The specs on the D70 does NOT say 3fps. It says "3.0-inch Variable Angle LCD"
+1. Could be around 5FPS.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Well I shot Nikon for 25 years, and changed to FF Canon in 2005.
The change to Canon wasn't just driven by FF. Some of the things I found with the modern Nikons would be my reasons for choosing the 6D over the D600
These only relate to the prosumer grade of cameras:
Software that's a joke compared with Canon
Hideous plastic pop up flash
Rubber grip that peels away from the body
Rubber grip that binds the front command wheel
Soft lens mount that wears quickly and feels real slack with heavy lenses
Translucent LCD on focus screen makes manual focus horrid
Menus that I don't understand
And, the manual focus on Canon L lenses is superior to Nikon IME
In fact I have found that the Canon has a higher level of intrinsic quality to the equivalent Nikon.
Nikons are cheaper because they Are cheaper.
Don't take any notice of people who have called the 6D "cheap and plasticy". They will have never handled one.
Well said Sporgon. I didn't shoot Nikon for 25 years, but I shot a Nikon system long enough in the film era to be a dedicated fan at one point in time. About 6 years to be exact, something I can't deny or regret. It certainly helped me jumpstart my dedication to events coverage. However, I was attracted to Canon when I began to see all the white lenses in highly inspiring and motivational events like the Olympics, presidential campaigns, and at local sports games in my hometown of San Francisco. It certainly made me very curious. Deep down inside, I wanted the speed, accuracy, and color renditions of the rapidly improving EF lens lineup. However, what really broke me in half with Nikon was when Canon released the ever so popular 5D classic. Everyone who's shot DSLRs for at least close to a decade know how much of an impact this particular model made when it was announced, and even bigger when all of the jaw dropping photos turned up. I can't really say that I switched, but when I bought my 5D with a 50mm f/1.4 my Nikon F4 never saw the light of day again after that. I had to sell it and settle for a 40D at one point but I bought the classic again when the Mark II got released. I kept loyal to the 5D series, and backed it up with a 1D mark III for shooting weddings eventually. When the 5D mark III came out I just had to do a double take and convince my boss to buy another one because the AF is just so buttery smooth with Canon lenses when shooting events. Then the 6D came out... I have to admit, I was disappointed. Canon gives us this war beast called the 5D mark III and puts a little innocent kitty cat next to it called the 6D. So I thought... Okay.... maybe my wife will like it. Maybe we can take it on vacations because it's smaller and lighter. Okay...it's so hard to defend against the D600 specs but we already have a lot of Canon gear...
After reading around in the Nikon forums, then going to the store to hold a D600 and try it out, I was disappointed in how it felt in my hands. Like Sporgon, the menus drove me nuts. I tested it in the store with a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 (which to be fair, feels better than Canon's 50mm 1.8 II BTW) Looking at the horrible LCD screen made me laugh, because it made realize that I was a film photographer that has become a chimper. But if I'm going to chimp, the LCD screen better be good. The slight green tint didn't bother me as much as I thought it would when reading about it. However, the image was cropped inside of the screen to make room for the settings... Wow. Even if that could be changed, it's really not a good idea to put that on a camera as default. Anyways, at that point, it really didn't matter to me what the Nikon images would look like on a computer screen anymore. I was holding a camera that an event shooter would have a bit more trouble using compared to a Canon system and even compared to the way my old F4 was. I'm used to my brother's D7000 layout, which I hate, and wish they changed it in future bodies. But nope, they brought almost all of it back. Also after that experience I have enough reason to believe that the live view/video mode is horrible on Nikon cameras in general. I'm also a cinematographer, and I am still facepalmed for Nikon for simple tasks like changing settings while in live view. I suppose they think everyone owns an entire set of AF-D lenses. This is an important feature with the most basic of functions that should have worked straight out of the box, seamlessly. The frustrating button placements and situations that caused me to menu dive constantly were enough to turn me off on just the camera alone. They should have kept it simple! These are vital operation constraints. Good photographers should be spending less time on the science of fiddling with controls, and more time on the art.
