All is Quiet, but the Good Stuff is Coming

[K]

You people are taking this personally and to a different level.

I didn't' say there wasn't anything positive about Canon, or that their system sucks.

In fact, Canon has tons of positives and is overall the best system, but at a price. Nikon is close enough that their value in the entry and mid level FF range is far better.

Unfortunately, even a great company be guilty of some crap - which in the Canon world is the 6D. We wait to see if they can redeem themselves with the 6D2.

I'm not hopeful.

They'll give the suckers exactly what they asked for, a FF Rebel. LOL.

 

[Loswr]

42.

The Great Wall of China.

Just keeping with K's theme of giving responses that don't actually address the question. :

 

[BillB]

Talk about moving the goal posts.

What is the 6D?

An entry level FF?
An camera for a specific shooter?
An enticing upgrade for crop users?

Its amazing the extent to which people will go to defend the indefensible. 11pt AF from 2008. Digest that.

I guess when you starve someone nearly to death for long enough, then offer them dirt to eat - they'll like the taste. That's Canon's business model. Here's your 45 pt AF recycled from years ago...

Heck, the 45pt is still a rumor. There's still a possibility Canon does something extra insulting and gives us 19pt.

At this point, the 6D is history, except maybe for someone looking for a very cheap FF body. In a few weeks we will know what Canon is going to replace it with. Nobody is defending 11 point AF. Canon is about to replace it.

If you are talking the 45 pt AF, all cross, with a dual cross f8 center point, my recollection is that was first on the 80D, and that wasn't exactly years ago.

 

[K]

A first time buyer not committed to a system would have to be insane or ignorant of the details to go with Canon.

A person would have to be insane or ignorant to suggest that a first time buyer not committed to a system would buy a camera without a lens.

6D + 24-105mm variable aperture zoom: $1800
D610 + 24-85mm variable aperture zoom: $2000

6D + 24-105mm f/4: $2000
D750 + 24-120mm f/4: $2150

Now, tell us again which is the better value? Oh yeah, the Nikon because the 6D is crippled. :

I'm comparing bodies, if you want to muddle that up with kits and lenses in an attempt to salvage your failed attempt to justify the 6D...then

Thanks for sharing the kit prices, this further helps illustrate the bad value that the 6D is. For $150 - $200 more, you're getting a significantly better body.

I'm sure someone who can spend $2000 on a body can cough up another $150. $100 more for bodies only. What do they get? Well, like I wrote to Don about, they get:

51 pt flagship level AF vs, 2008 era crippled 11 pt crap (but hey, it's -3ev centerpoint!!! yay)
24 MP vs 20 MP
Vastly more DR on the Nikon.
Dual Card Slots vs Single Card
Tilt screen vs no Tilt
Partial touch vs no Touch
1/200 Sync vs 1/180


The list goes on. You know it already.


There's no comparison. For $100 more, you literally get a camera that is a whole class higher. The D750 is more of a competitor in specs not price to the 5D4 than it is to Canon's pathetic entry level FF lineup of the 6D and the speculated 6D2 with already behind-the-times rumored specs before it is even announced.

6D2 will have only one advantage. DPAF. That's it.

Want DPAF in a DSLR to shoot 1080 with low noise? - 6D2 will be your ticket. Go for it have at it...for $2k lol.

 

[Loswr]

A first time buyer not committed to a system would have to be insane or ignorant of the details to go with Canon.

A person would have to be insane or ignorant to suggest that a first time buyer not committed to a system would buy a camera without a lens.

6D + 24-105mm variable aperture zoom: $1800
D610 + 24-85mm variable aperture zoom: $2000

6D + 24-105mm f/4: $2000
D750 + 24-120mm f/4: $2150

Now, tell us again which is the better value? Oh yeah, the Nikon because the 6D is crippled. :

I'm comparing bodies, if you want to muddle that up with kits and lenses in an attempt to salvage your failed attempt to justify the 6D...then

Oh, sorry. When you stated "a system" I didn't understand that to mean just a camera body. But then, I'm not an idiot.

