Canon 6D With Full Frame Sensor

[Steve Williams]

http://m.engadget.com/2012/09/17/canon-eos-6d-hands-on/

 

[DonH50]

That was quick... Nice price and performance should be good; wonder how much of the weathersealing it retains while dropping all that weight?

 

[amirm]

I wonder if they slashed the price at the last minute once they saw what Nikon had done!

I really love the convenience features. This will make a top travel camera and for me, architectural one: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d/

"The integrated Wi-Fi unit has the basic functionality you might expect, allowing transfer of images to a smartphone or tablet, and direct upload to social media sites such as Facebook and YouTube. You can also send images directly to a Wi-Fi-enabled printer. But we think more photographers are likely be interested by the fact that it can also be used to turn your smartphone into a wireless remote control via Canon's EOS Remote app for iOS or Android, complete with live view and full control of exposure settings."

I have been waiting a long time for an iPad app with remote control and live view. You just can't make critical decisions on a tiny optical viewfinder and little LCD on the back. I throw away so many shots because the focus was off and I did not know it at the time.

GPS is also wonderful for automatic tagging of pictures.

It is weird though there is this hodgepodge of features in Canon cameras. Strange to find low-end cameras having better features than higher-end ones. I suspect there are different teams working on these and not coordinating. If one steps up to 5D MKIII they should also get GPS and Wifi.

 

[DonH50]

I tend to agree with different teams, but to me that is a failure of top management to provide a consistent roadmap. I can understand when an older high-end model lacks features newer models have up and down the line, but the 5D Mk III and 6D are coming pretty close together...

In any event, I am now anxiously awaiting the 6D vs. D600 reviews.

 

[amirm]

In Japanese technical culture, upper management has very little power in these matters. Successful products in such companies attract their best talent. Such talent then decides what is going to happen. Management cannot pressure them since as my Sony exec once put it, "they can simply leave and go to another division." And that is something they cannot afford. In US employees work toward bonuses and reviews each year and so management has good stick .

As to D600 vs 6D, I think we are at a level of performance that whatever difference exists in that area to me at least, is not material. Both should take superb pictures. For specialized applications, like wildlife work and such, camera differences matter (think number of AF points, speed of tracking, frame rate, etc). But as an all-around camera which I think of this class of body, I don't think differences will be material. I would instead look at what lens can be matched to it and its performance and go with that. The one bummer is lack of flash. I think this body should have one but Canon for some reason thinks only the cropped APS-C bodies should have it. A bit of fill light that is always with you is a good thing whether you are shooting full frame or cropped! External flashes are just too big to always have one with you. On this front, Nikon is better.

 

[DonH50]

Have to take your word on the cultural differences. Still seems like there should be some sort of plan and feature set targets...

Shoot, missed the lack of flash. I agree that is something I wish Canon would get on board. A little in-camera flash for fill and snapshots is invaluable, and yeah I don't want to lug a big (or even relatively small) expensive external flash around just for that.

Since I do not have a lens investment I could go either way. I have little recent hands-on with DSLRs, but my limited experience has me favoring the Canon user experience (and that from a guy weaned on Nikon).

 

[Keith_W]

Here I was saving for a 5D Mk.3 when this thing comes out! I do not see any reason to get a 5D3 any more. I haven't yet had a good look at the spec sheet, but it appears that I will be sacrificing the new AF system, some weather sealing, dual CF cards ... and gaining a 20% weight loss, wifi, GPS, and a substantial $$$aving. Nikon does not even get a look in for me because I am already invested with Canon glass.

You know, over on the Apple thread I mentioned that I was annoyed with Apple because they liked to deploy proprietary formats that lock you in? Cameras are a perfect example of this. Why does Canon have the EOS mount, and Nikon the F-mount? Why can't they all get together like the Four-Thirds consortium? Any Micro 4/3rds camera can use any Micro 4/3rds lens. In my case, just because I have all this Canon glass means that I can not easily switch to a Nikon body if they happen to bring out a better one. If they had to truly compete in this way, prices would be lower and quality would be higher. The cost of switching systems is a significant barrier.

 

[amirm]

The lock in is truly nasty. Imagine if in audio an amp was only sold to work one speaker brand. Somehow precedence was set and since the consumer has accepted it, it keeps going.