So I pre-ordered a 6D for my wife. I wasn't excited, of course. Being used to the 5D mark III, it was really hard to see that anything could come close. Now we have two Canon 6D bodies.... One for me, because my wife wouldn't let go of hers for me to really shoot all day with it. But the reason I have one now... The first impression. Holding it is NOT like holding a 60D. (which I've also owned more than one body of, previously) I think that's the common misconception by the general public who look at the specs and photos of the camera and say oh, it's a full frame 60D. It is not. It's definitely heavier, feels like I have a better grip on it, and the control layout seems to make slightly better sense. You will definitely notice that it is better built than a 60D from when you first pick it up. I have exactly one issue with it that the 60D might have a tiny advantage in. And that's the fact I can't program the SET button to go directly to white balance settings. I have a dedicated white balance button in the 5D mark III, why not the 6D? However, I said tiny because you can program the SET button for quick menu, and throw white balance into the quick menu. One whole button press behind, not that big of a deal unless you're shooting in a moving vehicle that passes different light temperature conditions in which you are required to shoot in at 5mph or faster. Seriously.
The AF is not comparable to the 5D mark III at all, and everyone is right in the regards of believing the very obvious truth that it is in a different league in that regard. But that's why people are going to buy the 6D, because not everyone needs the 5D mark III. Nor do they all shoot in death defying extreme weather. Back to AF, the 6D is no slouch. I can easily say it's AF is better than both the 5D mark II and 5D classic. In fact, I feel like it focuses faster than the D600 when I have a good lens attached to it like the 135mm F2/L or my colleague's 70-200mm f/2.8L II. Which is not a fair comparison of course, since I only used the 50mm 1.8 on the D600. I won't get in too deep with lens performance, but it does sort of make me feel like Nikon marketing is just throwing more points on the D600 to compensate for some of their lower performing Nikon lenses compared to Canon lens equivalents. Which of course, isn't true and I'm just a Nikon basher right? ~_^ Okay, so Nikon seems to have the edge on outer points for moving subjects. But in my 3-4 weeks of experience with the 6D, I can at least say that the outer points are very much usable in good light and a target with enough contrast, but it disappointed me for moving subjects. Note, this is the same disappointment I had for the outer points on the 5D mark II and 5D classic. Also note, I didn't know I had this disappointment until I became dependent on 1D mark III and 5D mark III outer point AF. So, if you're used to the old 5D bodies, or even the old 9 point system on the XXD bodies, you won't really feel a difference. The center point, however, is a miracle worker. With just a macbook pro lighting the master bedroom and not even facing the subject, I can lock focus and photograph my sleeping wife despite the fact I was forced to use ISO51200 to expose correctly at a hand holdable shutter speed. I'll have to test the same situation with a 5D mark III, but I know for a fact that even my 1D mark III couldn't do that or would hunt for a bit before it thought it could. The fact I'm able to lock focus on any shot that requires ISO51200 when my 1D mark III couldn't do it at it's highest ISO of ISO6400 changes the game a bit in that regard. I'm shooting a local wedding soon, and I'm confident enough to try the 6D as a backup body to the 5D mark III and see how it does in a very poorly lit church.
For high ISO performance, and sometimes, the way the images just looked at all ISOs... I was disappointed too, initially. I looked at some of my old 5D mark II RAW files, and they were obviously sharper when viewing the image full on. However, the softer images didn't bother me anymore after I saw how well it handled sharpening in Lightroom and unsharp mask in Photoshop. I loaded my 5D classic RAW files, and a lot of the ISO100 files looked cleaner somehow which I'm sure is because of the weak AA filter and bigger pixels. A friend of mine sent me a couple of D600 RAW files from one of his events, and they looked just as flat as my 6D RAW files. A lot of this is accurate towards what the general consensus is saying around the net with their tests. However, I don't care about the 100% crop tests because I don't deliver 100% crops to my clients. After editing all the files, I found that the 6D RAW files looked better than both 5Ds and still had more realism to human skin tone compared to the D600 RAWs. I can still praise the D600 in this regard, because despite the slight preference in skin tone, the D600 RAW files are quite good. However, I'm still in agreement with Sporgon on the fact I am not willing to trade Canon's weaknesses for Nikon's weaknesses. It's like trying to drive a ferrari with helicopter controls, it doesn't matter how fast your car is if you can't get it from point A to point B. Perhaps overboard with the metaphor, but you know what I mean. Canon warranty is better as well, but I won't get in too deep with that either. (Seems like I got pretty deep with everything else though, lol)
The bottom line is, you have to make sure you're buying the cameras from a photographer's perspective if you want it to do everything you need it to do. Like many say, the camera's eco system including lens selection and accessories is much more important, so narrowing this all down to just cameras will prevent anyone from making a truly open minded decision. Like I said earlier, I'd rather spend more time on the art of photography. I'm not a camera engineer, that's the camera maker's job. Specs, operation, and sometimes rumors, though they are important factors, are just a supplement to what it all comes down to and that's a good photograph. We're not supposed to be on the computer all day zooming in and shaking fists about dynamic range, we're supposed to be out taking photos. That's why I can easily recommend the 6D over the D600, because I know for a fact it does the job and doesn't give me long term issues that could slow down or harm my workflow in the field. But in conclusion.... All I can say is..... Just buy a 5D Mark III if you can afford it
Thanks for your informative thoughts. Well said from someone who shot Nikon, the 5D series and the 6D as well... I was once a Nikon user myself but didn't like the Nikon ergonomics, its lens system and from where I am, its after sales services is no way better than Canon....
