs $250 and another one from another brand is $1200... I can go on and on and on...  Prices aren't fair and by all means, these tools are designed, created, and aimed for their professional market... not pixel peeping amateurs...  yes my latest lens cost nearly $900, but I can make that back in a shoot or two...  That may not be the point, but that is Canon's point... it's a professional tool geared for professionals...  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel. 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 05:51:31 PM
I call the 6D the "warmed up 5D2". Slightly microwaved in a BPA-free container ;) Its not a knock on the Camera, when they sell it for $1299 in a year during Christmas, I promise to pick one up :P

You won't see 1299 for 6D in two years.  If it drops to 1299, I will get one as a backup camera.

Not many people thought Canon will be shifting 5D3's at ~$2600 just few months after release at 3.5K !!!  (call it bundle deals, promotions, or ebay by adorama...but there it is).

But my comment on 6D was tongue-in-cheek... I do not foresee picking up a 6D even at $1299 in a year... and as for your comment "won't see $1299 in two years!"... Two years!!! 

Who in their right mind would want a 11 point AF with a few frills and marginally tweaked legacy sensor tech in 2015 January!!! Canon will have to hope and pray for more people like you. In two years (say...2015 January), Canon will be lucky if they can shift that camera for $1000 from the back of the truck. As for resale value... we wont go there. We will be seeing new stuff from both Canon as well as the competitors in 2013...and more in by the year after. 6D, like most things in the tech world, though introduced at high prices as a supermodel, is likely to be found at the curb in a year or two as a granny wearing Depends :).  Center stage will belong to younger models.

I am sure Adorama will be selling it by September on their "ebay store" (ahem... what a convenient loophole) for some deep discount, so if you are a big fan...just pick one up and enjoy...now or whenever it suits you. :)

Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: thepancakeman on January 02, 2013, 05:52:20 PM
You know... threads like this, to me, as a professional photographer, are humerous... all cameras mentioned in this thread from the 6D to 5d2/5d3 and D600 and D800... these are all professional cameras used every day by professional photographers...  Why on earth do professional photographers charge a small fortune for their services... overhead is a big reason as well as our time...  In the film era very few amateurs had SLR's unless you were really dedicated...  and even fewer had what would be considered a professional SLR...  I'm shocked how popular photography has become since the digital revolution where amateurs afford and buy top tier cameras and then gripe about the price...  It's a tool... a high priced tool...  It would be like me complaining that Profoto strobes are 3-4 times the price if not more of alien bee strobes when essentially they do the same function and size and such... Or tripods... Or monopods... or imagine a carpenter bitching that a table saw costs $250 and another one from another brand is $1200... I can go on and on and on...  Prices aren't fair and by all means, these tools are designed, created, and aimed for their professional market... not pixel peeping amateurs...  yes my latest lens cost nearly $900, but I can make that back in a shoot or two...  That may not be the point, but that is Canon's point... it's a professional tool geared for professionals...  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel.

Shopping for low end table saws?   ??? 

You are exactly correct--I have done some professional woodworking and easily got my money back from a $100 Starrett combination square, yet it appears nearly identical to a $12 one from Home Depot.  If you're not a pro and are happy with $12 one, go for it, but don't complain about the $100 one being too expensive.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 06:09:46 PM
and there are enough tests that show that nikkors are often better then the equivalent canon.

Which ones?  24-70?  Canon wins (with the MkII, that is).  24-105?  Canon wins.  70-200/2.8?  Canon wins.  TS-E/PC-E 24mm?  Canon wins.  Pretty much the entire supertele lineup?  Canon wins.  UWA zoom?  Nikon wins.  Macro lenses?  Toss-up on quality, Canon wins on variety.  Fast primes?  About an even split.

So, where's the list of 'often better' Nikkors?

if i had so much time at hand as you seem to have i would copy a few reviews from magazines where nikkors where placed on no.1 and canon are behind them.

but the the claim that all nikon lenses are inferior is so wrong... im not wasting my time on such a stupid discussion.

I did not make such a claim, but I feel the same way about your claim that most Nikon lenses are better than the Canon equivalent.  Especially when that claim is completely unsubstantiated. 

"What I say is true."

"Can you back that up with some evidence?"

"I could if I wanted to, but I don't have time."


Thanks for that cogent and very convincing argument. I bet you were a real asset to your secondary school's debating team...   ::)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: awinphoto on January 02, 2013, 06:11:26 PM
You know... threads like this, to me, as a professional photographer, are humerous... all cameras mentioned in this thread from the 6D to 5d2/5d3 and D600 and D800... these are all professional cameras used every day by professional photographers...  Why on earth do professional photographers charge a small fortune for their services... overhead is a big reason as well as our time...  In the film era very few amateurs had SLR's unless you were really dedicated...  and even fewer had what would be considered a professional SLR...  I'm shocked how popular photography has become since the digital revolution where amateurs afford and buy top tier cameras and then gripe about the price...  It's a tool... a high priced tool...  It would be like me complaining that Profoto strobes are 3-4 times the price if not more of alien bee strobes when essentially they do the same function and size and such... Or tripods... Or monopods... or imagine a carpenter bitching that a table saw costs $250 and another one from another brand is $1200... I can go on and on and on...  Prices aren't fair and by all means, these tools are designed, created, and aimed for their professional market... not pixel peeping amateurs...  yes my latest lens cost nearly $900, but I can make that back in a shoot or two...  That may not be the point, but that is Canon's point... it's a professional tool geared for professionals...  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel.

many professionals use the cheaper nikon bodys... so what does that mean for your statement?

It makes my point nicely.. I know some pro's that shoot weddings with rebels...  For them, for their needs/budget/etc it isn't worth it for them to get bigger bodies... One of my local competitors still shoots 20D's...  Different tools for different folks...  It also proves pro's make more informed decisions on bodies than knee jerk amateurs who splurge and get 5d's and 1d's...  Just saying...  For how i've positioned my business and my market, i utilize my gear for what I do...  This time last year I shot 7d's and this time 4 years ago i was shooting 30D's...  I've worked my way up as finances allowed and as I demanded such out of my gear... anymore questions?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: awinphoto on January 02, 2013, 06:17:44 PM
the thing that some of you "price ignorant canon supporters"  ;) seem to miss is... that people complain about the pricing compared to the competition from nikon.

and yes many of them are amateurs..... learn to live with it.
canon would not be happy to loose them.. amateurs or not... that´s for sure.

amateurs or not, they are professional bodies... deal with it.  In the film days nikons were the premier bodies and cost more... people still shot canon...Doesn't mean Canon was better at that time, they were not really.  Ford F350's are more powerful and cost more overall than F150's or even the ford rangers when they made them... But they were made for two separate clients...  Of course any schlub can buy the 350 if they have the financial resources, but then dont complain that a dodge ram is cheaper...  I was well aware of the D800's benifits over the 5d3 when I bought the 5d3... I walked in with eyes wide open, paid full price, and my camera has since more than paid for itself over and over again... It is what it is.   
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: zim on January 02, 2013, 06:21:32 PM
I myself moved from the Terrible to the Just OK class after I returned my camera for an exchange.  At this price range however, I wish there wasn't even a discussion about 5D3 low light AF performance except to question how it can be so good all the time for everyone without question.

