I just sold off my two D700 bodies. I was going to pick up a D800 then just couldn't justify the price point. I've been staring over the 6D rather intently. I did shoot canon in the past and had no problems with the 5D Mark II so I'm assuming the new and improved 6D would only be a step above it.

The thing that keeps bringing me back is lens selection. I have a lot affair with the Canon 85 1.8 and 135 F2.

Is it necessary to think that the 6D is any better or worse than the D600? I'm not a huge fan as to how the D600 feels yet the images I see from it look rather good so it makes it that much harder to make a decision.

What existing lenses do you have from Nikon?

If you are looking for the 85 1.8, the Nikon variant is better than its Canon counterpart.

The 28 and 50 1.8 G lenses are also amazing value now.

Unless you were sold on the 85L, 50L, I would see little reason to move to Canon from Nikon. The Nikon sensors are just better.

85L = junk. No offense to those who own it. I've owned it before never would in the future. Great image quality. Elephant for an AF system.

I prefer the 85 1.8 of Canon due to the fact it's focus is so much faster. Combined with the fact my favorite canon lens of all time was the 135mm F2.

From my understanding the Canon 28 1.8 is every bit as good as the Nikon 28 1.8.

Really it comes down to the body and the 85 lol.

Perhaps this 6D vs D600 video from DigitalRev might help...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmnoabuXzy0

I'm a Canon glass fan...so it's a no brainier

Yeah I watched the Digital REV video which I found highly interesting. I'm going to go play with the D600 tomorrow.


I really wish I could see the next 7D specs vs the D400 as it would make it easier lol.

equestrianguy wrote:
85L = junk. No offense to those who own it. I've owned it before never would in the future. Great image quality. Elephant for an AF system.

I prefer the 85 1.8 of Canon due to the fact it's focus is so much faster. Combined with the fact my favorite canon lens of all time was the 135mm F2.

From my understanding the Canon 28 1.8 is every bit as good as the Nikon 28 1.8.

Really it comes down to the body and the 85 lol.

Having used all the lens you mentioned Canon 85 1.8, Nikon 85 1.8G and 85 L II. Also the Sigma 85 1.4 in Nikon mount.

The Canon 85L aside from AF speed is in a league of its own.
Aside from that, the the Nikon 85 1.8G is definitely the best affordable unit with fast AF and excellent IQ.

The Canon 85 1.8 is an average lens by all accounts.
The Sigma 85 is a great compromise in IQ vs price.

In all fairness I know many Canon shooters would agree with this:

135L > 85L

Image quality is crazy and AF is lightning fast. I just dont get how anybody justifies that 85L.

I've had the Canon 85 1.8 before and the copy I had was fairly sharp and the focus speed I would think is the fastest amongst the 85's.

Just kinda torn as I'm in the middle of the road and could go both ways.

I was in about the same position about a month ago, mostly because I could not justify the expense of upgrading to a 5D III or switching for D800 for that matter. I picked the D600 mainly because of the sensor (for landscapes) and the AF system( for family pics). Obviously this was before the 6D was released, but after seeing the specs it seemed to me that the D600 fit what I needed better. As far as lenses, I am much happier with the Nikon 1.8 85mm and 50mm G lenses than I ever was with the Canon equivalent. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Nikon 85 really is way better than the Canon I had. I also had a 135L and while I agree that its a very special lens, I didn't use it enough to keep it over a 70-200 zoom. Also, from what I have seen, the new Nikon 28mm 1.8G is also better than the Canon lens -- the 28,50 and 85 1.8 trilogy is pretty tough to beat for performance/value.The problem I have, is finding something to replace my 17-40 -- and isn't selling for about 2x what I'm willing to pay at this point. The main reason I felt able to switch is that I was basically down to 2 Canon lenses anyway and if I was going to do it it was time. Especially after Nikon announced their 70-200 f/4 VR....
Paul

I don't agree on that 135 vs 85 thing, but it depends on your needs/use. I've had 85 1.8, 85L and 135L. Sold the 135; wonderful lens but i also have the 70-200 which made the 135 much less used. Like the 85 focal lenght and for me Af speed isn't a bottleneck; sold the 1.8. The look of 1.2 or 1.4 shots @ 85 is very nice imo and i use it a lot on weddings and events, and portrait sessions with great succes. Ymmv of course

Must say both 6d and d600 look quite nice!

I have shot both systems and my impressions are as follows:

1- 85L rocks but has a very slow AF. If you want to use it wide open with the outer focus points on 5dII, all I can say is good luck!
2- Nikon 85mm 1.8g beats Canon 85mm 1.8 hands down, there is just no comparison but Nikon's 85mm 1.8g is a slow focusing lens unlike Canon's which rocks in AF speed department.
3- There is no comparison between Canon's 28mm 1.8 and Nikon's 28mm 1.8g. The Canon is really really sharp for like 20% of the total frame @ 1.8 .
4- Canon's 135mm f2 rocks!!
5- Nikon's 50mm 1.8g is awesome both in IQ and AF speed.

PeaktoPeek wrote:
Also, from what I have seen, the new Nikon 28mm 1.8G is also better than the Canon lens -- the 28,50 and 85 1.8 trilogy is pretty tough to beat for performance/value.The problem I have, is finding something to replace my 17-40 -- and isn't selling for about 2x what I'm willing to pay at this point. The main reason I felt able to switch is that I was basically down to 2 Canon lenses anyway and if I was going to do it it was time. Especially after Nikon announced their 70-200 f/4 VR....Paul

There is no doubt the Nikon AF-S 28/50/85 f/1.8 trinity offers super performance for value.

