canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: dswatson83 on October 03, 2012, 04:38:16 PM

Title: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: dswatson83 on October 03, 2012, 04:38:16 PM
I was down about the 6D but after seeing this review/comparison of the Nikon D600 from a Canon user, i'm definitely not switching:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/75-nikon-d600-full-review (http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/75-nikon-d600-full-review)

Video Review: http://www.youtube.com/user/learningcameras?feature=watch (http://www.youtube.com/user/learningcameras?feature=watch)

The quality on the D600 is great but there are a ton of issues including a dead pixel! He is even recommending not to buy it now. Guess i'll have to save for the 5D3.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: IronChef on October 03, 2012, 05:23:19 PM
 Remember that dead pixels can happen to all camera's.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Harv on October 03, 2012, 05:27:40 PM
1 dead pixel out of 24,300,000.....  how awful.  I wonder when the last time was that someone looked at a picture and saw a dead pixel.

Don't sweat it.  Dead pixels are common.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on October 03, 2012, 05:49:12 PM
The 6D will be a fine camera.  The Photographer and the lenses play a much more important part than the body.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Sameer Thawani on October 03, 2012, 06:06:31 PM
In my observations, all new bodies are going to have issues. Canon or Nikon, they usually take time to sort out the issues the new bodies came with.

Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: poias on October 03, 2012, 06:13:53 PM
I would rather have a good 1 point AF sensor than 9 bad ones. I would rather than 22 good mega pixels than 36 bad ones. I would rather have good menu system than sensor specs. I would rather have integrated WIFI and GPS units than not. I would rather have the EF lens support than not. I would rather have good customer support than not. I would rather have my Canon than not!
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 03, 2012, 06:40:48 PM
The 6D will be a fine camera.  The Photographer and the lenses play a much more important part than the body.

Indeed, to time to get a 5dc :-o, no really, if the most pleasing thing to say about the 6d is that the camera doesn't matter this isn't high praise.

I would rather have a good 1 point AF sensor than 9 bad ones. I would rather than 22 good mega pixels than 36 bad ones. I would rather have good menu system than sensor specs. I would rather have integrated WIFI and GPS units than not. I would rather have the EF lens support than not. I would rather have good customer support than not. I would rather have my Canon than not!

Pity the 6d hasn't even got one good af point, because it's non-cross with f2.8 lenses (with a fallback to the less precise f5.6 cross sensor). And for valuing a nice menu system over dynamic range and less noise - well, Canon is lucky that there are some customers left that like their choices!
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: SwampYankee on October 03, 2012, 07:43:20 PM
I agree the photographer and lens are more important than the body but I don't know how anyone could consider or preorder before having some idea of how good/bad the sensor is.  I'm sure hoping that the reputable review sites get to put the 6D (without a sealed up card slot) through it's paces before actual sales begin.  Specs are all well and good but buying this without seeing a review would be like seeing a movie that was not available to the film critics to review.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: wickidwombat on October 03, 2012, 09:31:16 PM
if the 6D had 11 double cross type points with a nice broad spread it would be a real winner however it would seem the AF ball haas been dropped again
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: tnargs on October 04, 2012, 12:37:19 AM
Still too much vitriol about a camera that none of you have tried, or even read a review.

Where will you all be if the hands-on reviews come in praising how well it focuses? Too busy poisoning some other thread or product I suppose.

BTW it IS a cross-type AF sensor with f2.8 lenses.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: scokar on October 04, 2012, 12:49:56 AM
Still too much vitriol about a camera that none of you have tried, or even read a review.

Where will you all be if the hands-on reviews come in praising how well it focuses? Too busy poisoning some other thread or product I suppose.

BTW it IS a cross-type AF sensor with f2.8 lenses.

Yes.   I'm out shopping for arsenic and hemlock, be back soon.

Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: wickidwombat on October 04, 2012, 12:52:35 AM
Still too much vitriol about a camera that none of you have tried, or even read a review.

Where will you all be if the hands-on reviews come in praising how well it focuses? Too busy poisoning some other thread or product I suppose.

BTW it IS a cross-type AF sensor with f2.8 lenses.

yeah the center point is  (and i've only seen mention of cross type not double cross)... most likely very similar to the 5Dmk2 (which is a very good center point)
my point is if ALL the points were the new double cross type and a completely new sensor with a focus (excuse the pun) on accuracy and spread rather than speed and tracking it would be a pretty sweet event camera no doubt
however i suspect the outer points are going to be only as useable as the 5dmk2 outer points and that is ok in good light and unusable in low light

my point was canon had an opportunity here to put out a real killer low number of point AF system but missed it
sure i haven't used it but i've used enough canon cameras to know the limitations of the different type of AF points and the vanilla non cross type AF points are barely adequate

I also meant to mention has everyone seen the spread of the nikon D600 39 AF points? what a joke it may as well have 5 points for all the area it covers....
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: heptagon on October 04, 2012, 02:54:12 AM
I would rather have a good 1 point AF sensor than 9 bad ones. I would rather than 22 good mega pixels than 36 bad ones. I would rather have good menu system than sensor specs. I would rather have integrated WIFI and GPS units than not. I would rather have the EF lens support than not. I would rather have good customer support than not. I would rather have my Canon than not!

Actually I'd rather have a dozen good AF sensors instead of 9 mediocre ones and 36 million good pixels instead of 22 million mediocre ones. Where do i get that? Oh right, Nikon has it.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: panicboy on October 04, 2012, 03:21:33 AM
Still too much vitriol about a camera that none of you have tried, or even read a review.

I had my hands on the 6d at Photokina for about 5 Minutes. For me, the AF seemed pretty good, it even managed to focus when I pointed the camera to the very dark ceiling, no matter if I chose the center or one of the outer AF points.

What annoyed me much more was the missing stick. Without it, the 6d lost usability compared to my trusty 50d. This is why I started looking at 5d Mk2 offers again...
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 04, 2012, 04:13:16 AM
BTW it IS a cross-type AF sensor with f2.8 lenses.

Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained :-) ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Nishi Drew on October 04, 2012, 04:56:24 AM
We're not going to see user reports and full reviews until early next year, no one's going to have one at the end of this year except a lucky few. What you see at Photokina isn't final anyways, Sony decided to change up their RX1 a little, though that's about it and it wasn't a great change anyways. And honestly, how about just adding three accurate AF points? Center and 2 on the sides for portrait orientation? Ok, shouldn't get wishful, it didn't and won't happen.
One thing that could change though is the price, but we won't see anything as there's plenty wallets waiting in line.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: AprilForever on October 04, 2012, 05:30:48 AM
I am sure that the 6D is not bad at all... However, it is not a 7D, so my heart is saddened...

I'll get a 6D in about three years... After I have recovered from the purchase of my 7D mark II!!!
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: birtembuk on October 04, 2012, 05:38:00 AM
I bet it will be great. And I'm going to buy one as a second cam for macro and night photography, where I almost always use a single-point focus. High ISO rules. Candle-lit photos make me cry. And I don't give a damn anymore with mega-pickles and the ho-so biased objective dxolabs reviews.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marine03 on October 04, 2012, 06:15:26 AM
I don't usually mind a bit of a wait from announcement until release but this seems to long, made worse by the fact Nikon had theirs on shelfs the next week, and Apple releases their products within 2 weeks of announcements.   Does announcing 4 months before availability save a business that much money? 

O and I can't wait to read some reviews
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 04, 2012, 07:02:13 AM
Does announcing 4 months before availability save a business that much money?

No, but it does make sure the all predecessor boxes are sold and it might prove that Canon still hasn't got a grip on hardware manufacturing again (1dx, 24-70ii delays, 5d3/650d issues). Or maybe they simply need more time to develop the firmware/software for the really new features like gps and wifi. Whatever it is, it's probably not about saving money but more about logistics or development.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: bbasiaga on October 04, 2012, 08:40:43 AM
The logistical issue probably has to do with the timing of the show.  Photonika is when it is, and it probably makes a lot of sense to launch it there, as opposed to set up one of those press events Canon likes to do for announcements. 

Delays from the announced date are probably production/frimware related issues.   I'm basing that on how things work in my end of the consumer goods industry.

-Brian
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: JohanCruyff on October 04, 2012, 09:22:21 AM
1 dead pixel out of 24,300,000.....  how awful.  I wonder when the last time was that someone looked at a picture and saw a dead pixel.

Don't sweat it.  Dead pixels are common.

If you have 24,300,000 pixels, the chances of a dead pixel are about 20% higher than if you have just 20,400,000, ceteris paribus.  ::)   ::)   ::)
 
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: DarkKnightNine on October 04, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Oh yeah it is:
Canon 6D Preview - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, & The Competition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gamc5h3XuRA#ws)


I'm calling it crap (yes I know it hasn't been released yet and I don't care).
After using the 5D Mark III and know what it is and isn't capable of, I know that they've stripped waaay to much off this camera to make it worth the asking price especially in comparison to the competition. The reason why I'm calling it crap is not because it's performance, it's because Canon DID NOT have to strip this camera down this much and could have provided more of a robust camera at this price point. The 6D could have truly been something awesome. It was stupidity and arrogance the lead to the decisions made on this camera, nothing more. I for one, feel insulted. Now all of you Canon fanboys are welcome to flame me but you are not helping yourself or Canon by defending their arrogance. You should be fanning your flames toward Canon and perhaps they will get the message that we aren't going to stand for this anymore. I love my Canon gear but enough is enough.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 05, 2012, 06:36:15 AM
The 6D could have truly been something awesome. It was stupidity and arrogance the lead to the decisions made on this camera, nothing more. I for one, feel insulted

Indeed - but the problem is that this doesn't matter to Canon at all, why should it? It doesn't make a difference to them if you just "normally" don't buy the 6d or if you "really, really, not at all" don't buy it - in their books it's the binary sold or not sold. And there will be enough people getting hooked on the ff + gps & wifi once the 6d drops under $2000, which I expect to happen in no time.