So at the moment I am enjoying better low light AF with the 6D but I hope the 5D3 low light AF performance somehow magically improves after the next firmware update. 


Hi Rusty,
Are you talking about the AF flash assist issue or low light focusing in general? For me the two are very different. Thought the 5D3 was pretty hot in the available light focusing department, no?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 06:29:53 PM
I did not make such a claim


well ... but i answerd such a claim....  ::) 

Quote from: Sony
Nikon lenses arent as good as Canon's.

Fair enough - yes, that was an absurd claim. Sorry!

But I'd still say that Canon lenses are better than the Nikon counterpart more often than the reverse.  :P
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 06:41:44 PM
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.  Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 06:59:11 PM
Are you considering the whole package, including the price and quality of the lens(es) you'd use on the D800?  The Canon 24-105L is an excellent kit lens...neither the Nikkor 24-85 nor 24-120 are as good (unless you like CA and mushy corners on your FF images).  If you're going to get a 14-24/2.8 and shoot mostly landscapes, the D800 makes a lot of sense.  For general use, IMO, Canon offers better choices.

Wow, your 24-105L must be a lot different to mine 'cause while the center is good on the 24-105, the corners are rubbish at 24mm. Same with the 16-35 and 17-40.

Actually not just his...my 24-105L is a gem and I can second the assertion it is an excellent lens.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 07:41:39 PM
Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.

In the context of this thread, do you pay $2300 for a 36MP D800 that has second-to-none IQ or a $2100 6D that has by comparison rather average IQ?

That depends. I can get a high quality lens (24-105) with the 6D for an extra $600, $2700 total.  How much more than that do I need to spend to buy a high enough quality Nikkor FX lens so I don't handicap that high-resolution second-to-none IQ sensor?

Are you considering the whole package, including the price and quality of the lens(es) you'd use on the D800?  The Canon 24-105L is an excellent kit lens...neither the Nikkor 24-85 nor 24-120 are as good (unless you like CA and mushy corners on your FF images).  If you're going to get a 14-24/2.8 and shoot mostly landscapes, the D800 makes a lot of sense.  For general use, IMO, Canon offers better choices.

Wow, your 24-105L must be a lot different to mine 'cause while the center is good on the 24-105, the corners are rubbish at 24mm. Same with the 16-35 and 17-40.

It does sound like you may have a bad copy.  My 24-105L's (I've had two) have both been sharp in the corners, and even sharper in the center.  Not as sharp as my 70-200 II, of course, but plenty sharp.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: lucuias on January 02, 2013, 08:38:49 PM
My friend and I got an assignment to shoot in a club for their opening ceremony,He use Nikon D800 while I use Canon 5dMark III.I am the one will be processing his and my image once done the shooting.In such situation,I find no benefit D800 towards 5Dmark III.

1st,At high ISO above ISO800 of D800 do not give dynamic range advantage towards 5Dmark III.
2nd,The big megapixel of D800 is a drawn back in rough noise at high ISO.5dmark III(6D as well I belief) i can comfortable to shoot at ISO 12800.
3rd,The big file size is pain in post processing(Extra money to be spend upgrading my PC)

In my opinion,that is depends you shoot.If you are a landscape and studio photographer,D800 is the best choice.If you always have to bump high ISO above iso800 such as event & wedding,5dmark III or 6D is the best choice for the price(1dx if you are that rich).
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 02, 2013, 09:19:26 PM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.
The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.
I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

Because they can charge more and get away with it.  They're in the market lead, know it, and act accordingly, much like Apple's been known to.  They've managed to create a loyal fan base of repeat customers, originally by making the best hardware experience, again, sort of like Apple.

But unlike the computer biz, there are plenty more challengers in the camera biz.  Nikon's certainly learned a few things over the years and 2012 has been a banner year for them putting out some wow products at wow price points.  Unlike Canon's yawn products at OW price points lately.

Nikon's trying to offer more for less because they have to try harder; they're still in 2nd place.

But to try answer your implied ?, which FF system you choose will depend on a lot of factors.
If you want to shoot low light, hi ISO, event sort of work, Canon's likely the better choice unless you step up to pro level bodies where either brand is near as good as the other.
If you prefer to shoot creative and landscape images at lower ISO, Nikon's raw files are more malleable in post without seeing the stripes of pattern noise most Canon cameras exhibit when raw files are pushed hard.  Especially with pro-sumer and consumer level bodies.

Those refurb prices lately are a wicked deal!
I like my D800s more the more I use them but I'm still thinking of a 6d to replace my 5d2 for those few instances where I want to use my Canon glass instead of Nikon.

And, FWIW, I generally prefer Canon's lenses but there's no shortage of fine Nikon and 3rd party lenses that are up to the abilities of the D800's hi-rez sensor and they don't all cost as much as Canon's L-class either.
My kit's stuffed with great (used and new) F-mount lenses that cost me way less than my Canon gear and they perform well enough to please a technocrat like myself.  My customers are far less particular.

File size complaints re the D800's raw files?...  pointless.  If you spend the $ on gear you have to realize you need a modern computer to keep up also.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 02, 2013, 09:24:17 PM
Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc.

Uhmm .. D800.
a truckload more MP and DR to match, lots of AF ability, raw video, plenty of features, etc.


..  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel.

darn right!
or one of Nikon's IQ-superior offerings like the D5100

you can not beat the performance per cost of such low cost gear that can provide IQ as well as stuff 20x the price at base and low ISO!

Any of the cheap consumer bodies is capable of large art-quality print files if you use them properly.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 02, 2013, 09:55:42 PM
File size complaints re the D800's raw files?...  pointless.  If you spend the $ on gear you have to realize you need a modern computer to keep up also.

No it isn't pointless, it is a significant cost factor involved in the decision making process that is too regularly dismissed with the casual "HDD's are cheap" meme, add in a $2,000-4,000 computer and your D800 is not so cheap! Sure if you are a pro and can write this stuff off against income, but many are not and when all is said and done it is the bulk market of amateurs that keeps the pro gear R&D going, sure Canon and Nikon might make money off pro gear but that isn't where the bulk of their income or profits comes from.

I guess I meant to say, "it's pointless complaining about it."
You know the larger file sizes will slow down post-processing so it's not coming as a surprise.
Stepping up to higher res is a 2 step process, the camera+glass, then the post-processing ability.

I have a 2010 iMac with an i7 and 12GB of RAM and it's just fine for my PP needs, even for large stiched panaramas.
If I had to process 100s of shots per day, then I'd want more speed but IF I WERE DOING THAT I'd have a faster computer or stay with a lower rez camera.
If you're doing that, hopefully you're making money at it and justify the cost of a faster computer.

if a hobbyist is upset about this, well... new computer's next on your wish list, I guess.
I don't worry about storage costs, storage IS cheap these days, when compared to all the other tech items.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 10:00:24 PM
Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc.

Uhmm .. D800.
a truckload more MP and DR to match, lots of AF ability, raw video, plenty of features, etc.

