You guys do realize your complaining about 1/20th of a second difference between the D600 and 6D, right? That is 0.0005 seconds difference! It really doesn't matter that much, and given the design of the 6D as a low-light camera capable of ISO 25600 and AF at EV -3, it matters even less. You could bump up the ISO by a third of a stop for pretty much ANY exposure and compensate for the difference if you really, really needed to. Now, if it was a 1/60th sync speed vs. a 1/200th sync speed, that would matter, but thats not the case.
please stop talking about things you don´t understand!!
ISO affects FLASH and AMBIENT exposure.. it´s obvious you don´t know what strobist are talking about.
yes 1/200s was already bad... doesn´t change a thing that the trend to make it even worse is a bad sign.
I think jrista makes a fair point. I agree that 1/200 s X-sync isn't good, and 1/180 s is worse. But the difference is only 1/6-stop.
OTOH, despite the ISO improvement in recent sensors which would allow you to more than make up that 1/6-stop in terms of noise performance, that's not going to help stop action. That 1/6-stop is well and truly gone.
Aye. I don't disagree that 1/200th isn't great, and neither is 1/250th. But since none of the entry-level full-frame cameras have a 1/500th second sync speed, it doesn't make much sense to complain about a sixth of a stop worth of difference. I wasn't thinking that bumping ISO would help stop action...the flash pulse is for that (which is far shorter than 1/180th, 1/200th, even 1/500th shutter). I was only thinking if you wanted to compensate for the loss of exposure (or, for that matter, low ambient exposure to start with), you could easily bump ISO without worry on a camera capable of native ISO 25600.
I guess my real point is...we all get way too hung up on numerical statistics. We all think the 6D is "far worse" than Nikon's D600 because, well, numerically...the D600 wins. But who's to say that is really the case? Canon has
done some pretty amazing things with previously unseen high ISO settings, resulting in USABLE ISO settings up to ISO 3200, 6400, even 12800. It has only 11 AF points vs. the D600's 39, but those 11 AF points have a broader spread across the frame than the D600's (which, to me, is a very important factor in AF capability). Canon's AF points tend to be rather LARGE as well, so the lack of density may not be as big a problem as the naysayers think. Additionally, Canon's AF system is capable of focusing in TWO FULL STOPS LESS light than the D600's...which at the very least should translate into better AF performance at EV -1 for the Canon. The Nikon D600 may have more pixels in its 24.3mp sensor, but its also going to be 20% more succeptible to photon shot noise (the primary cause of noise in general) than the 6D with its 20.1mp sensor. Photon shot noise doesn't give a S___ what your DR is...it occurs regardless.
Numeric comparisons between cameras is, and always has been, a terrible idea. Freaking out over a sixth stop difference in flash sync speed is...well...rather childish. I think the 6D is a somewhat lackluster release (seems to be Canon's MO these days), but I think it will be a fine camera, and will make quite a number of Canon customers happy campers.