By the way, why do you keep insisting I'm trying to 'defend' or 'justify' the 6D? I'm merely stating that it's a very popular camera, which means that many (many!!) buyers chose it. You can't seem to come to terms with the implications of that fact when stacked up against your claim that it's crippled. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[BillB]

A first time buyer not committed to a system would have to be insane or ignorant of the details to go with Canon.

A person would have to be insane or ignorant to suggest that a first time buyer not committed to a system would buy a camera without a lens.

6D + 24-105mm variable aperture zoom: $1800
D610 + 24-85mm variable aperture zoom: $2000

6D + 24-105mm f/4: $2000
D750 + 24-120mm f/4: $2150

Now, tell us again which is the better value? Oh yeah, the Nikon because the 6D is crippled. :

I'm comparing bodies, if you want to muddle that up with kits and lenses in an attempt to salvage your failed attempt to justify the 6D...then

Thanks for sharing the kit prices, this further helps illustrate the bad value that the 6D is. For $150 - $200 more, you're getting a significantly better body.

I'm sure someone who can spend $2000 on a body can cough up another $150. $100 more for bodies only. What do they get? Well, like I wrote to Don about, they get:

51 pt flagship level AF vs, 2008 era crippled 11 pt crap (but hey, it's -3ev centerpoint!!! yay)
24 MP vs 20 MP
Vastly more DR on the Nikon.
Dual Card Slots vs Single Card
Tilt screen vs no Tilt
Partial touch vs no Touch
1/200 Sync vs 1/180


The list goes on. You know it already.


There's no comparison. For $100 more, you literally get a camera that is a whole class higher. The D750 is more of a competitor in specs not price to the 5D4 than it is to Canon's pathetic entry level FF lineup of the 6D and the speculated 6D2 with already behind-the-times rumored specs before it is even announced.

6D2 will have only one advantage. DPAF. That's it.

Want DPAF in a DSLR to shoot 1080 with low noise? - 6D2 will be your ticket. Go for it have at it...for $2k lol.

I seem to recollect you said that you would get a 6DII if it had two card slots. Change your mind?

You also said that Canon has the better lens system. Now you are saying that the only advantage to a 6DII will be DPAF. Which statement is right?

 

[unfocused]

Canon generally produces cameras that perform above their spec sheets. The 6D was a classic example. When it was released, forum dwellers and many reviewers whined about its weak autofocus specifications. Yet, it quickly became the best selling full-frame camera on the market and apparently continues to hold that title.

Also, as the camera moved into the field, it gained a huge fan base among photographers -- you know, people who actually take pictures. That's because it outperformed its specs. The autofocus turned out to be better than expected and the quality of images was excellent. It also was the most affordable full-frame camera available, which didn't hurt sales.

I fully expect a similar reaction to the 6DII. People like "K" will whine and insult, but the market will drown them out. They will dismiss the facts and opt instead for "alternative facts" and "fake news" about the failures of Canon. Yet, Canon will continue to outsell its competitors and thousands of buyers will end up as happy customers, because the camera will outperform its specs and customer expectations. That's been the case with the 1DX, the 5D, the 7D, the XXDs and the Rebels.

 

[K]

Canon glass is better. I've said it many times. However, it isn't so much better as to trump the advantages of having a 51pt AF system versus some ancient 11 pt nonsense which was old even when it was released (for those of you with amnesia).

I'll take 2% or less quality loss in the corners to be able to actually focus on subjects and capture more photos any day.

Dual slots will go a LONG way toward make this camera more viable for a lot of users. Even with the 45 pt system being sub-par in comparison to how Nikon offers higher level AF across many models, it would be a huge step forward (for Canon), and will not serve as a middle finger to users like a 19pt system would.

Like I said, starve them first, then anything will taste good.