Rebel amateurs will frequently switch brands due to daily discount, and pros won't do it at all if not pressed. Canon's one problem would be enthusiasts switching to Nikon, but as far as I can see this isn't happening in numbers, Canon users are either buying the 5d3 now (that's why the price is going up), saving for it or waiting for the next body. Me included, I'm not willing to get a Nikon that doesn't run Magic Lantern :-o
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: dswatson83 on October 05, 2012, 03:34:09 PM
What remains to be seen is if Canon can sell a $2200 consumer camera...which is basically what the 6D is. I don't see it having much of a place in a Pro photographers bag. The 6D will take great picture, but it is limited in its appeal unlike the D600 which satisfies enough professional features to make it a good 2nd body, backup, or even a 1st body for someone on a budget. I just don't like the ergonomics and video issues with the D600 were to big for me to ever get this camera even though I seriously considered it. This review just showed some things I can't get over. The 5D3 is the perfect camera for my shooting style and I thought maybe the D600, though lacking some features, could handle my shooting style for $1000 less. These videos seem like the answer is no...though the photo quality is awesome.

Nikon D600 Review Part 6 - Low Light, High ISO test...And a surprise problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIMw3dn6doI#ws)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 05, 2012, 04:41:01 PM
though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Woody on October 05, 2012, 07:13:09 PM
Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained :-) ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)

And the center AF point of the 5D2 works well. The limitation of this AF sensor is in tracking as well as the peripheral points. Since the 6D center AF works at -3 eV compared to -0.2 eV on the 5D2 and -2 eV on the 5D3, one cannot draw immediate conclusions WITHOUT even trying the camera.

Another thing, ALL the cross AF sensors on the D600 are clustered around the center. Of what use is that?
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: poias on October 05, 2012, 07:30:13 PM
Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained :-) ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)

And the center AF point of the 5D2 works well. The limitation of this AF sensor is in tracking as well as the peripheral points. Since the 6D center AF works at -3 eV compared to -0.2 eV on the 5D2 and -2 eV on the 5D3, one cannot draw immediate conclusions WITHOUT even trying the camera.

Another thing, ALL the cross AF sensors on the D600 are clustered around the center. Of what use is that?

Actually, all full-frame cameras with optical phase detection AF sensors are clustered around the center. D600 is slightly more so... take a look at the comparison between D600 vs D800... not much difference. I use my D600 to get enough negative space, plus it is real plus when it comes to action(when things are centered):

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-rjXy-FICwHc/UGEKjd97duI/AAAAAAAAEmQ/mgmSe8O7UyE/autofocus_array.jpeg)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Woody on October 05, 2012, 09:39:26 PM
Actually, all full-frame cameras with optical phase detection AF sensors are clustered around the center. D600 is slightly more so... take a look at the comparison between D600 vs D800... not much difference. I use my D600 to get enough negative space, plus it is real plus when it comes to action(when things are centered):

I was only referring to the CROSS AF sensors.

The cross sensors on Nikon AF sensors are all clustered around the center, it's just a matter of spread which is particularly poor on the D600. The 5D3 and 1DX cross sensors are more distributed. This is why I wonder what advantage the D600 AF sensor has over the 6D, except for tracking.

D800 cross sensors marked in orange:
(http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/img/features03/img_34.png)

D600 cross sensors marked in red:
(http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/img/features02/img_17.png)

5D3 cross sensors marked in bold:
(http://learn.usa.canon.com/app/media/images/articles/1dx_af_pts/41_cross_type_af_pts_highlighted__hero.jpg)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: tron on October 05, 2012, 09:46:02 PM
I'm calling it crap (yes I know it hasn't been released yet and I don't care).
...
Now all of you Canon fanboys are welcome to flame me but you are not helping yourself or Canon by defending their arrogance. You should be fanning your flames toward Canon and perhaps they will get the message that we aren't going to stand for this anymore. I love my Canon gear but enough is enough.
I wouldn't flame you. I have a 5DII and I have already called 6D a joke camera.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 07, 2012, 05:44:05 AM
This is why I wonder what advantage the D600 AF sensor has over the 6D, except for tracking.

If the spot you're trying to af is a difficult one it makes a large difference if you've got helper points around or if the camera is stuck with trying to lock with the one af point all over. Admittedly, this doesn't happen all the time, but as an option it should make the af much more reliable like the 5d3/1dx's focus point expansion.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Tozz on October 07, 2012, 11:01:31 AM
BTW it IS a cross-type AF sensor with f2.8 lenses.

Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained :-) ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)

You still don't understand it... All the sensors that say focusing at f/5.6 WILL of course also focus with faster lenses at 2.8. The vertical sensitive f/2.8 line will be additionally to the cross-type if you use a f/2.8 or faster lens... Basic physics...

and "...anti-tuned for f2.8..." lol

have fun..
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: willis on October 07, 2012, 12:26:25 PM
Kinda funny to test FF against APS-C body and older tech what 7D holds.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: friedmud on October 07, 2012, 12:42:37 PM
The D600 definitely does have ergonomics issues (you can read about some of my ergonomics issues with the camera here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9809.0 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9809.0) )

BUT... the IQ is unbelievable.  Compared to my 7D they are not even in the same ballpark even though it is only $600 more than a 7D.

For anyone that is thinking about switching I highly recommend renting a D600 like I did.  At LensRentals it was ~$200 to rent it with a 24-70 f/2.8G for 5 days.  During that time I was able to find out if I could live with the ergonomics issues (I definitely can... it won't ever be as good as my 7D in ergonomics.... but the tradeoff is worth it) and put it through its paces in a variety of environments.

What did I find out?  That the D600 is a _tool_.  What I mean by that is that by the end of my rental period I trusted the D600 as much as I do a hammer or a saw.  _It_ takes care of capturing the photo... _I_ take care of choosing the photo I want to capture.  Yes, even in that short amount of time I came to just trust the D600.  The metering is so spot on I didn't have to worry about it.  The Auto-ISO is unbelievably good (since you can actually set limits on things like shutter speeds and min/max ISO!).  The AF is spot on (although I do lament having to focus and recompose a bit... I got used to not needing to do that on my 7D).

It all adds up to a package where even though the ergonomics are a bit off... it simply doesn't matter because you don't interact with this camera as much as with a Canon... you simply set a bunch of sensible limits and then let the camera do its thing and you come out on the other side with incredible photos.

Don't take my word for it - go rent it yourself and find out!
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 07, 2012, 01:00:15 PM
though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

@ Marsu42
Des is oba a bisserl sarkastisch! Scheane Griass vun da Wiesn. Hob mi heit mit a boa Preissn guat untahoitn.
 ;D
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: aznable on October 07, 2012, 01:05:43 PM
try to rent a 1d mk III and compare with the iq of d600
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: friedmud on October 07, 2012, 01:35:13 PM
try to rent a 1d mk III and compare with the iq of d600

Ummm... why?  It's 3x the price.  What an odd thing to say.

Even then, it's hard to believe that the IQ could actually be better.  That's what I'm talking about about the D600.  The IQ is _so_ good that with 14bits I just don't know that it can get any better (at ISO 100 which is what I REALLY care about).  Now, that is just the raw IQ... a lot of other stuff goes into "picture quality"... I'm sure that metering can be better and white balance can be better and AF can be better and long exposure could be possibly be better (and I'm sure you might get all of that in the 1DmkIII).  But, if all of those are the same (ie, in a testing environment) I simply don't see how you can really beat the D600.

But I will give you that in the field I am sure the 1DmkIII produces beautiful images... possibly better than the D600 (never shot with it myself).  But, for my dollar I cannot imagine them being 3x better.  Especially since they are at half the resolution (which is important in the landscape shooting I like to do).

I really think that to get better IQ at low ISO than the D600 we're going to need another leap in sensor tech.  It's going to take a different sensor design... and definitely more bits in our analog to digital converters to get more out of a scene than the D600 does.

Please don't take me as a troll or anything... I'm just a guy that did what a lot of people around here won't do: I _tried_ the competition.  There are many cameras out there... and each person is going to have different needs.  But when it comes to comparing raw low ISO IQ I think you're going to have a hard time beating a D600...
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: friedmud on October 07, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Oh - and I just went to LensRentals... and I can't rent a 1DmkIII... so that's out anyway.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: dtaylor on October 07, 2012, 04:35:49 PM
though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

 ::)

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 07, 2012, 05:36:05 PM
though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

 ::)

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

+1

I use Canon since I bought an used A-1 in the middle of the 80ies, before I started flying at the BW. After that I used the T-90 and The Eos 5, 3 and 1V. All very good Cameras. Innovative and worth the money you had to pay for it.
But meanwhile, other competitors are more innovative and producing Cameras that are even cheaper and better than Canon Cameras.

I the company I´m working, we switched to Nikon, and that was the right decision. As I was one of the proponents to buy the EOS 5D Mk3, I was dissatisfied by the IQ. There was an visible difference in the IQ to the D800.


Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: x-vision on October 07, 2012, 06:06:11 PM
Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

+1000

I bought into the Canon system when they were the price/performance leader.
Man, how things have changed since then.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: friedmud on October 07, 2012, 06:11:35 PM
Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600.

I've owned a 7D for over a year and just rented a D600 and I can tell you that the difference is definitely more pronounced than that... especially at lower ISO.  ISO 100 on a 7D looks like ~ISO700 on a D600.  It's not even close.... and it is something that I can see on my 27" iMac when looking at a fullscreen picture.  The D600 is _clean_ the 7D is damn noisy anywhere there is a somewhat solid color.  The frustrating thing about the 7D noise is that if I go to take it out I lose detail.  If I leave it in and do any sharpening it comes blasting to the foreground (much like trying to sharpen up photos from a point and shoot... although, of course, it's not THAT bad).


There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

That is possibly true but it doesn't mean much.  I could make a 24" print from my old XSi that would probably look pretty damn close to a 5D3 (if I managed to get the exposure and everything nailed and did a bit of postprocessing work to heighten the contrast and DR).  Almost anyone would have trouble distinguishing prints from 12mp+ DSLRs from the past 4 years on a 24" print.... especially when viewed from normal viewing distances

I can't stand it when people say "but you don't print larger than X!".  Going by that standard we should all still be at 10mp like Mr. Rockwell advocates.  That statement means absolutely nothing and should not be taken as a reason to have noisy sensors with less DR...

