Canon 6D

[greenanrol]

Any views on the new Canon 6D?

[Gruditch]

I wasn't really sure what the point of this camera was, its basically a more compact version of the full frame 5D's, but I have never known anyone moan about the size of the 5D's. Its not as though this smaller vision will fit in your pocket. I guess as it is £800 less than the 5DIII, they were trying to make a more affordable full frame model. Anyway, if landscape or studio photography is your thing, then the 6D would be a great camera. But if your main focus, (see what I did there) is wild life, or macro, I would say that your are better served working with a cropped sensor model like the 7D.

Regads Gruditch

[NickB]

Have played with a 6D and a 50mm f1.8 prime lens and also a 5D MkII with L-series 17-40mm lens and took some shots out in Cambridge on a snowy day, which was quite challenging, with lots of high-contrast areas against the white snow and grey skies.

Unedited crop to 800 pix

I didn't really have time to do much of a comparison between the cameras - they are both great bits of kit. Needless to say, the L-series is a great lens on any camera, but the nifty-fifty (at £99.99) on the 6D is a great combination for portraits and medium landscape shots, especially in low light, which is where the full-frame and more modern sensors come into their own.
In terms of buying the 6D - only 9-AF points may be seen as a low number....for butterfly macro work, I generally use one AF point, so that would not be an issue. I think the biggest jump to full-frame is re-learning the true focal lengths of any of the EF lenses you may have; a 100mm macro becomes a 160mm macro on a cropped frame Canon like the 7D but is 100mm on the full frame. So, if you think you struggle for d-o-f on a 7D sometimes, imagine what it is like on a full frame? Sharpness really shows, as well as the opposite! My own experience of the more modern sensor and image processing system (DIGIC 5) now employed in the 6D has been that high-ISO performance in low-light is (generally) much better at noise-reduction than sensors of, say, 5 years ago.
So far as the 6D is concerned; read the reviews and tech-specs out there. If you want full-frame for landscapes and portraits there is little to choose in price between the 5DMkII and the 6D. Like any choice - compromises of one nature tend to cancel-out advantages of another. Think which of the features is important to you; it shouldn't be the game of top-trumps that the vendors like to play....

[Gruditch]

Have you come over from the dark side Nick.

Regards Gruditch

[NickB]

Indeed NO!
I still believe that shooting in RAW with Nikon gives better JPEGs at the end...
(The Canon JPEG engine in-camera still seems soft at default settings ....)
I just happen to be involved with flogging Canon cameras for a couple of days a week...
(Before you ask, I get 0% discounts... )

[MikeOxon]

Indeed NO!

Phew! That's a relief

I'm puzzled why 'full frame' has been made to seem so significant. In the early days of digital sensors they were tiny and insensitive but now, even an APS-size sensor has a better signal-noise ratio than 35mm film at similar ISO settings. I would prefer to see smaller and lighter cameras, instead of trying to emulate an old film size.

Mike

[JKT]

I'm puzzled why 'full frame' has been made to seem so significant.

I suppose it is because of the lousy DOF and dynamic range. There are good wide angle lenses now, so that doesn't qualify.

[NickB]

Indeed NO!

Phew! That's a relief

I would prefer to see smaller and lighter cameras, instead of trying to emulate an old film size.
Mike

Nikonians still rule, eh, Mike?

The 4/3rds systems are getting better - Sony is my favourite with combination of APS-C sensor in ergonomic body with viewfinder - NEX 7.
But the lenses for them are limited and expensive too, compared to DSLRs......Canon-M series is innovative - touch-screen with lens adapter for EF/S lenses can match DSLR quality, if more difficult to drive and slow in comparison to others... still need to be convinced on 4/3rds.
Like the original Ford Escort they started small and quite simple, to get bigger and more expensive until they became saloons; which leaves one to consider the DSLR again! Perhaps that's what 4/3rds system stands for: 4/3rds the size of the DSLR....?

[Gruditch]

I'm puzzled why 'full frame' has been made to seem so significant. In the early days of digital sensors they were tiny and insensitive but now, even an APS-size sensor has a better signal-noise ratio than 35mm film at similar ISO settings. I would prefer to see smaller and lighter cameras, instead of trying to emulate an old film size.

I love full frame, at comparable ISOs, my 5DII is way better than my 7D, Plus there are times when you just can't go wide enough with a APS body, not without sticking on a 10mm lens that is, used them, didn't like them. But a APS body IMHO, is more versatile, and can handle landscape, better than a full frame can handle sports/wildlife.


I hate the small camera bodies, they are so unbalanced with larger lenses. After a test session with the stupid EOS M, I fail to see the point. If we can use Nicks car analogy, its like building the smart car, for the express purpose of pulling a 40ft artic trailer. Yes congrats, you have made a tiny car that can pull a huge artic trailer, but whats the point. Yes just like a compact you can pop a EOS M into your pocket, but then add even a Canon 17-40 lens, and things start to get real chunky. If size is a priority, use a compact.

Regards Gruditch