Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: deejjjaaaa on September 17, 2012, 02:49:41 am
-
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/slrs/canon_eos6d
-
actually this camera got no reason to be mentioned. the lack of innovation and some creative phantasy at Canon is devastating and depressing.
-
3 or 4 years ago, this camera would have been exciting.
Now, who cares?
"Next"!
-
It seems more logical to buy a mark 5d II? Or the price point must a about 400 hundred lower...
-
Did Canon announce price and availability?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Did Canon announce price and availability?
The announced price was USD$2099.
As for availability, the goal is before Christmas but with Canon's ability to deliver this year, it could just as easily be February 2013 before they appear on the shelves.
-
"Pricing and Availability
The EOS 6D Digital SLR Camera will be sold in a body-only configuration at an estimated retail price of $2,099.00 and it will additionally be offered in a kit version with Canon’s EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM zoom lens at an estimated retail price of $2,899.00. Both configurations are expected to be available in December 2012."
-
"Pricing and Availability
The EOS 6D Digital SLR Camera will be sold in a body-only configuration at an estimated retail price of $2,099.00 and it will additionally be offered in a kit version with Canon’s EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM zoom lens at an estimated retail price of $2,899.00. Both configurations are expected to be available in December 2012."
"The D600 will have a list price of $2,099 body only, or $2,699 with the 24-85mm F3.5-5.6 lens and will be available from September 18th."
The 6D is going to be a very difficult sell to anyone that doesn't already have full-frame Canon lenses. By the looks of it, retail versions of the 6D won't appear until December 2012, so it is unlikely that any websites will have full reviews on it before Christmas this year (part of the plan so that people don't know what it is they're buying?)
With this feature set and price, this would appear to be "Dead On Arrival" unless you've got a xx0D Canon APS-C DSLR with "L" lenses and you don't want to dump it all and change brands (to Nikon.)
Is this camera evidence that Canon is now simply milking its already established customer base for more money?
-
The thing I find most puzzling here is that Canon now produces 3 FF sensors with 18, 20 and 22mp. They all have mostly the same iso range, DR,...
When the profits made by winning CE companies are mostly driven by cost control, itself resulting mostly from components commonalization, the Canon line up seems odd from an engineering standpoint.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is not dead on arrival or any such thing. YET.
The key determining factors for me will be whether canon has managed to improve it's low light performance and dynamic range.
Outside of those attributes, the 6D is all just me-too features. At this point, short of marketing an open camera platform with third party apps, the general features of a decent DSLR are pretty well established. Assuming they don't break something that currently works, what matters is performance: mostly sensor and focus. Of course this is a bit reductive, but we are talking about an established brand with an admirable (if somewhat boring) legacy of usability and durability.
I like the built-in GPS. I don't like the reduced focus points, but it is unclear how this will translate into real world performance. More isn't always better, so if that one center focus point is really freaking great at isolating a brown bird flying in front of brown trees, I may forgive the spec reduction.
It will be interesting to see how big and heavy (or small and light) this body seems compared to the other full frame cameras. This actually does appear to be substantially lighter weight than the others. Between the weight and GPS, this could end up as a really great travel camera.
-
Not sure why people seem to be dumping on this camera but didn't dump on the Nikon D600.
-
I personally dump on both. Don't like the way taken by FF industry.
-
The 6D is going to be a very difficult sell to anyone that doesn't already have full-frame Canon lenses. By the looks of it, retail versions of the 6D won't appear until December 2012, so it is unlikely that any websites will have full reviews on it before Christmas this year (part of the plan so that people don't know what it is they're buying?)
With this feature set and price, this would appear to be "Dead On Arrival" unless you've got a xx0D Canon APS-C DSLR with "L" lenses and you don't want to dump it all and change brands (to Nikon.)
Is this camera evidence that Canon is now simply milking its already established customer base for more money?
Do you have any facts to back up what you are saying, or are you merely making negative speculations?
As far as your final question above: what purpose other than making money from the customer base do companies have? Other than expanding the customer base?
I, for one, am very interested in this camera. Some of the new features as well as the proposed high iso capability look really interesting to me. I will wait on a thorough review, whenever that may come.
-
Not sure why people seem to be dumping on this camera but didn't dump on the Nikon D600.
Mostly because the D600 is keeping more important photographic features from his bigger brother the D800.
- 100% viewfinder
- 2 memory card slots
- a better speced AF
- uncompressed video
- it is a real camera with a firm availability 3 days after announcement, not another paper launch.