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

I don't do a lot of high ISO shooting so I can't comment on that.  Go look at other reviews though... like this one from Gizmodo that compares it directly to a 5dmk3: http://gizmodo.com/5946258/nikon-d600-review-images-this-spectacular-have-never-come-so-cheap (http://gizmodo.com/5946258/nikon-d600-review-images-this-spectacular-have-never-come-so-cheap)

That outdoor shot with the buildings is particularly telling... look at the noise in the sky.  The D600 is damn clean with excellent contrast and detail on the buildings... which is what I've been after for a while now.... and for just $2100 I can have it.  Even spending $3500 on a new Canon body won't give it to me!  WTH.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

I definitely agree with all of that - and that's why I'm switching.  Canon costs have just been out of proportion with the competition recently... and I've been disappointed with the IQ and specs for the price.  If the 5dmk3 were ~$2k or even $2.5k  and the 6D were ~$1500 I might stick around.  If the new 24-70 was ~$2k.  Or how about those new primes.... $900 for a 24mm f/2.8 IS?

But Canon seems to believe that it can keep jacking up prices and we'll keep paying them.  I, for one, am not sticking around to see what happens next.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: dtaylor on October 07, 2012, 06:52:21 PM
I've owned a 7D for over a year and just rented a D600 and I can tell you that the difference is definitely more pronounced than that... especially at lower ISO.

With all due respect...post properly executed test samples for all to review, or don't bother making the claim. Identical scenes with identical exposure by professional testing sites simply do not show the differences you claim.

That said...personal use will have some variance vs. professional testing because of exposure variance. The 7D is not very tolerant of underexposure, and I'll be the first to say if this concerns you then go FF. Also, the technique to get the most out of a crop sensor is different from that of a full frame one. (Actually the processing steps are the same, but the values at each step can be very different.)

Quote
That is possibly true but it doesn't mean much.  I could make a 24" print from my old XSi that would probably look pretty damn close to a 5D3 (if I managed to get the exposure and everything nailed and did a bit of postprocessing work to heighten the contrast and DR). 

Less fine detail would give it away, at least for landscape prints. Though the difference still wouldn't be as great as many would expect.

Quote
I can't stand it when people say "but you don't print larger than X!".  Going by that standard we should all still be at 10mp like Mr. Rockwell advocates. 

99.9% of images never see that size. I don't advocate sticking to 10 MP because of that, but it's also silly to get worked up over differences that can only be seen at 100% in PS.

Quote
I don't do a lot of high ISO shooting so I can't comment on that.  Go look at other reviews though... like this one from Gizmodo that compares it directly to a 5dmk3:

I give more weight to IR and DPReview because of the precision of their testing and because I can obtain and process the files myself. What too many people over look is that even tiny variations in exposure and settings can make very large differences in 100% views.

Quote
But Canon seems to believe that it can keep jacking up prices and we'll keep paying them.  I, for one, am not sticking around to see what happens next.

That's a fair assessment. I really, really like Canon's lens library and have a significant investment there, so I'll see what the next year or two brings. (I also hate Nikon ergonomics, but I could adapt.) But I'm much more frustrated with their pricing than their products.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: elflord on October 07, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
It was stupidity and arrogance the lead to the decisions made on this camera, nothing more. I for one, feel insulted.

Arrogance perhaps, but I don't think it's stupid at all. Put the price too low and they'll damage their brand. Better off making the best products they can and insisting on fetching a good price.

Given some of their recent lenses (the 24-70, the 300mm f/2.8 and the 40mm f/2.8), it doesn't seem to me that they are getting lazy or complacent.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: friedmud on October 07, 2012, 07:02:43 PM

With all due respect...post properly executed test samples for all to review, or don't bother making the claim. Identical scenes with identical exposure by professional testing sites simply do not show the differences you claim.


I totally agree with this (that I haven't shown proof)... but unfortunately I didn't have a good basis to compare them on.  My 17-55 f/2.8 is broken at the moment (one of the reasons I'm thinking of switching... because I have to buy new glass anyway) and I didn't think that anyone would care to see 7D shots with a 18-55 f3.5-f5.6 IS I compared to a D600 with a 24-70 f/2.8G.

I did take one shot with my "broken" 17-55 at 17mm (where it is stuck) and the D600 at 24mm mounted on the same tripod with the same view.  It's a crappy photo (light was really bad at the time... tons of haze from fires in the mountains and really cloudy) but it does show just how much difference there is in noise between the two at ISO 100.  Unfortunately, I didn't go further than that (should have taken a series of ISO shots on each to compare)... but, while I had the camera I was having too much fun actually taking photos like this one: http://500px.com/photo/14938023 (http://500px.com/photo/14938023) to think about doing "testing" too much.  I'll see if I can post the full res versions of each a little later.

So you're absolutely right that I have no hard proof... but, if you can't tell, I'm a pixel peeper at heart... and I've been peeping at the 7D for a year over tens of thousands of photos... and on my honor as a pixel peeper the D600 is miles ahead...  ;-)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: RC on October 07, 2012, 07:22:40 PM
...
For anyone that is thinking about switching I highly recommend renting a D600 like I did.  At LensRentals it was ~$200 to rent it with a 24-70 f/2.8G for 5 days.  During that time I was able to find out if I could live with the ergonomics...

I'd rather put the $200 towards a 5D3.   I  played with a 60D at a shop trying to get a feel for what the 6D might feel like.   It was so different from my 7D that I realized there is just no way I could ever be happy with a 6D.  5D3 or bust for me. 
Title: Pink Ladys to Blood Oranges
Post by: crasher8 on October 07, 2012, 08:16:12 PM
"Waiter?, check please. I just can no longer stomach these FF High ISO compared to Crop low ISO posts any longer."
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: shinjuku-thief on October 07, 2012, 08:25:14 PM
I don't usually mind a bit of a wait from announcement until release but this seems to long, made worse by the fact Nikon had theirs on shelfs the next week, and Apple releases their products within 2 weeks of announcements.

That's why Apple stopped having an official presence at these tech events. They want to set their own schedule.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 08, 2012, 03:07:05 AM
I've owned a 7D for over a year and just rented a D600 and I can tell you that the difference is definitely more pronounced than that... especially at lower ISO.

With all due respect...post properly executed test samples for all to review, or don't bother making the claim. Identical scenes with identical exposure by professional testing sites simply do not show the differences you claim.

I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.
But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.


[/quote]

That's a fair assessment. I really, really like Canon's lens library and have a significant investment there, so I'll see what the next year or two brings. (I also hate Nikon ergonomics, but I could adapt.) But I'm much more frustrated with their pricing than their products.
[/quote]
+1
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 08, 2012, 03:38:41 AM
@ Marsu42
Des is oba a bisserl sarkastisch! Scheane Griass vun da Wiesn. Hob mi heit mit a boa Preissn guat untahoitn.
 ;D

But doesn't conversation on Oktoberfest mainly consist of "Prosit!", "Gsuffa" und "Guäääääää" :->?

I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

I'm sure they don't do anything that could ruin their public image when discovered, so "specially adjusted" will mean only that they make sure it's the best "normal" sample of a batch with absolutely no known flaws.

Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

The 7d is known to have a large variance esp. with banding, obviously because of issues with the dual readout channels. But I never read the 60d noise was different across samples? On my 60d the iso100 noise is low, too, it's just that I'd have expected to do better if I've got a tripod and no end of exposure time.

5D3 or bust for me.

...And that's why Canon marketing achieved its goal: Release an entry level ff w/o cannibalizing the 5d3, every person with more than one Canon lens who can somehow cough up €3000 will bit the bullet and save for the (imho still overpriced) 5d3, esp. when the 5d2 is gone.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 08, 2012, 03:52:41 AM
@ Marsu42
Des is oba a bisserl sarkastisch! Scheane Griass vun da Wiesn. Hob mi heit mit a boa Preissn guat untahoitn.
 ;D

But doesn't conversation on Oktoberfest mainly consist of "Prosit!", "Gsuffa" und "Guäääääää" :->?

I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

I'm sure they don't do anything that could ruin their public image when discovered, so "specially adjusted" will mean only that they make sure it's the best "normal" sample of a batch with absolutely no known flaws.

Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

The 7d is known to have a large variance esp. with banding, obviously because of issues with the dual readout channels. But I never read the 60d noise was different across samples? On my 60d the iso100 noise is low, too, it's just that I'd have expected to do better if I've got a tripod and no end of exposure time.

5D3 or bust for me.

...And that's why Canon marketing achieved its goal: Release an entry level ff w/o cannibalizing the 5d3, every person with more than one Canon lens who can somehow cough up €3000 will bit the bullet and save for the (imho still overpriced) 5d3, esp. when the 5d2 is gone.


Sometimes you meet somebody thats alcohol level is below 3%o. So you can talk to this person....

For my person, I can say that in our fotoclub some owners of an 60D have problems with the noise. @100 iso it is not really present, starting to be visible >400 Iso. This is what we noticed.

I´m even not sure, wheter the selection of Cameras that are tested, happens or not. But this problem is present everywhere. Just scour the www. You can find a lot of products where test have been excellent, but useres claim problems....
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 08, 2012, 04:25:06 AM
Sometimes you meet somebody thats alcohol level is below 3%o. So you can talk to this person....

Ok, I believe you, I really don't want to bash it. The only time I've been there is when I've been a kid - and of course the media mostly report the spectacular things like drunken persons being dragged away by the police (I recon they've got foreign national policemen there to be able to cope with the tourists :-)).

For my person, I can say that in our fotoclub some owners of an 60D have problems with the noise. @100 iso it is not really present, starting to be visible >400 Iso. This is what we noticed.