 

[DonH50]

So, has anybody compared the 5D Mk III to the 6D, thoughts?

 

[amirm]

I tried to do that analysis a few months ago and it was impossible. One is not simply worse than the other. You have to assign priorities to the features and then compare to see which is a better fit for you. Don't ask me though as I have already forgotten all the differences .

 

[DonH50]

I'm back to this, mainly due to Canon's instant rebates and Amazon 4% rewards back for the next week or so. The main differences appear to be better weather sealing and much more extensive autofocus grid in the 5D III, but for a pretty significant price jump. From what I can see, the images are virtually identical, and features are very close. The 6D adds GPS and WiFi that the 5D lacks (extra-price add-ons). PQ is a toss-up between the 6D and Nikon D600. I have a couple of other litle Canons but no glass. Right now I can get the 6D bundled with their 24-105 mm f4 L plus the 70 - 300 mm "kit" f4-5.6 for about $2600, compared to nearly $5k for the same setup in the 5D. Still wish Canon would put a flash on these! I know their argument but don't agree -- a little fill flash is a great thing to have and I hate mounting a flash in the shoe just for that. Most of the time I don't use flash. Still, this looks like an impressive deal; full-frame with better glass for about $1k more than a 7D and $2k less than a 5D with roughly the same glass. Hmmm...

 

[amirm]

Makes perfect sense Don. Go for it . Full frame sensors are wonderful and getting them at such "reasonable" prices is great. The 24-105 is my favorite lens and I have shot more images with it than all of my other lenses. On a full-frame sensor, I can't think of a more perfect lens. It is also quite compact.

On 70-300, I have a few of them and don't like any. Once a lens goes past f4, I lose interest . A lovely lens is the 70-200 f4. It is super light, and super sharp. Of course, getting the kit lens is fine if it is almost free which sound like it is.

To me the GPS feature is worth its weight in gold. I take images all over the world and it sure would have been nice to have them tagged.

 

[DonH50]

I looked longingly at the L-series 70-200 f4 ($1500; the f2.8 is way out of my budget) but with the rebates going on plus discounts figured I'd give the kit 70-300 a try. At $350 it is not quite "free" but durn close relative to everything else! It has been reasonably well liked in reviews. I am still thinking on it -- do you think it makes that big a difference for an amateur hack? I like the extra focal length for wildlife, don't like the loss of light of the 70-300. I threw in the 70-200 and a teleconverter, but after going back and forth took the teleconverter out of my cart. Lose so much light and with the resolution of these cameras I figure I can do pretty good even cropped heavily. The Canon teleconverters are pricey and come with a string of "gotcha's" I decided to not wade through at this time. I ultimately yanked the 70-200 as well but am still thinking. That extra grand-plus may have to pay another month's room and board for my eldest as he looks for a job.

The 6D only has one SD slot, no CF or second SD, body isn't quite as rugged, and weather sealing is not as good as the 5D, but that plus more pro features just ain't worth the extra $1500 to me. Picture quality on a couple of review sites was virtually identical at all ISOs, and I am just not sure I'd take advantage of the extra features, slight resolution increase, bazillion AF points, etc. After reading a little more (and staying up way too late!) last night I am thinking the WiFi and GPS are good features to have. I revisited the D600/D800 but frankly they are all awfully close in performance and features despite the rhetoric on both sides. I could go either way, but have mostly Canon P&S's around the house now and have liked what they've done.

I filled my cart and am cogitating before pulling the trigger (and going shooting this afternoon as a matter of fact, apt cliche). About $3300 with the camera, both lenses, B+W UV/haze and circular polarizers for both lenses, extra battery, the baby flash (270) and a couple diffusors, a 64G Sandisk xtreme card, a new bag, etc. It looks like I can also get extra VISA points so this will probably be a go this weekend, just want to sleep on it one more night.

If you or anyone has comments on the 70-300 f4-5.6 vs. the 70-200 f4 I'm still cogitating. It may be flat out of my budget, but I don't want to waste $300 on the cheaper lens if it is going to be too bad. I don't think so, however, and it may serve as a backup if I get the L-series later (or the bigger 70-300 f4).

