Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all

[bbasiaga]

The logistical issue probably has to do with the timing of the show. Photonika is when it is, and it probably makes a lot of sense to launch it there, as opposed to set up one of those press events Canon likes to do for announcements.

Delays from the announced date are probably production/frimware related issues. I'm basing that on how things work in my end of the consumer goods industry.

-Brian

 

[JohanCruyff]

1 dead pixel out of 24,300,000..... how awful. I wonder when the last time was that someone looked at a picture and saw a dead pixel.

Don't sweat it. Dead pixels are common.

If you have 24,300,000 pixels, the chances of a dead pixel are about 20% higher than if you have just 20,400,000, ceteris paribus. : : :

 

[DarkKnightNine]

Oh yeah it is:
Canon 6D Preview - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly, & The Competition


I'm calling it crap (yes I know it hasn't been released yet and I don't care).
After using the 5D Mark III and know what it is and isn't capable of, I know that they've stripped waaay to much off this camera to make it worth the asking price especially in comparison to the competition. The reason why I'm calling it crap is not because it's performance, it's because Canon DID NOT have to strip this camera down this much and could have provided more of a robust camera at this price point. The 6D could have truly been something awesome. It was stupidity and arrogance the lead to the decisions made on this camera, nothing more. I for one, feel insulted. Now all of you Canon fanboys are welcome to flame me but you are not helping yourself or Canon by defending their arrogance. You should be fanning your flames toward Canon and perhaps they will get the message that we aren't going to stand for this anymore. I love my Canon gear but enough is enough.

 

[Marsu42]

The 6D could have truly been something awesome. It was stupidity and arrogance the lead to the decisions made on this camera, nothing more. I for one, feel insulted

Indeed - but the problem is that this doesn't matter to Canon at all, why should it? It doesn't make a difference to them if you just "normally" don't buy the 6d or if you "really, really, not at all" don't buy it - in their books it's the binary sold or not sold. And there will be enough people getting hooked on the ff + gps & wifi once the 6d drops under $2000, which I expect to happen in no time.

Rebel amateurs will frequently switch brands due to daily discount, and pros won't do it at all if not pressed. Canon's one problem would be enthusiasts switching to Nikon, but as far as I can see this isn't happening in numbers, Canon users are either buying the 5d3 now (that's why the price is going up), saving for it or waiting for the next body. Me included, I'm not willing to get a Nikon that doesn't run Magic Lantern :-o

 

[dswatson83]

What remains to be seen is if Canon can sell a $2200 consumer camera...which is basically what the 6D is. I don't see it having much of a place in a Pro photographers bag. The 6D will take great picture, but it is limited in its appeal unlike the D600 which satisfies enough professional features to make it a good 2nd body, backup, or even a 1st body for someone on a budget. I just don't like the ergonomics and video issues with the D600 were to big for me to ever get this camera even though I seriously considered it. This review just showed some things I can't get over. The 5D3 is the perfect camera for my shooting style and I thought maybe the D600, though lacking some features, could handle my shooting style for $1000 less. These videos seem like the answer is no...though the photo quality is awesome.

Nikon D600 Review Part 6 - Low Light, High ISO test...And a surprise problem

 

[Marsu42]

though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

 

[Woody]

Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)

And the center AF point of the 5D2 works well. The limitation of this AF sensor is in tracking as well as the peripheral points. Since the 6D center AF works at -3 eV compared to -0.2 eV on the 5D2 and -2 eV on the 5D3, one cannot draw immediate conclusions WITHOUT even trying the camera.

Another thing, ALL the cross AF sensors on the D600 are clustered around the center. Of what use is that?

 

[poias]

Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)

And the center AF point of the 5D2 works well. The limitation of this AF sensor is in tracking as well as the peripheral points. Since the 6D center AF works at -3 eV compared to -0.2 eV on the 5D2 and -2 eV on the 5D3, one cannot draw immediate conclusions WITHOUT even trying the camera.

Another thing, ALL the cross AF sensors on the D600 are clustered around the center. Of what use is that?

Actually, all full-frame cameras with optical phase detection AF sensors are clustered around the center. D600 is slightly more so... take a look at the comparison between D600 vs D800... not much difference. I use my D600 to get enough negative space, plus it is real plus when it comes to action(when things are centered):

 

[Woody]

Actually, all full-frame cameras with optical phase detection AF sensors are clustered around the center. D600 is slightly more so... take a look at the comparison between D600 vs D800... not much difference. I use my D600 to get enough negative space, plus it is real plus when it comes to action(when things are centered):

I was only referring to the CROSS AF sensors.

The cross sensors on Nikon AF sensors are all clustered around the center, it's just a matter of spread which is particularly poor on the D600. The 5D3 and 1DX cross sensors are more distributed. This is why I wonder what advantage the D600 AF sensor has over the 6D, except for tracking.

D800 cross sensors marked in orange:

D600 cross sensors marked in red:

5D3 cross sensors marked in bold:

 

[tron]

I'm calling it crap (yes I know it hasn't been released yet and I don't care).
...
Now all of you Canon fanboys are welcome to flame me but you are not helping yourself or Canon by defending their arrogance. You should be fanning your flames toward Canon and perhaps they will get the message that we aren't going to stand for this anymore. I love my Canon gear but enough is enough.

