advertisement


New Canon EOS 6D.

Yes, certainly of interest to me. My 1Ds Mark II is lovely, but a bit of a monster to carry around sometimes. I'd like a light-weight camera to complement it which can take my canon lenses. I'd been thinking about a 5D Mark II second hand, but this is something I should consider as well.
 
If I can just convince myself that I can take the drop from 6.5fps to this, I might start saving the pennies again. A 40D with battery pack and 17-85mm (my only EF-S lens) doesn't fetch much money these days, if anything.

Tony
 
When searching on eBay to find out how much your camera is worth, don't type in only 40D......

C760BFC9-F705-44AC-B7EC-72B88B9E5FD1-1746-000000A126433F1B.jpg


Tony
 
Yeah right...Your secret is safe with us Tony ;)

The 6D looks interesting - at least as far as my wife is concerned - she has a Canon EOS 500D, which she's wearing out at a prodigious rate! She takes way more pictures than me and would do well with a full-frame D-SLR.
 
It's looking like £1,800 at launch. So maybe £1,500 after Christmas, lower at Camerapricebuster maybe.

Tony
 
Well, no matter what Mr Rockwell says, it seems the D600 is better spec'd - more pixels, focus points, 5.5 vs 4.5 fps and 2 card slots.
 
dan m said:
Well, no matter what Mr Rockwell says, it seems the D600 is better spec'd - more pixels, focus points, 5.5 vs 4.5 fps and 2 card slots.
Click to expand...

At this sort of level, it's all fairly irrelevant - what's more important is what lenses you've got, and if you have canon or nikon stuff of reasonable quality, best to stick with it.
 
Completely agree - not a reason to jump ship. But if you don't have any investment in lenses the d600 is looking better VFM.
 
What is? I'm genuinely curious, since I have no investment in canon or nikon, and have been wanting a FF dslr for years. I think specs are a good place to start - I'll be very interested to see the EV vs iso curves for the 6D compared to the d600.

If building a new system from scratch do canon lenses represent better VFM or performance than Nikon?

Clearly I need to handle both to see if I can get along with the ergonomics.
 
Handling is the most important thing to many people. I think we would be splitting hairs if we were to get into image quality, optics etc. But the differences in handling, button layout and menu layouts would make or break it for me. Pixels matter not one jot at this level. Frames per second don't matter to a landscape or portrait photographer.

You MUST handle the camera first, before looking at specs.

Tony
 
11.jpg


Here's the d600 vs the 5DIII - very surprised by the 2eV difference at low iso. That's more than splitting hairs.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
Handling is the most important thing to many people.


...

You MUST handle the camera first, before looking at specs.

Tony
Click to expand...

I agree with the first and last bits here. The Nikon D3 and D700 had very similar specs and image quality but there was a world of difference in handling and in usability in low light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top