HOWEVER, it should be noted that these Nikon lenses are all NEWLY released: 50mm in 2011 and 28/85 in 2012. It is not fair to compare these new releases with Canon's old 28/50/85 f/1.8 lenses which were released way back in 1995, 1990 and 1992 respectively. We are talking about a ~ 20 year gap in technology development. If the new Nikon lenses do not strongly outperform the old Canon stuff, something must be horribly wrong with Nikon.

On the other hand, Canon 35 f/2 IS (2012) and 50 f/1.4 (1993) both offer comparable performance. Even Canon's outdated 85 f/1.8 design is nearly as good as the new Nikon 85 f/1.8, albeit the former has stronger purple fringing which is removable in-camera or in post-processing. Look at Photozone tests for numerical details, do not blindly accept anyone's claims (except for the brand new Canon 35 f/2 IS... but the MTF charts should reveal something).

Using BH Photovideo prices as a guide, the total price for the Nikon 28/50/85 f/1.8 trinity is US$1411 and total price for Canon 35 f/2 IS, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 is US$1548. Savings for Nikon is a paltry US$137.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check the prices of Nikon 16-35/24-120/70-200 f/4 VR trinity: US$1260, 1297, 1399 respectively. Canon 17-40/24-105/70-200 IS f/4 trinity cost: US$729, 1091 and 1099 respectively.
Savings for Canon is a whopping US$1037!!!

The Nikon zoom lenses are priced ridiculously for sure -- with the exception of the 70-200 f/4 VR which isn't awful considering its brand new. In this case the Canon lenses are a good value -- though a lot of that is because the Nikon 16-35 has VR and is more expensive as a result. You could also easily substitute the Nikon 24-85 for the 24-120 and save a huge chunk of money. It is also pretty easy to swap the Nikon 16-35 for the Tokina 16-28 which is better than the Canon and also reasonably priced. I'm not one of those people that hesitant to use 3rd party lenses though, so its just my preference.

PeaktoPeek wrote:
You could also easily substitute the Nikon 24-85 for the 24-120 and save a huge chunk of money. It is also pretty easy to swap the Nikon 16-35 for the Tokina 16-28 which is better than the Canon and also reasonably priced. I'm not one of those people that hesitant to use 3rd party lenses though, so its just my preference.

For someone who moans about the optical performances of ancient Canon prime lenses, I am surprised you find the optical quality of the brand new 24-85 acceptable.

As for Tokina, it weighs a hefty 950 g (vs 475 g of 17-40) and has no front threading. No, thank you.

I wasn't groaning -- only relating my experience Plus I didn't say the Canon's were bad, just that the newer Nikon lenses are better (and less expensive as you pointed out), with the exception of the new Canon 35 which is at least as good. As far as the 24-85, I personally wouldn't buy a mid-range zoom anyway, I was just making a point that there are many options to fill the bag in either system -- not necessarily the most expensive. By the way, I'm not too keen on the bulging front element either, but since the only filters I use are split GND's I might just have to learn how to blend exposures. There is also the Tokina 17-35 f/4 that takes filters, and might work as a landscape lens at f/8-f/11.

If it comes down to the body, the d600 is better.
Dual card, popup flash, better sensor, better af system, cheaper.

Why do people find the popup flash thing so important, I can't remember the last time I used a popup flash?

vchowdhary wrote:
If it comes down to the body, the d600 is better.
Dual card, popup flash, better sensor, better af system, cheaper.
I will give you the dual card. Popup flash?who cares. Better sensor? prove it. Better AF system? maybe a slight edge. not enough to make me jump. Cheaper?.....With bodies this close in comparison your decision should come down to lenses....Canon wins every time, unless your shooting MF glass. If you like Nikon MF glass just get an adaptor.

The wild card factor is Nikon AIS glass. It's something I do have in the back of my head. If I go canon.

Canon 6D
Canon 28 1.8
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135 F2

If I do Nikon I'd be going:

D600
28 2.8 AIS
50 1.8g
85 1.8g
135 2.8 AIS

The cost is actually fairly similar just I'd have two MF lenses.

Qualify your planned usage first. Are you shooting portraits? Are you shooting in dark clubs where high ISO is most important? Do you shoot outside or in high contrast areas?

If you don't mind buying tools based on your needs, and I would highly encourage that philosophy as opposed to what you MIGHT need in some possible future, it becomes easier. What ever you do, no money will be wasted. if you buy something and decide to change, you'll only be out a little and you could count that as a "training class" or a learning experience.

Glass is important, but what you want to shoot should define your glass choice. If you only want 2 lenses, it probably doesn't matter which company you choose.

More importantly remember that the body **IS** the film today. Every shot you take reflects the quality of the sensor, and - IMO - Sony/Nikon sensors are superior to Canon sensors.

I rarely shoot above ISO 800 anywhere, but DR is hugely important for landscape and high contrast situations. I also like to shoot in natural light as opposed to dark facilities, so for my style of shooting, I've not seen one image anywhere that was shot by a Canon body/glass combination that was not reproducible by Nikon. I've seen many images that were shot with Nikon and NOT reproducible by Canon when it comes to DR.

IMO, the D600/800 provides better *film* than anything Canon can offer and I'd definitely buy a Nikon before a Canon based on my current usage. I may prefer Canon ergonomics but I can adapt to the quirks of a Nikon body. Note: I couldn't care less about video/wifi right now.

My *best film* and glass independent assessment goes like this..

High ISO (above 6400) = 0.01% of my shots (Canon may win here)
High DR capability (under ISO 6400) = 99.99% of my shots (Nikon wins big)
ultimate IQ - I believe Nikon wins

Ultimate IQ - photographer's skill/technique in capturing images and in post processing wins even more so than the gear itself. I realize though that this is a gear forum .