Moving to FF Canon vs Nikon - I'm Confused...

[Aglet]

I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.
The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.
I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

Because they can charge more and get away with it.  They're in the market lead, know it, and act accordingly, much like Apple's been known to.  They've managed to create a loyal fan base of repeat customers, originally by making the best hardware experience, again, sort of like Apple.

But unlike the computer biz, there are plenty more challengers in the camera biz.  Nikon's certainly learned a few things over the years and 2012 has been a banner year for them putting out some wow products at wow price points.  Unlike Canon's yawn products at OW price points lately.

Nikon's trying to offer more for less because they have to try harder; they're still in 2nd place.

But to try answer your implied ?, which FF system you choose will depend on a lot of factors.
If you want to shoot low light, hi ISO, event sort of work, Canon's likely the better choice unless you step up to pro level bodies where either brand is near as good as the other.
If you prefer to shoot creative and landscape images at lower ISO, Nikon's raw files are more malleable in post without seeing the stripes of pattern noise most Canon cameras exhibit when raw files are pushed hard.  Especially with pro-sumer and consumer level bodies.

Those refurb prices lately are a wicked deal!
I like my D800s more the more I use them but I'm still thinking of a 6d to replace my 5d2 for those few instances where I want to use my Canon glass instead of Nikon.

And, FWIW, I generally prefer Canon's lenses but there's no shortage of fine Nikon and 3rd party lenses that are up to the abilities of the D800's hi-rez sensor and they don't all cost as much as Canon's L-class either.
My kit's stuffed with great (used and new) F-mount lenses that cost me way less than my Canon gear and they perform well enough to please a technocrat like myself.  My customers are far less particular.

File size complaints re the D800's raw files?...  pointless.  If you spend the $ on gear you have to realize you need a modern computer to keep up also.

[Aglet]

Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc.

Uhmm .. D800.
a truckload more MP and DR to match, lots of AF ability, raw video, plenty of features, etc.

..  If you want a great tool for your money, buy a rebel.

darn right!
or one of Nikon's IQ-superior offerings like the D5100

you can not beat the performance per cost of such low cost gear that can provide IQ as well as stuff 20x the price at base and low ISO!

Any of the cheap consumer bodies is capable of large art-quality print files if you use them properly.

[Aglet]

File size complaints re the D800's raw files?...  pointless.  If you spend the $ on gear you have to realize you need a modern computer to keep up also.

No it isn't pointless, it is a significant cost factor involved in the decision making process that is too regularly dismissed with the casual "HDD's are cheap" meme, add in a $2,000-4,000 computer and your D800 is not so cheap! Sure if you are a pro and can write this stuff off against income, but many are not and when all is said and done it is the bulk market of amateurs that keeps the pro gear R&D going, sure Canon and Nikon might make money off pro gear but that isn't where the bulk of their income or profits comes from.

I guess I meant to say, "it's pointless complaining about it."
You know the larger file sizes will slow down post-processing so it's not coming as a surprise.
Stepping up to higher res is a 2 step process, the camera+glass, then the post-processing ability.

I have a 2010 iMac with an i7 and 12GB of RAM and it's just fine for my PP needs, even for large stiched panaramas.
If I had to process 100s of shots per day, then I'd want more speed but IF I WERE DOING THAT I'd have a faster computer or stay with a lower rez camera.
If you're doing that, hopefully you're making money at it and justify the cost of a faster computer.

if a hobbyist is upset about this, well... new computer's next on your wish list, I guess.
I don't worry about storage costs, storage IS cheap these days, when compared to all the other tech items.

[neuroanatomist]

Can you name a revolutionary move or two, by Canon or others, just for comparison?  I think the last 'revolutionary' releases were the Contax N Digital and the 1Ds, the very first full frame CCD and CMOS dSLRs.  Pretty much everything since then has been 'just plain ordinary' and 'market driven' incremental improvements.  A few more MP.  More AF points.  More cross-type AF points.  A couple more fps.  More metering zones.  Etc.

Uhmm .. D800.
a truckload more MP and DR to match, lots of AF ability, raw video, plenty of features, etc.

Yes, those are the exact sort of incremental improvements I was talking about.  Or, if you prefer, the 5D Mark II was just as revolutionary, or at least, as revolutionary as 20D with a FF sensor can be. 

[Radiating]

I have a canon 550d rebel and was considering the "jump" to FF.

The Canon 6d is in my budget. However the Nikon D800 is available (refurb) for $2,300.

I ask myself - why spend almost the same on the inferior 6d ? Why does canon seem to give less and charge more ?

The 6D and D800 are in different classes. You need to compare apples to apples:

D800 refurb $2300 + $450 grip = $2750

5D Mark III Big Value Inc Brand New (limited quantities) = $2499 + $275 grip = $2775

You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

The 5D Mark III has a half a stop ISO advantage over the D800, a reviewers comparing raw files find that the raw files have equal amounts of base noise, but the D800's ISO is calibrated 27% higher than the D800's (meaning iso 1000 on the 5D III is equal to iso 1270 on the D800), the 5D III was also designed to repond better to noise reduction by having a more gausian distribution of the noise, so that adds another quarter stop of noise, after NR.

The 5D Mark III then has slightly better AF in many back to back tests (depending who you ask they are even though, as both are good), and tests have also shown that no zoom lens can max out the 5D Mark III over more than around 90% of the image area, meaning with zooms there will be no real world resolution difference, and with primes only a select few (EXcluding most Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses and only including exceptionally exceptional lenses) can outresolve 28 megapixels, and only between f/8.0 to f/4.0, so the nikon resolution advantage is slim or none due to the limits of most lenses.