Obviously, this equation changes if you compare different levels. I've said it over and over, at the entry FF - Canon is awful with what they do.

But in this realm of Canon fanatics, no criticism of Canon is accepted no matter how valid or warranted. We can conclude that Canon is the perfect company with perfect camera offerings and perfect value.

I hope this makes you all feel better about how you spent your money. Reassurance! Feels good.

 

[Loswr]

Dual slots will go a LONG way toward make this camera more viable for a lot of users.

Seriously? What's the rationale for this? Because memory cards fail so frequently? Because the 10 seconds needed to change cards always occurs when bigfoot is traipsing along in front of people? Because two cards are needed to capture more photos or video, since getting a larger card just isn't possible?

Dude, we know that dual slots gives you a big woody and all, but 'more viable for a lot of users'? Got any evidence for that? There are probably a significant fraction of 5DIII/5DIV users who have only CF or only SD cards and thus use only one slot. You're channeling AvTvM, claiming that a feature you personally want is critical for millions of users, and Canon must include it or else.

Trust me, the 6DII will be plenty viable for millions of users even if it's 'crippled' with just one pathetic, lonely card slot. Fine, it won't be viable for you. Guess what? Canon doesn't gove a crap about you.

 

[K]

Dual slots will go a LONG way toward make this camera more viable for a lot of users.

Seriously? What's the rationale for this? Because memory cards fail so frequently? Because the 10 seconds needed to change cards always occurs when bigfoot is traipsing along in front of people? Because two cards are needed to capture more photos or video, since getting a larger card just isn't possible?

Dude, we know that dual slots gives you a big woody and all, but 'more viable for a lot of users'? Got any evidence for that? There are probably a significant fraction of 5DIII/5DIV users who have only CF or only SD cards and thus use only one slot. You're channeling AvTvM, claiming that a feature you personally want is critical for millions of users, and Canon must include it or else.

Trust me, the 6DII will be plenty viable for millions of users even if it's 'crippled' with just one pathetic, lonely card slot. Fine, it won't be viable for you. Guess what? Canon doesn't gove a crap about you.

I never saw you petitioning Canon to remove the 2nd card slot from the 1DX or 1DX2...


Hypocrisy.

 

[BillB]

Canon glass is better. I've said it many times. However, it isn't so much better as to trump the advantages of having a 51pt AF system versus some ancient 11 pt nonsense which was old even when it was released (for those of you with amnesia).

I'll take 2% or less quality loss in the corners to be able to actually focus on subjects and capture more photos any day.

Dual slots will go a LONG way toward make this camera more viable for a lot of users. Even with the 45 pt system being sub-par in comparison to how Nikon offers higher level AF across many models, it would be a huge step forward (for Canon), and will not serve as a middle finger to users like a 19pt system would.

Like I said, starve them first, then anything will taste good.

Obviously, this equation changes if you compare different levels. I've said it over and over, at the entry FF - Canon is awful with what they do.

But in this realm of Canon fanatics, no criticism of Canon is accepted no matter how valid or warranted. We can conclude that Canon is the perfect company with perfect camera offerings and perfect value.

I hope this makes you all feel better about how you spent your money. Reassurance! Feels good.

So, Canon has a slight edge on glass, and we don't know how the D750 and 6DII sensors or AF will compare, or how many cardslots the 6DII will have. We shall see.

I agree with you that the D750 is a much better spec'd camera than the soon to be superseded 6D classic, by the way. For what that is worth. A lot of good pictures have been taken with that funky old 11 point AF, though.

 

[Loswr]

I never saw you petitioning Canon to remove the 2nd card slot from the 1DX or 1DX2...

Hypocrisy.

Sure, I have cards in both slots and write to both (in duplicate). But...I have not ever had a card fail or missed a shot when switching out a card. In other words, my 1D X would be just as viable with one slot.

ASSumption.

