The OP asked which camera we would go for and why. I'm not going into the objective sensor performance data because it's not even up for debate.
Last edited:
Canon EOS 6D vs Nikon D610
- Thread starter sid-180
- Start date
The OP asked which camera we would go for and why. I'm not going into the objective sensor performance data because it's not even up for debate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 2,684
- Location
- England
Nice camera d800, I nearly plumped for that one & may still yet.
It has a crazy large image size files & you gotta watch out for camera shake too with so many pixels.
I've not used the nikon 24-85zoom that came with my d610 for ages as found the image quality poor.
Got the sigma 35mm art & its awesome.
It has a crazy large image size files & you gotta watch out for camera shake too with so many pixels.
I've not used the nikon 24-85zoom that came with my d610 for ages as found the image quality poor.
Got the sigma 35mm art & its awesome.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Yes... I love the 35mm art... awesome lens 
I've never had any problems with camera shake on the d800 due to the large pixel count, fair enough I do get some shake from time to time but that's user error and me trying to shoot at too slow speeds, with my VR lenses I never get any shake apart from the 70-200 I had which even the VR didn't help slower than 1/10 ish especially with a tc1.4x
The sigma 35 1.4 is by far my sharpest lens , the detail it resolves on the d800 impresses me each time I edit my shots
Don't listen to the myths. There is a lot of misunderstanding about resolution as highlighted in the last thread. With the D800 you don't have to be any more careful with camera shake than any other camera. Sure you won't get 36MPs with a shaken blurred mess, but then you won't get 22 MP either. Pixel density is far lower than any point and shoot or most mirrorless sensors, and far less than any modern APS-C sensor (they would all hit 56MP, the point and shoots would be 100-200MP). If you want 36 MP use a tripod. Of you want 22 Mp from a 5dmk3 use a tripod. Under normally shooting you easily get higher final resolution from the higher resolution sensor, it will never ever give more blur than a lower resolution sensor.
Same goes for file size. It is meaningless tripe spread by canon fanboys. in the time cameras have increased resolution 3-5 times hard discs, memory and cards have increased in capacity 32 times.
Last edited:
Lots of meaningless tripe being spouted these days, well done.
The vast majority of users being vocal over the 36MP of the D800 were Nikon users, especially D700 users. Like myself they just do not need it, regardless of brand. As I have already said I won't touch a high MP Canon either. A camera is just a tool, and a tool that has features I don't need falls to the bottom of the list. My current requirements have changed so I need something smaller. I have no problem selecting a system based on one requirement and taking into account other short comings. I don't care about brands, just tools that have feature sets that I need (not want). You like to brand people that have different opinions to you as fanboys, that says a lot more about you than it does them.
Last edited:
Ignorance by owners of either brand doesn't deserve spreading. Lies and myths have no purpose in being repeated on Internet forums to further confuse buyers.
A vast majority of Nikon users wanted a high resolution sensor in the D700 body, they were demanding the D3x in D700 body. A vast majority of Nikon users got more than their wildest dream. A small minority of Nikon shooters wanted a body capable of 10FPS that costs $2000 and would be willing to have a lower resolution file to make this happen. They wanted a D4 at third price, of course this didn't happen.
Let's repeat the facts:
Increased fidelity and edge-definition even if downsampled
Improved chroma and demosaicing results when downsampled.
Increased resolution allows printing bigger
Increased ability to crop allowing better cropping when a lens can't be changed or framing has to be left fairly loose.
Increased pixel density allow higher resolution distant subjects, the pixels per feather equation.
No more likely to get blur when viewing normalized results (print to the same size, display on the same screen)
No cost in terms of dynamic range or high ISO ability.
A meaningless increase in storage requirements, far far less in relative terms than any high res camera previously released, and much less than when the 5Dmk2 was released. Early D800 had a much cheaper and easier time with storage than early 5Dmk2 owners.
Let's repeat the only fact that is relevant, I and others have no requirement for a 36MP. See it's easy. Please do carry on with your pointless diatribe, it does not address the requirements of others that you are too ignorant to recognise.
Just to be clear, as you just don't seem to get it. Nothing you posted above is new information to me. I am fully aware of the benefits that a high MP sensor can bring. I just don't need any of that. If I did I'd get one. Whilst there are still alternatives that meet my needs, that's more likely where I'll be. I'll tell you now though; if two bodies give me what I want and one is high MP and the other isn't, I'll go with the low MP one. However if the high MP one is substantially cheaper, well I guess I might just go for it
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Hi Op
Yes I feel a little like that regarding both Nikon & Canon. It feels to me like they are dragging their feet, rather than them being entirely hamstrung by the challenges of technological progress and innovation.
