March 03, 2015, 02:15:11 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - Etienne

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 48
436
The 6D is a good camera at a good price, but it does not stand-up against the 5DIII. Nor should we expect it to, given that it is roughly half the price.

BTW ... I wish my 5DIII performed like a 1Dx (or a 1Dc) in some respects, but I don't expect it to, and I'm not willing to pay double (or quadruple) the price for that performance.

437
"You really need a supertelephoto lens in a fast professional sports situation, to realize the extra speed and focus ability of the 5D3. "

This is really false. The AF is very important in just about anything that moves moderately quickly, using almost any focal length. Animals, boats, cars, runners, any sports, casual and pro birding, ... Kids ... ever try to capture kids at a birthday party? It's no easier than pro sports, maybe even harder.

438
Having gone back and forth between options, I am thinking a 6D is my most practical choice. ($$$). Of course, I would rather have a 5D Mk III.  But that being said, what do you 6D owners find you don't like about the 6D? I really want a full frame and an upgrade to better low light...... Focus points.... well, I guess I can be OK with the few that I would get..... But day to day, in hand, what don't you like about the camera? And what do you like better than your previous camera? Is the joystick too far away for easy point selections? Etc..Currently shooting a 20D and a 40D. Want to put my 17-40 and my 100 to work for me on a full frame body.

I have questions for you, rather than the other way around.  Why would you rather have a 5D3?  Have you tried one?  What type of photography do you do, and how much of it is professional?  How much of it is with a flashgun?  How often do you shoot above ISO 1000, and how critical is that to you?  Do you like grain (luminance noise) in your photographs?

In my opinion, the only reason to have a 5D3, is to make full use of it's autofocus sensor and the extra 2 frames per second over the 6D (which is not all that much difference alone, but the 5D3's autofocus sensor's ability is certainly stellar compared to all other Canon bodies other than of course the 1DX). 

So if you mostly shoot on a supertelephoto lens, and you are shooting sporting events professionally and critically...then the 5D3 is an inexpensive alternative to the 1DX, and should be bought instead of the 6D.

If however, you don't really fit into the above criteria, and you are just wanting the 5D3 for the bling factor of having one, then don't waste your money.  Put that money toward more and better lenses.

To answer your thread title's question...the only things I don't like about the 6D, are the inferior (perhaps intentially handicapped) video ability due to moire (compared to the 5D3), and the single card slot only using an SDHC card.

That said, I don't think the 6D really needs a CF card slot, unless you are mostly shooting video with it (and especially if ML ever hacks the 6D to enable RAW video capability...which they just might not ever do.)

I do like most everything about the 6D.  The grip and ergonomics are better than my 50D (which I promptly sold), and the body is also lighter and every bit as rigid as the 50D.  I don't miss the joy stick at all, nor having most of the buttons on the left (on the 50D they were along the bottom).  I also prefer the 6D to the feel and ergonomics of all other Canon and Nikon cameras, all of which I have at least played with in a store, if not rented, or tried those of my relative.  The 1DX is a fantastic camera, but it is very heavy.  If you ever got used to holding it, everything else would feel too small and light like a toy.

There are those who don't like the ergonomics or various other aspects of the 6D.  As others have said, that's fine...then don't buy one, or sell it and buy something else.

I feel the 6D is the best overall camera Canon has ever made.  The main reason being they were able to deliver world class image quality, and bring it to a price point that is very reasonable....as compared to most of their recent L lenses.  Although they seem to be the best lenses in the world, the price reflects that.  Certainly those lenses are worth owning, but they are an extreme luxury now.

I bought the 5DIII, my buddy bought the 6D. The 6D seems like a good camera, and I have used it a bit, but the 5DIII is worth the extra money.
The 5DIII ergonomics are much better, the menus are easier to navigate, there's more customizability, the camera is built like a tank. The AF rocks, dual cards is great (both CF and SD), and the video is far superior to the 6D. There are more exceptional points.
The 5DIII is the best value all-around FF camera made to date, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean the 6D is a bad camera, and I would consider buying one.  But, with the exception of ultra-low-light auto-focus, it just can't compete with the 5DIII on any playing field.

I hope we can agree to disagree, because I disagree with most everything you said.  I have certainly tried the 5D3.  The feel, the width, the balance...it just feels off compared to the 6D.  The 6D can certainly compete with the 5D3 in very regard...very closely.  The video from the 6D is certainly nice enough to use, but not in a setting where textures would upset the moire.