you don´t have to quote everything....
My premise was that the 6D is capable of very good IQ - as the 5D2 already was 4 years ago. There's really no surprise about that, being a well-established technology.
What concerns me is how users' opinions vary awfully depending on the brand. In the numerous 5D3 vs D600/D800 debates, Nikon cameras where found faulty exactly in those segments in which the 6D is even faultier (e.g. AF, weather sealing, build quality, etc). All those valid arguments - apparently - no not apply to products with Canon branding. On top on that, the 6D cannot compensate with cutting edge sensor performance and it's a full 300€ more expensive than the D600.
All my favourite lenses are 3rd party (except the 135/2), so I very much don't care about the brand of my body. I'm still undecisive whether to buy a 5D3 or a D600, but if it was D600 or 6D, I would really have very few doubts. Considering the 6D is mainly aimed at crop-upgraders, I'm really dubious about what the concrete reasons for not switching system are.
Does this mean that Canon will no longer service a discontinued item? Just bought mine as a backup a month ago and has a 1-year warranty. I'm sure they will honor the warranty, but what about after the year is up?
They'll service it for many years to come. It's just like lenses. You'll just have to pay, but they'll service it.
Sweet!! Great job!
Pennington Flash Sunset by KEASLA, on Flickr
Pennington Flash Lake by KEASLA, on Flickr
Pennington Flash Benches by KEASLA, on Flickr
Hi, thanks for your review and comments.
I think that internet camera specs cause many to look at camera and figures and judge purely on those numbers. In my opinion, it's how a camera performs is more important. A good camera is more than the sum of it's parts. For years I have used a 5DII to good effect, using the single point and recompose method and eg-s view screen. Who needs 61 points when a really good central point and a bit of honed skill work great.
When I looked over the 6D's specs I thought to myself that many photographers will dismiss this fab camera purely on paper specs, which is a pity because I think that often a "back to basics" approach can re-awaken one's photography. A good photo always takes a bit of effort, having a machine which causes one to work at a photo I think is a good thing and helps one to pick their shots and not the all too often seen "pray and spray" approach of the modern generation.
This camera appeals for it's small size, price point and unencumbered features list. I hear what the reviewer says about lens balance with f2.8 zooms. Might I suggest the new 24-70 f4 L IS and 70-200 f4 L IS would be a better suit? Or even the fantastic (and sorely misunderstood) 70-300 L IS.
I specify that this is not a personal attack to the author I quoted, and that I'm quite sure the 6D is capable of delivering outstanding IQ.
There's one thing that I would like to highlight though.
I remember the time when the D800 proved to have better IQ than the 5D3. Back then many many people swore that a camera is not just the sensor, and that the 5D3's ruggedness and superior AF were unexpendable and very well worth the premium over the D800. They even threw in the rear LCD, just as icing on the cake.
Now the same people say the 6D is a great camera because the sensor's IQ is all you should care about. One-point AF? Not a tragedy. Plasticky construction? It's called light weight. Poor performance? Well, it encourages people to be more interactive with their photography. No fun if the camera does all the effort of focusing at things.
