AGeoJO wrote:
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 .


Correct, it's a *gear phorum*. Too many here think it's a Canon loyalty site, so thanks for remembering that.

I agree that the lose nut behind the wheel is the most important (i.e., skill/knowledge) followed by light, but...

and it's a big BUT - all things being equal, the DR discrepancy between Nikon-Canon has been validated over and over. I've wanted better DR for the last 13 years of using Canon digital, and it looks like it's going to be at least 3-4 more years before Canon does (or even can do) anything about it.

jamesf99 wrote:
and it's a big BUT - all things being equal, the DR discrepancy between Nikon-Canon has been validated over and over.


I don't want to make this another Canon vs Nikon thread, like so many before. So, I will just leave it at that and you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Michaelparris wrote:
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.


Popup flash ? Who cares?
Obviously someone does or else no one would have popup flashes on cameras.
The fact that Canon has finally caught up and started implementing commander popup flashes on cameras is an indicator of who cares.

Better sensor? Prove it?
I'm sorry, I'm not a scientist, I can only compare what I see. Do you want to use dXO results we can wait and someone will come out and discount those as irrelevant.

I have a 5d 3 in hand and a d800e and have had a d600, and unless the 6d does something significantly better than the 1dx, the low ISO, image quality form the sony sensor is unrivaled.

If i recall, the D600 destroys the 6D in most aspects according to digitalRev with the exception of high ISO tests.

End of the day, what mostly matters to me is what feels best in your hand and what you feel comfortable using. I extremely doubt people will actually see a difference between the two cameras in the final product in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

In response to commander flash, its a great feature.. except it still relies on line of sight, anyone who does some serious strobing will most likely be using some sort of radio triggers.

I rarely use the popup flash, but if I'm buying a camera like the D600 or 6D its because I'm trying to get the most bang for the dollar.

I dont like lugging around an extra flash (yes even the crappy ones that fit on the strap like on the nex5n), so in some situations a little bit of fill flash is a huge benefit. The fact that they can play the role of commander for some indoor off camera flash without having to carry another 2 items in my bag (transmitter/receiver).. I'll take that a big plus.

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

+1 the D600 destroys the 6D unless you are invested in Canon glass then it becomes a more difficult decision.

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

+1 the D600 destroys the 6D unless you are invested in Canon glass then it becomes a more difficult decision.

Unless you want to use Canon lenses (which I still think there's a good reason to chose).

Generally though there's little to decide on the 6D over the D600.

AGeoJO wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
and it's a big BUT - all things being equal, the DR discrepancy between Nikon-Canon has been validated over and over.


I don't want to make this another Canon vs Nikon thread, like so many before. So, I will just leave it at that and you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

Uhhhhh. I'm confused... This thread **** IS **** about Nikon vs. Canon. Please read the title.

Judging from your comment about me being "entitled to my opinion" - which is only said when someone doesn't agree - I have to wonder why you'd even state that. Of course it's my opinion, and it's an informed opinion based on what I've seen, 13 years of Canon digital use, and many decades of Canon film use.

Everyone here is voicing their opinion. Your disagreement is nothing more than your opinion. Of course you have the right to an opinion, even if I don't share it.

I clearly qualified my answer, and I'm pretty sure that I'm right, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to listen/read, even if it goes against everything I've seen, and can easily validate.

A lot of rather strong opinions. Mine aren't quite so strong since I use both about equally and find advantages with each.

I have to agree the Nikon 1.8 prime series is a superb value and if that's what you plan on shooting mostly, I'd consider that strongly.

Canon's f/4 and to a lesser degree f/2.8 zooms are certainly more affordable. If you shoot tilt shifts or certain other lenses (supertelephoto and the 135 f/2) come to mind, Canon's are generally better. If you shoot way wide, there's nothing in the Canon lineup to compete with the 14-24 f/2.8.

I don't disagree with everything that's been said about differences in cameras, but I think a lot of it is the equivalent of measurebating. I shoot about evenly with both systems and can honestly say in my case the photographer, not the camera, is the rate-limiting factor either way.