Thinking - Don

Edit: I had the L-series 100-400 f4-5.6 with IS, in my cart for $1500, not the prime... I see now the 70-200 f4 is only $630, not out of range but not listed as the IS version, and the 70-200 f2.8 (also not IS) is $1300. The IS 70-200 f4 is $1150, the f2.8 version is $2050. So many choices... I am not sure how the kit 70-300 with IS stacks up to the f4 70-200 without IS. I have always headed toward IS since getting it in my first DSLR a long time ago.

 

[amirm]

I looked longingly at the L-series 70-200 f4 ($1500; the f2.8 is way out of my budget) but with the rebates going on plus discounts figured I'd give the kit 70-300 a try. At $350 it is not quite "free" but durn close relative to everything else! It has been reasonably well liked in reviews. I am still thinking on it -- do you think it makes that big a difference for an amateur hack? I like the extra focal length for wildlife, don't like the loss of light of the 70-300. I threw in the 70-200 and a teleconverter, but after going back and forth took the teleconverter out of my cart. Lose so much light and with the resolution of these cameras I figure I can do pretty good even cropped heavily. The Canon teleconverters are pricey and come with a string of "gotcha's" I decided to not wade through at this time. I ultimately yanked the 70-200 as well but am still thinking. That extra grand-plus may have to pay another month's room and board for my eldest as he looks for a job.

Let me say it bluntly : there is no wildlife work you can do with a 300 mm at f5.6 that is worth doing. At f5.6, the background is not blurred enough for a pleasing effect. Further, 300mm is way too short. Unless you are at a zoo, or shooting giant animals, you are never going to be close enough to fill the frame. My average focal length for wildlife work is around 750 to 800 mm. That is a 500 or 600 mm with a 1.4 teleconverter. Sometimes I can go down to just the lens itself. But at least half the time the 1.4 is glued to it.

Here is the other problem. Non-L lenses are not that sharp wide open. So f5.6 becomes f8 if you want good sharpness. As I mentioned, I think I have three different 70 to 300 zooms including the DO version and I just don't find them usable. I am always frustrated and disappointed with their images.

The 70-200 won't do wildlife either. But it is an incredible portrait lens at f4 even at 200. Look at this image which was shot *outdoors* at f4.0/200mm:

The background is totally gone which allows the eyes to focus completely on the subject.

This one is at f5.0/200mm. Notice that the background is starting to lose its total blur. I stop down some to make sure the subject is fully in focus. Using 200 mm allowed me to take all of these wedding shots without people noticing. Here is some wildlife @200mm/f4.5:

No this does not violate what I said above . I was only a few feet away from these monkeys in japan. I was at the edge of the pool and they were in it, almost at arm's length.

This one at 200/f5.0

Picking a lens is a personal decision and ultimately you have to make that. But for me, 24-105 and 70-200 f4 is where it is at. BTW, I also have the f2.8 and I just don't use it. It is extremely large and heavy. I will only use it if I am at home or close to the car. Otherwise it stays home.

The 6D only has one SD slot, no CF or second SD, body isn't quite as rugged, and weather sealing is not as good as the 5D, but that plus more pro features just ain't worth the extra $1500 to me. Picture quality on a couple of review sites was virtually identical at all ISOs, and I am just not sure I'd take advantage of the extra features, slight resolution increase, bazillion AF points, etc. After reading a little more (and staying up way too late!) last night I am thinking the WiFi and GPS are good features to have. I revisited the D600/D800 but frankly they are all awfully close in performance and features despite the rhetoric on both sides. I could go either way, but have mostly Canon P&S's around the house now and have liked what they've done.

Bodies become obsolete every 18 months. Lenses stay current for 5+ years if not more. So I would save the $1,500. If you had the $1,500, I would put it toward another lens. So you are making the right call.

There is too much made out of waterproofing and such anyway. I have taken non-pro lenses and cameras in pouring rain and used them non-stop with no issue. Most of the time I keep them out of elements anyway.

I filled my cart and am cogitating before pulling the trigger (and going shooting this afternoon as a matter of fact, apt cliche). About $3300 with the camera, both lenses, B+W UV/haze and circular polarizers for both lenses, extra battery, the baby flash (270) and a couple diffusors, a 64G Sandisk xtreme card, a new bag, etc. It looks like I can also get extra VISA points so this will probably be a go this weekend, just want to sleep on it one more night.