Now I wonder how it would be if the D600 and 6D's specs were swapped... if people would have the same opinion about this camera once the Canon engraving had been removed.
I think not.
<p>I still don’t like the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II on the EOS 6D. Mainly because of the bulk of the lens compared to the body. The results are terrific, it just doesn’t balance well.
I played with the 6D for 2 days, from 1st patch copies....I shared the same thoughts with CRs members about the 6D chassis with L lenses. Some members didn't take it very well. They thought I was being negative on the 6D over 5D III. Especially people from crop to 6D....oh well
Still...it's a great FF entry camera
Nah...I'll still take a Nokia N8 (my current phone) or a 808 Pureview instead of the Samsung...any day. Zeiss glass, large sensor, no Google crap, better build quality and battery life.
Primarily for the Zeiss glass. It's definitely noticable. I can shoot and print 11x14 prints that are pretty hard to tell from an average P&S. Now, when up against a 1Ds3 or H4D, then it just ain't fair...
You don’t have to get the latest a greatest galaxy to get good photos, I’m sure I posted elsewhere on here but for an experiment I got a display walls worth of 16x12s printed for a school trip my wife was running and I was amazed at the (relative) quality of them, didn’t think they would stand up to that sort of enlargement but hey they were loved by the intended audience. It goes without saying that photos intended for the interweb are just fine too. The biggest problem with all camera phones for me is shutter lag so she’s got an app that purports to help but I think it just cripples the res. I also hate holding at arm’s length, it’s just the most rubbish way to take a photo. That’s why I think the ‘M’ is such a joke it’s got the worst two features of a camera phone and you can’t even make a call with it
I fully understand that. But for Canon to leave out the 7D AF or better in a time(2012 not 2009) when nearly every Nikon has a better AF was pretty weak. All the new Nikon updates have at least a 39pt AF while Canon is still offering the same 9pt AF system that was lame when the 5D II came out years ago. For me, it wasn't impressive at all, especially for the launch price.The 6D was never intended to better the 5D3. It's fills a niche between the 5D3 and 7D in the EOS portfolio. Those who are trashing it for not meeting or exceeding the 5D3's specs don't seem to understand that.I haven't heard of many normal people(with maybe one aging aps-c body and one or two lenses) choosing the 6D, only pro's and serious enthusiasts who just want a new Canon toy.Depends what you mean by "normal", I guess, but I went from a Rebel XT to the 6D. Oh, and- yeah, not counting the Rebel's kit lens, I only had a 40mm pancake and EF75-300...
I'm sure lots of people disagree with me and are happy with the center point AF, but for me, I was over it. I already had a Canon 5D and the only problem was the ISO and the AF.
I waited for the 6D for a while as I have been wanting a lighter FF body for years(I travel a lot,) but when the specs were announced it was way too easy for me to not be interested in the camera, especially for $2100 dollars.
Strange how the mk2 became so iconic when it is only a mk1 with 23 % increase in resolution ( which 90% of users didn't need ) and video ( which 90% of users didn't need ). When we got our first mk2 at Building Panos we thought the video was amazing, but very quickly found a proper video camera was much better for any casual video that we wanted. The video function on the mk2's hasn't been used for years in our case.
Obviously it's a very capable camera for many applications, but then so was the Mk 1.
The mk3 deserves to achieve this iconic status because it broad range of capabilities is truly impressive
I shoot with the Canon products, a 5D Mark III to be exact. I also shoot with their professional camcorders. That being said, I have to say that as a former Nikon user, the Nikon cameras provided a much sharper shot. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mark III but honestly, it leaves me wanting more. There are many cameras out there that are arguably better. The Canon 6D is not one of those cameras. That's not to suggest that it is a bad camera but, it is not better. The picture taken in Costa Rica that was posted is not a very good picture in terms of quality. The composition is good but the quality is typical of what I have seen from non-professional users. More specifically, the picture lacks sharpness throughout and for whatever reason is not properly focused; however this is probably due to user error and not a deficiency within the camera.
This is more properly called viewer error, not user error. The photo is perfectly focused on the child. Exif indicates the photo was shot at f/2.8, so the background is understandably out of focus.