In comparison, I see companies like Sony making encouraging strides. If they continue, they could become the best camera maker imo. They already are in the video world with the a7s.
So for me, I'm going to try holding off investing any further in Nikon/Canon, as I'm looking to buy a narrowboat next year instead.
Moving on. I've heard allot of people mention specs and what they need and don't need in a camera.
I used to think this way to. "I need X but I don't really need Y". I've come to realise that I actually need XY & Z but just didn't realise at the time.
To better illustrate this point, let's think back to how it was a few decades ago.
The world got along fine without computers.
The world got along fine without mobile phones.
The world got along fine without the internet.
And countless other examples...
Before these inventions, civilisation didn't 'need' them. However once they arrived society gradually evolved to exploit and capitalise on these new technologies. Society in general (unless you are Amish or something) is now dependent on them, with some of these technologies soon to become human rights.
Speaking from my personal experience. My photography techniques have evolved in a similar way that society did in the advent of the new technologies previously mentioned. I began to exploit and capitalise on my cameras/lenses/flashes specs. They were not meaningless numbers, but tangible advantages that can make a difference in practice.
To try and explain this further, I see a photographer as a creative problem solver.
First a photographer has a creative/artistic thought, next comes the problems that need to be solved.
Creative thoughts are also not limited to the time the shutter is released, but until the final draft in PP.
Some great creative thoughts and ideas, are met with very little problems to solve. In this case great work/art can be achieved with modest equipment and little compromise. It's this that inspires many people to preach that "gear/specs do not matter, it's all about the skill of the photographer". This is a half truth.
In contrast, other great creative thoughts and ideas are met with many problems to solve. If the problems are difficult but solvable, you can still create great work, albeit with increased compromise in one or more areas. If the problems are not solvable, then the intended art is not possible. In this circumstance, the performance of the equipment has a direct effect on the level of compromise, and whether or not the artistic intent is even possible.
So how does this affect a photographers photography?
It depends on the photographer. Most photographers over time will experiment, adapt and expand their techniques as technology allows. Others are more akin to the Amish, and will take pictures great pictures the way they always have done, but will thus have less avenues to explore and create.
My advice to you is.
Buy the best you can realistically afford, and not to fall into the trap of saving a couple of hundred because you think you don't need feature Y & Z. Because imo, the likelihood is you do 'need' those features, but you don't know it.. yet...
Let's repeat the only fact that is relevant, I and others have no requirement for a 36MP. See it's easy. Please do carry on with your pointless diatribe, it does not address the requirements of others that you are too ignorant to recognise.
Just to be clear, as you just don't seem to get it. Nothing you posted above is new information to me. I am fully aware of the benefits that a high MP sensor can bring. I just don't need any of that. If I did I'd get one. Whilst there are still alternatives that meet my needs, that's more likely where I'll be. I'll tell you now though; if two bodies give me what I want and one is high MP and the other isn't, I'll go with the low MP one. However if the high MP one is substantially cheaper, well I guess I might just go for it
The logical fallacy you keep reiterating is that there is some cost or disadvantage to a high resolution sensor. There isn't. If you want a 12MP output like the D700 there is a very simple solution- when exporting from LR select 4256pixels as the longest edge. You only have to do this once and you will never have to worry about it again.
The fact that if you had 2 identical cameras, equal in every way but one had a higher resolution you would pick the lower resolution just shows that you don't have a logical point of view.
I don't need high FPS but if I had a choice of 2 camera that were identical, same image quality, resolution, auto focus, ergonomics ,same price etc, but one was 3FPS and was was 12FPS I would select the 12FPS. It just makes plain logical sense. Maybe it will come in handy at some point, maybe not, maybe it will open a new world of photography I just don't realize yet, maybe it won't. Since there is no cost I might as well. Same goes for ISO, the D800's 6400 is plenty for me but if there was an identical D800 but had 4 stops higher noise floor I might as well buy just in case
Last edited:
I could, but why even start with the larger file in first place? It'll be slower to import, slower to process etc. If I ever start shooting something that needs it I'll buy it without a second thought. A high MP body is overkill for me at the moment (nether the less I've nearly bought a D800 numerous times for the sensor) so I just don't need one. A high MP 5D4 will be great, I can get a 5D3 cheaper then
If even still have any Canon gear by then!Don't forget, you're dealing with someone who has happily been using a 10 year old body for the last 3 1/2 years
The only reason I'm changing things around at the moment is due to size rather than performance/feature requirements
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I find it funny that we spend all this cash on gear, yet sometimes for the right scene, we would be better served with a camera phone.
http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2381/iPhone5.JPG
http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2381/iPhone5.JPG
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Regarding resolution. When I first got my E's, I wondered if the resolution was too much for weddings. It wasn't and has now become a 'need' of mine.