Dpreview has a longer list... and we can probably add a better sensor based on recent releases from both companies and the available high ISO samples.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Mostly because the D600 is keeping more important photographic features from his bigger brother the D800.
- 100% viewfinder
- 2 memory card slots
- a better speced AF
- uncompressed video
- it is a real camera with a firm availability 3 days after announcement, not another paper launch.
Dpreview has a longer list... and we can probably add a better sensor based on recent releases from both companies and the available high ISO samples.
Cheers,
Bernard
No Nikon fanboyism there. ;D
It's pretty clear that Canon and Nikon have different philosophies when it comes to their respective product lines. Nikon brought out an 'affordable' FX camera and now Canon has announced an 'affordable' full frame camera. The Canon has some features that other Canon cameras don't such as built in wi-fi and geotagging. There really are few Canon cameras that have ever had full viewfinder coverage. The 5 series only got it with the Mk III. Other than that, the only cameras that have had it are the 1 series. The uncompressed video is a red herring because, as far as I know, no Canon has had that. Uncompressed video is not an 'important photographic feature' if you don't do video (a lot of people don't).
-
This is not dead on arrival or any such thing. YET.
The key determining factors for me will be whether canon has managed to improve it's low light performance and dynamic range.
That sums it up nicely: with the 6D and D600 at the same price, Canon continues to lose the "spec. sheet war" to team Nikon-Sony, and the things I can see that will help this camera to succeed are
1. A major improvement in DR over even quite recent Canon sensors (is the choice of a lower 20MP resolution done to improve the per pixel DR numbers and so impress people who look at per pixel specs regardless of pixel count?)
2. Somehow having better performance at high ISO even if DR at low to moderate ISO speed is inferior.
3. People with reasons to prefer Canon EF-mount lenses over Nikon F-mount; either owning a lot of them, or judging that the Canon lens system offers better choices for their needs.
(I omit "blind respect to the prestige of a particular brand", though that is always good for some sales.)
Right now, I suspect that #3 will be a more effective argument than the other two, but I await the reviews.
-
Out of Canon's recent run of relatively lame offerings (compared to the competition), this is the lamest yet.
Can't wait for the 46MP monster, if it ever comes...
-
No Nikon fanboyism there. ;D
... There really are few Canon cameras that have ever had full viewfinder coverage. The 5 series only got it with the Mk III. Other than that, the only cameras that have had it are the 1 series. The uncompressed video is a red herring because, as far as I know, no Canon has had that. Uncompressed video is not an 'important photographic feature' if you don't do video (a lot of people don't).
1. I do not see how it is "fanboyism" to mention facts that are advantages of the D600 over the 6D, and indeed attempting to dismiss the relevance of those advantages seems more subject to that accusation.
2. The disadvantages in viewfinder and video capabilities are not mitigated at all by the fact that previous Canon models also had these disadvantages relative to the competition (not only Nikon but also Sony in recent years.)
3. As to the "different priorities" argument, I suppose it is a matter of personal preference which is more important:
- the D600's better AF, video, and VF, somewhat higher resolution, and likely better DR (on recent trends), or
- The 6D's geo-tagging and Wi-Fi without needing an add-on unit. (Are these really the only advantages you can mention? I think I made a better case with "likely better high ISO performance and lens system".)
-
No Nikon fanboyism there. ;D
Just answering a reasonnable question in an objective way, my statements are a copy/paste of Dpreview conclusions.
And yes, I agree that the 6D is better at geo-tagging and at wireless communication, but those 2 aspects can be added to the D600 for those needing then, you cannot add a 100% viewfinder, a second SD card,... to the 6D.
As you apparently use a D700 and don't consider the D800 a valid successor, I would expect you to be utterly sensitive to the importance of those features?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
1. I do not see how it is "fanboyism" to mention facts that are advantages of the D600 over the 6D, and indeed attempting to dismiss the relevance of those advantages seems more subject to that accusation.
2. The disadvantages in viewfinder and video capabilities are not mitigated at all by the fact that previous Canon models also had these disadvantages relative to the competition (not only Nikon but also Sony in recent years.)
3. As to the "different priorities" argument, I suppose it is a matter of personal preference which is more important:
- the D600's better AF, video, and VF, somewhat higher resolution, and likely better DR (on recent trends), or
- The 6D's geo-tagging and Wi-Fi without needing an add-on unit. (Are these really the only advantages you can mention? I think I made a better case with "likely better high ISO performance and lens system".)