I agree the 5D3 is probably worth most of the extra money in its price.  But only if you are truly going to make use of the AF sensor.  The 6D has superior image quality above ISO 1600 or so.

The AF ability of the 6D in servo mode, gives up very little to the 5D3 in most situations.  You really need a supertelephoto lens in a fast professional sports situation, to realize the extra speed and focus ability of the 5D3.  And even then, you will not get but maybe 20% more of the total shots in focus, than the 6D would.  It's just that you are getting an extra 30% shots in the time frame to begin with.

In practical terms though, 6 fps is not that much faster than 4.5.  It really starts to make a difference when the fps goes to 8, or especially 10.

The faster flash sync of the 5D3, besides the AF sensor, are really the reason to buy the 5D3.  Anyone who shoots a lot of flashgun images or with strobes in a professional setting, should certainly buy the 5D3.

Of course it comes down to personal preferences, and I think the 6D is a good value camera, but for me the 5DIII is worth the extra. There are many reasons in my opinion. I had a 5DII before the 5DIII, and I came to loath moire, which is the same on the 6D, and almost totally absent on the 5DIII (what a relief!). The video implementation is also great. The video switch is really useful, the 3 Custom functions allow easy full-auto setup to full manual video readiness. Switching between photography and video (with all the right settings ready to go) is actually nearly effortless with the 5DIII, whereas the 5DII (and 6D) it is not so easy. There's an audio out for headphones, and even soft-touch audio change and other settings for silent adjustments while filming.  The list of differences between the 6D and 5DIII is quite long. If I wasn't interested in video, action/sports shots, and very high ruggedness, I probably would consider the 6D.

I must emphasize that I don't think the 6D is a bad choice at all. It's just that you do get your money's worth with the 5DIII ...  if you use and appreciate the extra features of course.

439
A friend of mine has the 6D. The battery drains overnight even with the power off. He sent it to Canon and they upgraded the firmware and then said that they could not reproduce the problem.

It worked properly for a couple of weeks, but now it's doing it again. He can't leave the battery in the camera without it draining in a day or two, even with the power switch shut off.

Has anyone else heard of this problem?

PS... too late to return it.

GPS on?

otherwise no.. never heard of that problem.

GPS and wireless is off. Even the main power switch is off, so it shouldn't matter what the GPS and wireless are doing.

Which lens do you have attached?  I've had my 6D since December and only saw this problem twice, recently after purchasing a Tamron 24-70 2.8 (power was switched off).  Both times I had the Tamron lens attached and found the battery completely drained in the morning.  I have never seen this with any other lens attached (Canon 24-105, 70  - 200)

Thanks for the tip! 
He does use the Tamron 24-70 2.8 IS. I asked him to try different lenses, as well as leaving it with no lens attached. He is away for another week or so, but I'll pass on your experience. The lens may well be the problem!

440
Having gone back and forth between options, I am thinking a 6D is my most practical choice. ($$$). Of course, I would rather have a 5D Mk III.  But that being said, what do you 6D owners find you don't like about the 6D? I really want a full frame and an upgrade to better low light...... Focus points.... well, I guess I can be OK with the few that I would get..... But day to day, in hand, what don't you like about the camera? And what do you like better than your previous camera? Is the joystick too far away for easy point selections? Etc..Currently shooting a 20D and a 40D. Want to put my 17-40 and my 100 to work for me on a full frame body.

I have questions for you, rather than the other way around.  Why would you rather have a 5D3?  Have you tried one?  What type of photography do you do, and how much of it is professional?  How much of it is with a flashgun?  How often do you shoot above ISO 1000, and how critical is that to you?  Do you like grain (luminance noise) in your photographs?

In my opinion, the only reason to have a 5D3, is to make full use of it's autofocus sensor and the extra 2 frames per second over the 6D (which is not all that much difference alone, but the 5D3's autofocus sensor's ability is certainly stellar compared to all other Canon bodies other than of course the 1DX). 

So if you mostly shoot on a supertelephoto lens, and you are shooting sporting events professionally and critically...then the 5D3 is an inexpensive alternative to the 1DX, and should be bought instead of the 6D.

If however, you don't really fit into the above criteria, and you are just wanting the 5D3 for the bling factor of having one, then don't waste your money.  Put that money toward more and better lenses.

