Review - EOS 6D By Gizmodo

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

Great stills, not so great video
Gizmodo has reviewed the EOS 6D and found it to be a great still camera. However, they did notice the video produced by the EOS 6D is prone to pretty bad moire, something that doesn’t affect the EOS 5D Mark III.

As I’ve told most people, if serious video is your thing, get a 5D Mark III. We are hoping the moire issue can be resolved somewhat with a future firmware update.

Gizmodo Conclusion “If you are most interested in stills and don’t care that much about video quality, the 6D is a great value—it produces top-notch pictures, with very few compromises, at a lower price than we’ve ever seen. But if you are looking for the video prowess of the 5D Mark III, plan to pony up that extra $900.”

Read the full review

Canon EOS 6D for $1999 at B&H Photo | Amazon | Norman | Adorama

cr

[dswatson83]

More comprehensive review by LearningCameras: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review

Noticed that the video was sharper in the 6D when I put it against the 5D mark III. Maybe Canon removed something that allowed the video to be sharper but allowed Moire. I noticed a bit more in the 6D but not a huge amount, but then again, I didn't shoot brick walls or roof tops where this issue would be seen the most.

Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review	Small | Large

[titokane]

The video quality on the 6D is essentially the same that we've been used to and creating workflows around for the past few years. Yes, the sensor makes for some moire if you are shooting that type of patterned subject, and yes Canon really should have fixed that by now, but to say that if you'll be shooting video you need a Mark III is a little ridiculous.

This single failure ruins the 6D as a viable alternative to the 5D3 for professional video.

Seriously? I just shot for a week in Mexico with the 6D and the video turned out great. There was even a shooter with the Mark III who was blown away by the quality of the 6D's video in low light.
We get it, the 5D Mark III shoots great video, but saying that the 6D can't be used professionally because it has the same issues that other professional cameras have had for years is a bit off, in my opinion.

[bchernicoff]

I've noticed that over the last 18 months or so the quality of Gizmodo's content has gone way down. I haven't used a 6D so I can't comment on their review.

[webphoto]

The article is clearly biased.

This is the Gizmodo review of the D600 video: "The video quality is sharp in broad daylight, but the quality falls apart in low light. Moire and rolling shutter distortions are evident. Inexplicably, you can't change the aperture of the lens in Live View mode."

It doesn't sound much better than the 6D video. Gizmodo should give 3 stars for both cameras.

That is why Gizmodo's reviews have no credibility.

[Denisas Pupka]

More comprehensive review by LearningCameras: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review

Noticed that the video was sharper in the 6D when I put it against the 5D mark III. Maybe Canon removed something that allowed the video to be sharper but allowed Moire. I noticed a bit more in the 6D but not a huge amount, but then again, I didn't shoot brick walls or roof tops where this issue would be seen the most.

Maybe little different in video sharpness because both cameras were using different lenses? I think 6D was with new canon 35mm f2 IS and 5D mark III with new Sigma 35mm f1.4