Why would a second card slot, "...go a LONG way toward make this camera more viable for a lot of users," exactly? Seems you're afraid or unable to actually respond to the issue at hand. Deflection and tangents are a go-to move for people unable to back up their claims and unwilling to admit that they are wrong.

Weakness.

 

[dak723]

You people are taking this personally and to a different level.

I didn't' say there wasn't anything positive about Canon, or that their system sucks.

In fact, Canon has tons of positives and is overall the best system, but at a price. Nikon is close enough that their value in the entry and mid level FF range is far better.

Unfortunately, even a great company be guilty of some crap - which in the Canon world is the 6D. We wait to see if they can redeem themselves with the 6D2.

I'm not hopeful.

They'll give the suckers exactly what they asked for, a FF Rebel. LOL.

Every time you say something like the 6D is crap, you lose all credibility. When you say a first time buyer would have to be insane or ignorant to buy Canon, you lose all credibility.

When I bought my 6D, it was replacing a Canon 300D, but I had no FF lenses, so I looked at other brands. I chose Canon because:

I like Canon color better than Nikon or Sony. The tonal curves are also different and again I prefer Canon. I determined this by actually using a Nikon and buying (for a short time) a Sony. I would not say that putting a lot of emphasis on a camera's color and contrast shows that I am ignorant or insane.

I like Canon reliability. At the time, Nikon was having issues with oil on the sensors, I believe. And my 300D lasted 8 years with not one issue. So I chose Canon. I would not say that caring about reliability shows that I am ignorant or insane.

I like Canon ergonomics. Compared to the Sony A7, Canon is well designed and the Sony is certainly "crippled!" So ergonomics is one reason I chose the 6D and I would not say that this shows that I am ignorant or insane.

I believe I read an article that said that most pro sports photographers were still using center point for focus. Perhaps I am wrong, or the article was a too small sample, but I would guess that the majority of users who are not shooting action, do not need or want 45 AF points. The 6D is generally considered a non-action camera. For general photography - even some close up photography ( I shoot flowers), I need maybe 12 AF points at the most, in my experience. In 4 years of using the 6D, I did not miss many (if any) shots due to the AF system. Yes, it is not for everyone, but for many of us, the 6D's AF system works perfectly. I would not say that being satisfied with a limited number of AF points shows that I am ignorant or insane.

Not everyone wants more specs. I prefer smaller files to work with, don't print over 12" x 18", prefer better low light IQ over more resolution, so 20 MP is more than enough. I never shoot video with my camera, or shoot with manual focus, so if Canon has no zebras and no focus peaking it wouldn't deter me from choosing them and would not show that I am ignorant or insane.

Every person should choose the camera that is best for them. And every FF and crop camera made today is capable of taking great pictures, has AF systems that are a dream compared to years ago, and can shoot in lower light than ever possible. To say that any one of them is "crap" is ridiculous.

 

[Mikehit]

Thanks for sharing the kit prices, this further helps illustrate the bad value that the 6D is. For $150 - $200 more, you're getting a significantly better body.

I'm sure someone who can spend $2000 on a body can cough up another $150. $100 more for bodies only. What do they get? Well, like I wrote to Don about, they get:

So answer one question - if the benefits are so great, why do Canon cameras outsell Nikon.
Please answer that one question with no diversions.

 

[Ivar]

-> All is Quiet, but the Good Stuff is Coming

This reminds me why I left Canon, the eternal promise that never got fulfilled over the years.
Yes, I absolutely do agree that Canon has maturity in terms of lenses and professionalism. For serious pro stuff, you can't go wrong choosing Canon.
But it lacks any aspiration, for poor amateurs, looking at the competition. There is no strecth at all, no sign of trying, just a slow adaption. Then again, the marketing is so well balanced, the white lenses shining which makes the shareholders happy, no denial on that.

This overly precise balancing is what gets on the nerves of many.

 

[K]

I never saw you petitioning Canon to remove the 2nd card slot from the 1DX or 1DX2...

Hypocrisy.