If one was clearly superior (as in I got a lot better shots with it a lot more often) I'd head that way. Reality is occasionally I definitely want one sometimes, the other sometimes, most of the time it's inconsequential.

At the moment, I'm all about the 6D because I'm loving the WiFi as a tool (of course as a play toy, but I'm really using it for real, too).

@ james99 - The thread was soliciting input about two specific cameras and not about Canon vs Nikon in general. Like I said previously, I don't want this thread to become the later.

You put a lot value on DR and apparently, for my purposes, the DR I got from my Canon cameras up to this point has been sufficient. I don't like too much DR in my images, on the screen, especially on prints that look like a bad job of (processed) HDR images. I prefer some (almost) black areas in the deep shadows. This is more the aspect that I referred to as "you are entitled to your opinion". BTW, I am not disagreeing that the Exmor sensor of Nikon cameras generates a wider DR than Canon CMOS sensor.

vchowdhary wrote:
I dont like lugging around an extra flash (yes even the crappy ones that fit on the strap like on the nex5n), so in some situations a little bit of fill flash is a huge benefit. The fact that they can play the role of commander for some indoor off camera flash without having to carry another 2 items in my bag (transmitter/receiver).. I'll take that a big plus.
+1 There are a lot of times where having a flash is useful (snapshots in the dark, fill flash), but lugging around a DSLR with external flash is too heavy or bulky. The lack of a built in flash is my only complaint about the 6D.

AGeoJO wrote:
@ james99 - The thread was soliciting input about two specific cameras and not about Canon vs Nikon in general. Like I said previously, I don't want this thread to become the later.

You put a lot value on DR and apparently, for my purposes, the DR I got from my Canon cameras up to this point has been sufficient. I don't like too much DR in my images, on the screen, especially on prints that look like a bad job of (processed) HDR images. I prefer some (almost) black areas in the deep shadows. This is more the aspect that I referred to as "you are entitled to your opinion". BTW, I am not disagreeing that the Exmor sensor of Nikon cameras generates a wider DR than Canon CMOS sensor.


Granted your point about the possibility of garnering an almost HDR look.

However, what has to be taken into account is the fact that you have the choice to pull back detail in regions where earlier you had no choice (qualifying this with.. less choice - I dont think the cannon FF sensors are bad at this, they just arent as good as the competition). The benefits of this go beyond just creating HDR effects. This can enable you to work with an image which earlier you would have tossed aside as unuseable or not good enough.

To Rcicala's point, The inbuilt wifi (and specifically a good implementation) feature if done right is a big thing for me. So far everything including the implementation by sony in the nex series and nikon with the adapter has left me wanting. From what I've read and seen at the local store, the Canon implementation is far and away the best yet. This is similar to my impression of the touchscreen on the sony small camera. All other touchscreen cameras aside from the P&S samsung are worse.
However, I have managed without remote shutters and wifi for a while I think I can wait a bit longer and will pick the better sensor over the better fun/feature for now.

vchowdhary wrote:
Granted your point about the possibility of garnering an almost HDR look.


A lot D800 users wanted to show case that capability, and man, those images looked fake. But I realize that some may like flat images like those. On screen they may look semi OK but printed, they would look awful but again, YMMV.


vchowdhary wrote:
However, what has to be taken into account is the fact that you have the choice to pull back detail in regions where earlier you had no choice. The benefits of this go beyond just creating HDR effects. This can enable you to work with an image which earlier you would have tossed aside as unuseable or not good enough.


No, I don't toss images aside because of that aspect. See, I lifted shadows from files of my 5D Mark III without detecting any ill effect but then I felt the need to put some more "black" in the shadow part to look better and to suit my taste better. I posted some images related to this aspect before in one of those many Canon vs Nikon threads.

BTW, I am done here as the topic started to move away now from D600 or 6D...... Thanks!

tonytastic wrote:
If i recall, the D600 destroys the 6D in most aspects according to digitalRev with the exception of high ISO tests.