1. I shoot Nikon, so no fanboyism here.
2. Whether the viewfinder is an advantage or a disadvantage wasn't the point of my comment. My point was, simply, that this is not something many Canons have ever had so noting it as a material difference doesn't, to me, seem relevant. Disadvantages in video? Based on what I've read it seems pretty well settled that the quality of Canon's video is superior to Nikon's. I've not yet seen a compelling argument that the uncompressed video from a Nikon is markedly superior to the compressed video.
3. D600's better AF? How can that be determined when the camera isn't even available for serious testing yet? "Likely better DR" is a complete assumption. I'm not saying it won't have better range than the Canon but making such statements without actual data, even basing on recent trends, isn't valid analysis.
4. Unlike many people here, I don't spend countless hours poring over camera data, cruising from website to website looking for technical minutiae, pixel-peeping or otherwise examining in excruciating detail things which, in real world, practical shooting won't make a big difference. The infinitesimal differences in SNR for the 5D Mk III and D800 don't make a hill of beans difference. Even the ~2.5 stops of drange at base ISO (according to DxO Mark, according to Imaging Resource it's less than 1 stop, but I grant the measures are done differently) isn't a huge concern because I know there are ways to work around that. Lens system is a matter of preference. There are Canon lenses that perform better than the like Nikon and vice versa. There are third party lenses that, in some cases, perform better than both.
-
As you apparently use a D700 and don't consider the D800 a valid successor, I would expect you to be utterly sensitive to the importance of those features?
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry, Bernard, I don't see a question in that statement despite the punctuation.
-
1. I shoot Nikon, so no fanboyism here.
2. Whether the viewfinder is an advantage or a disadvantage wasn't the point of my comment. My point was, simply, that this is not something many Canons have ever had so noting it as a material difference doesn't, to me, seem relevant. Disadvantages in video? Based on what I've read it seems pretty well settled that the quality of Canon's video is superior to Nikon's. I've not yet seen a compelling argument that the uncompressed video from a Nikon is markedly superior to the compressed video.
3. D600's better AF? How can that be determined when the camera isn't even available for serious testing yet? "Likely better DR" is a complete assumption. I'm not saying it won't have better range than the Canon but making such statements without actual data, even basing on recent trends, isn't valid analysis.
4. Unlike many people here, I don't spend countless hours poring over camera data, cruising from website to website looking for technical minutiae, pixel-peeping or otherwise examining in excruciating detail things which, in real world, practical shooting won't make a big difference. The infinitesimal differences in SNR for the 5D Mk III and D800 don't make a hill of beans difference. Even the ~2.5 stops of drange at base ISO (according to DxO Mark, according to Imaging Resource it's less than 1 stop, but I grant the measures are done differently) isn't a huge concern because I know there are ways to work around that. Lens system is a matter of preference. There are Canon lenses that perform better than the like Nikon and vice versa. There are third party lenses that, in some cases, perform better than both.
can we make this a sticky? :-\
maybe add something about seeking affirmation from your peers regarding purchasing decisions ::)
-
This is not dead on arrival or any such thing. YET.
The key determining factors for me will be whether canon has managed to improve it's low light performance and dynamic range.
Exactly! I need to upgrade my 5D Mk I and this is what I'll wait to learn before I decide between the D600 and the 6D.
-
Sample images by Canon http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/ (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/)
Looks like very clean shadows at ISO400.
-
Hi All
Will this turn out to be the Killer feature ? perhaps in another camera if they ever get round to slightly more megapixels and less FPS.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/eos_remote.aspx
regards
Jon
-
Bob,
sorry, I still fail to see how previous form of inferior VF coverage on Canon SLRs compared to Nikon SLR's makes the difference in VF coverage between the new 6D and D600 any less relevant to a comparison. I am interesting in comparisons between current and new offerings, regardless of previous history.
Also, I am puzzled by the contrast between your confidence that "it seems pretty well settled that the quality of Canon's video is superior to Nikon's" without the 6D and D600 video having been tested yet, while dismissing predictions about DR as "complete assumption" despite the solid recent record of Nikon DSLR's superiority in DR. Are you somehow trusting extrapolations based on previous products when they favor Canon but rejecting such extrapolations when they favor Nikon?
-
Sample images by Canon http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/ (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/)
Looks like very clean shadows at ISO400.
I would expect no less from a full frame at ISO 400. They list a still unavailable starry sky shot at ISO 6400 and 60.8 seconds. That one should provide some serious fodder for discussion--if you trust the veracity of shots provided by the manufacturer.
