Possible positive 6D surprise? Should I wait?

[ScottyP]

Various websites are saying the 6D sensor will actually have an advantage in low noise at high ISO vs. the sensor on 5D3.
I have an itchy trigger finger with all the $2500 give-aways on the 5D3. If the 6D were really going to stay at or around $2100.00, it would seem like a slam dunk for buying 5D3, UNLESS the new sensor really is better in low light... I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Plus, heck, the replacement for the 7D (7D2?) could have a wildly better sensor?

What do CR folks think of this?

I should say you can see my equipment below my name. I shoot portraits and candids of my 7-year old and 6-y-o and my infant. They do/will play some peewee soccer, but nothing challenging for another 6-8 years max! I've never met a bird who would pay fair value for an excelent portrait at 1000 yards, so I don't need too incredible an AF capability.

 

[cocopop05]

Prices generally do not go up, so waiting should not hurt financially. It is impossible to comment with certainty on the 6D as it has not been released yet. It is possible it may have even better low light performance than the 5D MIII. Though the 5D MIII is already sensational for low light work.

Being cynical, I can't see Canon releasing a camera at a lower price point but having better IQ. If your budget can accommodate the 5D MIII, then I would not wait. In fact I did not and am enjoying my 5D MIII immensely.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

If it is any better than 5D3's sensor it would be incremental and probably unnoticable in real world test results. Never get caught up in speculation, buy what you need when you need it, don't turn back, and you'll be a lot happier.

 

[cps_user]

that's interesting.

do you have a link perhaps to some of these sites?

 

[takoman46]

I haven't heard that the 6D sensor will perform better than the 5D3 sensor in low light. I would be shocked if it does in fact produce less noise at high ISOs. So if the 6D does perform better in low light... then I would be inclined to sell my 5D3 and downgrade to a 6D... but then I can't get past the fact that the 6D doesn't have a joystick or rear wheel for shooting efficiency so getting a 6D would never happen for me... There's no time to waste fussing around with the menu system to change critical settings like aperture and AF point selection at weddings. I still intend to rent a 6D once it's released just to see what it's all about and compare it to the 5D2 and 5D3... just to satisfy my curiosity .

I have heard a similar rumor about the T4i having better high ISO performance than the 5D2 and that turned out to be false.

 

[tapanit]

I can't get past the fact that the 6D doesn't have a joystick or rear wheel

The 6D does have rear wheel, although (just like the 60D) no joystick.

 

[dafrank]

Despite any rumors about low light performance of the 6D - or their relative merit - even if the technology of the 6D sensor and electronics remains unchanged from that of the 5D3 (a camera that I own and really like so far), it will, by virtue of a very slightly lower pixel count (20 vs. 22) have very slightly bigger light receptors for each pixel, making the 6D potentially that much better at capturing low light images. Whether or not that difference in capture performance exists is a matter of other associated factors, such as the formation of the focusing lens layer over the sensor wells, sensor well depth, associated electronic circuitry, etc. Finally, even if such a difference does exist, whether or not you would ordinarily notice it in your own work, given its likely small effect, is a question which will need to be answered at such time as you actually get your hands on both cameras and try them out. Good luck.

Regards,
David

 

[aznable]

a camera is not just a sensor, but other things like AF for example...5d mkiii willbe a way better camera than 6d

 

[SJTstudios]

They are right, the 6d will have an edge, for the same reason the 1dx has better iOS, because the pixels are bigger, and gather more "stuff". Look at digital rev's 1dx video on YouTube, you will see what they're talking about.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

They are right, the 6d will have an edge, for the same reason the 1dx has better iOS, because the pixels are bigger, and gather more "stuff". Look at digital rev's 1dx video on YouTube, you will see what they're talking about.

ah and that is why the D800 IQ is so worse?
when will people stop repeating the same wrong (or lets say simplified) stuff.

I'm pretty sure the thread and his comments should be read as being about two Canon full frame DSLRs using the same sensor technology (i.e. all things being equal).

He really should have clarified things for those that couldn't keep track of the context of the discussion, but who cares if the beginners are wrong (or let's say simple)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I am curious as to which reputable site has tested the 6D and found the sensor to be better. When you make a claim, why not reference the source.

 

[RC]

If you can afford a 5D3 and are willing to spend that much money on a body, I would grab a 5D3 in a heartbeat--but that is me .

For me there are too many things the 6D is lacking. But since you are coming from a T3i, the 6D's size and ergonomics might be more suitable and in line with what you plan to shoot.

I don't see the 6D having any improvements over the 5D3 (except maybe low light focusing as I've read here on CR). I don't consider WiFi and GPS improvements, just features that some care about and other care less about.

Either way, I'd sell your 17-55 and get a body with the kit lens 24-105. That should be a nice compliment with your 70-200 II and 50 1.8.

My prediction on pricing: The 5D3 will not drop to or below $3000 for a long time from normal authorized dealers. I expect the 6D to follow the pricing pattern of the 60D, a significant drop of 10% or more after 6-12 months.

 

[Zlatko]

I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs. The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3. For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage. Of course it will not be as good in other ways. I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer. "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly. But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them. The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production.

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

 

[daniemare]

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

Very Good Point and fresh way of looking at it. Not a professional photog myself, and I am glad our wedding photog had different packages. And our package was not lacking in quality at all.