The major real world advantage to the D800 is of course dynamic range for shadow recovery, and those megapixels for landscape shooters that use ideal setups and need to eek every last drop from the camera (but it's a smaller advantage than the marketing would lead you to beleive). There are of course other minor differences, but for the most part the 5D3 is a better journalist or portrait camera and the D800 a better landscape and studio camera.

For most work they cost the same and offer similar features.

The core Nikon lenes are generally more expensive too, if you ignore Canon's insane early adopter "tax", the 24-70mm II is said to go down the $1600, which is the same as Nikon's with higher quality and other than that the core lenes on Nikon are slightly more expensive for Apples to Apples lenses.

Hope that helps.

[neuroanatomist]

You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

6 fps in DX mode only - 1.5x crop FoV and 16 MP. 

[RustyTheGeek]

I myself moved from the Terrible to the Just OK class after I returned my camera for an exchange.  At this price range however, I wish there wasn't even a discussion about 5D3 low light AF performance except to question how it can be so good all the time for everyone without question.

So at the moment I am enjoying better low light AF with the 6D but I hope the 5D3 low light AF performance somehow magically improves after the next firmware update. 

Hi Rusty,
Are you talking about the AF flash assist issue or low light focusing in general? For me the two are very different. Thought the 5D3 was pretty hot in the available light focusing department, no?

Well, this has been discussed to death already and some see AF Flash Assist and Low Light focusing as separate issues.  Personally, I see them as related and part of the same problem.  Since every other camera I have ever owned performed better than the 5D3 in Low Light AF performance (in available low light, without AF Assist, FWIW), I expected at least somewhat better AF performance from the new $3K+ 5D3 in this category.  Just call me Crazy!  Alas, after exchanging the camera, I have been able to achieve similar AF low light performance to my older cameras but not much better.  So, I got the 6D to compare and it works much better, like I expected the 5D3 to perform after hearing all the hype for many months.  I've never used AF Assist and to be honest, I had forgotten all about it until I got a 5D3 and started reading up on why the low light AF sucked so much.

[sdsr]

The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

+1  true.

Oh? So why is the 6D's low light/high ISO performance better (including obviously less noise) than that of the 5DII?

[RS2021]

The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.

+1  true.

Oh? So why is the 6D's low light/high ISO performance better (including obviously less noise) than that of the 5DII?

Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers

[RustyTheGeek]

I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...

'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'

... even means.  It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years.  And many seem to agree.  What am I missing?

Pixel pitch of 5D Mark II: 6.4 microns
Pixel pitch of 20D: 6.4 microns

Um, is pixel pitch really the spec you are going to support that statement with?   

[neuroanatomist]

Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III? 

[RustyTheGeek]

After some thought, I do have to say that from the perspective of 5D2 owners, the 6D may not be that compelling.  From my perspective as a 5Dc owner who wasn't that excited about the 5D2, the 6D makes more sense.  And the 6D doesn't just make sense to me coming from a 5Dc.  It makes sense coming from a 5D3 if I don't need the super AF for sports.  See, I went from the 5Dc to the 5D3 and was a bit disappointed so the 6D seems like a good compromise for a lot less money.  I'm giving the 5D3 until after the next firmware update to see what improves and then it may go away.  We'll see....

[dilbert]

You need the Nikon grip to do 6 FPS fyi, otherwise you get a meager 4, which isn't a lot in the real world.

6 fps in DX mode only - 1.5x crop FoV and 16 MP.

The only people that need high FPS are those that "spray shoot". Lots of FPS because you don't know if something will happen that you want to capture and it costs less to get an image of something that you don't care about than it does to not get an image of something that you do care about. Mostly this is professional photographers. There are also amateurs that "spray shoot" brick walls, etc, but that's because they don't have any technique to speak of, nor an understanding of what they're shooting.

[dilbert]

Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III?

Well if a 5D Mark II owner is concerned about IQ then the 5D Mark III isn't an upgrade either.

[RS2021]

Because, as I subsequently said... "6D is a warmed up 5D2" .... Obviously it has to up the ante a bit... No one is going to replace the 5D2 *with* a 5D2 ....they need to give people a few frills after 3 years...so we have 6D

"5D2-plus " if you will ...after 3 years wait at 2k ...a worthy upgrade for the suckers... Er...I mean  consumers

What makes you think the 6D is intended as an upgrade for 5D Mark II owners?  Did you take a bathroom break or step out to get more popcorn and miss the part where they added an extra 'I' to the Mark designation of the 5DII, when they named the 5D Mark III?

In practice, 6d is more a nominal replacement to the old 5d2 as price point and old set of features go...with a few frills added...Not an upgrade "per se" ...perhaps I did not use the right word there if one is pedantic, but in practice it is not that far from the intended near term marketing at its introduction.  Most of the comparisons in forums have been weather one should buy an old 5d2 at the basement prices or if one should get a 6d...that was the tenor of much of the comparisons here even a few months back.  Enter 5d3.... 5d2 still alive...enter 6d... 5d2 put to pasture. Also 5d3 entered at a higher price point that the late comers to 5d2 party, meaning those who adopted it at a lower price point, or considered it at its low end of its tenure pricing, could not readily pick up the 5d3 at its high intro pricing...not until the ebay fire-sales set in anyways...so no, i am fully aware where the 6D fits in the scheme of things.

With 5d3, arguably, canon created a split upgrade path for the old 5d2.... 5d3 is pegged a notch higher (deservedly or not is debatable) with significantly higher features body and AF... meant for the well-heeled 5d2 upgrader. But 6d is more of a lateral slotting in the line up with some tweaks to "update" it for the three years passing...Intended more for the budget conscious consumer who would have bought a bargain priced  5d2 near its end of cycle or would have remained longer with 5d2 if they already owned one.

And the discussion would be more productive without the holy indignation and movie break analogies. Cheers