I have an issue with this, because, its not as if there is no alternative, just not in this price range.
Of course I was talking of the same price range, that's the whole point...
In my eyes, the d600 isn't really any 'better' than the 6d in the real world, only on paper. In practice, they are right on par with one another.Back to my original issue with your comments though, it sounds like you just want a mk3 for the price of a 6d, and it also sounds like you think the d600 is more on par with the mk3 too, which isn't true.
You've misunderstood me there, the d600 is a 6d competitor because of the price range alone, let alone the vastly different specs.
Price range and overall capabilites...LOL...it's funny because I just shot a wedding and my second shooter had a d3s and a d4...you know what...my 6d images stand up very nicely against these 2 upper end nikon bodies...max sync speed - 1/200
memory cards - SD
6d only has 1/180s x-sync, d600 has *two* sd-card slots, the latter a decisive difference for business shoting.
1/180th vs 1/200th...that hardly makes a difference in real world shooting. 2 slots would have been nicer...but my point there was that neither of these bodies use CF cards. I'd rather have 1 CF slot..So, the d600, while yes it is a fine camera and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to any shooters who currently shoot with nikon gear, but ---I wouldn't recommend switching systems based on AF alone.
I wouldn't either, that's why I'll stay with Canon (and because of Magic Lantern), but it's an important difference nevertheless and the topic of this whole thread.Again, kind of sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. With all things in photography you have to make compromises unless you have an unlimited budget.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a cake and eat it at the same time :-) ...
Yeah, it would be great, but...lol. we are talking about likelihood here!!!!! Canon won't be adding another 2k FF, not until it's time to talk 6d2...
... but I'm well aware of the need to compromise, that's why I've got my current equipment: 60d (instead of 7d2), 70-300L (instead of 70-200L+extenders), 17-40L (instead of 16-35L), 100 non-L macro (only recently upgraded it to the L), 430ex2 (only just bought a "big" flash). You see, I'm putting much though into what I really need and what can afford at a given time.
there is no 7d2!!!! not yet at any rate. And the price of that will most likelyu be close to, or equal the cost of a 6d. So unless your shooting sports and need the frame rate, my bet is that the 6d will still be better for those that shoot weddings - APS-C sensors, unless canon has one hell of an update to them, I don't see an APS-C body pumping out great images at ISO 6400 or greater.This list can go on and on...we can't expect canon or nikon to tailor make our products to each of our personal needs and desires. So we balance the decision based on wants vs needs vs available budget.
As a second camera the 6d is just fine, and I'll be sure to keep my 60d along when I buy the 6d - but it is a rather specialized product, while the Nikon is a more "overall" competent model if you only have one camera body.
The only area I think the d600 really edges out the 6d is in servo mode tracking, due to the density of AF points. the spread of those points is really no different though, so tracking is better, but you still aren't getting that extreme corner framed shot though
I feel Nikon has a more coherent setup here, the less expensive camera has cut specs across the board, while Canon chose to add some consumer features (gps, wifi), cut some things a lot (esp. af) while keeping other specs on par with the more expensive model. That's the cause of the whole 6d "value" discussion - if you happen to want/need what the 6d delivers you're happy, if you expect more of an upgrade over the 5d2 in this price range in other areas you might be a little set back and wait for the price to drop some.
both of these camera have cut specs! They are both cheaper versions of their 2nd tier FF line. Compare the d600 to the d800, and then read the nikon forums and talk to nikon shooters and you definitely find that yes ---the grass is in fact always greener because the many of nikon folks wanted the d800 to be a d700 with better AF and ISO performance - what they got was a MP bloated beast which some are happy with, but not all by a long shot. The d600 is more what d700 users were looking for, but gimped (1/4000th SS limit, no sync port, SD only, less rugged build).
As to that last statement...5d2 users have their upgrade...its the 5d3! Remember that when the 5d2 was launched it was very close to 3k in price. The successor to the 5d2 is the 5d3 - and because the mk3 was such a large upgrade both in specs and cost, and the market was calling for a cheaper FF that wasn't 'used,' so now we have a 6d. I'd be willign to bet that nikon's reasoning with the d600 is similar.
see inside quote for replies...
And a PS...attached is one image that i do think is telling in regards to the 6d's AF ---I was shooting a comdey show, just waiting fort he headliner to come on and said lets see what happens. Settings --
ISO 25,600, f2.8, 1/40th ---no post processing (simply exporting the RAW to jpeg). It was dark as hell in there, yes it is center point...no flash for AF assist either. I was using my 70-200 which does not have IS so I couldn't go much below 1/40th, hence why its dark...the point is...the AF should have been hunting there, but it didn't!!!