High iso noise is just an inherent problem w/ aps-c sensors, no way around this in comparison to ff. The current 18mp sensor imho is ok @iso400, just still usable @iso800 ... but then it's emergency only, you cannot raise shadows and/or have to reduce the mp size in post to cover the noise (or blur generated by nr). But if you look closely, @iso100 there's no iso read noise, but the plain color areas are uneven and just gives the image a "noisy" expression, too.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 08, 2012, 05:16:34 AM
Sometimes you meet somebody thats alcohol level is below 3%o. So you can talk to this person....

Ok, I believe you, I really don't want to bash it. The only time I've been there is when I've been a kid - and of course the media mostly report the spectacular things like drunken persons being dragged away by the police (I recon they've got foreign national policemen there to be able to cope with the tourists :-)).

For my person, I can say that in our fotoclub some owners of an 60D have problems with the noise. @100 iso it is not really present, starting to be visible >400 Iso. This is what we noticed.

High iso noise is just an inherent problem w/ aps-c sensors, no way around this in comparison to ff. The current 18mp sensor imho is ok @iso400, just still usable @iso800 ... but then it's emergency only, you cannot raise shadows and/or have to reduce the mp size in post to cover the noise (or blur generated by nr). But if you look closely, @iso100 there's no iso read noise, but the plain color areas are uneven and just gives the image a "noisy" expression, too.

My 60D is quite ok, some othery would shredder it, if they would have enough money to buy another Camera. But my 7D is catastrophic to similar cameras other persons own. 3 times @ Canon support. Just a little bit an better  IQ.  It was a scorn, when they wrote that I bought a "Montagsgerät" and that they are sorry about that....
I learned, that in future I have to be more careful in selecting the Camera body.


Information: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8 (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/8) - Comparison about noise between different cameras. Interesting
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: RC on October 08, 2012, 09:51:08 AM
5D3 or bust for me.

...And that's why Canon marketing achieved its goal: Release an entry level ff w/o cannibalizing the 5d3, every person with more than one Canon lens who can somehow cough up €3000 will bit the bullet and save for the (imho still overpriced) 5d3, esp. when the 5d2 is gone.
Well in my case it hasn't paid off for Canon, if anything just the opposite.  When I stated "5D3 or bust", I really meant it will never be a 6D.  As far as the 5D3 goes, I've got more than enough money in my photography fund but I haven't given Canon a penny since I ordered the ST-E3-RT several months ago.   Furthermore I'm holding off on a couple of lens purchases since FF plays into my choice.

So, when will I crack and how much will I spend for a 5D3?  Well it won't be this year and it won't be $3500.  Maybe never, maybe there is a third option and I'll wait for the next generation of bodies.

So for now I'll just enjoy what I have, keep my money, and go out and take photos.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: friedmud on October 08, 2012, 12:36:55 PM
So for now I'll just enjoy what I have, keep my money, and go out and take photos.

That's what I've been trying to do for a while myself... and that is definitely the right way to be.

Recently I had a few photos with a somewhat dark sky where it literally looks like it is raining because of the vertical noise bands in the more solid areas of the sky.

I've been trying to just "push on" with my 7D... but the continued poor IQ out of my camera and the prices on everything Canon releases going up... and then the announcement of the 6D (which doesn't fit what I'm looking for) all adds up to me selling my gear and moving to Nikon.

I hope that people who stick with Canon end up getting what they want eventually... I would love to wait but I can't deal with what's coming out of my camera right now...
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: jrista on October 08, 2012, 01:36:49 PM
So for now I'll just enjoy what I have, keep my money, and go out and take photos.

That's what I've been trying to do for a while myself... and that is definitely the right way to be.

Recently I had a few photos with a somewhat dark sky where it literally looks like it is raining because of the vertical noise bands in the more solid areas of the sky.

I've been trying to just "push on" with my 7D... but the continued poor IQ out of my camera and the prices on everything Canon releases going up... and then the announcement of the 6D (which doesn't fit what I'm looking for) all adds up to me selling my gear and moving to Nikon.

I hope that people who stick with Canon end up getting what they want eventually... I would love to wait but I can't deal with what's coming out of my camera right now...

You don't necessarily need to jump ship, though, either. If you did pick up a 6D, or a 5D III for that matter, the noise "problem" you have would instantly disappear. You wouldn't have quite the shadow lifting ability that a D800 offers, but you still could have quite a bit of shadow lifting (especially if you put Canon's extensive highlight headroom to work in your landscapes). Plus, people always seem to forget that the D800 simply has a lower noise floor, around 3.1e- rather than the 8e- of the 7D. That's not a huge difference, especially considering that maximum saturation is tens of thousands of electrons. You can easily create a bias offset frame to remove FPN/HVBN, and a little bit of standard NR in Lightroom will GREATLY normalize the playing field. The D800's advantage is more of a "noisereductionLESS shadow pushing story"...but much of the same gains can be managed with a 7D as well...it just can't be "noisreductionless".
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Aglet on October 08, 2012, 01:52:26 PM
..  You can easily create a bias offset frame to remove FPN/HVBN, ..

What is your preferred method for performing this bias offset and what software do you use to perform it?

If it's not too onerous, I can readily perform this on more than a few landscape shots I took with my 7D before I realized it was not going to hold up to any push in post.

I'd like to salvage a few otherwise sweet shots I took with my 7D where banding renders the image unusable for large print.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: dtaylor on October 08, 2012, 03:06:27 PM
I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

If a "special adjustment" improves performance, why wouldn't they just make that adjustment to the entire production line???

Quote
But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

Proof? And by proof I mean properly controlled and executed tests. You pixel peepers don't realize that a 1/3 stop variation in exposure, or a seemingly innocent change in post processing, can produce quite large differences in noise at 100%.

Quote
So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.

He posted an example of a "bad" ISO 100 image in another thread and got pounced on. There is nothing wrong with the image at all, no noise to see what so ever. He was upset because the blue sky is not an artificially smooth sheet of plastic. (And to think, some people ADD noise/grain because they think their digital images are too smooth and plasticky!)

You just can't please some people...
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: jrista on October 08, 2012, 05:00:19 PM
..  You can easily create a bias offset frame to remove FPN/HVBN, ..

What is your preferred method for performing this bias offset and what software do you use to perform it?

If it's not too onerous, I can readily perform this on more than a few landscape shots I took with my 7D before I realized it was not going to hold up to any push in post.

I'd like to salvage a few otherwise sweet shots I took with my 7D where banding renders the image unusable for large print.

There are a few ways you could do it. The simplest would be to take a bunch of dark frames of the same exposure time as the image you wish to remove that kind of noise from. Blend those frames together in something like Photoshop to create a single pattern noise frame. You want to stack them in some kind of additive way to enhance the effect of the noise.

To remove that noise from a photo, you can do so in Photoshop. Just blend the noise frame with a "difference" setting, then adjust the opacity to tune the degree of noise removal. Keep in mind that the way pattern noise exhibits is dependent to a certain degree on exposure time, so you'll need to create a dark noise frame for a variety of exposure lengths for this trick to really work. You don't necessarily need a noise frame for EVERY shutter speed, but if you frequently use 1/15th, or 2 seconds, etc. then you'll want to make a noise frame for each of those exposure times.

Its not perfect, some pattern noise (FPN and HVBN) will remain, but you can eliminate a lot of it that way.

You can also use one of the more advanced noise removal tools on the market. They keep getting better, and some are pretty good at removing pattern (including banding) noise.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: tnargs on October 08, 2012, 08:25:53 PM
....Recently I had a few photos with a somewhat dark sky where it literally looks like it is raining because of the vertical noise bands in the more solid areas of the sky.

Send your unprocessed cr2 files and your camera to Canon and get it fixed. I have the same body and I have never had a dark sky 'literally look like it is raining'. You say it is 'recent' and 'a few photos', so get it looked at.

Quote
I've been trying to just "push on" with my 7D... but the continued poor IQ out of my camera and the prices on everything Canon releases going up... and then the announcement of the 6D (which doesn't fit what I'm looking for) all adds up to me selling my gear and moving to Nikon.

You mean Sony type N. Given your emphasis on sensor performance, that's the new name for Nikon. (Wouldn't it be neat if Sony took over Nikon and produced two camera ranges, the alpha and the nu?)

Quote
I hope that people who stick with Canon end up getting what they want eventually... I would love to wait but I can't deal with what's coming out of my camera right now...

Most Canon users are getting what they want NOW, thank you. Some Canon, Leica, Sigma, Pentax, Olympus, Sony and Sony type N users are not getting what they want; it's a generic disease.

P.S. if your objection to a 5D III is price, jumping to Nikon makes no sense given their pricier and optically inferior lens range. You will lose out in dollars (and in imaging results (sensor + lens) if you are a chronic pixel peeper, although I maintain excellent and satisfying photos are available from any of the major brands).
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 09, 2012, 02:50:06 AM
I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

If a "special adjustment" improves performance, why wouldn't they just make that adjustment to the entire production line???

Quote
But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

Proof? And by proof I mean properly controlled and executed tests. You pixel peepers don't realize that a 1/3 stop variation in exposure, or a seemingly innocent change in post processing, can produce quite large differences in noise at 100%.

Quote
So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.

He posted an example of a "bad" ISO 100 image in another thread and got pounced on. There is nothing wrong with the image at all, no noise to see what so ever. He was upset because the blue sky is not an artificially smooth sheet of plastic. (And to think, some people ADD noise/grain because they think their digital images are too smooth and plasticky!)

You just can't please some people...

Dear Mr. dtaylor!

Thanks for your clear words. You are rigth, these are no scientific tests.
But as an normal user I want to get
"normal" pictures out of my camera. No professional images, but images, where I am satisfied.
And if - in sum - my personal Camera puts grainy pictures out (6 persons changed the cameras around and worked with the 7D of another person for 4 weeks, taking more then 1500 pics each) even when we change the user, and another Camera does produce much better images, then you CAN say, that this special camera suffers from more grain.



Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marine03 on October 09, 2012, 08:05:16 AM
and why are there 2 pages talking about the noise on a 60D?  :o
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: eyeland on October 09, 2012, 08:59:06 AM
For a stills/video shooter like myself the 6D is looking better and better for every day that passes without a statement from Nikon that they will somehow remedy the obvious limitations of the D600.
I was a Nikon shooter back in the film days and I only switched to Canon because I got a used rebel for free.
After growing weary of the limitations of the rebel + the nifty, I upgraded to a 60D + 50 1.4 along with some old converted lenses. Having played around with a 40D belonging to a friend for a while, I thought the 60D would be somewhat similar, but I found myself somewhat dissapointed in spite og having spend countless hours researching the upgrade. I am currently entertaining the slim hope that the 6D will offer a better "feel" than the 60D but I know that I might have to go 7D or 5D to achieve that. ( 1. world problem, I know :)
I have been longing to go FF for a loong time, but seeing as the 5Dmk3 is way out of my price range, I almost jumped ship when the D600 was released. Until I held one in the shop that is.. and realized how limited the video mode is.. and remembered that the chance of a Magic lantern release for D600 is slim...
If you shoot mostly stills and happen to like the ergonomics of the D600 (this could possibly be vastly improved with a grip), it looks like a fine contender indeed. Even with my small hands however, it just didn't feel right (could be power of habit)
Anyways.. meanwhile, something "happened" to my 60D, and I am now without a proper camera whatsoever, trying to figure out if I can survive with my old Olympus e520 until the canon hits the stores, buy a 60D or a 7D (or even a D600-god forbid) and sell it when the 6D arrives... its hard to be so spoiled :)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: sandymandy on October 09, 2012, 09:40:17 AM
Be patient and ur next camera purchase will feel really really good :))

The 6D seems quite good for me as an upgrade over my 1100D. I wanna stick to Canon so theres no choice anyway. Camera model doesnt make such an huge impact on the final image anymore the times we live in i think

Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 09, 2012, 12:37:33 PM
I wanna stick to Canon so theres no choice anyway.

Ssssssssshh! If Canon hears you the next camera they announce will only have one af point :-p
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 09, 2012, 02:34:44 PM
I wanna stick to Canon so theres no choice anyway.

Ssssssssshh! If Canon hears you the next camera they announce will only have one af point :-p

back to the roots! indeed....
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: dtaylor on October 09, 2012, 03:47:20 PM
Thanks for your clear words. You are rigth, these are no scientific tests.
But as an normal user I want to get
"normal" pictures out of my camera. No professional images, but images, where I am satisfied.
And if - in sum - my personal Camera puts grainy pictures out (6 persons changed the cameras around and worked with the 7D of another person for 4 weeks, taking more then 1500 pics each) even when we change the user, and another Camera does produce much better images, then you CAN say, that this special camera suffers from more grain.

Then stop wasting time in an Internet forum and get it repaired.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: raptor3x on October 09, 2012, 05:27:23 PM
For a stills/video shooter like myself the 6D is looking better and better for every day that passes without a statement from Nikon that they will somehow remedy the obvious limitations of the D600.
I was a Nikon shooter back in the film days and I only switched to Canon because I got a used rebel for free.
After growing weary of the limitations of the rebel + the nifty, I upgraded to a 60D + 50 1.4 along with some old converted lenses. Having played around with a 40D belonging to a friend for a while, I thought the 60D would be somewhat similar, but I found myself somewhat dissapointed in spite og having spend countless hours researching the upgrade. I am currently entertaining the slim hope that the 6D will offer a better "feel" than the 60D but I know that I might have to go 7D or 5D to achieve that. ( 1. world problem, I know :)
I have been longing to go FF for a loong time, but seeing as the 5Dmk3 is way out of my price range, I almost jumped ship when the D600 was released. Until I held one in the shop that is.. and realized how limited the video mode is.. and remembered that the chance of a Magic lantern release for D600 is slim...
If you shoot mostly stills and happen to like the ergonomics of the D600 (this could possibly be vastly improved with a grip), it looks like a fine contender indeed. Even with my small hands however, it just didn't feel right (could be power of habit)
Anyways.. meanwhile, something "happened" to my 60D, and I am now without a proper camera whatsoever, trying to figure out if I can survive with my old Olympus e520 until the canon hits the stores, buy a 60D or a 7D (or even a D600-god forbid) and sell it when the 6D arrives... its hard to be so spoiled :)

Just pic up a 5Dc in the meanwhile.  They're incredibly cheap right now and you'll get a taste of full frame.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Aglet on October 10, 2012, 01:09:52 AM
There are a few ways you could do it. The simplest would be to take a bunch of dark frames of the same exposure time as the image you wish to remove that kind of noise from. Blend those frames together in something like Photoshop to create a single pattern noise frame. You want to stack them in some kind of additive way to enhance the effect of the noise.

To remove that noise from a photo, you can do so in Photoshop. Just blend the noise frame with a "difference" setting, then adjust the opacity to tune the degree of noise removal. Keep in mind that the way pattern noise exhibits is dependent to a certain degree on exposure time, so you'll need to create a dark noise frame for a variety of exposure lengths for this trick to really work. You don't necessarily need a noise frame for EVERY shutter speed, but if you frequently use 1/15th, or 2 seconds, etc. then you'll want to make a noise frame for each of those exposure times.

Its not perfect, some pattern noise (FPN and HVBN) will remain, but you can eliminate a lot of it that way.

You can also use one of the more advanced noise removal tools on the market. They keep getting better, and some are pretty good at removing pattern (including banding) noise.

I've already tried that trick in PS, didn't work worth the effort for me.
I was hoping you know of some great raw file hacker software.  ;)
Especially since a few people on the CR forum seem to be able to extract pixel level numerical data from raw files

.. so if anyone's willing to fess up...  ;D

I'd like to effect this sort of debanding subtraction frame directly on raw file data matrix before importing to a standard image editor.  I'd even approached one software Co. with the idea of doing this but they did not respond.

Some of the commercial NR software I tried did de-band the dark areas but also smeared the actual image textures so much as to look obviously processed.
I'll keep the shot, and the dark frames I also took, Justin Case somebody comes along with even better NR tools in the future.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 10, 2012, 04:16:23 AM
You can also use one of the more advanced noise removal tools on the market. They keep getting better, and some are pretty good at removing pattern (including banding) noise.
I've already tried that trick in PS, didn't work worth the effort for me.

Could you share the information what ps trick or 3rd party software is supposed to remove banding noise? I'd really like to have it in LR, but I've got some pictures that needed shadows raised a lot (high dr shots with moving objects) and that I'd really like to postprocess to a usable state?

For a stills/video shooter like myself the 6D is looking better and better for every day that passes without a statement from Nikon that they will somehow remedy the obvious limitations of the D600.

... such as? Since I love Magic Lantern I won't switch to Nikon, so I don't monitor the specs closely. What's wrong with the d600 that makes the 6d shine? I'd be somewhat comforting that Nikon isn't throwing away money after all :-o
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: eyeland on October 10, 2012, 07:11:23 AM
Quote
What's wrong with the d600 that makes the 6d shine?
1. Lack of aperture control in Video mode (To change aperture for video, one has to drop out of video mode or use a pre - "G-series" lense with aperture ring. This is a fine solution for video, but then one looses FTM which I personally find very usefull for stills...)
2. Crippled HDMI out. (When you output to an external recorder to take advantage of the uncompressed signal, you only get 95% of the frame (5%black border) for some odd reason. I guess this one could be a FW fixable bug) On top of that I recall reading that the screen overlays also suffer from issues when using HDMI out)
These are the obvious issues. Some reviews have also been very critical concerning control layouts and handling, which they claim makes it very frustrating to switch between stills and video on the fly.
For events, I personally enjoyed the way the 60D let me do this, and some of the issues I DID have with the 60D were vastly improoved by Magic Lantern.

Quote
Just pic up a 5Dc in the meanwhile.
Not a bad idea at all ;) Better go hunting for prices.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: jrista on October 10, 2012, 11:04:33 AM
Quote
Just pic up a 5Dc in the meanwhile.
Not a bad idea at all ;) Better go hunting for prices.

I don't believe the 5D classic does video. As far as I know, that was introduced in the 5D II.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: jrista on October 10, 2012, 11:09:13 AM
There are a few ways you could do it. The simplest would be to take a bunch of dark frames of the same exposure time as the image you wish to remove that kind of noise from. Blend those frames together in something like Photoshop to create a single pattern noise frame. You want to stack them in some kind of additive way to enhance the effect of the noise.

To remove that noise from a photo, you can do so in Photoshop. Just blend the noise frame with a "difference" setting, then adjust the opacity to tune the degree of noise removal. Keep in mind that the way pattern noise exhibits is dependent to a certain degree on exposure time, so you'll need to create a dark noise frame for a variety of exposure lengths for this trick to really work. You don't necessarily need a noise frame for EVERY shutter speed, but if you frequently use 1/15th, or 2 seconds, etc. then you'll want to make a noise frame for each of those exposure times.

Its not perfect, some pattern noise (FPN and HVBN) will remain, but you can eliminate a lot of it that way.

You can also use one of the more advanced noise removal tools on the market. They keep getting better, and some are pretty good at removing pattern (including banding) noise.

I've already tried that trick in PS, didn't work worth the effort for me.
I was hoping you know of some great raw file hacker software.  ;)
Especially since a few people on the CR forum seem to be able to extract pixel level numerical data from raw files

.. so if anyone's willing to fess up...  ;D

I'd like to effect this sort of debanding subtraction frame directly on raw file data matrix before importing to a standard image editor.  I'd even approached one software Co. with the idea of doing this but they did not respond.

Some of the commercial NR software I tried did de-band the dark areas but also smeared the actual image textures so much as to look obviously processed.
I'll keep the shot, and the dark frames I also took, Justin Case somebody comes along with even better NR tools in the future.

Well, you can't simply use a low-level RAW processor to eliminate fixed-pattern and banding noise. You need some kind of template that represents them, and to a great enough magnitude that the "difference" blending mode in Photoshop actually has something to work with (hence the need to take a bunch noise frames, say 15 - 20, and additively stack them). And since the nature of FPN and HVBN change at least a little between shorter exposures and longer exposures, you need multiple templates. You don't necessarily have to keep recreating the templates...once created, they should be reusable. At that point, its simply a matter of loading up your photo in PS, add the noise template, and difference it.