I have circular polarizers and never use them. Can do the same in photoshop and then some. You lose light with them and always need an adapter to use it with some lens due to size differences. No use at all for UV/haze anymore either. Years ago I used them but now I use my lenses bare but always with a hood. Never had an issue with them. So unless you have a specific reason for these, I would save the money and put them toward something else. 64 Gig card will be a joy. Mine will only go up to 32 and even that is plenty. BTW, the last 16 Gig card I bought was a cool, $1,000. I just bought a 32 gigabyte one for something like $40. Amazing.

If you or anyone has comments on the 70-300 f4-5.6 vs. the 70-200 f4 I'm still cogitating. It may be flat out of my budget, but I don't want to waste $300 on the cheaper lens if it is going to be too bad. I don't think so, however, and it may serve as a backup if I get the L-series later (or the bigger 70-300 f4).

Thinking - Don

Edit: I had the L-series 100-400 f4-5.6 with IS, in my cart for $1500, not the prime... I see now the 70-200 f4 is only $630, not out of range but not listed as the IS version, and the 70-200 f2.8 (also not IS) is $1300. The IS 70-200 f4 is $1150, the f2.8 version is $2050. So many choices... I am not sure how the kit 70-300 with IS stacks up to the f4 70-200 without IS. I have always headed toward IS since getting it in my first DSLR a long time ago.

I own and use the 100-400 but it is a very old design. If you want to do wildlife, that is the minimum lens that would do but not useful for many other things. I am not home right now but I seem to recall my 70-200 not being IS. It is fine though as I just dial up the ISO as I need it. Not saying to not get IS. IS is wonderful to have. But for shorter focal lengths there is a work-around.

 

[Keith_W]

I have circular polarizers and never use them. Can do the same in photoshop and then some.

Great post Amir, but I have to disagree with this one. A circular polarizer removes reflections in water and shiny surfaces. If you were taking a picture of a lake, you would be able to see through the surface and into the water. You can't do that in Photoshop.

 

[DonH50]

Awesome post, Amir, and thank you Keith as well. It will be a long time before I post any pictures to compare with yours, Amir!

On the circular polarizer, I found myself using mine quite a bit, especially since a lot of my outdoors shooting is in the local mountains and up at Rocky Mountain NP where both pools of water and snowfields cause problems. I like to be able to dial down the reflections. Yes, they are a bit of a pain, especially if I have to swap.

I have always had UV filters on both for protection and because, living in the mountains where the sun is bright, I have considered them essential. As much to protect the lens itself from getting smeared/scratched when I wipe it off as for the UV, however. Or when I brush the lens against something whilst cavorting around. Better the $50 filter than the $1000 lens, eh?

The wildlife pix I tend to take are elk or deer (mostly elk out here), not too far off (sometimes very close!), and small animals fairly close (chipmunks, marmots, birds). I'm lucky to live in an area where wildlife can be close; I rarely shoot things more than 50 yards away (my eyes be not so good anymore). The only things I routinely need a long tele for are mountain sheep/goats, and for them yeah I need a super-tele that is orders of magnitude out of my price range. But, point taken. I am rethinking along the lines of the 70-200 f4 with the 1.4 converter (I just hate giving up two stops with the 2x, though a 400 mm is a better zoom; can't afford $5k - $15k for the big zooms!) Probably wait on the converter; $450 for a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter is a chunk of change!

My previous "DSLR" Minolta DiMage had a 300 mm-equivalent lens and I found myself appreciating the extra 100 mm. OTOH, it was not a full-frame, and nowhere near as good as the 6D (or most other DSLRs these days; that was 10+ years ago and I have not owned a DSLR since).

The 5D is definitely out; the body with the standard 24-105mm f4 and nothing else is about $3900, well over the $3300 for the 6D with all the bells and whistles (with the 70-300 kit lens). Went back over a few more reviews and the 5D is just not worth it to me.

The 64G card is a 45Mb/s model, faster than most, but not the super-expensive 95 Mb/s model ($65 vs. $150). I rarely do multiple shots and have not done movies (yet) so am not in a hurry to pay top dollar for the faster card.