-
No Nikon fanboyism there. ;D
It's pretty clear that Canon and Nikon have different philosophies when it comes to their respective product lines. Nikon brought out an 'affordable' FX camera and now Canon has announced an 'affordable' full frame camera. The Canon has some features that other Canon cameras don't such as built in wi-fi and geotagging. There really are few Canon cameras that have ever had full viewfinder coverage. The 5 series only got it with the Mk III. Other than that, the only cameras that have had it are the 1 series. The uncompressed video is a red herring because, as far as I know, no Canon has had that. Uncompressed video is not an 'important photographic feature' if you don't do video (a lot of people don't).
+1
-
Will this turn out to be the Killer feature ? perhaps in another camera if they ever get round to slightly more megapixels and less FPS.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/eos_remote.aspx
That looks very nice. Based on limited info available it seems slicker than the web sites you can get from the top end cameras. Hopefully they'll have an iPad sized UI as well as the iPhone seen in the screenshots.
I'm intrigued by the mix of 6D and 7D model names in the sample images on that site (presumably 6D from August, 7D from May). Surely they'd sell more than a couple if they could launch a new wifi battery grip or other accessory for the 7D or 5D II / III that makes your camera work with this app.
--
Adam (who can hopefully shelve his plans for an accessory for iOS connectivity that would resemble a Raspberry Pi, a USB cable, and duct tape.)
-
Bob,
sorry, I still fail to see how previous form of inferior VF coverage on Canon SLRs compared to Nikon SLR's makes the difference in VF coverage between the new 6D and D600 any less relevant to a comparison. I am interesting in comparisons between current and new offerings, regardless of previous history.
More a case of trying to compare apples to apples. The D700 doesn't have 100% viewfinder coverage either. So if the D800 came out and it didn't, while I'm sure people would squawk, it would be without basis. It's in relation to me other statement that Canon and Nikon have different philosophies with respect to their product offerings. I left Canon for a number of reasons; most of which were related to camera functionality for the work I was and am doing, but I also got to a point where I didn't understand their new product strategy. So I bought into the Nikon strategy (which, of late is starting to be a little fuzzy too ;D ). Saying Canon has this or that but Nikon doesn't or vice versa is easy when switching costs are nil to minimal. Or it's easy when you've got enough coin burning a hole in your jeans that you can afford to buy Nikon for this and Canon for that. But when you are, like most people, committed to a single system because, in fact, switching costs are high then pissing and moaning about what Nikon has or Canon doesn't or vice versa is pointless.
Also, I am puzzled by the contrast between your confidence that "it seems pretty well settled that the quality of Canon's video is superior to Nikon's" without the 6D and D600 video having been tested yet, while dismissing predictions about DR as "complete assumption" despite the solid recent record of Nikon DSLR's superiority in DR. Are you somehow trusting extrapolations based on previous products when they favor Canon but rejecting such extrapolations when they favor Nikon?
No, not at all. Based on what I've seen in terms of reviews of the video functionality Canon's video in the 5D Mk III (and before that the Mk II) seems to be superior to what Nikon offers. I'm making that statement based on what's out there now. No extrapolation out to future products. I should have continued to say that there's no way to tell on the newer cameras that haven't been tested. So yes, I'll cop to an incomplete statement. :D My point was; however, that as you say, there's no way to tell since neither camera has been tested. Hope that clears up any potential confusion.
-
"Likely better DR" is a complete assumption. I'm not saying it won't have better range than the Canon but making such statements without actual data, even basing on recent trends, isn't valid analysis.
I think it is fair to assume that a Canon 6D will not have significant improvements in DR, being a low-cost alternative released right after higher-cost Canon FF alternatives.
Of course, the assumption might be wrong, but this is a thread about a yet-unreleased camera, is it not? Are you suggesting this thread should be locked?
...The infinitesimal differences in SNR for the 5D Mk III and D800 don't make a hill of beans difference. Even the ~2.5 stops of drange at base ISO (according to DxO Mark, according to Imaging Resource it's less than 1 stop, but I grant the measures are done differently) isn't a huge concern because I know there are ways to work around that.
There are ways to work around pretty much any camera limitation. You could (concievably) use an old 3 MP DSLR and stitch until you have the needed resolution. The question is: if you can afford not to, why would you?
Lens system is a matter of preference. There are Canon lenses that perform better than the like Nikon and vice versa. There are third party lenses that, in some cases, perform better than both.