I haven't done this in a while. All my work is at higher ISO on the 7D, and I never see banding noise anymore unless I lift the shadows by a couple stops...which I never do. I did this a few times with my 450D when lifting shadows in some of my landscape shots. It can be a little tedious, but its the best solution out there at the moment.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 10, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
Quote
What's wrong with the d600 that makes the 6d shine?
1. Lack of aperture control in Video mode
2. Crippled HDMI out.

Argh, that's not what I wanted to hear since I don't care about video. Canon, please release a 5d3s w/o video for $2500, will you?
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: preppyak on October 10, 2012, 02:49:38 PM
Argh, that's not what I wanted to hear since I don't care about video. Canon, please release a 5d3s w/o video for $2500, will you?
While that would be lovely, the reality is it'd cost $4500, not $2500...seeing as Magic Lantern can unlock all their features, video is largely firmware...and without more people to buy it, they have to charge more to recoup costs. I guess they could release a DSLR without live-view for cheaper...is that what you'd want?
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 10, 2012, 02:59:07 PM
Argh, that's not what I wanted to hear since I don't care about video. Canon, please release a 5d3s w/o video for $2500, will you?
I guess they could release a DSLR without live-view for cheaper...is that what you'd want?

That would be a little annoying since focus peaking in LV is extremely nice for still shots - but since I've already got a 60d+ml for that, I'd even be ok w/o lv on a 5d3. I really want/need a higher iso capable camera than the current 18mp aps-c with good af for event shots, that's why I wasn't thrilled about the 6d specs.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: 7enderbender on October 10, 2012, 04:04:47 PM
Argh, that's not what I wanted to hear since I don't care about video. Canon, please release a 5d3s w/o video for $2500, will you?
While that would be lovely, the reality is it'd cost $4500, not $2500...seeing as Magic Lantern can unlock all their features, video is largely firmware...and without more people to buy it, they have to charge more to recoup costs. I guess they could release a DSLR without live-view for cheaper...is that what you'd want?

That would certainly fine by me. I have no use for live-view or video.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Aglet on October 10, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
Could you share the information what ps trick or 3rd party software is supposed to remove banding noise? I'd really like to have it in LR, but I've got some pictures that needed shadows raised a lot (high dr shots with moving objects) and that I'd really like to postprocess to a usable state?

TopazLabs DeNoise

it works OK on weaker banding like the 5d2 but on my 7d it had to smear too much detail to remove the strong 8-pixel wide vertical striping.
might be workable on the slightly better performing 60D,
..which reminds me... I need to try it on a 60D shot I took as a quick candid with a friend in deep shadow without flash or wrecking the main subject exposure. When I pushed it hard the 60d banded nearly as bad as my 7D but I don't think the subject would mind being smoothed out a little.  ;)

www.topazlabs.com/blog/denoise-5s-debanding-technology/ (http://www.topazlabs.com/blog/denoise-5s-debanding-technology/)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: nicku on October 11, 2012, 01:19:41 AM
Could you share the information what ps trick or 3rd party software is supposed to remove banding noise? I'd really like to have it in LR, but I've got some pictures that needed shadows raised a lot (high dr shots with moving objects) and that I'd really like to postprocess to a usable state?

TopazLabs DeNoise

it works OK on weaker banding like the 5d2 but on my 7d it had to smear too much detail to remove the strong 8-pixel wide vertical striping.
might be workable on the slightly better performing 60D,
..which reminds me... I need to try it on a 60D shot I took as a quick candid with a friend in deep shadow without flash or wrecking the main subject exposure. When I pushed it hard the 60d banded nearly as bad as my 7D but I don't think the subject would mind being smoothed out a little.  ;)

www.topazlabs.com/blog/denoise-5s-debanding-technology/ (http://www.topazlabs.com/blog/denoise-5s-debanding-technology/)

TopazLabs DeNoise works very good for my 7D pictures.... i recommend this soft.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Aputure on October 11, 2012, 04:00:46 AM
The 6D will certainly be "not so bad", in fact I think it will be pretty awesome. However they could shave a few hundred dollars off the price, just as the 60D was a bit cheaper than the D7000. It's like that all over again, except with full frame. As a long-time Canon user, and fan of their ergonomics, I'll be going with the 6D. Here's my comparison of the two from Photokina! http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=4016 (http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=4016)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: WSMyles on October 11, 2012, 05:50:25 AM
Anyone else think that maybe the propeller-heads at Canon designed the 6D down to the *rumoured* price of the D600 ($1599) instead of the actual price ($2100)?  I can just 'see' the party in the weekly Product Development meeting when Nikon released their price...  and if "They" are selling at over 2k, why not do the same?  After all, it's too late to add an autofocus system back into it, this close to market.

All I wanted was a FF DSLR with a decent AF system and reasonable IQ in variable light for dog sports.   I don't even care about >4fps.  The rest of the time, I could even do MF!  Don't care about video.   I'm not 'committed' to anyone's system yet, as I've been waiting to see what was coming out this year.  Nikon might have an edge on the bodies right now, but for the focal lengths I'm looking at, Canon has the better glass.

Yes, I could probably get away with a 7D for the sporting stuff, and a 6D for everything else... but that would mean lugging two compromise bodies around for the same price as a 5D3.  Put the 7D AF system in the 6D and I'd probably perorder it.  Hell, you could even take the "OK, but not perfect" sensors from the 1DX production line and stick them in a lower-end FF camera for all I care.  18MP is plenty.  I'd rather have another stop or two of clean ISO than 4-6MP.

It looks like noone wants my money unless I give them ALL of it.   Looks like my 30d might have a couple of years left on it... perhaps with a 70-300.   Maybe even a 70-300 L.  Case in point of elasticity of demand.  Stretch the customer too far, and they walk away.  You get 100% of nothing.  If the prices here in Oz were on parity with the US or HK, it'd be harder to walk away... but with 20-30% margin?  These shoes are walkin'.

(And yes, I'm aware that Canon have decided [or justified, retrospectively?] that the target market for the 6D is travellers/tourists, who don't need more than one AF point.)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 11, 2012, 06:20:39 AM
Anyone else think that maybe the propeller-heads at Canon designed the 6D down to the *rumoured* price of the D600 ($1599) instead of the actual price ($2100)?

You might find that Canon thinks that $2100 is a very reasonable price for a ff camera, they seem to have lost the grip on reality a bit - or maybe not, because they know users won't switch. If they designed the 6d for the $1600 price tag they'd left out autofocus completely :-o

It looks like noone wants my money unless I give them ALL of it.

Indeed - I've got €5000 lying around waiting to be spent on Canon equipment, but the current €3000 5d3 + €2500 24-70 (excluding equipment like cf cards yadayada) simply don't seem like a very sweet offer to me.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: WSMyles on October 11, 2012, 06:52:28 AM
You might find that Canon thinks that $2100 is a very reasonable price for a ff camera, they seem to have lost the grip on reality a bit - or maybe not, because they know users won't switch. If they designed the 6d for the $1600 price tag they'd left out autofocus completely :-o

Arguably, they did leave it out :)    Actually, I would be reasonably happy paying $2100 for a FF version of a 7D, as long as I can have it tomorrow.  Just upscale the AF/metering units and the sensor/mirrorbox and it has everything I want... and they even have a sensor they could use - the one from the 1DX.  Just use the ones that are 'marginal' for the big-brother camera.  I'm frankly amazed they aren't doing that already.  Perhaps they are stockpiling them for future use in this very way?

Of course, the "$2100" 6D won't sell for anything like that here, either.  The "preorder" prices are well above that, and I'm not talking about 10% either...  There is a mysterious $400 gap between the average price for a fully imported 5d3 body (including shipping, GST and customs duty) and the very best retail prices.  That's rather more than 13%.  Add the 24-105 and it becomes $600....

It looks like noone wants my money unless I give them ALL of it.

Indeed - I've got €5000 lying around waiting to be spent on Canon equipment, but the current €3000 5d3 + €2500 24-70 (excluding equipment like cf cards yadayada) simply don't seem like a very sweet offer to me.

At least that here, but it won't be 'reserved' for long.  I'm focal-length limited right now, and the AF on the 30d is probably comparable to the 6d (what, five years later?) - so cropping half the frame or more AND struggling for focus is doing my head in.  There's practically nothing left except the 'lucky shots.'

I remember reading the 6D leaked specs here a few days before it was announced, thinking to myself, "they CAN'T be that out of touch.  Who would buy this?"  Then the boot fell.. the leak was right!
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: kalmiya on October 11, 2012, 08:30:35 AM
Anyone else think that maybe the propeller-heads at Canon designed the 6D down to the *rumoured* price of the D600 ($1599) instead of the actual price ($2100)?  I can just 'see' the party in the weekly Product Development meeting when Nikon released their price...  and if "They" are selling at over 2k, why not do the same?  After all, it's too late to add an autofocus system back into it, this close to market.

All I wanted was a FF DSLR with a decent AF system and reasonable IQ in variable light for dog sports.   I don't even care about >4fps.  The rest of the time, I could even do MF!  Don't care about video.   I'm not 'committed' to anyone's system yet, as I've been waiting to see what was coming out this year.  Nikon might have an edge on the bodies right now, but for the focal lengths I'm looking at, Canon has the better glass.

Yes, I could probably get away with a 7D for the sporting stuff, and a 6D for everything else... but that would mean lugging two compromise bodies around for the same price as a 5D3.  Put the 7D AF system in the 6D and I'd probably perorder it.  Hell, you could even take the "OK, but not perfect" sensors from the 1DX production line and stick them in a lower-end FF camera for all I care.  18MP is plenty.  I'd rather have another stop or two of clean ISO than 4-6MP.