 

[DanielW]

@ Zlatko
Good point!

 

[traveller]

I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs. The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3. For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage. Of course it will not be as good in other ways. I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer. "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly. But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them. The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production.

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

Whilst I will reserve judgement on the 6D's AF system until we seem some credible reviews, I think that people are using words like 'crippled' because the 11 point system with but a single cross type sensor (however good that might be), is perceived to be inferior to even the 9 point, all cross type system on the 650D. The D600 uses the AF system from the D7000; I think that people were expecting some version of the 7D's 19 point (all cross type) AF system on the 6D; when you are disappointed, you tend to use emotive language.

 

[ageha]

I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs. The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3. For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage. Of course it will not be as good in other ways. I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer. "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly. But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them. The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production.

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

Whilst I will reserve judgement on the 6D's AF system until we seem some credible reviews, I think that people are using words like 'crippled' because the 11 point system with but a single cross type sensor (however good that might be), is perceived to be inferior to even the 9 point, all cross type system on the 650D. The D600 uses the AF system from the D7000; I think that people were expecting some version of the 7D's 19 point (all cross type) AF system on the 6D; when you are disappointed, you tend to use emotive language.

Anyway, the 6D's cross sensor has a higher sensitivity than all other models mentioned.

 

[ishdakuteb]

i personally do believe that canon 6d will have cleaner iso comparing to canon 5d mark iii... here are some example of high iso images for someones in previous post wondering as if 5d mark iii noise is usable at 12,800 or higher. to me, it is usable up to 25,600. but to be safe, use it somewhere 10,000

note: no noise reduction in these two images...

 

[Area256]

I realize the AF seems to have been deliberatively crippled (and overly-so!), but for shooting portraits and candids and casual soccer of my kids, I really don't need the pro athlete or bird-in-flight AF.

Crippled or better, depending on your needs. The 6D is supposed to focus in even lower light than the more expensive 5D3. For some photographers, that may be a significant advantage. Of course it will not be as good in other ways. I'll be very eager to see how well the 6D's AF performs generally.

By the way, everyone says "crippled" about less expensive cameras, as if to suggest some bad intent on the part of the manufacturer. "Crippled" suggests that they start with an excellent AF system and then damage it terribly. But less expensive cameras are less expensive for a reason — less goes into them. The lesser AF system is designed for a lesser price, from initial concept to production.

Manufacturers have to differentiate their products somehow. We do it as a photographers. We differentiate our products according to size, hours, materials, etc., and yet we don't say our cheaper products are deliberately crippled.

Whilst I will reserve judgement on the 6D's AF system until we seem some credible reviews, I think that people are using words like 'crippled' because the 11 point system with but a single cross type sensor (however good that might be), is perceived to be inferior to even the 9 point, all cross type system on the 650D. The D600 uses the AF system from the D7000; I think that people were expecting some version of the 7D's 19 point (all cross type) AF system on the 6D; when you are disappointed, you tend to use emotive language.

Anyway, the 6D's cross sensor has a higher sensitivity than all other models mentioned.

I think it's fairly clear Canon had a specific type of photography/photographer in mind when they designed this system. Namely people who don't shoot many fast moving subjects, but need to focus in all kinds of light. Portrait and landscape are of course two that come to mind. If you look at it from the perspective of that type of photographer, the -3EV center cross-type should be outstanding and clearly an upgrade from the 60D/650D, since the other points almost don't need to be there (even on the 5D3 the most precise points are in the center). The sports/action/wildlife photographer is right to say this system is unlikely to be good for them - and get a 7D or 5D3. I realize this isn't what a lot of people were hoping it would be, but for some this may be just what they needed (without the expense of the 5D3).

The d600 looks like it's more of a sports/general use camera, with a higher bust rate, and more AF points (even if all the cross type are stuck in the center.) The down side is, it won't handle low-light as well. Since I shot a lot of strobist stuff at dusk/night, the 6D looks like it could be the better option. Although for others the d600, 7D, or 5D3 may be the best option for their type of photography.

We do have cameras that do (almost) everything very well, the 5d3 and the d800, but you have to pay a lot more for that sadly - and that's just the reality of the market.

Should Canon have put the 9 or 17 point all cross-type system from the 60D/7D into the 6D, it's hard to say. On one hand they would have made tracking better, but on the other, it wouldn't be as good in low light. Only time and the market will tell if this was a good move or not.

 

[Marsu42]

Prices generally do not go up, so waiting should not hurt financially.

Only true for camera bodies (ok, this thread is about the 6d) and only if inflation's not kicking in or your part of the world goes broke and your currency drops - so watch the news

As for the 6d, I can think of exactly 1000 1€-reasons why I should at least wait for the real reviews - the sensor seems to be mostly the same as in the 5d3, maybe with a little better noise - but often that doesn't help that much because of dynamic range deterioration.

The big question is how *precise* the center point af will be, esp. with faster lenses (like f2.8+) and a smaller dof where missing the focus really shows - af'ing at near darkness or low light is less amazing if it's a close miss in 25% of the cases. The af precision is not only a hardware issue, but the firmware has a part too esp. if the less-precise non-center points are used for helpers for the center one.