Agreed. And based upon lense preferences and availability, it might make a lot of sense to stick to a camera brand that in terms of sensor quality is slightly "worse".
-h
-
Hi All
Will this turn out to be the Killer feature ? perhaps in another camera if they ever get round to slightly more megapixels and less FPS.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/eos_remote.aspx
regards
Jon
There are already apps that allow this with a tethered connection.
Where the built-in wifi could have a good application - provided it's put into other bodies in the future and this would apply to Nikon as well - is in the case of, for example, sports shooters. They will, at game intermissions (e.g., halftime, between periods) download what they've shot so far to their laptops and fire the lot off to their agency or publication. With a wifi connection they could, potentially, set up a connection to the laptop and offload the images on the fly, thereby saving time. The faster an agency can get images on the wire, the more likely that agency gets the sale which means more profit. Also at, for example, the Super Bowl, there used to be runners who would go around collecting film, take it to get processed and then to the picture editors. Now those runners go around collecting memory cards. If they can get a wireless connection so that the images are offloaded on the fly then, again, time is saved.
The built-in wifi also has application in a studio. You're limited by how far away you can place a laptop due to the length of cables. But with a wifi connection, the laptop can be put in a more convenient place for reviewing images.
There are plenty of good applications for built-in wifi.
-
I think it is fair to assume that a Canon 6D will not have significant improvements in DR, being a low-cost alternative released right after higher-cost Canon FF alternatives.
Of course, the assumption might be wrong, but this is a thread about a yet-unreleased camera, is it not? Are you suggesting this thread should be locked?
No, of course not. Simply that making declarative statements without data is pointless.
There are ways to work around pretty much any camera limitation. You could (concievably) use an old 3 MP DSLR and stitch until you have the needed resolution. The question is: if you can afford not to, why would you?
See my response above about the money issue.
Agreed. And based upon lense preferences and availability, it might make a lot of sense to stick to a camera brand that in terms of sensor quality is slightly "worse".
-h
Again, see my point above. Yes, we make choices and, for the most part, we live with those choices.
-
Where the built-in wifi could have a good application - provided it's put into other bodies in the future and this would apply to Nikon as well - is in the case of, for example, sports shooters. They will, at game intermissions (e.g., halftime, between periods) download what they've shot so far to their laptops and fire the lot off to their agency or publication. With a wifi connection they could, potentially, set up a connection to the laptop and offload the images on the fly, thereby saving time. The faster an agency can get images on the wire, the more likely that agency gets the sale which means more profit. Also at, for example, the Super Bowl, there used to be runners who would go around collecting film, take it to get processed and then to the picture editors. Now those runners go around collecting memory cards. If they can get a wireless connection so that the images are offloaded on the fly then, again, time is saved.
Sports shooters already do this with WiFi adapters and people at the ground who sift through what is coming off the camera in real time before sending good ones off.
-
Some do, yes. Not all. This makes it easier and less expensive.
-
Sorry, Bernard, I don't see a question in that statement despite the punctuation.
Bob,
Fine, I was hoping for a clarification of an apparent lack of coherence and logic accross your statements, but it seems we will not get that in this thread either.
Since fanboyism appears to be a relevant concept for you, you may not want to know that you come accros as belonging to the "Canon fanboy owning a D700" category. :)
Good luck with your images Bob.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, you are one funny dude.
You want clarification, just ask. I simply said that if you were asking a question I didn't understand what the question was. Ask a question. Don't make a statement. What were you asking?
-
This is my first post on this forum in probably 5 or 6 years. How time flies.
Anywho... I, for one, am excited and curious about the 6D. I have my rusty, trusty 5D (the original) and I imagine that sooner or later I'll be wanting to upgrade. I have a solid investment in Canon lenses, so the Nikon camp is out of reach for me (although the D700 is probably about as close as I've ever seen to a 'dream camera' for me).
All that being said, the 6D strikes me as the spiritual successor of the 5D in some ways. I'd love to own a 5DIII, but I simply can't justify $3500 on a new body at this point or anytime in the near to mid future. The 6D opens up an upgrade path to a new (modern) sensor, improved AF (from my current 5D), and all sorts of other niceties (dust shaking sensor, live view, etc. I know, how very 2007...) that my 5D lacks.
$2100 USD is still a good chunk of money for me but much more manageable that the 5DIII.
At the end of the day... we all live in exciting times my friends. Too many new cameras to drool over and not enough time to shoot!