It looks like noone wants my money unless I give them ALL of it.   Looks like my 30d might have a couple of years left on it... perhaps with a 70-300.   Maybe even a 70-300 L.  Case in point of elasticity of demand.  Stretch the customer too far, and they walk away.  You get 100% of nothing.  If the prices here in Oz were on parity with the US or HK, it'd be harder to walk away... but with 20-30% margin?  These shoes are walkin'.

(And yes, I'm aware that Canon have decided [or justified, retrospectively?] that the target market for the 6D is travellers/tourists, who don't need more than one AF point.)

Funny, I was also looking into full-frame, and came to the same conclusion...
For the moment, my 550D is "good enough" to be used for some more time..
And I'm not in a rush anymore, for the moment, I'll wait and observe.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: symmar22 on October 11, 2012, 08:36:15 AM


Indeed - I've got €5000 lying around waiting to be spent on Canon equipment, but the current €3000 5d3 + €2500 24-70 (excluding equipment like cf cards yadayada) simply don't seem like a very sweet offer to me.

I have exactly the same problem ;)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: dswatson83 on October 11, 2012, 09:28:11 AM
2 Dead pixels in a brand new D600! Man, i'm really pissed that Canon had to cripple the 6D because the D600 has ALOT of issues like no aperture control in video live view, dead pixels, and some screen issues and Canon could have capitalized. Guess the 5D mark III will have to be my pro body as well as my spare/travel body :)

Source:
Nikon D600 Full Hands On Review & Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5spDWWlyO4#ws)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: crasher8 on October 11, 2012, 10:55:03 AM
Could you share the information what ps trick or 3rd party software is supposed to remove banding noise? I'd really like to have it in LR, but I've got some pictures that needed shadows raised a lot (high dr shots with moving objects) and that I'd really like to postprocess to a usable state?

TopazLabs DeNoise

it works OK on weaker banding like the 5d2 but on my 7d it had to smear too much detail to remove the strong 8-pixel wide vertical striping.
might be workable on the slightly better performing 60D,
..which reminds me... I need to try it on a 60D shot I took as a quick candid with a friend in deep shadow without flash or wrecking the main subject exposure. When I pushed it hard the 60d banded nearly as bad as my 7D but I don't think the subject would mind being smoothed out a little.  ;)

www.topazlabs.com/blog/denoise-5s-debanding-technology/ (http://www.topazlabs.com/blog/denoise-5s-debanding-technology/)

TopazLabs DeNoise works very good for my 7D pictures.... i recommend this soft.

Does anyone have any experience with DeNoise on a 5D3?
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 11, 2012, 11:14:20 AM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: ajschot on October 11, 2012, 11:46:18 AM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?

i tried at the Photokina last month with an 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens and it is really fast in normal light and in worse light as at the booth of Canon at the Photokina. i switched between de cam in front (close like 60cm or so and the to a dark truss somewhere up (10 meters) and it was fast, al servo also tried on the canon guys but well they were not running so could not test that but at f/2.8 it was fast and for what i could see in the LCD it was at most zoomed sharp too.

Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: tron on October 11, 2012, 11:52:20 AM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
How can someone know? 6D is an imaginary camera for now. Although I guess Canon cannot tolerate postponing it for many months (D600 being the reason. Ins't competition nice?)
Are you starting from scratch?
In that case you could go for the kit 5DIII and 24-105 f/4L IS.

It is possible to get it in Europe for 4000 euros
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: x-vision on October 11, 2012, 11:55:08 AM
It looks like noone wants my money unless I give them ALL of it.   

I think you nailed it.

Between an overpriced 5DIII and an underspec'd 6D, I'm choosing ... to spend on neither.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: EchoLocation on October 11, 2012, 12:47:14 PM


Indeed - I've got €5000 lying around waiting to be spent on Canon equipment, but the current €3000 5d3 + €2500 24-70 (excluding equipment like cf cards yadayada) simply don't seem like a very sweet offer to me.

I have exactly the same problem ;)
me 3... i had a 5DC and 24-105 and had about 3000 dollars to upgrade my gear. I really wanted the 24-70, but the new price was just too high... I really wanted the 5DIII, but same story(and the D800 price and reviews weren't exactly making the 5DIII seem any sweeter.)
Anyways, I'm living in China, so some things aren't so easy... but, I ended up trading my 5DC and 24-105 for a mint 24-70 Nikon, then i bought a D700 with a shutter count of 3000 for $1500(with an extra battery.)
I just spent 2 weeks shooting everyday in Japan..... and I could not be happier. The D700 dominates all Canons outside of the 5DIII and 1 series on AF. The image quality is just as good or better. The AF alone has increased my keeper rate from 40% to over 60 or 70%. Me and my wife would never consider switching to anything but the 5DIII, but I'd be pretty bummed about losing the pop up flash, which I actually love.
At 3000 dollars for a used D700 and 24-70, there is absolutely no need to spend over 5000 dollars on a 5DIII and 24-70 II(unless you need video, or MP.)
I had been waiting for over a year to make a purchase, begging Canon to make a FF 7D.... but alas, the 6D was just wayyy too little and too late. I liked the D600, but I couldn't justify spending 800 dollars more(I'm in China) for a camera that I wasn't sure had better AF than the D700(AF was my biggest gripe with Canon.)
Anyways, in a year or so I might consider the D800, or maybe even the RX1, but for the moment, I am thrilled with my switch to Nikon and the D700.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 11, 2012, 12:51:46 PM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
How can someone know? 6D is an imaginary camera for now. Although I guess Canon cannot tolerate postponing it for many months (D600 being the reason. Ins't competition nice?)
Are you starting from scratch?
In that case you could go for the kit 5DIII and 24-105 f/4L IS.

It is possible to get it in Europe for 4000 euros

One shop owner, who is working with Canon and offers Canon-workshops in south Germany, said, that he was albe to take some shots with it. So, I think the Camera exists.

No, digitally I am usiong an 7D and an 60D. I am looking for an replacement for the 7D, becauese of high noise & grain. (not repairable by Canon)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: tron on October 11, 2012, 02:14:39 PM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
How can someone know? 6D is an imaginary camera for now. Although I guess Canon cannot tolerate postponing it for many months (D600 being the reason. Ins't competition nice?)
Are you starting from scratch?
In that case you could go for the kit 5DIII and 24-105 f/4L IS.

It is possible to get it in Europe for 4000 euros

One shop owner, who is working with Canon and offers Canon-workshops in south Germany, said, that he was albe to take some shots with it. So, I think the Camera exists.

No, digitally I am usiong an 7D and an 60D. I am looking for an replacement for the 7D, becauese of high noise & grain. (not repairable by Canon)
6D is completely different from 7D (with 1.6x crop factor and 8 fps). 7D is more useful for sports and generally subjects with movement and cases where someone is focal length limited. 6D will certainly have much lower noise but it will be much more suitable for landscapes (not 1.6X reach, not many fps). So for 4000 someone could get 1DmkIV to replace a 7D. It is 16Mp, 1.3X crop factor, has more fps and low noise. Unless you do not need the reach and fps. In that case a 5DmkIII would seem a nice alternative.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 11, 2012, 02:31:40 PM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
How can someone know? 6D is an imaginary camera for now. Although I guess Canon cannot tolerate postponing it for many months (D600 being the reason. Ins't competition nice?)
Are you starting from scratch?
In that case you could go for the kit 5DIII and 24-105 f/4L IS.

It is possible to get it in Europe for 4000 euros

One shop owner, who is working with Canon and offers Canon-workshops in south Germany, said, that he was albe to take some shots with it. So, I think the Camera exists.

No, digitally I am usiong an 7D and an 60D. I am looking for an replacement for the 7D, becauese of high noise & grain. (not repairable by Canon)
6D is completely different from 7D (with 1.6x crop factor and 8 fps). 7D is more useful for sports and generally subjects with movement and cases where someone is focal length limited. 6D will certainly have much lower noise but it will be much more suitable for landscapes (not 1.6X reach, not many fps). So for 4000 someone could get 1DmkIV to replace a 7D. It is 16Mp, 1.3X crop factor, has more fps and low noise. Unless you do not need the reach and fps. In that case a 5DmkIII would seem a nice alternative.

Yes, indeed! I hope that an alternative to the 7D soon appears. I hope for an 7D MK2. But, if you read the postings, there is some doubt about that.

A Camera in the class of about 2000€ would be great. So I can replace the Cam sooner, then when I have to spent more money for it. Crop would be good (more focal lenght) - with an better IQ of the 7D follower.


5D3 is an alternative for it. But I would like to use my 100-400 with an 1.4 extender. 400mm is not near enough for the living and steel birds. IQ & AF are much better, but I would loose much focal length.

Still looking on the 6D - maybe it is better then everybody says. Lets wait for the first reviews
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: RustyTheGeek on October 11, 2012, 04:36:45 PM
I've compared the 6D specs, read reviews, etc.  In general, I think...

The 5D3 is...
- easy to review/compare, it can be held, purchased and used now.
- priced too high, just like all the latest new Canon gear & lenses.  What camera item isn't?
- aimed at Pros that might overpay because they need it.
- a FF camera, not best for sports.  Why is FF sports shooting being discussed by some posters?
- a wonderful camera in every other respect for its intended market.

The 6D is...
- impossible to review/compare, it can't be held, purchased or used now.
- priced too high, just like all the latest new Canon gear & lenses.  What camera item isn't?
- aimed at Enthusiasts that might overpay because they want it.
- a FF camera, not best for sports.  Why is FF sports shooting being discussed by some posters?
- a wonderful camera in every other respect for its intended market.

My thought on what 'pros' want...
It cracks me up when I hear all the remarks about 5D Mark III features that are missing from the 6D and that 'pros' will not be happy with the 6D.  Most 'pros' will just use the 6D like any other camera - to make pictures.  They will adapt to whatever the camera can or can't do.  Or they will simply ignore it.  They likely are too busy working to discuss it at length in forums.  The answer to all the lacking feature complaints is to buy the Mark III or the X.  A 'pro' will buy what works best for them whether they shoot weddings, produce 'high end' video or whatever just like they have done for years with lesser equipment.  My guess is that most 'pros' wish they could afford half the new equipment that so many enthusiasts buy with abandon and 'review'.

