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

[Loswr]

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? ???

 

[Loswr]

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....

 

[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

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

Regardless, his point still stands. The 6D isn't an intended upgrade to 5D Mark II owners.

 

[bdunbar79]

I'd like to see an IQ and DR upgrade over the 5D Mark II. I think we'll have to wait for the 1Ds Mark III's true replacement for that.

Fortunately, I see the 5D3 as an upgrade. If it still shoots the same IQ as the 5D2, AND has a much improved AF system, that's an improvement for me. Now instead of having to buy the 5D2 and 7D, I can use a single camera, if I'm using those bodies. Pros? Eh, they'll just get a 1D4 or 1DX anyways if it is truly AF they need.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

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.

Regardless, his point still stands. The 6D isn't an intended upgrade to 5D Mark II owners.

Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

OK, wow. Now you really have me confused. If there hasn't been a decent upgrade since the 20D, what are we even discussing? The 6D and the 5DIII aren't decent upgrades to the 5D2 and the 5D2 wasn't a decent upgrade to the 20D. It sounds like the entire Canon lineup since the 20D has been a huge waste of time. So why am I not still shooting everything with my 30D? It was indeed a great camera.

To a certain extent I guess I have to agree since I still love my 5Dc. And yet, RLPhoto is using two 5D3 units and I am enjoying both my 5D3 and 6D for their respective strengths. So for some reason I still felt like the 30D needed replacement way back when. And in the last couple months, I decided to upgrade from the 5Dc to the 5D3 and 6D. I guess I'm just another one of those suckers that doesn't have the good sense to stick with my 30D and 5Dc for another 5 years or so while everyone else upgrades.

 

[RS2021]

I decided to upgrade from the 5Dc to the 5D3 and 6D. I guess I'm just another one of those suckers that doesn't have the good sense to stick with my 30D and 5Dc for another 5 years or so while everyone else upgrades.

Now you are conflating two things...neither RLPhoto nor I said anything about 5d3... His original comment and my "+1" was confined to 6d and I agree the 20d part was a bit of a stretch in his wording but not that far in essence.

5d3 is an upgrade to 5d2 and has merit...6d is more of an "updated" 5d2. Perhaps it is semantics, but it matters.

 

[zim]

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.

Thanks for clarifying that for me, albeit rather worrying clarity! I guess I’m really going to have to use both these cameras to make my decision. I’d much rather use the money for a lens rather than rent though. It’s the first time I’ve felt the need to do this and that in itself makes me feel that there is something wrong about buying anything right now other than glass.

 

[nickorando]

From the 20D to the 30D, there was no change in IQ, some even argued it got worse. The screen on the back changed and that was it. The 40D was marginally better than the 20D with a few extra megapixels thrown in. The 50D delivered IQ that was still measured to be about the same as the 20D plus a few extra megapixels on top of the 40D. Whilst the 50D can now shoot at ISO 12800, nobody really does because you can't recognise anything above ISO 3200. The 60D gave us even more MP but still the IQ hasn't gone anywhere and wasn't really that different to the 50D.

And yes, a lot of people are sick of Canon offering something almost the same as what the new camera replaces except something a little better.

What absolute garbage. The 20D had the worst IQ of just about any Canon DSLR - worse than the 10D it replaced. The 30D was a massive upgrade even if only for the rear screen that was actually usable. The 40D wasn't "marginally better" it was significantly better in both operational and IQ terms. Night and day better. Every camera since has had massively better IQ - only the 50D has been a bit of a lemon on the IQ front, and then only because of terrible high ISO performance.

As to the 6D, I'm sick of idiots who have never used it passing their uninformed and unintelligent opinions of it. For me, it's the perfect upgrade from my 5D II because it addresses everything that bothered me about the Mark II - I know that doesn't apply to everyone, but I'm not everyone, I'm me. For all those who only care about specifications and moan constantly about Canon I care not one jot - for me, Canon keep producing the right product at the right time that does the job I want it to in the real world rather than on a spec sheet. Even if there was anything in the Nikon range that looked superior to me for my needs - and frankly, there really isn't, Canon are far better at working out what I want than Nikon are - I've got so much invested in the Canon system that it would cost me an absolute fortune to change, which makes Canon's products much better value for me. Just having WiFi and GPS built in with no size, weight or additional cost - wow! The WFT-E4 cost me a fortune, and weighs a ton. Maybe I'm extremely lucky, but Canon seem to be reading my mind and producing exactly what I want - it's as though Canon are Nickorando fanboys.

