Hi Mike, does this camera feel to you like the 5D Mark II replacement to you? Is it worth around 5-700.00 to sell your trusty Mark II for a 6D? Probably not. The 5dMark II is a legendary camera, replaced by the 6D? Really? Or is this what the 60d owner has been waiting for...to upgrade to FF for another 1,200.00? Probably not. In regards to landscape imagery, I'm not really sure what Canon was thinking when they conceived this camera. Perhaps they want us landscapers to wait for the rumored $6-9,000, 46mp Canon 3D. If that’s the case the Nikon D600 or D800 looks better and better every day.
I'm sorry, but Canon seems to need to step up their game right about now. I've got a stack of their lenses waiting for the right body, but nothing's calling to me at the moment. Anyone else, of course, is free to disagree.
Posted by Howard Cihak on October 14, 2012 at 5:04 AM
I'm with Kane and Mark. At this point, I'd switch to Nikon's D800 if it weren't for the fact that selling my Canon glass would be extremely difficult. Right now, the market for used Canon glass is slower than molasses flowing uphill ... in January.
Posted by Ken Henke on October 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Being an amateur, I haven't followed all the hoopla of Canon vs Nikon over the years. I am quite curious as to what was your decision was to go with one manufacturer over another. From a casual observation, even folks on this forum tend to have Canons over Nikon. When I go to sporting events, it is quite easy to see a majority of pro photographers have Canons. Since I haven't priced Canon glass, I had heard it was cheaper and thus many hungry photographers had to start out with Canon systems.
Frankly, again from a causal observation, I don't see significant differences. Great images are created and I don't think they are that limited by technology anymore. Heck, my understanding is that the Nikon sensors are actually made by Sony, so it appears the lines are being blurred by elevating on manufacturer over another. Nonetheless, I would welcome a thorough discussion to set me straight
Hi Ken, I shot Nikon for years and have a lot of respect for that brand. Enough repect to jump back considering all of their recent full frame upgrades. For me it was two things that made me jump to Canon. First and foremost I believe the color tones rendered by the Canon 5d and 5d II sensors produce overall better color for my prefered landscape look. Second, I got sick of waiting for Nikon to release a camera to compete with with the 5d II's 21 mp. Nikon sat on 12 mp with the D700 for what I felt like was an eternity. What I gave up in Nikon was superior autofocus, better ISO, and better build and built in flash; all of that for Canons sensor and lighter weight body and better Live View.
Now, comparing the two cameras with the features I care about that Nikon and Canon released for me in my price range, the Canon 6D and the D600...
The build is equal, Nikon has better autofocus, better ISO, built in flash, enough additional pixels to make a difference, and better live view. And they cost the same. Sounds like a no brainer.
Posted by Stan Rose on October 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Ill buy all your Canon lenses guys, make sure they're real cheap.
If the rumors are true, ill take 46mp in a heartbeat, even if its double the cost of the 800!
Back in the ancient days of film, it was a pretty even split between Canon and Nikon users. Since the early days of digital, though, Canon and Nikon have been leap-frogging each other in terms of market share and mind-share (to possibly coin a new term). Canon made two or three significant firsts, though, with the original digital Rebel (first DSLR under $1000), the original 5d (first full-frame DSLR that was "reasonably" priced, i.e. under $3000), and then the 5Dm2 (first popular DSLR with 20+ megapixels). As Kane implies, many landscape photographers became frustrated with Nikon when the 5D came out because Nikon seemed to be clinging to the APS-C crop format, and then again when Nikon offered the D700 and the D3X (low megapixels and high price, respectively) in comparison to the 5Dm2. There was much gnashing of teeth on the equipment forums and talk about changing platforms at the time.
So in recent history, Canon has been drinking Nikon's milkshake.
Now the pendulum has swung the other way. Nikon seems to be leading Canon, and if you've got an investment in Canon glass, it's frustrating. For landscape photographers, the D800e looks to be the hot camera of the moment, and Canon shooters are left feeling like they're standing by the sidelines as Canon introduces new bodies that show only marginal improvements (in terms of landscape photography). Amongst still photographers, many people feel abandoned as Canon appears to be preoccupied with the world of video.
That said, there are differences in the way that different cameras (and even different lenses!) record the same scene, so (again as Kane implies) some people like Canon's rendering better than Nikon's. Some people like Nikon's better than Canon's.
I think the pattern of leapfrogging is going to continue for the forseeable future. That leaves us with a few choices:
1. Put up with a non-cutting edge body and keep using the system we've bought into.
2. Swap systems back and forth, losing money each time to the swings of the used market.
3. Buy great lenses and hold on to them in storage even when switching bodies (but that's a lot of money to tie up...).
4. Buy lenses that can be used on a variety of bodies and try to adapt them: like using Nikon glass on Canon bodies, or some of the newest Zeiss glass, via adapters.
Personally, I'm out of the Nikon-Canon battle as I'm shooting Sony right now, and waiting to see what Sony does with full-frame in the coming year. Since they manufacture the 36mp chip that Nikon uses in the D800, I'm hoping they come out with their own body that targets still photographers (unlike the recent 24mp A99, which -- like Canon -- is not enough of an improvement for stills to get me to buy one).
Sorry if that's too long an answer...
Posted by Ken Henke on October 14, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Thanks mucho for the explanation Kane and Mark. Certainly provides me with the "rest of the story" as I hadn't paid attention to the upper digital market for many years. Kid photos typically aren't much better with a high megapixel camera
Considering your comments, glad I went with Nikon a few years ago. However, went the DX route which means some of my lenses won't be optimal if I decide on upgrading to full frame. That said, I still hope Nikon supports the DX format for some time. The D7000 is serving me quite well. But then, I don't make my living with my camera like many of you.