High Canon prices?
The answer to the high prices is a used FF 5Dc or 5DII.  Whatever the case, any DSLR made in the last 10 years will make wonderful pictures in the right hands.  I agree that new Canon products in the past year are overpriced.  Esp the new EF prime lenses!  So don't buy the stuff and it will get cheaper.  Unfortunately, if high prices for new toys stopped buyers, Apple would have been out of business years ago.  So here we are, faced with a high priced market.

I don't consider myself a fanboy.  I just shoot humble pictures with a used FF 5Dc (love it) and various crop cameras like the 30D, 40D and 60D.  I've invested in some great lenses.  Now I'm getting in the mood for a FF upgrade to improve my low light shooting.  I've waited for the 5D3 for a long time but it came out too expensive for now/new.  Maybe I'll get one used someday.  Maybe sooner I can get a 6D without having to wait as long since it will likely work fine for what I do.  I can probably adapt to the feature limits.  Whatever the case, I see no reason to totally dismiss the 6D without more facts based on actual use.  I'm sure not going to toss my whole Canon system over a few features and pixel peeping.  'nuff said.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on October 11, 2012, 05:10:47 PM
- priced too high, just like all the latest new Canon gear & lenses.  What camera item isn't?

Rebels like the 650d offer an excellent value. And from Canon!

- a FF camera, not best for sports.  Why is FF sports shooting being discussed by some posters?

I guess a 1d4 is too expensive and a 7d2 has more reach but is limited by the iso noise if you want high shutter speeds.

My guess is that most 'pros' wish they could afford half the new equipment that so many enthusiasts buy with abandon and 'review'.

Most likely this forum is heavily biased towards very expensive gear, I don't think there are that many amateurs around with 1dx+70-200/2.8Lis2 for shooting their children. So pros are likely to have the better gear (that doesn't mean the newest), if you look at other photography forums posters consider even a 60d extremely expensive and overkill for their needs.

I'm sure not going to toss my whole Canon system over a few features and pixel peeping.

Most people here won't - the general question is if and when Canon will ever get more competitive again in the enthusiast segment in comparison to the competition - and if you haven't got tons of canon lenses around imho that's a valid concern.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: RustyTheGeek on October 11, 2012, 05:30:10 PM
Good points.  In general the U.S. electronics buyer market is very good to all manufacturers of tech gear.  Phones, A/V, camera, computer, etc.  It's unfortunate that this buyer market is so impatient and willing to pay whatever is charged for new gear.  If everyone was a bit more thrifty and frugal, I bet the same equipment would be 20%-30% less across the board.  But until that happens, prices will continue to be high and won't drop for a longer period.  Simple supply and demand.  We supply a lot of money and don't demand enough in return IMHO.  And of course it's all Apple's fault!   :D

Another thought... everyone has a lot of pent up frustration over the high price of the 5D3 after so long a wait.  I think perhaps the 6D is getting abuse because what everyone wants is the 5D3 FF and features at a cheaper price and the 6D FF isn't quite up to that level.  If the 6D were viewed as a midpoint between the 5D2 and 5D3 or a 5D2 replacement, it would make a little more sense at least price wise.  For the money, Canon should have provided a little bit more AF muscle and everyone would be happier.  But I guess it is what it is.  So be it!
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: ajschot on October 11, 2012, 05:56:51 PM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
How can someone know? 6D is an imaginary camera for now. Although I guess Canon cannot tolerate postponing it for many months (D600 being the reason. Ins't competition nice?)
Are you starting from scratch?
In that case you could go for the kit 5DIII and 24-105 f/4L IS.

It is possible to get it in Europe for 4000 euros

Not true, i tried it on the Photokina there were 6 6D's to try, also here inteh Netherlands there are pro workshops where you can also try the 6D. And yes i know for sure it is there and yes i really had an 6D in y hands and played with it for almost one hour!
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: tron on October 11, 2012, 07:52:20 PM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
How can someone know? 6D is an imaginary camera for now. Although I guess Canon cannot tolerate postponing it for many months (D600 being the reason. Ins't competition nice?)
Are you starting from scratch?
In that case you could go for the kit 5DIII and 24-105 f/4L IS.

It is possible to get it in Europe for 4000 euros

One shop owner, who is working with Canon and offers Canon-workshops in south Germany, said, that he was albe to take some shots with it. So, I think the Camera exists.

No, digitally I am usiong an 7D and an 60D. I am looking for an replacement for the 7D, becauese of high noise & grain. (not repairable by Canon)
6D is completely different from 7D (with 1.6x crop factor and 8 fps). 7D is more useful for sports and generally subjects with movement and cases where someone is focal length limited. 6D will certainly have much lower noise but it will be much more suitable for landscapes (not 1.6X reach, not many fps). So for 4000 someone could get 1DmkIV to replace a 7D. It is 16Mp, 1.3X crop factor, has more fps and low noise. Unless you do not need the reach and fps. In that case a 5DmkIII would seem a nice alternative.

Yes, indeed! I hope that an alternative to the 7D soon appears. I hope for an 7D MK2. But, if you read the postings, there is some doubt about that.

A Camera in the class of about 2000€ would be great. So I can replace the Cam sooner, then when I have to spent more money for it. Crop would be good (more focal lenght) - with an better IQ of the 7D follower.


5D3 is an alternative for it. But I would like to use my 100-400 with an 1.4 extender. 400mm is not near enough for the living and steel birds. IQ & AF are much better, but I would loose much focal length.

Still looking on the 6D - maybe it is better then everybody says. Lets wait for the first reviews
Yeh! I understand. I am focal length limited too. But I do love FF so I bought a 5D3 to keep company to my 5D2  ::)
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: wilddreamer on October 12, 2012, 01:54:09 AM
For the nikon fans boy, its the same crap that u said that nikon 800D is $500 cheaper than 5D mark3. Just stop the crap
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 12, 2012, 04:35:02 AM
There is much truth in the postings before.
- Our Economy "lives" from innovation and the desire to own the best and newest things.
- On an very big recent Canon workshop , some participants claimed the high prices. The answer: We need the money to make our products better - and to make our shareholders lucky. And THERE IS an "Apple" effect. Even if they would dobuble the price of the 5D3, the camera would be a cash cow. (In my opinion:  It is just an question of marketing. You just have to make the customers think that they NEED this Camera. )

- Why am I looking for better gear? Because I try to conceal my lack of knowlegde and skills with better equipment. And sometimes this solution works.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: jbayston on October 12, 2012, 06:06:08 AM
I know a couple of pro photographers who have bought the 5D MK2 recently, taking advantage of the price drop, on the basis that the Mk3 improvements don't amount to much...
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: WSMyles on October 12, 2012, 06:31:30 AM
I know a couple of pro photographers who have bought the 5D MK2 recently, taking advantage of the price drop, on the basis that the Mk3 improvements don't amount to much...

I have been considering the same thing - and would give it serious thought if there WAS a price drop here in Oz.  The 5d2 is more than enough camera for my non-dogsport ambitions... but as usual, the "drops," "offers" and "rebates" never made it here.  Unless I misread something, it's not so much a $400 drop in price as a $400 rebate.

I remember well the US reaction to the intro pricing of the 5dm3.  "$3500.  SHOCK!  HORROR!"
Mine was "I'd gladly pay that, rather than $4299"  - the $US and $AUS being essentially the same in value then and now.

AFAIK, the best "offer" Canon Australia has had in some time is a "free camera bag."  in 2011.  All lenses and bodies strictly at retail, and a good 10-20% above typical US prices at that, even after tax.  I understand it's at least as bad in the Eurozone and the UK.

Rebates?  I don't remember a single one as long as I've been looking, and that predates the mark II!

US customers don't know how good life is for them.  Sony managed to price the A99 lower here than the US...
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: xps on October 12, 2012, 08:34:03 AM
Who was able to take some shots with the 6D?

How was tha AF working? Fast? Accurate?

About a dozen of persons from our Club has been on the Photokina. One dozen persons and 3 dozens of opinions on the quality of the Camera. Some told that the AF was slow, others it was fast. Some told me, that the AF was not able to locate the right distance to the choosen object and changed to the background.
What was YOUR opinion to the AF?
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: chadders on October 12, 2012, 11:09:34 AM
4000€ in my wallet want to be spent...

Does anybody know. if the AF of the 6D is FAST too, or just accurate at low light?
How can someone know? 6D is an imaginary camera for now. Although I guess Canon cannot tolerate postponing it for many months (D600 being the reason. Ins't competition nice?)
Are you starting from scratch?
In that case you could go for the kit 5DIII and 24-105 f/4L IS.

It is possible to get it in Europe for 4000 euros

Not true, i tried it on the Photokina there were 6 6D's to try, also here inteh Netherlands there are pro workshops where you can also try the 6D. And yes i know for sure it is there and yes i really had an 6D in y hands and played with it for almost one hour!

Presumably you may be in a position to answer the questions raised regarding the AF, since you say you played with it for almost an hour.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: jrbdmb on March 11, 2013, 04:28:47 PM
It looks like noone wants my money unless I give them ALL of it.   

I think you nailed it.

Between an overpriced 5DIII and an underspec'd 6D, I'm choosing ... to spend on neither.

Well, at least the problem with the 5d III can be corrected over time, and at around $2900 new this issue may already have been fixed.  Fixing an underspec'd 6D on the other hand ... not so easy.
Title: Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
Post by: Marsu42 on March 12, 2013, 12:56:32 PM
Well, at least the problem with the 5d III can be corrected over time, and at around $2900 new this issue may already have been fixed.  Fixing an underspec'd 6D on the other hand ... not so easy.

But it is - sell the 6d for €1200. The 6d as well as the 5d3 have weaknesses, obviously the 6d more than the 5d3, and "underspeced" for the 6d is only related to the competition (d600) and the current price. Just like the 5d3 is also just another camera and there are better current models (1dx) and there will be newer replacements to come, maybe sooner than later.