I wouldn't flame you. I have a 5DII and I have already called 6D a joke camera.

 

[Marsu42]

This is why I wonder what advantage the D600 AF sensor has over the 6D, except for tracking.

If the spot you're trying to af is a difficult one it makes a large difference if you've got helper points around or if the camera is stuck with trying to lock with the one af point all over. Admittedly, this doesn't happen all the time, but as an option it should make the af much more reliable like the 5d3/1dx's focus point expansion.

 

[Tozz]

BTW it IS a cross-type AF sensor with f2.8 lenses.

Nope, it isn't, it's the same as the 5d2 with added low-light capability, read the specs: It has only a horizontal f2.8-sensitive line, i.e. if that cannot achieve focus it falls back to the f5.6 lines. I didn't understand that at first either, but Dr. Neuro explained ... and this is my biggest grief with the 6d, it's anti-tuned for f2.8 lenses just like the 5d3/1dx af is tuned for them. It's made for the 24-105/4L (kit) and 17-40/4L (Canon did the sample shots with this)

You still don't understand it... All the sensors that say focusing at f/5.6 WILL of course also focus with faster lenses at 2.8. The vertical sensitive f/2.8 line will be additionally to the cross-type if you use a f/2.8 or faster lens... Basic physics...

and "...anti-tuned for f2.8..." lol

have fun..

 

[willis]

Kinda funny to test FF against APS-C body and older tech what 7D holds.

 

[friedmud]

The D600 definitely does have ergonomics issues (you can read about some of my ergonomics issues with the camera here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9809.0 )

BUT... the IQ is unbelievable. Compared to my 7D they are not even in the same ballpark even though it is only $600 more than a 7D.

For anyone that is thinking about switching I highly recommend renting a D600 like I did. At LensRentals it was ~$200 to rent it with a 24-70 f/2.8G for 5 days. During that time I was able to find out if I could live with the ergonomics issues (I definitely can... it won't ever be as good as my 7D in ergonomics.... but the tradeoff is worth it) and put it through its paces in a variety of environments.

What did I find out? That the D600 is a _tool_. What I mean by that is that by the end of my rental period I trusted the D600 as much as I do a hammer or a saw. _It_ takes care of capturing the photo... _I_ take care of choosing the photo I want to capture. Yes, even in that short amount of time I came to just trust the D600. The metering is so spot on I didn't have to worry about it. The Auto-ISO is unbelievably good (since you can actually set limits on things like shutter speeds and min/max ISO!). The AF is spot on (although I do lament having to focus and recompose a bit... I got used to not needing to do that on my 7D).

It all adds up to a package where even though the ergonomics are a bit off... it simply doesn't matter because you don't interact with this camera as much as with a Canon... you simply set a bunch of sensible limits and then let the camera do its thing and you come out on the other side with incredible photos.

Don't take my word for it - go rent it yourself and find out!

 

[xps]

though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

@ Marsu42
Des is oba a bisserl sarkastisch! Scheane Griass vun da Wiesn. Hob mi heit mit a boa Preissn guat untahoitn.
;D

 

[aznable]

try to rent a 1d mk III and compare with the iq of d600

 

[friedmud]

try to rent a 1d mk III and compare with the iq of d600

Ummm... why? It's 3x the price. What an odd thing to say.

Even then, it's hard to believe that the IQ could actually be better. That's what I'm talking about about the D600. The IQ is _so_ good that with 14bits I just don't know that it can get any better (at ISO 100 which is what I REALLY care about). Now, that is just the raw IQ... a lot of other stuff goes into "picture quality"... I'm sure that metering can be better and white balance can be better and AF can be better and long exposure could be possibly be better (and I'm sure you might get all of that in the 1DmkIII). But, if all of those are the same (ie, in a testing environment) I simply don't see how you can really beat the D600.

But I will give you that in the field I am sure the 1DmkIII produces beautiful images... possibly better than the D600 (never shot with it myself). But, for my dollar I cannot imagine them being 3x better. Especially since they are at half the resolution (which is important in the landscape shooting I like to do).

I really think that to get better IQ at low ISO than the D600 we're going to need another leap in sensor tech. It's going to take a different sensor design... and definitely more bits in our analog to digital converters to get more out of a scene than the D600 does.

Please don't take me as a troll or anything... I'm just a guy that did what a lot of people around here won't do: I _tried_ the competition. There are many cameras out there... and each person is going to have different needs. But when it comes to comparing raw low ISO IQ I think you're going to have a hard time beating a D600...

 

[friedmud]

Oh - and I just went to LensRentals... and I can't rent a 1DmkIII... so that's out anyway.

 

[dtaylor]

though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

:

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

 

[xps]

though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.

:

Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

+1

I use Canon since I bought an used A-1 in the middle of the 80ies, before I started flying at the BW. After that I used the T-90 and The Eos 5, 3 and 1V. All very good Cameras. Innovative and worth the money you had to pay for it.
But meanwhile, other competitors are more innovative and producing Cameras that are even cheaper and better than Canon Cameras.

I the company I´m working, we switched to Nikon, and that was the right decision. As I was one of the proponents to buy the EOS 5D Mk3, I was dissatisfied by the IQ. There was an visible difference in the IQ to the D800.