Sure, I have cards in both slots and write to both (in duplicate). But...I have not ever had a card fail or missed a shot when switching out a card. In other words, my 1D X would be just as viable with one slot.

ASSumption.

Why would a second card slot, "...go a LONG way toward make this camera more viable for a lot of users," exactly? Seems you're afraid or unable to actually respond to the issue at hand. Deflection and tangents are a go-to move for people unable to back up their claims and unwilling to admit that they are wrong.

Weakness.

Hypocrisy says the person with dual slot camera, downplaying it others...


D750, $1500. Dual Slot
D610, $1500. Dual Slot

Value value value. This is a valuable feature, especially one that enables commercial application. Your downplaying of it is irrelevant and not a justified argument.

Here let me sell someone a 1-focus point camera. Just 1. When they ask, need or expect more, I'll just tell them it isn't that important, doesn't cause issues never had a problem....and, if they need more, pay $3000+ for a body that has more AF points. Even though the competition doesn't charge that much for the same thing.


Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge again -- no one can address this simple fact. No one. Not a single post. I'm criticized for not answering the tsunami of strawmen arguments and other nonsense, but no one answers or fesses up to this one. Instead, I hear bizarre nonsensical tangents discussing other matters entirely.

 

[Mikehit]

Hypocrisy says the person with dual slot camera, downplaying it others...


D750, $1500. Dual Slot
D610, $1500. Dual Slot

Value value value. This is a valuable feature, especially one that enables commercial application. Your downplaying of it is irrelevant and not a justified argument.

I am not downplaying anything. I am not calling it irrelevant. But I accept two facts: the Nikons you mention are better spec, the Canon outsells them both.
What you seem unable to accept is that maybe they sell more 6D than Nikons because most people do not consider two slots to be as important as you do.

Why do YOU think the Canon outsells the Nikons?

Here let me sell someone a 1-focus point camera. Just 1. When they ask, need or expect more, I'll just tell them it isn't that important, doesn't cause issues never had a problem....and, if they need more, pay $3000+ for a body that has more AF points. Even though the competition doesn't charge that much for the same thing.

Straw man.

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge again -- no one can address this simple fact. No one. Not a single post. I'm criticized for not answering the tsunami of strawmen arguments and other nonsense, but no one answers or fesses up to this one. Instead, I hear bizarre nonsensical tangents discussing other matters entirely.

What simple fact are we not answering?
I don't think anyone has said the Nikons are not better spec - if I am wrong please quote the statement.
What we are saying is that it seems the general public do not think those features are as important as you claim they are.

 

[Loswr]

Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge again

Well, at least you're good at something.

Question: how does feature X make a camera more viable for a lot of users?
Answer: value value value.

LOL.

 

[zim]

FWIW here’s my experience of why an entry level camera with lesser spec can be preferred.

My first digital camera was got as a shared camera with my daughter. I did the usual guy thing and researched the thing to death. Walking into the shop for my price range the Nikon body I had in mind was my choice. Now as my daughter was quite young I was conscious of not railroading her into my preference so after playing with various makes and models I asked her which one? She chose the Canon. The reasons, simply that it felt better, handled better in her hands, the controls made more sense, the menus were simpler, the focusing was better because it wasn’t complicated, resolution did not matter a jot all were huge step ups.

I then questioned her choice by pointing out obvious spec differences and benefits, none of that mattered and she surprised me how adamant she was about that, she was confident she could and would enjoy using the Canon to take photos. Turns out she was correct she can and does still enjoy photography.

There is more to selling a camera than spec sheets, especially entry level cameras and I suspect Canon realise that.

 

[Loswr]

Here let me sell someone a 1-focus point camera. Just 1. When they ask, need or expect more, I'll just tell them it isn't that important, doesn't cause issues never had a problem....and, if they need more, pay $3000+ for a body that has more AF points. Even though the competition doesn't charge that much for the same thing.

Straw man.

tsunami of strawmen arguments

Now that's hypocrisy.