To answer your thread title's question...the only things I don't like about the 6D, are the inferior (perhaps intentially handicapped) video ability due to moire (compared to the 5D3), and the single card slot only using an SDHC card.

That said, I don't think the 6D really needs a CF card slot, unless you are mostly shooting video with it (and especially if ML ever hacks the 6D to enable RAW video capability...which they just might not ever do.)

I do like most everything about the 6D.  The grip and ergonomics are better than my 50D (which I promptly sold), and the body is also lighter and every bit as rigid as the 50D.  I don't miss the joy stick at all, nor having most of the buttons on the left (on the 50D they were along the bottom).  I also prefer the 6D to the feel and ergonomics of all other Canon and Nikon cameras, all of which I have at least played with in a store, if not rented, or tried those of my relative.  The 1DX is a fantastic camera, but it is very heavy.  If you ever got used to holding it, everything else would feel too small and light like a toy.

There are those who don't like the ergonomics or various other aspects of the 6D.  As others have said, that's fine...then don't buy one, or sell it and buy something else.

I feel the 6D is the best overall camera Canon has ever made.  The main reason being they were able to deliver world class image quality, and bring it to a price point that is very reasonable....as compared to most of their recent L lenses.  Although they seem to be the best lenses in the world, the price reflects that.  Certainly those lenses are worth owning, but they are an extreme luxury now.

I bought the 5DIII, my buddy bought the 6D. The 6D seems like a good camera, and I have used it a bit, but the 5DIII is worth the extra money.
The 5DIII ergonomics are much better, the menus are easier to navigate, there's more customizability, the camera is built like a tank. The AF rocks, dual cards is great (both CF and SD), and the video is far superior to the 6D. There are more exceptional points.
The 5DIII is the best value all-around FF camera made to date, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean the 6D is a bad camera, and I would consider buying one.  But, with the exception of ultra-low-light auto-focus, it just can't compete with the 5DIII on any playing field.

441
A friend of mine has the 6D. The battery drains overnight even with the power off. He sent it to Canon and they upgraded the firmware and then said that they could not reproduce the problem.

It worked properly for a couple of weeks, but now it's doing it again. He can't leave the battery in the camera without it draining in a day or two, even with the power switch shut off.

Has anyone else heard of this problem?

PS... too late to return it.

GPS on?

otherwise no.. never heard of that problem.

GPS and wireless is off. Even the main power switch is off, so it shouldn't matter what the GPS and wireless are doing.

442
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D Next to Be Announced
« on: June 27, 2013, 12:20:01 PM »
This rumor doesn't excite me. I'd like an APS-C for reach and second body, but I'm in no hurry. My next DSLR will have to have IQ at least on par, preferably better than, my 5DIII. So maybe the 7DII will deliver. I hope Canon takes the time to get it right.

443
A friend of mine has the 6D. The battery drains overnight even with the power off. He sent it to Canon and they upgraded the firmware and then said that they could not reproduce the problem.

It worked properly for a couple of weeks, but now it's doing it again. He can't leave the battery in the camera without it draining in a day or two, even with the power switch shut off.

Has anyone else heard of this problem?

PS... too late to return it.

444
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« on: June 24, 2013, 03:31:18 PM »
I'll probably get the 35 f/2 due to it's smaller size and lower weight, if the price drops.

Other than that, I'd rather have a new and improved, cracking sharp 16-35 f/2.8L III, 50 f/1.4 II (L), 50 f/1.2L II, or a really good 20mm f/2.8 (L), a 135mm f/2L IS II that can take teleconverters, a 200 f/2.8L IS II that can take teleconverters ... In that order. The 35 f/1.4 II comes after all these for me.

445
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 24, 2013, 12:50:28 PM »
About 18 months ago, when I really started investing time reading lens reviews, it was pretty much unanimously stated the the 70-200 f/2.8 II was the world's sharpest zoom lens.

6 months or so ago, the 24-70 II f/2.8 was considered a contender to that crown with some reviewers stating it IS the world's sharpest zoom.

Last month, the 200-400 f/4.0 became the latest to be spoken of in such terms.

Imagine the new 14-24 f/2.8 rouses similar reviews.

So with 4 lenses, you could realistically cover the 14-560 range with potentially the 4 best zoom lenses in the world.

The whole set would probably cost ~$20,000 - can the average participant on this forum fork that much cash for lenses?

