« on: April 21, 2014, 03:19:47 AM »
Which would be the point with the 6d: Is it better at anything, or is it really just a cheap version of the 5d3? It does have gps and wifi, that's obvious.
Yes it has gps and wifi. Personally these are of limited use to me but can be added to the 5DIII one way or another anyway.
But it does have other characteristics which set it apart from the 5D III. It is smaller and lighter, has interchangeable screens, and cost a lot less. We chose one for Building Panoramics and not only because it is cheaper.
Missing out the outer points altogether ? In the vast majority of static situations they work perfectly well when required for ultra shallow and close distance shots; ie. when 'focus and recompose' would give back focus.
The AF argument isn't really vs the 1D/5DIII system, it's against the cheaper cameras such as the 650D which have 'better' AF. I briefly had the 650D and didn't find it to be much difference.
As for the -3EV centre point, I have found that the 5DII will focus with the centre point in moonlight and I don't know what that's supposed to be rated at.
Funny isn't it that the 5DII was undoubtably 'crippled' by simple AF to keep it out of 1Ds III territory, yet the vast majority ( for a marketing point of view) still chose to use it over the 1DsIII, eventually resulting in the dropping of that line, and upgrading the 5D line to full professional status.
There are much more annoying things about the AF of the 6D than the points themselves; having to use the 'rebel' interface of first having to press an activation button before you can press the point moving button is much more of an issue.