Just wanted to share a few thoughts on the 6D, given all the negativity about it, specifically why I'm interested in getting one. I shoot primarily with a 5D Mark II. I use my camera for snapshots sometimes, but mainly for landscape work and travel. On my honeymoon I took a minimalist approach and we just brought my wife's Rebel T2i with us to Kaua'i. I shot with it a bunch and enjoyed the lightweight and simplicity. When I got back from the trip, I thought about investing in my own Rebel package for travel, but never got around to it, mainly because it would likely involve some new lenses in addition to a body.
When I started looking at the EOS 6D, just out of curiosity, I quickly realized how it would fit the bill well for travel. The main complaints I see around the web, including in forums here, are about the autofocus. A couple thoughts on this: first, during the film era, only the highest-end cameras had a large amount of autofocus points, 45 on the 1V and 3V. The last ELAN to be released had 7 points. 7. Just because you can put more autofocus points into a body doesn't mean you need to. I have 9 autofocus points on my 5D Mark II. I shoot with one. I only shoot with one on my 20D. No, I don't do sports, no I don't photograph children at play. I tend to believe, though, that a camera is a tool and different tools are designed for different purposes. I think that the 6D's autofocus system is going to be perfect for me AND represents an advancement for Canon. Second, people married to numbers may be surprised by the concept that there's more to an autofocus system than points. The 6D can reportedly autofocus in -3EV conditions. That's a one stop improvement over the 5d Mark III and a two stop improvement over the 5D Mark II. I fail to see how this is an antiquated system.
Additionally, for travel and many other applications, size and weight matter. The fact that Canon placed a full frame sensor into essentially a 20D body is impressive to me. With a prime on it, I could shoot with that thing for a week straight. I would surmise that travel is where most people's home SLRs get the most use and that's what the 6D is, a high-end consumer SLR. In my opinion, it's the best SLR camera on the market for travel for these reasons. It's also telling that it was released near a lightweight L zoom and an image stabilized fast wide prime, two perfect companions on a trip to Europe.
Before some accusations start flying, I'm not a Canon apologist. If I were buying my first digital camera today, I'd buy a Nikon. But if I were an amateur photographer with a D5100 and one or two lenses and, like many camera owners, tended to only take pictures when traveling, the 6D would hold a lot of allure.
Maybe we need to get away entirely from the direct Nikon/Canon comparison? I talked with a pro landscape guy recently who shoots with the D800 and he said he wishes Nikon had an offering comparable to the 5D Mark III that he could supplement his D800 with. He didn't say, "I wish my camera had the same features," rather he saw them as different tools. I think with lenses, top of the line cameras, and entry level cameras, comparisons are easily justifiable and they typically are designed for parallel purposes. But for the camera bodies in between, I think we all need to keep an open mind that different camera owners use their tool for different reasons and Nikon and Canon are both actively doing market research to find niches for new tools for our toolboxes. All this said, the 6D may very well fall victim to Canon's failure to differentiate the 6D from the D600 through active marketing, and that is definitely a problem.
I'd appreciate any thoughts you all have on what you look for in a camera for travel and whether you agree that the 6D is well suited for that purpose.
Santa, if you're reading this (Santa's a Canon fan, right?), please bring me a 6D on Christmas.