 

[kubelik]

the whole discussion of whether or not there has been any real change between the 30D and the 5D Mark II is a good demonstration of how different people look at cameras.

for those who purely look at a camera as a sensor, or purely as an AF module, and judge it from there, perhaps the 5D Mark II doesn't appear any different than the 30D. same pixel pitch, same 9 points, etc.

I have owned the 30D (shot 30,000+ photos) and 5D Mark II (shot 60,000+ photos) and they are vastly different cameras to me. from viewfinder size, build quality, rear LCD, high-ISO handling, physical handling, and even per-pixel image quality (judged by cropping 5DII down to the same 8 MP image of the 30D), the 5D Mark II smashes the 30D in every way. I could barely touch the 30D after buying the 5DII, and sold it pretty quickly. I couldn't conceive of a single instance in which I would have pulled out the 30D over the 5DII. so for me, judging a camera as a sum total of all the things that go into making a usable camera, there is a massive difference between the 30D and the 5DII.

whether or not there's an equally large gap between the 5DII and 6D will similarly be up to the individual user. I can't speak even for myself on that, because I haven't shot anything with a 6D yet.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

OK, things are getting a little weird now. I have never heard anyone say the 10D had better IQ than any other Canon camera. The way I have heard it, the 20D was a massive improvement to the 10D and then things just got better and better until the 50D arrived which was a step backward in terms of IQ due to excessive pixel density. I have consistently heard many people rave about the 40D (and the 5Dc) both being some of their favorite cameras that Canon every made. I am one of those people.

I realize this thread has gone off topic a bit into opinions on history so I'll drop it here but I just gotta say that trashing most of the Canon line is not really helping the OP's question much and it makes me wonder why some are still shooting Canon if it's such a poorly improved system for over 10 years. I agree that Canon has begun to take advantage of their dominance with increased prices and a few disappointments on some individual issues (like low light 5D3 AF issues, etc) but I have never considered the entire line to be as bad as some seem to think.

koolman - as you have read through the 7 pages of posts on this topic, you probably really appreciated the posts from folks that have used both Nikon and Canon. Did you see the other thread about 6D vs d600? If not, go here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11985.0 and read through. The essence of some of the more lengthy posts went into great detail to discuss ergonomics of the Nikon/Canon menus, build quality, etc. As this thread has gone off topic a bit I just want to remind you that there is a lot more to a camera than the sensor. And as a 6D owner who has used many Canon bodies, I can assure you that the 6D is a fine camera, esp for someone new to FF coming from a 550d. I would highly recommend the 6D kit to you with the bundled 24-105 lens. I also use the SunPak RD2000 flash (w StoFen diffuser) as a small substitute to a pop up flash on my FF cameras. It's not my only flash and it's not meant to replace a full size flash but it's great for simple fill needs in all environments and it will pivot. Also - the 6D refuses to recognize a 3rd party battery so you need to get a genuine Canon extra battery. The 3rd party battery works, the camera just doesn't show any status.

 

[Loswr]

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.

Seriously? So...anyone who buys a camera with a fast frame rate is either a pro or a clueless buffoon with no photography skill. Talk about having no understanding...

Unless you have full-frame Canon lenses (non EF-S), it makes no sense to buy the 6D.

I'm guessing there are a lot of senseless people out there, then. Plus maybe a few sensible enough to know that the lens is the primary determinant of IQ, and that 24-105 kit lens is better than the 24-85 kit lens.

Hmm, that's not really clear to me.

If I look at the reviews on photozone.de, the 24-85 has less distortion at 24mm and appears to be sharper at every step. The 24-85 looks worse because the center is so much higher so what the graphs show is that the 24-105 has a center that isn't that much different to the edge whereas with the Nikon it is. Feel free to interpret the information in another light.

The 24-105 has more barrel distortion (40% more, relative to the 24-85) at the wide end as a result of it being a 4.4x zoom vs. 3.5x zoom. But the 24-85mm has more pincushion distortion at the long end - 83% more relative to the 24-105. So across the zoom ranges, the 24-85mm actually has more distortion than the 24-105mm.

You can't directly compare the MTF graphs directly - maybe you missed Klaus' blue banner stating, "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems." Canon FF tests are on the 21 MP 5DII, Nikon FF tests are on the 24 MP D3x and will therefore give higher values for lw/ph across the board. The 24-85mm is sharper in the center (excellent/very good) but worse in the borders and corners (good to fair, and down close to poor in the 24mm corners), whereas the 24-105mm is very good to good throughout the field and range, dipping down into fair only in the 70m corners. So, I'd say that for overall sharpness, the 24-105L is the better lens. The CA on the 24-85mm is also pretty bad, but that seems fairly typical for Nikkor lenses.