Yes, those are the exact sort of incremental improvements I was talking about.  Or, if you prefer, the 5D Mark II was just as revolutionary, or at least, as revolutionary as 20D with a FF sensor can be.  ::)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Radiating on January 02, 2013, 10:24:08 PM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

The 6D and D800 are in different classes. You need to compare apples to apples:

D800 refurb $2300 + $450 grip = $2750

5D Mark III Big Value Inc Brand New (limited quantities) = $2499 + $275 grip = $2775

You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

The 5D Mark III has a half a stop ISO advantage over the D800, a reviewers comparing raw files find that the raw files have equal amounts of base noise, but the D800's ISO is calibrated 27% higher than the D800's (meaning iso 1000 on the 5D III is equal to iso 1270 on the D800), the 5D III was also designed to repond better to noise reduction by having a more gausian distribution of the noise, so that adds another quarter stop of noise, after NR.

The 5D Mark III then has slightly better AF in many back to back tests (depending who you ask they are even though, as both are good), and tests have also shown that no zoom lens can max out the 5D Mark III over more than around 90% of the image area, meaning with zooms there will be no real world resolution difference, and with primes only a select few (EXcluding most Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses and only including exceptionally exceptional lenses) can outresolve 28 megapixels, and only between f/8.0 to f/4.0, so the nikon resolution advantage is slim or none due to the limits of most lenses.

The major real world advantage to the D800 is of course dynamic range for shadow recovery, and those megapixels for landscape shooters that use ideal setups and need to eek every last drop from the camera (but it's a smaller advantage than the marketing would lead you to beleive). There are of course other minor differences, but for the most part the 5D3 is a better journalist or portrait camera and the D800 a better landscape and studio camera.

For most work they cost the same and offer similar features.

The core Nikon lenes are generally more expensive too, if you ignore Canon's insane early adopter "tax", the 24-70mm II is said to go down the $1600, which is the same as Nikon's with higher quality and other than that the core lenes on Nikon are slightly more expensive for Apples to Apples lenses.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 10:32:25 PM
You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

6 fps in DX mode only - 1.5x crop FoV and 16 MP. 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 10:41:25 PM
I myself moved from the Terrible to the Just OK class after I returned my camera for an exchange.  At this price range however, I wish there wasn't even a discussion about 5D3 low light AF performance except to question how it can be so good all the time for everyone without question.

So at the moment I am enjoying better low light AF with the 6D but I hope the 5D3 low light AF performance somehow magically improves after the next firmware update. 


Hi Rusty,
Are you talking about the AF flash assist issue or low light focusing in general? For me the two are very different. Thought the 5D3 was pretty hot in the available light focusing department, no?

Well, this has been discussed to death already and some see AF Flash Assist and Low Light focusing as separate issues.  Personally, I see them as related and part of the same problem.  Since every other camera I have ever owned performed better than the 5D3 in Low Light AF performance (in available low light, without AF Assist, FWIW), I expected at least somewhat better AF performance from the new $3K+ 5D3 in this category.  Just call me Crazy!  Alas, after exchanging the camera, I have been able to achieve similar AF low light performance to my older cameras but not much better.  So, I got the 6D to compare and it works much better, like I expected the 5D3 to perform after hearing all the hype for many months.  I've never used AF Assist and to be honest, I had forgotten all about it until I got a 5D3 and started reading up on why the low light AF sucked so much.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: sdsr on January 02, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

+1  true.


Oh? So why is the 6D's low light/high ISO performance better (including obviously less noise) than that of the 5DII?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 11:08:31 PM
The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

+1  true.


Oh? So why is the 6D's low light/high ISO performance better (including obviously less noise) than that of the 5DII?

Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 11:20:44 PM

I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...

'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'

... even means.  It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years.  And many seem to agree.  What am I missing?

Pixel pitch of 5D Mark II: 6.4 microns
Pixel pitch of 20D: 6.4 microns

Um, is pixel pitch really the spec you are going to support that statement with?   ???
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 02, 2013, 11:22:14 PM
Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 02, 2013, 11:28:19 PM
After some thought, I do have to say that from the perspective of 5D2 owners, the 6D may not be that compelling.  From my perspective as a 5Dc owner who wasn't that excited about the 5D2, the 6D makes more sense.  And the 6D doesn't just make sense to me coming from a 5Dc.  It makes sense coming from a 5D3 if I don't need the super AF for sports.  See, I went from the 5Dc to the 5D3 and was a bit disappointed so the 6D seems like a good compromise for a lot less money.  I'm giving the 5D3 until after the next firmware update to see what improves and then it may go away.  We'll see....
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 02, 2013, 11:50:13 PM
Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III?

In practice, 6d is more a nominal replacement to the old 5d2 as price point and old set of features go...with a few frills added...Not an upgrade "per se" ...perhaps I did not use the right word there if one is pedantic, but in practice it is not that far from the intended near term marketing at its introduction.  Most of the comparisons in forums have been weather one should buy an old 5d2 at the basement prices or if one should get a 6d...that was the tenor of much of the comparisons here even a few months back.  Enter 5d3.... 5d2 still alive...enter 6d... 5d2 put to pasture. Also 5d3 entered at a higher price point that the late comers to 5d2 party, meaning those who adopted it at a lower price point, or considered it at its low end of its tenure pricing, could not readily pick up the 5d3 at its high intro pricing...not until the ebay fire-sales set in anyways...so no, i am fully aware where the 6D fits in the scheme of things.

With 5d3, arguably, canon created a split upgrade path for the old 5d2.... 5d3 is pegged a notch higher (deservedly or not is debatable) with significantly higher features body and AF... meant for the well-heeled 5d2 upgrader. But 6d is more of a lateral slotting in the line up with some tweaks to "update" it for the three years passing...Intended more for the budget conscious consumer who would have bought a bargain priced  5d2 near its end of cycle or would have remained longer with 5d2 if they already owned one.

And the discussion would be more productive without the holy indignation and movie break analogies. Cheers   :P
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bdunbar79 on January 03, 2013, 12:02:40 AM
Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III?

Well if a 5D Mark II owner is concerned about IQ then the 5D Mark III isn't an upgrade either.

Regardless, his point still stands.  The 6D isn't an intended upgrade to 5D Mark II owners.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bdunbar79 on January 03, 2013, 12:11:37 AM
I'd like to see an IQ and DR upgrade over the 5D Mark II.  I think we'll have to wait for the 1Ds Mark III's true replacement for that.

Fortunately, I see the 5D3 as an upgrade.  If it still shoots the same IQ as the 5D2, AND has a much improved AF system, that's an improvement for me.  Now instead of having to buy the 5D2 and 7D, I can use a single camera, if I'm using those bodies.  Pros?  Eh, they'll just get a 1D4 or 1DX anyways if it is truly AF they need.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 03, 2013, 12:20:33 AM
Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers :)

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III?

Well if a 5D Mark II owner is concerned about IQ then the 5D Mark III isn't an upgrade either.

Regardless, his point still stands.  The 6D isn't an intended upgrade to 5D Mark II owners.

Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

OK, wow.  Now you really have me confused.  If there hasn't been a decent upgrade since the 20D, what are we even discussing?  The 6D and the 5DIII aren't decent upgrades to the 5D2 and the 5D2 wasn't a decent upgrade to the 20D.  It sounds like the entire Canon lineup since the 20D has been a huge waste of time.  So why am I not still shooting everything with my 30D?  It was indeed a great camera. 

To a certain extent I guess I have to agree since I still love my 5Dc.  And yet, RLPhoto is using two 5D3 units and I am enjoying both my 5D3 and 6D for their respective strengths.  So for some reason I still felt like the 30D needed replacement way back when.  And in the last couple months, I decided to upgrade from the 5Dc to the 5D3 and 6D.  I guess I'm just another one of those suckers that doesn't have the good sense to stick with my 30D and 5Dc for another 5 years or so while everyone else upgrades.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RS2021 on January 03, 2013, 12:42:49 AM
I decided to upgrade from the 5Dc to the 5D3 and 6D.  I guess I'm just another one of those suckers that doesn't have the good sense to stick with my 30D and 5Dc for another 5 years or so while everyone else upgrades.

Now you are conflating two things...neither RLPhoto nor I said anything about 5d3... His original comment and my "+1" was confined to 6d and I agree the 20d part was a bit of a stretch in his wording but not that far in essence.

5d3 is an upgrade to 5d2 and has merit...6d is more of an "updated" 5d2. Perhaps it is semantics, but it matters.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: zim on January 03, 2013, 05:27:30 AM
I myself moved from the Terrible to the Just OK class after I returned my camera for an exchange.  At this price range however, I wish there wasn't even a discussion about 5D3 low light AF performance except to question how it can be so good all the time for everyone without question.

So at the moment I am enjoying better low light AF with the 6D but I hope the 5D3 low light AF performance somehow magically improves after the next firmware update. 


Hi Rusty,
Are you talking about the AF flash assist issue or low light focusing in general? For me the two are very different. Thought the 5D3 was pretty hot in the available light focusing department, no?

Well, this has been discussed to death already and some see AF Flash Assist and Low Light focusing as separate issues.  Personally, I see them as related and part of the same problem.  Since every other camera I have ever owned performed better than the 5D3 in Low Light AF performance (in available low light, without AF Assist, FWIW), I expected at least somewhat better AF performance from the new $3K+ 5D3 in this category.  Just call me Crazy!  Alas, after exchanging the camera, I have been able to achieve similar AF low light performance to my older cameras but not much better.  So, I got the 6D to compare and it works much better, like I expected the 5D3 to perform after hearing all the hype for many months.  I've never used AF Assist and to be honest, I had forgotten all about it until I got a 5D3 and started reading up on why the low light AF sucked so much.


Thanks for clarifying that for me, albeit rather worrying clarity! I guess I’m really going to have to use both these cameras to make my decision. I’d much rather use the money for a lens rather than rent though. It’s the first time I’ve felt the need to do this and that in itself makes me feel that there is something wrong about buying anything right now other than glass.

Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: nickorando on January 03, 2013, 05:37:44 AM
From the 20D to the 30D, there was no change in IQ, some even argued it got worse. The screen on the back changed and that was it. The 40D was marginally better than the 20D with a few extra megapixels thrown in. The 50D delivered IQ that was still measured to be about the same as the 20D plus a few extra megapixels on top of the 40D. Whilst the 50D can now shoot at ISO 12800, nobody really does because you can't recognise anything above ISO 3200. The 60D gave us even more MP but still the IQ hasn't gone anywhere and wasn't really that different to the 50D.

And yes, a lot of people are sick of Canon offering something almost the same as what the new camera replaces except something a little better.

What absolute garbage. The 20D had the worst IQ of just about any Canon DSLR - worse than the 10D it replaced. The 30D was a massive upgrade even if only for the rear screen that was actually usable. The 40D wasn't "marginally better" it was significantly better in both operational and IQ terms. Night and day better. Every camera since has had massively better IQ - only the 50D has been a bit of a lemon on the IQ front, and then only because of terrible high ISO performance.

As to the 6D, I'm sick of idiots who have never used it passing their uninformed and unintelligent opinions of it. For me, it's the perfect upgrade from my 5D II because it addresses everything that bothered me about the Mark II - I know that doesn't apply to everyone, but I'm not everyone, I'm me. For all those who only care about specifications and moan constantly about Canon I care not one jot - for me, Canon keep producing the right product at the right time that does the job I want it to in the real world rather than on a spec sheet. Even if there was anything in the Nikon range that looked superior to me for my needs - and frankly, there really isn't, Canon are far better at working out what I want than Nikon are - I've got so much invested in the Canon system that it would cost me an absolute fortune to change, which makes Canon's products much better value for me. Just having WiFi and GPS built in with no size, weight or additional cost - wow! The WFT-E4 cost me a fortune, and weighs a ton. Maybe I'm extremely lucky, but Canon seem to be reading my mind and producing exactly what I want - it's as though Canon are Nickorando fanboys. ;)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: kubelik on January 03, 2013, 09:18:10 AM
the whole discussion of whether or not there has been any real change between the 30D and the 5D Mark II is a good demonstration of how different people look at cameras.

for those who purely look at a camera as a sensor, or purely as an AF module, and judge it from there, perhaps the 5D Mark II doesn't appear any different than the 30D.  same pixel pitch, same 9 points, etc.

I have owned the 30D (shot 30,000+ photos) and 5D Mark II (shot 60,000+ photos) and they are vastly different cameras to me.  from viewfinder size, build quality, rear LCD, high-ISO handling, physical handling, and even per-pixel image quality (judged by cropping 5DII down to the same 8 MP image of the 30D), the 5D Mark II smashes the 30D in every way.  I could barely touch the 30D after buying the 5DII, and sold it pretty quickly.  I couldn't conceive of a single instance in which I would have pulled out the 30D over the 5DII.  so for me, judging a camera as a sum total of all the things that go into making a usable camera, there is a massive difference between the 30D and the 5DII.

whether or not there's an equally large gap between the 5DII and 6D will similarly be up to the individual user.  I can't speak even for myself on that, because I haven't shot anything with a 6D yet.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 03, 2013, 09:51:41 AM
OK, things are getting a little weird now.  I have never heard anyone say the 10D had better IQ than any other Canon camera.  The way I have heard it, the 20D was a massive improvement to the 10D and then things just got better and better until the 50D arrived which was a step backward in terms of IQ due to excessive pixel density.  I have consistently heard many people rave about the 40D (and the 5Dc) both being some of their favorite cameras that Canon every made.  I am one of those people.

