Canon 6D announced...
- Thread starter Rojin
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Hmm, maybe I'm in a grumpy mood but I lost interest when he started doing his 'look at me I've got a 6D' thing.
So, er, I've got a 5dmk3 *dangles*
The guy reminds me of an attention seeking child. I'v heard people use the term 'Clarkson of the camera world'.. bah, not even close. I much prefer it when he's on holiday and lok does an episode. At least then you stand a chance of actually learning something.
Oh yeh.. I got 2 D800E's *dangles*.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
6D vs D600 is an interesting one.
AF is severely, and I mean severely lacking on the 6D it would seem. That said, the WiFi is a neat trick, and I always get the feel that Canon is better at videoing.
It seems really with the 6D they've built a camera that's got all the latest gadgets and toys (apart from a swivel screen, but who needs one with the WiFi - not to mention they tend not to be on higher end cameras), but actually lacks in the actually taking a picture area.
I should clarify. I don't mean you can't take good photos with it, because you clearly can, but as competition to the D600, I feel you'll probably get better photos with the D600.
And that's the point here really. The D600, it seems, takes better photos.
Now to be fair. None of us can actually really comment massively, as neither of us have had a chance to use either of them, but comparison shots, and basic AF, it seems the D600 should win.
That's not to say that someone who buys a 6D has lost out. Because as I've said, it's still a capable camera with good photo potential...
The battle between the 7D and 6D may be interesting. The 7D is still a heavyweight crop camera, and actually, if you pay more for the 6D, the FF is the big gain. But you have a worse AF system, which frankly, baffles me.
Anyway, as with all of these discussions. Both will be more than capable of taking a good photo. It's just the Nikon, in my opinion, seems much more like a raw camera device, than the Canon. The Canon has nifty features, which if you're going to use, great.
As for either the D600 or the 6D against the 5Dmkii or the D700, the real thing to note here, is often, people don't want to buy a second hand camera. They might be the best option for FF, but still, plenty of people like owning stuff first hand for peace of mind, warranty etc...
kd
AF is severely, and I mean severely lacking on the 6D it would seem. That said, the WiFi is a neat trick, and I always get the feel that Canon is better at videoing.
It seems really with the 6D they've built a camera that's got all the latest gadgets and toys (apart from a swivel screen, but who needs one with the WiFi - not to mention they tend not to be on higher end cameras), but actually lacks in the actually taking a picture area.
I should clarify. I don't mean you can't take good photos with it, because you clearly can, but as competition to the D600, I feel you'll probably get better photos with the D600.
And that's the point here really. The D600, it seems, takes better photos.
Now to be fair. None of us can actually really comment massively, as neither of us have had a chance to use either of them, but comparison shots, and basic AF, it seems the D600 should win.
That's not to say that someone who buys a 6D has lost out. Because as I've said, it's still a capable camera with good photo potential...
The battle between the 7D and 6D may be interesting. The 7D is still a heavyweight crop camera, and actually, if you pay more for the 6D, the FF is the big gain. But you have a worse AF system, which frankly, baffles me.
Anyway, as with all of these discussions. Both will be more than capable of taking a good photo. It's just the Nikon, in my opinion, seems much more like a raw camera device, than the Canon. The Canon has nifty features, which if you're going to use, great.
As for either the D600 or the 6D against the 5Dmkii or the D700, the real thing to note here, is often, people don't want to buy a second hand camera. They might be the best option for FF, but still, plenty of people like owning stuff first hand for peace of mind, warranty etc...
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I assume Kia is comparing JPG iso's...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
I'm kind of presuming he's shooting RAW, why'd you think he's gone with jpg?
Out of interest what do people think might be a good lens with this? Seeing as it seems to be body only from most places....
kd
Out of interest what do people think might be a good lens with this? Seeing as it seems to be body only from most places....
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
When it comes to technical stuff, I wish he would just hand the camera over to lok.
He often shoots Jpg when comparing ISO performance, just like he did when comparing 5diii ISO performance. Maybe it was because at the time of shooting the video, raw processing may not have been supported by processing software. At a minimum he should state what file format he is shooting in.