I am quite interested in what Sony does as well. My first digital was the Sony 707. That 3mp camera created some silky smooth and well exposed images. Clearly, they have their act together with their sensors. For now, I just not convinced Sony is interested in supporting serious photography.
Posted by Rick Dunn on October 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM
1. Put up with a non-cutting edge body and keep using the system we've bought into.
That's the approach I've taken. I'm still very pleased with my quite old D2X, paired with some quality Nikon glass. Other than not being able to make huge prints from a single exposure (can still stitch easily, though), nothing that's come along recently has been compelling enough to make me spend many thousands to upgrade. That's not to say that those new cameras don't have great features, but the 'leaps' in the leap-frogging seem to be getting smaller and smaller in terms of image impact, while the cost to "leap" remains large.
Posted by Ken Henke on October 17, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Rick,
Glad you brought up cost. I simply believe camera prices are extremely overflated. They are mass produced and as you indicate not signficantly different than previous models. So, where is 2,000+ $$$ coming from? Would be interesting to actually know the profit margin.
Discussion
10 replieshttp://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583953-REG/Canon_2764B003_EOS_5D_Mark_II.html
I'm sorry, but Canon seems to need to step up their game right about now. I've got a stack of their lenses waiting for the right body, but nothing's calling to me at the moment. Anyone else, of course, is free to disagree.
Frankly, again from a causal observation, I don't see significant differences. Great images are created and I don't think they are that limited by technology anymore. Heck, my understanding is that the Nikon sensors are actually made by Sony, so it appears the lines are being blurred by elevating on manufacturer over another. Nonetheless, I would welcome a thorough discussion to set me straight
Now, comparing the two cameras with the features I care about that Nikon and Canon released for me in my price range, the Canon 6D and the D600...
The build is equal, Nikon has better autofocus, better ISO, built in flash, enough additional pixels to make a difference, and better live view. And they cost the same. Sounds like a no brainer.
If the rumors are true, ill take 46mp in a heartbeat, even if its double the cost of the 800!
Back in the ancient days of film, it was a pretty even split between Canon and Nikon users. Since the early days of digital, though, Canon and Nikon have been leap-frogging each other in terms of market share and mind-share (to possibly coin a new term). Canon made two or three significant firsts, though, with the original digital Rebel (first DSLR under $1000), the original 5d (first full-frame DSLR that was "reasonably" priced, i.e. under $3000), and then the 5Dm2 (first popular DSLR with 20+ megapixels). As Kane implies, many landscape photographers became frustrated with Nikon when the 5D came out because Nikon seemed to be clinging to the APS-C crop format, and then again when Nikon offered the D700 and the D3X (low megapixels and high price, respectively) in comparison to the 5Dm2. There was much gnashing of teeth on the equipment forums and talk about changing platforms at the time.
So in recent history, Canon has been drinking Nikon's milkshake.
Now the pendulum has swung the other way. Nikon seems to be leading Canon, and if you've got an investment in Canon glass, it's frustrating. For landscape photographers, the D800e looks to be the hot camera of the moment, and Canon shooters are left feeling like they're standing by the sidelines as Canon introduces new bodies that show only marginal improvements (in terms of landscape photography). Amongst still photographers, many people feel abandoned as Canon appears to be preoccupied with the world of video.
That said, there are differences in the way that different cameras (and even different lenses!) record the same scene, so (again as Kane implies) some people like Canon's rendering better than Nikon's. Some people like Nikon's better than Canon's.
I think the pattern of leapfrogging is going to continue for the forseeable future. That leaves us with a few choices:
1. Put up with a non-cutting edge body and keep using the system we've bought into.
2. Swap systems back and forth, losing money each time to the swings of the used market.
3. Buy great lenses and hold on to them in storage even when switching bodies (but that's a lot of money to tie up...).
4. Buy lenses that can be used on a variety of bodies and try to adapt them: like using Nikon glass on Canon bodies, or some of the newest Zeiss glass, via adapters.
Personally, I'm out of the Nikon-Canon battle as I'm shooting Sony right now, and waiting to see what Sony does with full-frame in the coming year. Since they manufacture the 36mp chip that Nikon uses in the D800, I'm hoping they come out with their own body that targets still photographers (unlike the recent 24mp A99, which -- like Canon -- is not enough of an improvement for stills to get me to buy one).
Sorry if that's too long an answer...
Considering your comments, glad I went with Nikon a few years ago. However, went the DX route which means some of my lenses won't be optimal if I decide on upgrading to full frame. That said, I still hope Nikon supports the DX format for some time. The D7000 is serving me quite well. But then, I don't make my living with my camera like many of you.
I am quite interested in what Sony does as well. My first digital was the Sony 707. That 3mp camera created some silky smooth and well exposed images. Clearly, they have their act together with their sensors. For now, I just not convinced Sony is interested in supporting serious photography.
That's the approach I've taken. I'm still very pleased with my quite old D2X, paired with some quality Nikon glass. Other than not being able to make huge prints from a single exposure (can still stitch easily, though), nothing that's come along recently has been compelling enough to make me spend many thousands to upgrade. That's not to say that those new cameras don't have great features, but the 'leaps' in the leap-frogging seem to be getting smaller and smaller in terms of image impact, while the cost to "leap" remains large.
Glad you brought up cost. I simply believe camera prices are extremely overflated. They are mass produced and as you indicate not signficantly different than previous models. So, where is 2,000+ $$$ coming from? Would be interesting to actually know the profit margin.