I realize this thread has gone off topic a bit into opinions on history so I'll drop it here but I just gotta say that trashing most of the Canon line is not really helping the OP's question much and it makes me wonder why some are still shooting Canon if it's such a poorly improved system for over 10 years.  I agree that Canon has begun to take advantage of their dominance with increased prices and a few disappointments on some individual issues (like low light 5D3 AF issues, etc) but I have never considered the entire line to be as bad as some seem to think.

koolman - as you have read through the 7 pages of posts on this topic, you probably really appreciated the posts from folks that have used both Nikon and Canon.  Did you see the other thread about 6D vs d600?  If not, go here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11985.0 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11985.0) and read through.  The essence of some of the more lengthy posts went into great detail to discuss ergonomics of the Nikon/Canon menus, build quality, etc.  As this thread has gone off topic a bit I just want to remind you that there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor.  And as a 6D owner who has used many Canon bodies, I can assure you that the 6D is a fine camera, esp for someone new to FF coming from a 550d.  I would highly recommend the 6D kit to you with the bundled 24-105 lens.  I also use the SunPak RD2000 flash (w StoFen diffuser) as a small substitute to a pop up flash on my FF cameras.  It's not my only flash and it's not meant to replace a full size flash but it's great for simple fill needs in all environments and it will pivot.  Also - the 6D refuses to recognize a 3rd party battery so you need to get a genuine Canon extra battery.  The 3rd party battery works, the camera just doesn't show any status.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 03, 2013, 10:13:26 AM
The only people that need high FPS are those that "spray shoot". Lots of FPS because you don't know if something will happen that you want to capture and it costs less to get an image of something that you don't care about than it does to not get an image of something that you do care about. Mostly this is professional photographers. There are also amateurs that "spray shoot" brick walls, etc, but that's because they don't have any technique to speak of, nor an understanding of what they're shooting.

Seriously?  So...anyone who buys a camera with a fast frame rate is either a pro or a clueless buffoon with no photography skill.   Talk about having no understanding...

Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then.  Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.

Hmm, that's not really clear to me.

If I look at the reviews on photozone.de, the 24-85 has less distortion at 24mm and appears to be sharper at every step. The 24-85 looks worse because the center is so much higher so what the graphs show is that the 24-105 has a center that isn't that much different to the edge whereas with the Nikon it is. Feel free to interpret the information in another light.

The 24-105 has more barrel distortion (40% more, relative to the 24-85) at the wide end as a result of it being a 4.4x zoom vs. 3.5x zoom.  But the 24-85mm has more pincushion distortion at the long end - 83% more relative to the 24-105.   So across the zoom ranges, the 24-85mm actually has more distortion than the 24-105mm. 

You can't directly compare the MTF graphs directly - maybe you missed Klaus' blue banner stating, "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems."  Canon FF tests are on the 21 MP 5DII, Nikon FF tests are on the 24 MP D3x and will therefore give higher values for lw/ph across the board.  The 24-85mm is sharper in the center (excellent/very good) but worse in the borders and corners (good to fair, and down close to poor in the 24mm corners), whereas the 24-105mm is very good to good throughout the field and range, dipping down into fair only in the 70m corners.  So, I'd say that for overall sharpness, the 24-105L is the better lens.  The CA on the 24-85mm is also pretty bad, but that seems fairly typical for Nikkor lenses.

Overall, the 24-105L is better lens, and Klaus, at least, agrees...which is why it gets a half-star higher rating in all categories.  Importantly, the 24-105mm gets a better price/performance ranking, despite being a much more expensive lens.

Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

Many of your posts here are consistent with the idea that the sensor in a camera is the sum total of that camera's performance, and sensor-based IQ is the only important thing to consider.  Much like beer-goggles can make repugnant members of your gender-of-preference seem attractive, DxOMark-goggles can blind one to meaningful differences in cameras
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: awinphoto on January 03, 2013, 10:24:30 AM
From the 20D to the 30D, there was no change in IQ, some even argued it got worse. The screen on the back changed and that was it. The 40D was marginally better than the 20D with a few extra megapixels thrown in. The 50D delivered IQ that was still measured to be about the same as the 20D plus a few extra megapixels on top of the 40D. Whilst the 50D can now shoot at ISO 12800, nobody really does because you can't recognise anything above ISO 3200. The 60D gave us even more MP but still the IQ hasn't gone anywhere and wasn't really that different to the 50D.

And yes, a lot of people are sick of Canon offering something almost the same as what the new camera replaces except something a little better.

What absolute garbage. The 20D had the worst IQ of just about any Canon DSLR - worse than the 10D it replaced. The 30D was a massive upgrade even if only for the rear screen that was actually usable. The 40D wasn't "marginally better" it was significantly better in both operational and IQ terms. Night and day better. Every camera since has had massively better IQ - only the 50D has been a bit of a lemon on the IQ front, and then only because of terrible high ISO performance.

Congratulations!

You're the first person I've ever seen say that the 30D is better than the 20D in terms of IQ and that the 40D was significantly better again.

I never owned the 20D, but I owned both the 10D and 30D and shot with photographers who had the 20D when I had the 10d.... From what I could tell, the 10D and 20D's image quality was good in comparison of 8x10 prints (at least from my perspective at that time in the beginning of the digital revolution)... The 30D's quality was marginally better...  cant say it was leaps and bounds, but at low ISO's, it didn't leave me wanting... of course, the difference was in ISO's... the 10D was pretty damn near what I was used to with film grain for the same size of print... an 8x10 at ISO 400 had the same size of grain I would expect from an ISO 400 film camera printed at that size... ISO 800-1000 was getting rather ugly... I didn't care because I was just coming off of film cameras so I didn't expect it to be buttery clean...  The 30D was usable up until about 800... 1600 was pretty bad and 3200 was horrid but I didn't have that expectation at that time... I leapfrogged the 40D and jumped to the 50D... I've shot with 2 50D's... I hate both cameras... I shoot product photography with one of them (a clients camera)... I get noise in ISO 100 shots in certain conditions... it's just not that good of a camera...  I've heard good reviews from the 40D, but i didn't shoot with that camera so I dont know... I then moved up into the 7D's and 5d2's and now 5d3's and couldn't be happier...  The 7D, to me and how I shoot, appears cleaner than either of the 50D's i've shot with... I've heard others who had similar experiences as I've had and others who prefer the 50d over the 7d... From each camera jump (with the exception of the 50D and the 5d2's AF) i've seen improvements with IQ and high ISO... Some were subtle to say the least such as the 10D to the 30D...  and each camera I upgraded to (except the 50D and 5d2) I thought was the best camera I worked with up to that point... 
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: insanitybeard on January 03, 2013, 10:43:53 AM
So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 03, 2013, 10:54:52 AM
So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......

Yeah, I caught that, too.  All L-series lenses come with a hood and pouch/case, including the 70-200/4 IS.  A small number of non-L lenses also include the hood/pouch, such as the 70-300 DO and the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses. 

That's in North America and Europe.  In some markets in Asia, a hood and pouch/case are included with all lenses, even the lower end like the 40mm pancake and the 50/1.8 II.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RustyTheGeek on January 03, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
I'm researching how I will use the 6D WiFi for tethered shooting and I found this write up about 6D Battery Life.  He details how he set it all up and shoots continuously every 3 seconds with WiFi and GPS active.  Wow.  Impressive!  (Internal WiFi tethered shooting was one reason I got the 6D.)

http://www.p4pictures.com/2012/12/eos-6d-battery-life-with-wifi-gps/ (http://www.p4pictures.com/2012/12/eos-6d-battery-life-with-wifi-gps/)

Quote from article...