He also likes to compare dynamic range by doing absolutely nothing with the files, before declaring "you can't tell much difference". It's just painful to watch his videos.
Where are these ISO comparisons? If the 6D has better high ISO noise control than the D600 then the 6D has far, far better noise performance than the Canon 5DMKIII (3) and even the Canon 1D-X. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the 6D is so much better than either of the other 2 new canon FF bodies.
The only camera out there with a better high ISO performance than the D600 is the Nikon D3s. Unless you mean comparing jpegs with random amounts of noise removal.
And if the 6D sensor was so much better than the 5DMKIII or 1D-X sensor then why don't these 2 cameras use that sensor? Something doesn't stack up and without seeing any detailed high ISO comparisons then I would bet the 6D has similar ISO performance to the 5DMKIII since they are about the same resolution, same age sensors both from canon. If the 6D is really so amazing then the 5DMKIII and 1D-X owners must be really peeved, and Canon must be mad to release the 1D-X with 18MP that has worse performance than the entry level 6D despite being released at arpund the same time-frame, generation wise!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Kai compared them in the video, whether it is a RAW comparison or not is questionable...
Anyway. The 6D doesn't compete with the 5d in many other features...
kd
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I think he must have been looking at Jpeg smudge
. I'v compared samples that were supposedly converted in a generic raw conversion software (6d used 5diii profile), and ISO looked pretty much the same between the two when normalised. The D600 was a touch sharper, and held onto details a little better.I don't know why on earth anyone would judge ISO performance by comparing Jpg smudged over processing?
Whether it is RAW or JPEG is absolutely critical though so what Kai says is utterly meaningless. Just put the d600 JPEG noise reduction to max and do the comparison again...
DXO mark have tested the Canon 6D RAW files so we have the official figures at hand to put the debate to rest:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...-value-for-money-in-the-EOS-range/Comparisons
As expected, the 6D sensor performs about the same as the Canon 5DMKIII, a little worse than the 1D-X, and is definitely behind Nikon D600, D800, and D4.
It is nice that the 6D sensor performs up to the 5DMKIII level, but it is really strange that Canon think it is worthwhile making 2 different sensor that performance almost identically with tiny resolution difference between them
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...-value-for-money-in-the-EOS-range/Comparisons
As expected, the 6D sensor performs about the same as the Canon 5DMKIII, a little worse than the 1D-X, and is definitely behind Nikon D600, D800, and D4.
It is nice that the 6D sensor performs up to the 5DMKIII level, but it is really strange that Canon think it is worthwhile making 2 different sensor that performance almost identically with tiny resolution difference between them
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
This is why it's dangerous to compare jpg smudgery.
So the D600/D800E's are still the high ISO kings of currently manufactured tech.
So the D600/D800E's are still the high ISO kings of currently manufactured tech.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
I don't understand. I was watching a DigitalRev review of the D600 vs 6D, and in the shots, the D600 was beaten quite comprehensively by the 6D. I'm not sure if htey normalised the images, if that's how you put it, but they were comparable on my screen, and the D600 looked noticeably worse. Kinda confusing.
EDIT... just ignore that. I'll go and read the above.
EDIT 2... I think I'll be more cautious about what I take away from those DigitalRev reviews in the future.
EDIT... just ignore that. I'll go and read the above.
EDIT 2... I think I'll be more cautious about what I take away from those DigitalRev reviews in the future.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
^^^
Loads make that mistake. Tbh Kai @ DR should know better unless he only ever shoots jpg. Even still, if he's going to show comparisons.. he should do it properly as the video is misleading. That's why I think Lok would be better doing the technical bit, Kai doesn't seem to know what he's talking about in that regard.
Loads make that mistake. Tbh Kai @ DR should know better unless he only ever shoots jpg. Even still, if he's going to show comparisons.. he should do it properly as the video is misleading. That's why I think Lok would be better doing the technical bit, Kai doesn't seem to know what he's talking about in that regard.