For $4.6k, about a grand more than I was thinking but still much less than the 5D similarly equipped, I can get the 6D with everything including the 70-200 f4. That also includes the 70-300 kit lens; it is about $400 less (lens plus filters) if I get the camera bundled with the 24-105mm lens and leave out the 70-300mm zoom. Not sure which way to hop on that one; the kit lens is only about a 6% cost adder, but OTOH it is $275 I could spend elsewhere... I may drop the kit lens; chances are I would end up using one or the other, and the kit lens would be the looser and set on the shelf. This does not include a teleconverter. This would give me a system with much better glass for about $900 - $1300 more than I was thinking last night. On one hand, that is a lot more money, but on the other the lens should last a lifetime, and it probably won't be cheaper next year.

One last question (though feel free to comment on anything else); I spec'd the basic 270 flash. I tend to use the flash for candid indoor shots, often as fill, and sometimes when I shoot a night raider off the deck (racoons keep taking out our bird feeder, didn't even know we had them in the area!) The step-up 430 is another $100, any reason to upgrade? I just didn't think it was worth it for the way I use it. Frankly, a pop-up would do me just fine, wish Canon would see things my way on that!

 

[Keith_W]

One last question (though feel free to comment on anything else); I spec'd the basic 270 flash. I tend to use the flash for candid indoor shots, often as fill, and sometimes when I shoot a night raider off the deck (racoons keep taking out our bird feeder, didn't even know we had them in the area!) The step-up 430 is another $100, any reason to upgrade? I just didn't think it was worth it for the way I use it. Frankly, a pop-up would do me just fine, wish Canon would see things my way on that!

Hi Don, the 430EX should be the minimum flash that you should buy! This is because the head can be angled and rotated. The head on the 270EX is fixed. This means you have no control over the direction of light - all your pictures will have the "flash look", as if you view the world with a mining light attached to your head. This looks unnatural. With a head that can be moved, you can bounce the light off walls and achieve a more diffuse, more natural look.

 

[DonH50]

Rats, I never even thought about the flash head being fixed! What a stupid design... I almost always bounce the flash, usually off the ceiling, to get better light patterns and eliminate (or at least reduce) red-eye. I do sometimes use one of the little plastic deflectors/diffusors to send a little direct light at the subject. I could use the little bounce/diffusor adapters, but I suppose the better choice is to bite the bullet, get the 70-200 f4, drop the kit lens, and use the "savings" to get the 430.

Guessing my ancient flash for my old Olympus OM won't work on the Canon 6D...

Thanks Keith, saved me from a bad mistake! - Don

Edit: The 270 does bounce but does not swivel... You can tilt it up to 90 degrees, but not swivel it if you turn the camera vertically. That might work for a lot of my shots, but I am sure as soon as I got it, I'd start taking more vertical shots. The new (II) version can be triggered off another flash, but I rarely if ever use two flashes (not that I shouldn't, just too lazy to set them up and about 99.9999% of the time am taking "candid" shots anyway). Argh, I really liked the small size of the 270, but it looks like the 430 it is. Thanks again!

 

[DonH50]

Well, after vacillating far into the night (for which I am paying dearly -- 5 AM came very quickly after 1:30 AM!) I got the 6D packaged with the 24-105/f4 L, the 70-200/f4 L lens and the 430 flash. I debated mightily if the 200 mm was going to be worth all that extra cash over the 100 mm, or if I should skip it and go with the 70-300 kit lens, or just save for a bigger lens later, but decided the extra reach would be worthwhile. Plus a good 400 - 600 mm lens was astronomical in cost (for me). Ditto the 430 flash vs. the 270; spent far more time than the $100 price difference justified trying to decide if the extra heft was worth it to get a little more light and the ability to bounce off the ceiling when held vertically. I even revisited the Nikon D600 and it's pop-up flash, but the Canon won out most of the time on image quality. Time will tell. Don't tell anyone, but I may pick up one of the Tamron "vacation" lenses just so I don't have to lug two and switch on hikes. Decided to wait on that, and put off thinking about a teleconverter for now. I did get an extra 4% off the camera package and lens, think that runs through June 15, 2013.

Amir and Keith, I greatly appreciate your time and advice!

 

[Steve Williams]

Congrats Don. Seems to be a better overall choice than the 5D