Some hours later…

2895 pictures on a single LP-E6

I used one of my well used LP-E6 batteries for the test, it shows two green squares in the health section. I’m simply stunned to find that nearly 3,000 actuations and almost two and a half hours later the camera shut down and stopped sending files. I checked the mac, all the files up until then had transferred and had GPS info in them.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: awinphoto on January 03, 2013, 11:37:35 AM
So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L  f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......

All L lenses include a hood and case... although the pouch/case leaves a lot to be desired compared to sigma's cases that they include with their lenses...  I think lens hoods should be included in all lens purchases but what do i know... dont want to bankrupt canon =)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 03, 2013, 12:34:32 PM
The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

5d2 IQ certainly was and still is a problem for many people.
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

5d3 did little to fix the IQ problem but certainly presented a much better overall camera for event shooters.  Good for them.

For those of us who want the best IQ, in preference to overall system performance, the 5d2 is a failure. It has worse (pattern) noise character than my 40D.
The 5d3 is no improvement for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance.

The 6d might actually be the viable alternative for unsatisfied 5d2 owners who don't need to pay extra for the unneeded speed and AF of the 5d3 and aren't ready or willing to move to another platform. 
I haven't yet tested it myself but from what I've gathered so far it seems the 6D's IQ does improve noticeably over the 5d2's AFA banding noise issues + it has much improved hi ISO and low light AF ability for those times it's required.


Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 03, 2013, 12:37:04 PM
...for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance

For them, no dSLR (not even the D800E) will suffice. 

EDIT:  but wait, I just checked DxOMark, and the D800E has a better sensor than the Phase One IQ180.  Now I'm the one who's confused...   ::)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RLPhoto on January 03, 2013, 12:43:59 PM
The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

5d2 IQ certainly was and still is a problem for many people.
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

5d3 did little to fix the IQ problem but certainly presented a much better overall camera for event shooters.  Good for them.

For those of us who want the best IQ, in preference to overall system performance, the 5d2 is a failure. It has worse (pattern) noise character than my 40D.
The 5d3 is no improvement for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance.

The 6d might actually be the viable alternative for unsatisfied 5d2 owners who don't need to pay extra for the unneeded speed and AF of the 5d3 and aren't ready or willing to move to another platform. 
I haven't yet tested it myself but from what I've gathered so far it seems the 6D's IQ does improve noticeably over the 5d2's AFA banding noise issues + it has much improved hi ISO and low light AF ability for those times it's required.

Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 03, 2013, 12:44:59 PM
...for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance

For them, no dSLR (not even the D800E) will suffice. 

EDIT:  but wait, I just checked DxOMark, and the D800E has a better sensor than the Phase One IQ180.  Now I'm the one who's confused...   ::)

Funny, i KNEW you were going to make a snide reference to an MF camera. :P
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Chuck Alaimo on January 03, 2013, 01:50:26 PM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?


Ypu know, I am just gonna reply to this OP without reading because --- it's really such a silly statement!!!!!   Comparing a new model to a refurb?  Then saying the trollish "Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?"   Really man?   I have seen a few refurb and used 5dmk3's in the low 2k area!  It's a rfurb, and you know what, by the time you wait for there to be replies to this q that refurb will be bought cause the d800 is still new!!!!   Refurbs on any of these newer bodies are few and far between, and ususally scooped up by folks that know enough to know they won't be around in a few hours!!!!

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the wording of this is so trollish...   if you had asked about the 6d vs the d600 and aren't invested in glass then we are in an actual conversation.  But this is just silly, like wondering why a used car is less expensive than a used one...
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: kubelik on January 03, 2013, 02:02:20 PM
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

seriously, show me how to reproduce this in actual shooting. I've never seen anything remotely like banded skies in any of my 5D Mark II shots.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: neuroanatomist on January 03, 2013, 02:30:04 PM
seriously, show me how to reproduce this in actual shooting. I've never seen anything remotely like banded skies in any of my 5D Mark II shots.

I thought everyone knew. 


Once you know the steps, it's easy to be affected by this horribly common problem that destroys the IQ of the 5DII.  That's why I sold that piece of crap camera.  All that horrible banding in the skies when I underexposed my images by 4 stops.



Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: kubelik on January 03, 2013, 02:35:11 PM
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D

guess it's just not my preferred way of shooting, but I learn something new everyday  ;D
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bdunbar79 on January 03, 2013, 02:36:13 PM
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

seriously, show me how to reproduce this in actual shooting. I've never seen anything remotely like banded skies in any of my 5D Mark II shots.

Hmm.  Me neither.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Stichus III on January 03, 2013, 03:35:57 PM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

It is possible that Canon is cutting fewer corners than Nikon.

Fact is that Nikon put out many D800’s that could not autofocus properly. Fact is also that many D600’s have a flaw that causes the camera to spatter oil over the sensor for the first 3000 shots. Both problem’s were serious  and seemed widespread.

Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: meli on January 03, 2013, 03:57:41 PM
I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

It is possible that Canon is cutting fewer corners than Nikon.

Fact is that Nikon put out many D800’s that could not autofocus properly. Fact is also that many D600’s have a flaw that causes the camera to spatter oil over the sensor for the first 3000 shots. Both problem’s were serious  and seemed widespread.

Not really, both companies have about the same track record; AF problems with D800 & 1d3, d600spills, 5d2mirrors, Lens QC for both etc etc.

The're way more complains about overpricing in the canon forums than nikon's though.
Pattern that started a couple of years ago with the 70-200II & IS lenses i think.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: x-vision on January 03, 2013, 05:00:18 PM
It is possible that Canon is cutting fewer corners than Nikon.

No.

Canon is just overpricing. That's all.

As other posters said, Canon also had issues that they did nor admit.
For example, it took them more than a year to admit the 1D3 focusing issue and provide a fix (which did not work for all, btw).
And the fix for the 'falling 5D mirror' issue was provided after the 5DII was already announced.

To their credit, Canon admitted the 5DII 'black dots' issue right away.
They did the same with the 5DIII 'light leak' issue as well.

The D600 oil/dust issue goes away after a certain number of shots (as shown by LensRentals).
Still, Nikon customers are in their full right to ask Nikon to admit and address the issue.

Overall, both companies have a history of unforeseen issues; no corner cutting.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: well_dunno on January 03, 2013, 05:02:13 PM
Had a chat with a local photographer who has a D800E the other day. He said it is difficult to get the exposure wrong with the cam. Though his first comment, or rather complaint,  was on the file sizes coming out of the cam and the kind of pc power he needed to process them.  Moire is apparently not a big issue when present, becoming visible when viewed above 80%. He was a bit   :-\ due to Nikon tele lens performance on the cam. Neither full DR nor the full resolution seem to come to use, at least for what he shoots... Rather, good to be able to if needed he said.

Reminded me what Mt Spokane said  here many times re the D800...

Cheers!
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: awinphoto on January 03, 2013, 05:08:31 PM
It is possible that Canon is cutting fewer corners than Nikon.

No.

Canon is just overpricing. That's all.