However, I did find a solution in case I wanted smaller files.
You can use DNG converter to limit the MP count of the files when you copy them from your SD card to computer. Doesn't take much longer if you have a fast'ish cpu. (mine is 3770k)
Native sample RAW
Native RAW file
Below are the resulting DNG raws in various sizes.
36mp
20mp
15mp
10mp
However, I did find a solution in case I wanted smaller files.
You can use DNG converter to limit the MP count of the files when you copy them from your SD card to computer. Doesn't take much longer if you have a fast'ish cpu. (mine is 3770k)
Native sample RAW
Native RAW file
Below are the resulting DNG raws in various sizes.
36mp
20mp
15mp
10mp
Thanks for the samples. This is the kind of workflow I've considered when I have been dabbling with the idea of a D800.
The past week I've actually been thinking about video, so not sure where that leaves me with the Fuji's. I do like them, but I might grab a 5D3 and have a play with magic lantern. I do then think about the PP involved with video and go off the idea again
The past week I've actually been thinking about video, so not sure where that leaves me with the Fuji's. I do like them, but I might grab a 5D3 and have a play with magic lantern. I do then think about the PP involved with video and go off the idea again
I do then think about the PP involved with video and go off the idea again
Video editing is probably the most tedious thing ever. It's nice seeing all your footage slowly take shape into something cohesive though. And I do wish Lightroom had three-way colour correction and RGB parades, they're so nice once you get used to them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I used that workflow for a little while. I stopped when I realised I had shrunk some of my favourite images on import to 20mp when if I had the choice again I would have kept them at 36mp and just converted them to compressed DNG.
To help speed up my wedding workflow. When I get home I download all my images to lightroom. Apply all my presets I need, which are generic auto lens corrections and my processing style. Then I select all the images and build 1:1 previews and go to bed.
In the morning I can flick through the images relatively quickly to begin the culling process.
Obviously though, if you are not dealing with that number of images at a time, a cup of tea and a biscuit should be sufficient time for the computer to build the previews.
I was briefly tempted with an A7s as a dedicated video cam, especially as I can use my current lenses. If I had more need for video I would have pounced on the A7s that's for sure.
Tbh I'm trying not think about the camera's at the moment, as the more I think about them, the harder it is to resist spending money.
To help speed up my wedding workflow. When I get home I download all my images to lightroom. Apply all my presets I need, which are generic auto lens corrections and my processing style. Then I select all the images and build 1:1 previews and go to bed.
In the morning I can flick through the images relatively quickly to begin the culling process.
Obviously though, if you are not dealing with that number of images at a time, a cup of tea and a biscuit should be sufficient time for the computer to build the previews.
I was briefly tempted with an A7s as a dedicated video cam, especially as I can use my current lenses. If I had more need for video I would have pounced on the A7s that's for sure.
Tbh I'm trying not think about the camera's at the moment, as the more I think about them, the harder it is to resist spending money.
I had considered always keeping the 36MP RAW, but just on a backup drive, and just using the downsized dng's in Lightroom. If I did come across something I really liked I could then go and grab the RAW file. I never got much further than just thinking about it though, I'm not a fan of processing as it is. So adding further steps doesn't appeal. I don't shoot anywhere near as much as I used to, so I could easily deal with the larger RAW if I really had to. I've got other choices though. I was really tempted with the Sony A99 but the lenses are so expensive. There isn't a large second hand market either, and I do prefer buying that way for now.
I like the X-T1 but I am thinking of going the A7 route instead... I'm struggling a bit with the handling of these smaller bodies at the moment. It is still early days so I'm just putting it down to getting used to the body. It's all a bit cramped though, and I don't find moving the focus point to be fast enough. This is primarily due to the lack of feel from the buttons, there are some modifications I can make to hopefully help with that...
To be honest downsizing from a 1Ds2 leaves a lot of scope!
I like the X-T1 but I am thinking of going the A7 route instead... I'm struggling a bit with the handling of these smaller bodies at the moment. It is still early days so I'm just putting it down to getting used to the body. It's all a bit cramped though, and I don't find moving the focus point to be fast enough. This is primarily due to the lack of feel from the buttons, there are some modifications I can make to hopefully help with that...
To be honest downsizing from a 1Ds2 leaves a lot of scope!