Seriously?! Your basing your opinion on him? Number 1 he shoots Nikon. His reviews are at times skewed and should be taken with a grain of salt

I just switched to Nikon from Canon. Over the years I had pared down my Canon system to a 5D, 24-105L, and 35L. The 5D, while still good, was getting long in the tooth and I wanted an upgrade.

However, both the the 5DIII and D800 were too much camera for me, in that as nice as they are I couldn't justify spending that kind of money.

Three things caused me to pull the trigger on a switch to Nikon: (a) the D600 with a better AF than my 5D and sensor, (b) the 6D was kinda meh and didn't seem like a big enough upgrade from the 5D classic or 5DII (the AF system in particular seemed like a "f-u, we got you by the balls" move by Canon), and (c) the Sigma 35/1.4 was announced, 35mm is my favorite focal length and prior to the Sigma, the Nikon 35/1.4G didn't seem worth the huge price increase over the 35L.

I sold off the Canon stuff and got a D600, a 50/1.8G, a Sigma 85/1.4 and preordered the Sigma 35/1.4. So far I've been extremely satisfied, it took me a couple of days to get used to the Nikon controls, and have in fact found that I prefer the Nikon way of doing many things (the only thing that I'm still getting used to is the direction I have to turn the lens to mount it on the body). I'm especially thrilled with the high ISO capabilities of the camera.

As for the lens selection, I really haven't sweated it because I only really want/need a 35 and an 85. Well, also a Zeiss 21/2.8 but that's pricey on either system.

Michaelparris wrote:
tonytastic wrote:
If i recall, the D600 destroys the 6D in most aspects according to digitalRev with the exception of high ISO tests.



Seriously?! Your basing your opinion on him? Number 1 he shoots Nikon. His reviews are at times skewed and should be taken with a grain of salt

Even if he is a Nikon fanboy, he prefers the 1DX over D4, 5D3 for handling... and won't stop drooling about the 85L. I'm not saying hes unbiased, but he usually reviews things based on what they are, not MTF and random charts that may show that one side is significantly better than the other, but in the real world, means little.

AGeoJO wrote:
@ james99 - The thread was soliciting input about two specific cameras and not about Canon vs Nikon in general. Like I said previously, I don't want this thread to become the later.

You put a lot value on DR and apparently, for my purposes, the DR I got from my Canon cameras up to this point has been sufficient. I don't like too much DR in my images, on the screen, especially on prints that look like a bad job of (processed) HDR images. I prefer some (almost) black areas in the deep shadows. This is more the aspect that I referred to as "you are entitled to your opinion". BTW, I am not disagreeing that the Exmor sensor of Nikon cameras generates a wider DR than Canon CMOS sensor.

Note the "D600" part

"IMO, the D600/800 provides better *film* than anything Canon can offer". ...

I routinely find the Canon DR (shadow recovery) lacking, and it's my biggest complaint. I don't like HDR images either (most are ghastly), but I was trained from the beginning that tonal range is important. One can always shoot high/low key images at will, but the opportunity to capture - cleanly - a full range of values without banding or blown highlights and resulting loss is IQ is paramount.

I understand different shooting styles necessitate different tools and I evaluate tools based on my needs. Strangely, some evaluate based on loyalty to a company. I speak sedition fluently.

Nikon isn't perfect by any means, and there's a reason I've stayed with Canon for so long. The primary reason was that they offered a superior product that met my needs. They no longer offer a superior product, I don't feel my needs are being well met, the value is absent, and I'm hard pressed to recommend them.

destroys

DESTROYS

DESTROYS

goosemang wrote:
destroys

DESTROYS

DESTROYS


Sorry didnt quite catch that...

equestrianguy wrote:

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.

I would not exchange my 5D II with a D600. It does nothing better, what I wish or need (my opinion). Next to this it does not feel good in my hands. 6D feels fantastic, even better than 40D and 5D II.
After all I know and found out, I would immediatelly exchange my 5D II with a 6D. Everything I asked for while and after 3.5 years shooting with 5D II is offered with 6D (okay, nearly everything ... I did not ask for eliminating the joystick).