Overall, the 24-105L is better lens, and Klaus, at least, agrees...which is why it gets a half-star higher rating in all categories. Importantly, the 24-105mm gets a better price/performance ranking, despite being a much more expensive lens.

Indeed, many 5D Mark II owners are still waiting for a camera that is an upgrade to the 5D Mark II.

The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem. The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc. Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

Many of your posts here are consistent with the idea that the sensor in a camera is the sum total of that camera's performance, and sensor-based IQ is the only important thing to consider. Much like beer-goggles can make repugnant members of your gender-of-preference seem attractive, DxOMark-goggles can blind one to meaningful differences in cameras.

 

[awinphoto]

From the 20D to the 30D, there was no change in IQ, some even argued it got worse. The screen on the back changed and that was it. The 40D was marginally better than the 20D with a few extra megapixels thrown in. The 50D delivered IQ that was still measured to be about the same as the 20D plus a few extra megapixels on top of the 40D. Whilst the 50D can now shoot at ISO 12800, nobody really does because you can't recognise anything above ISO 3200. The 60D gave us even more MP but still the IQ hasn't gone anywhere and wasn't really that different to the 50D.

And yes, a lot of people are sick of Canon offering something almost the same as what the new camera replaces except something a little better.

What absolute garbage. The 20D had the worst IQ of just about any Canon DSLR - worse than the 10D it replaced. The 30D was a massive upgrade even if only for the rear screen that was actually usable. The 40D wasn't "marginally better" it was significantly better in both operational and IQ terms. Night and day better. Every camera since has had massively better IQ - only the 50D has been a bit of a lemon on the IQ front, and then only because of terrible high ISO performance.

Congratulations!

You're the first person I've ever seen say that the 30D is better than the 20D in terms of IQ and that the 40D was significantly better again.

I never owned the 20D, but I owned both the 10D and 30D and shot with photographers who had the 20D when I had the 10d.... From what I could tell, the 10D and 20D's image quality was good in comparison of 8x10 prints (at least from my perspective at that time in the beginning of the digital revolution)... The 30D's quality was marginally better... cant say it was leaps and bounds, but at low ISO's, it didn't leave me wanting... of course, the difference was in ISO's... the 10D was pretty damn near what I was used to with film grain for the same size of print... an 8x10 at ISO 400 had the same size of grain I would expect from an ISO 400 film camera printed at that size... ISO 800-1000 was getting rather ugly... I didn't care because I was just coming off of film cameras so I didn't expect it to be buttery clean... The 30D was usable up until about 800... 1600 was pretty bad and 3200 was horrid but I didn't have that expectation at that time... I leapfrogged the 40D and jumped to the 50D... I've shot with 2 50D's... I hate both cameras... I shoot product photography with one of them (a clients camera)... I get noise in ISO 100 shots in certain conditions... it's just not that good of a camera... I've heard good reviews from the 40D, but i didn't shoot with that camera so I dont know... I then moved up into the 7D's and 5d2's and now 5d3's and couldn't be happier... The 7D, to me and how I shoot, appears cleaner than either of the 50D's i've shot with... I've heard others who had similar experiences as I've had and others who prefer the 50d over the 7d... From each camera jump (with the exception of the 50D and the 5d2's AF) i've seen improvements with IQ and high ISO... Some were subtle to say the least such as the 10D to the 30D... and each camera I upgraded to (except the 50D and 5d2) I thought was the best camera I worked with up to that point...

 

[insanitybeard]

So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......

 

[Loswr]

So much so, their supremacy in the SLR lens market is in fact the basis of their marketing leverage in pricing their bodies a smidge higher, and getting away with small annoyances like not including hoods even for some 1K L's (70-200L f/4 IS for example).

Eh? My 70-200 F4 IS came complete with the hood and soft lens bag. It was back in 2010, granted......

Yeah, I caught that, too. All L-series lenses come with a hood and pouch/case, including the 70-200/4 IS. A small number of non-L lenses also include the hood/pouch, such as the 70-300 DO and the 45mm and 90mm TS-E lenses.

That's in North America and Europe. In some markets in Asia, a hood and pouch/case are included with all lenses, even the lower end like the 40mm pancake and the 50/1.8 II.