I'm sure there are a few photographers on this forum can spend that much cash on lenses, and justify it as well, personally I'll be very happy to be able to add the 24-70mm f/2.8 II & 14-24mm f/2.8 to my collection.

Drop the 200-400 out of that, and you've still got 14-200 covered, which is probably all the average participant on this forum really needs... are there people who need more than 200? Absolutely. But if we're talking averages... Not to mention I don't think there are enough 200-400s in existence to give one to everyone on this forum...  ::)

The new 100-400 IS may also be super-sharp. I'd add that in place of the 200-400.

446
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2013, 09:13:41 AM »
I am most interested in an improved 16-35. Sharper, less distortion ... smaller and lighter would be great too, even if it has to be 18-28

447
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 04:26:24 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

I'm with you there! The problem with the Nikkor 14-24mm lens is that there is a very vocal group who keep telling every one that it's the best wide lens ever....and yet filters are a pain. The curved front element is very prone to damage and even water drops seem to get magnified on it. Sure it's image corners are sharp wide open, but it's not a lot greater than mose wides when stopped down (ie landscapes). It flares badly due to the bulbous front element and the angular distortion is quite high at 14mm. I don't really see much photographic value of those extra 2mm over the far more versatile 16-35IIL.

The 16-35IIL is a little dated as a design. Newer coatings would be good and less CA. Sharpness, well it's OK but I'm sure Canon can coax a little more line resolution out of a re-design. The thing I love about the 16-35IIL is that it is so versatile. It does so much so well. If I need a wide lens I can rely on...its a 16-35IIL.

I had a 17-40L for a few years. It was very nice and almost the equal to the 16-35IIL optically, except the f4 and focal range. I really liked this lens but I needed the extra stop. I used to have an ef-s 10-22mm, which again was very simular. Not as bright but again very simular to the 16-35IIL. I'm sure the extra focal range will be welcome by many although not the revised entry price I'm guessing! I don't really see the need for an image stabiliser on a wide lens. Although a lot of people will be using this lens on a 1.6x crop...so I guess it makes a bridge lens for 1.6x to full frame migrators. on a 1.6x crop it's an effective 25-80mm, quite a nice range.

Given that all of Canon's recent lens releases have been steller (I think everything AFTER the 50mm f1.2L have been amazing optically), I'm sure these two new lenses will be remarkable.

+1

Agreed ... the 16-35 II is extremely versatile. It's very resistant to flare and possibly the only UW zoom that can get a decent shot even with the sun in the frame.

Of course I wish it was better in some areas. I wish that with every one of my lenses. But at the end of the day, it's the best, and most versatile, UW zoom available for Canon FF today, including the Nikon 14-24 with adapter.

Still, I hope they release a new, sharper, smaller, lighter version III with even better contrast and lower CA's.

448
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 02:56:54 AM »
I guess I'm the odd guy out here, because I don't get the interest in 16-50 at f/4 over 16-35 f/2.8 even with the IS.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE image stabilization, and I like it on the new 28 2.8 IS. But f/4 does nothing for me, especially in the longer focal length; f/2.8 give me a lot of extra light when I need it.

The 14-24 could be interesting if it doesn't flare like the 4th of July as it does in Nikon-land. Otherwise I am only interested in replacing my 16-35 2.8 II ...  IF version III is significantly better, and the upgrade doesn't kill my bank account.

449
EOS Bodies / Re: Patents: New 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Lenses
« on: June 15, 2013, 11:02:40 PM »
Sharp, great-contrast 50 1.4 with IS and I'm in!

450
Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
« on: June 15, 2013, 10:57:15 PM »
There's a reason why so many award-winning photojournalism shots are made with this lens: it is extremely versatile.

Sure it can be soft at 2.8
You don't have to use it 2.8 for everything, but 2.8 is available when needed.
It's pretty good at f/4 and 5.6 and above it's quite good.
You can shoot directly into the sun, and get a decent picture. Try that with the Nikon 14-24 or the Tokina 11-16 (on APS-C). It's almost impossible to avoid a direct light source when using UW lenses.
It's my most frequently used lens, and the best option for UW zoom for canon FF.
I love mine and wont give it up unless Canon releases a version III that is significantly better.
I would even take a 18-28 2.8 if it could be sharper, smaller, and lighter, but a UW prime is too limiting for my taste.

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 48