As other posters said, Canon also had issues that they did nor admit.
For example, it took them more than a year to admit the 1D3 focusing issue and provide a fix (which did not work for all, btw).
And the fix for the 'falling 5D mirror' issue was provided after the 5DII was already announced.

To their credit, Canon admitted the 5DII 'black dots' issue right away.
They did the same with the 5DIII 'light leak' issue as well.

The D600 oil/dust issue goes away after a certain number of shots (as shown by LensRentals).
Still, Nikon customers are in their full right to ask Nikon to admit and address the issue.

Overall, both companies have a history of unforeseen issues; no corner cutting.

I know... damn them for forcing me to pay $3499 for my 5d3 and additional for my overpriced L lenses... I demand Canon send me a refund for the difference... please?  Pretty please?  lol
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: well_dunno on January 03, 2013, 05:27:23 PM
 

Canon is just overpricing. That's all.


+1, or Nikon is underpricing... I recall reading Nikon stated their policy was to absorb the costs generated by the exchange rates due to strong Yen.

Yen should be weaker this year overall. At least during the last couple of months, the Japanese government has been employing monetary policies to achieve that and avoid any potential recession. We might see lower US$/Euro/£ prices for Canon this year...

Cheers!
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 03, 2013, 06:18:36 PM
you guys are SO funny.
Humor your way of acknowledging defeat? ;)

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o
or just dial back your contrast setting, or try Canon's own built-in LANDSCAPE style. Try both if you like stripes.
boost shadows another stop or 2 if blind or on uncalibrated monitor.

Those of use who bought the Canon fanboy hype about the 5d2 and purchased early were richly disappointed.
Mine sat unused in a drawer for most of a year until I found that the firmware updates actually improved things enough to make the camera usable without obvious MIDTONE banding any more.  MOST times anyway.

If you forgot, have a little refresher.  We're here to educate and elucidate:

www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II (http://www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II)

see FIRMWARE topic on the wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bdunbar79 on January 03, 2013, 06:26:43 PM
you guys are SO funny.
Humor your way of acknowledging defeat? ;)

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o
or just dial back your contrast setting, or try Canon's own built-in LANDSCAPE style. Try both if you like stripes.
boost shadows another stop or 2 if blind or on uncalibrated monitor.

Those of use who bought the Canon fanboy hype about the 5d2 and purchased early were richly disappointed.
Mine sat unused in a drawer for most of a year until I found that the firmware updates actually improved things enough to make the camera usable without obvious MIDTONE banding any more.  MOST times anyway.

If you forgot, have a little refresher.  We're here to educate and elucidate:

www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II (http://www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II)

see FIRMWARE topic on the wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates)

So would it make you feel better and as though you've accomplished something with your life if I say, "Ok, you win."

Good job.  I actually have important things to do, like my career.  By the way, I bought the fan boy hype of the 5D2 and bought early and I wasn't disappointed.  Maybe photography is what you should focus on, rather than camera models?
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RLPhoto on January 03, 2013, 07:56:41 PM
you guys are SO funny.
Humor your way of acknowledging defeat? ;)

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o
or just dial back your contrast setting, or try Canon's own built-in LANDSCAPE style. Try both if you like stripes.
boost shadows another stop or 2 if blind or on uncalibrated monitor.

Those of use who bought the Canon fanboy hype about the 5d2 and purchased early were richly disappointed.
Mine sat unused in a drawer for most of a year until I found that the firmware updates actually improved things enough to make the camera usable without obvious MIDTONE banding any more.  MOST times anyway.

If you forgot, have a little refresher.  We're here to educate and elucidate:

www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II (http://www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II)

see FIRMWARE topic on the wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates)

I believe you are over blowing the noise issue. All my landscape photos I submit to istock photos came from canon cameras and they have some of strictest standard for files. They do quite well for me.

If you get your exposure right, there should be no issues.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bdunbar79 on January 03, 2013, 08:00:51 PM
you guys are SO funny.
Humor your way of acknowledging defeat? ;)

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o
or just dial back your contrast setting, or try Canon's own built-in LANDSCAPE style. Try both if you like stripes.
boost shadows another stop or 2 if blind or on uncalibrated monitor.

Those of use who bought the Canon fanboy hype about the 5d2 and purchased early were richly disappointed.
Mine sat unused in a drawer for most of a year until I found that the firmware updates actually improved things enough to make the camera usable without obvious MIDTONE banding any more.  MOST times anyway.

If you forgot, have a little refresher.  We're here to educate and elucidate:

www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II (http://www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II)

see FIRMWARE topic on the wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates)

I believe you are over blowing the noise issue. All my landscape photos I submit to istock photos came from canon cameras and they have some of strictest standard for files. They do quite well for me.

If you get your exposure right, there should be no issues.

I'm not still not clear on what issue he is trying to raise.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Stichus III on January 03, 2013, 08:37:02 PM

Not really, both companies have about the same track record; AF problems with D800 & 1d3, d600spills, 5d2mirrors, Lens QC for both etc etc.

The're way more complains about overpricing in the canon forums than nikon's though.
Pattern that started a couple of years ago with the 70-200II & IS lenses i think.

Meli, I don't agree with you.

The 1d3 came out in 2007. The 5d2 in 2008. The D800 and the D600 came out in 2012. Your conclusion that it is not possible that Canon is currently cutting fewer corners than Nikon, is simply not supported by your argument that the 1d3 and the 5d2 had flaws. 

The assertion that there are many more complaints about overpricing in Canon forums than in the Nikon forums, which is not something we can easily verify, says nothing about whether or not Nikon is cutting more corners than Canon. 

Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: sanj on January 03, 2013, 11:08:49 PM
seriously, show me how to reproduce this in actual shooting. I've never seen anything remotely like banded skies in any of my 5D Mark II shots.

I thought everyone knew. 

  • Set your camera to M mode
  • Point it at the sky
  • From the metered exposure, reduce by 4 or more stops (note, some cameras do not properly display this on the meter in the viewfinder, so you may need to be an experienced enough photographer to calculate a 4-stop underexposure in your head)
  • Take the picture
  • During post-processing, raise the exposure by 4 or more stops (note, some RAW converters do not allow you to adjust exposure by that much, notably, Canon's own DPP is restricted to just 2 stops - and of course, that's by design, because Canon knows that their sensor performance breaks down when pushed by 4 EV, so they are taking steps to mask their own inadequacies...but I digress).
  • Now, look at the image - you'll notice the banding

Once you know the steps, it's easy to be affected by this horribly common problem that destroys the IQ of the 5DII.  That's why I sold that piece of crap camera.  All that horrible banding in the skies when I underexposed my images by 4 stops.



Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D

Hahahahaha! Well said...
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bycostello on January 03, 2013, 11:47:37 PM
A lot of us Canon owners have been wondering the same thing.  ;)

+1
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 04, 2013, 02:16:59 AM
@ RLPhoto - nothing personal but this near diatribe I've written here is a culmination of of seeing the same hash from the same multiple sources (pg7, pg8), you just happened to have been under the quote button.  :)
I believe you are over blowing the noise issue. All my landscape photos I submit to istock photos came from canon cameras and they have some of strictest standard for files. They do quite well for me.

If you get your exposure right, there should be no issues.

sigh... again... ???

I'm glad istock likes your stuff but that doesn't Me_Me_Me what I and a few other people here have said, repeatedly, ad nauseam about FPN (fixed pattern noise) problems with Canon cameras.

If you're not pushing the limits of your raw files for any artistic or DR compression purposes (and it's not all abstract, really) then you may as well shoot jpg because you'll not likely notice the difference.

It has NOTHING to do with "getting the exposure right."

It has only to do with FPN weakness of the imaging system.

Just because what you, any many others, do works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone.
We don't shoot the same subjects, we don't shoot the same way.  If we did, it'd be pointless for us to both be doing it.  What you do is not any more "correct" than what I do, it's just different, and the tool you find adequate does not work well for me.

You want to paddle a canoe with a canoe paddle, sure, works good.
You try paddle a kayak with a canoe paddle, it's not so good any more, is it?

Not all bodies of a given type exhibit FPN at the same level.
I have an early 5d2, I had an early 7d.  They both sucked with serious FPN, and so did many other bodies produced in the same time frame. (& yes, I've complained to my local Canon rep directly)
You (RL) may have lucked out with cleaner versions of these same bodies.  I, and many others, did not.  And the way I want to use the gear I paid good money for is compromised because of these problems.  That initially rendered some very expensive outings and shoots a serious loss because I do not accept images with this kind of flaw and even sophisticated post-processed is unable to adequately ameliorate the problem.
FWIW, my 40D, 60D, 350D, 400D, 450D, G11, G12, and needless to say my recent Nikons and even my new Pentax Q, suffice for the same kind of "extreme" shots the 5d2 and 7d fail at because they don't have FPN to the same extent; so can you still tell me it's my technique?  Part of my fun comes from pushing the limits of low end cameras to get good images.  It's pretty disappointing when "high end" cameras have worse IQ than some very much lower end cameras.

The simple fact is that my 5d2, even with latest firmware, shows FPN in shadows of PROPERLY exposed images, even without any significant shadow lifting. It's not the only lousy 5d2 either.  Plenty of people have noticed this same FPN issue, they've posted it in these forums, they've mostly all been rebuked by the regulars, some of which should have the technical knowledge to know better since I've seen such demonstrated regularly.

I'm still hoping Canon will pull a rabbit out of their hat this yeat with new sensor tech that will drastically improve low FPN and low ISO DR while we're at it.

Have a look at my first post on page 5 of this topic if you missed it.
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12029.60 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12029.60)

This topic has devolved so far from the OP's initial query as to likely have bored them.  It started off with good intentions in the first few pages but here we are again. :-\

Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: Aglet on January 04, 2013, 02:28:36 AM
So would it make you feel better and as though you've accomplished something with your life if I say, "Ok, you win."
only if you actually understand, otherwise we're wasting time
Good job.  I actually have important things to do, like my career.
  . . .
  By the way, I bought the fan boy hype of the 5D2 and bought early and I wasn't disappointed.  Maybe photography is what you should focus on, rather than camera models?
35 years of photography and hybrid electronic, data-acquisition and mechatronic systems design experience, all apparently wasted.
Maybe I'll try again when I retire. ;)
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: RLPhoto on January 04, 2013, 08:38:12 AM
@ RLPhoto - nothing personal but this near diatribe I've written here is a culmination of of seeing the same hash from the same multiple sources (pg7, pg8), you just happened to have been under the quote button.  :)
I believe you are over blowing the noise issue. All my landscape photos I submit to istock photos came from canon cameras and they have some of strictest standard for files. They do quite well for me.

If you get your exposure right, there should be no issues.

sigh... again... ???

I'm glad istock likes your stuff but that doesn't Me_Me_Me what I and a few other people here have said, repeatedly, ad nauseam about FPN (fixed pattern noise) problems with Canon cameras.

If you're not pushing the limits of your raw files for any artistic or DR compression purposes (and it's not all abstract, really) then you may as well shoot jpg because you'll not likely notice the difference.

It has NOTHING to do with "getting the exposure right."

It has only to do with FPN weakness of the imaging system.

Just because what you, any many others, do works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone.
We don't shoot the same subjects, we don't shoot the same way.  If we did, it'd be pointless for us to both be doing it.  What you do is not any more "correct" than what I do, it's just different, and the tool you find adequate does not work well for me.

You want to paddle a canoe with a canoe paddle, sure, works good.
You try paddle a kayak with a canoe paddle, it's not so good any more, is it?

Not all bodies of a given type exhibit FPN at the same level.
I have an early 5d2, I had an early 7d.  They both sucked with serious FPN, and so did many other bodies produced in the same time frame. (& yes, I've complained to my local Canon rep directly)
You (RL) may have lucked out with cleaner versions of these same bodies.  I, and many others, did not.  And the way I want to use the gear I paid good money for is compromised because of these problems.  That initially rendered some very expensive outings and shoots a serious loss because I do not accept images with this kind of flaw and even sophisticated post-processed is unable to adequately ameliorate the problem.
FWIW, my 40D, 60D, 350D, 400D, 450D, G11, G12, and needless to say my recent Nikons and even my new Pentax Q, suffice for the same kind of "extreme" shots the 5d2 and 7d fail at because they don't have FPN to the same extent; so can you still tell me it's my technique?  Part of my fun comes from pushing the limits of low end cameras to get good images.  It's pretty disappointing when "high end" cameras have worse IQ than some very much lower end cameras.

The simple fact is that my 5d2, even with latest firmware, shows FPN in shadows of PROPERLY exposed images, even without any significant shadow lifting. It's not the only lousy 5d2 either.  Plenty of people have noticed this same FPN issue, they've posted it in these forums, they've mostly all been rebuked by the regulars, some of which should have the technical knowledge to know better since I've seen such demonstrated regularly.

I'm still hoping Canon will pull a rabbit out of their hat this yeat with new sensor tech that will drastically improve low FPN and low ISO DR while we're at it.

Have a look at my first post on page 5 of this topic if you missed it.
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12029.60 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12029.60)

This topic has devolved so far from the OP's initial query as to likely have bored them.  It started off with good intentions in the first few pages but here we are again. :-\

I simply don't believe that you could hold your standards higher than istock photo/ Getty images, which BTW view every image @ 100% for FPN, banding, artifacts, blah blah blah. Which allows anyone's photos to be printed at maximum size and ultimate quality.

And I pushed a lot of my files hard to get what I'm looking for, and still are accepted. If you hold your files to an even higher standard, I can't imagine what on earth you'll be doing with your photos because every photo I submit has to be gallery quality already.

Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: bdunbar79 on January 04, 2013, 09:59:00 AM
Oh lighten up everybody.
Title: Re: Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...
Post by: sdsr on January 04, 2013, 10:25:34 AM
Oh lighten up everybody.

Ha. Not a good idea unless we own Nikons, apparently....

I guess I'm lucky that my aesthetic preferences prevent me from pushing the dark areas of photos I take with my 5DII to the extent that I can see banding.  (Nor could I see any difference in this regard between the 6D and D600 when I rented them last weekend.)