-
At the end of the day... we all live in exciting times my friends. Too many new cameras to drool over and not enough time to shoot!
And apparenly, there is a guy who gets to evaluate and shoot most of them.
-
There are already apps that allow this with a tethered connection.
There are plenty of good applications for built-in wifi.
I dont see the 6D being popular among professional sports photographers.
I would love to be able to use the gui/open apps model of my smart-phone to control my DSLR. Sadly, as my phone has no USB host capability, AFAIK that is not conveniently possible today.
If the wifi is used as a "USB-replacement", and todays USB drivers for windows/mac are supplemented by Wifi equivalents for Android/iOS/..., I see many use-cases.
-Remote live-view (no need for articulating lcd screen)
-Time-lapse/improved exposure bracketing
-raw histogram capabilities in the field
-micro-focus adjustment tools/aids
+ all of the consumer-friendly "upload my images to facebook"-type functionality.
-h
-
-raw histogram capabilities in the field
that you can do w/ eye-fi
-
As pointed out from a known rumors source site, D600 cameras already reached a number of retailers.
Trying not to sound biased, it's hard for me to see any good future for the 6D.
I mean, a lor of Canon user will prefer this to the Nikon model (or the ones from many other manufacturers) because of the lenses they own.
Beside that the 6D, IMHO, is worse on a lot of photographic key aspects. That's a shame.
-
Looks like Canon's trademark shadow banding is still there: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/ (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/)
Except, this time, it's horizontal bands rather than vertical.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8451/7994381126_9d22bea825_o.jpg)
-
why can't people expose their images properly? these screengrabs are from a 5dIII processed in capture1. the normal shot with black levels in single figures and the exposure and brightness sliders at the maximum boost.
why would you ever need to do that?
(i can never get these attachments to work ??? )
-
I dont see the 6D being popular among professional sports photographers.
I would love to be able to use the gui/open apps model of my smart-phone to control my DSLR. Sadly, as my phone has no USB host capability, AFAIK that is not conveniently possible today.
If the wifi is used as a "USB-replacement", and todays USB drivers for windows/mac are supplemented by Wifi equivalents for Android/iOS/..., I see many use-cases.
-Remote live-view (no need for articulating lcd screen)
-Time-lapse/improved exposure bracketing
-raw histogram capabilities in the field
-micro-focus adjustment tools/aids
+ all of the consumer-friendly "upload my images to facebook"-type functionality.
-h
I didn't say "this" camera would be used by sports photographers. I said wifi was a useful feature and then went on to explain how it could be useful, particularly if Canon continued to include it in future cameras (i.e., ones that sports shooters might use).
The improved bracketing/timelapse (e.g. bulb ramping) functionality would only be available if it were built into the app. I don't believe; however, that some of those functionalities are accessible wirelessly but that a hard connection is needed to get into the 'guts' of the camera, especially for things like bulb ramping and bracketing.
-
why can't people expose their images properly? these screengrabs are from a 5dIII processed in capture1. the normal shot with black levels in single figures and the exposure and brightness sliders at the maximum boost.
why would you ever need to do that?
(i can never get these attachments to work ??? )
You can properly expose a scene and still end up with very deep shadows. Happens most often when shooting landscapes, since you are often dealing with high dynamic range scenes and have no way to control the lighting (i.e. fill flash).
For instance, this 6D sample shot: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/downloads/02.jpg (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/downloads/02.jpg)
Looks properly exposed, but there are still deep shadows.
-
i am aware of that but shadows are shadows, after working as a photographer for 20 years and using all kinds of digital cameras big and small i still have never had to lift near blacks that much that banding is visible.
it was there in the 5D II if you went looking for it but in normal use never apparent, if it was then i would have failed to deliver top quality images to the client because of severe underexposure.
i appreciate scenes with many stops of dynamic range cannot be reproduced without exposure blending or HDR and shoot accordingly but IMHO boosting shadows 2 stops in post means you have failed to expose properly.
-
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to illustrate with the two attached images. In the first, the hair looks a bit underexposed but not a lot. In the second, the shadows and hair are way overexposed. What's the purpose of the exercise?
-
Do you think Canon would post a photo with boosted shadows in such a manner by accident (I don't mean to sound condescending)? Are they trying to show how their banding has improved in a photo where shadows have been boosted this much?
My guess would be that it's intentional.
-
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to illustrate with the two attached images. In the first, the hair looks a bit underexposed but not a lot. In the second, the shadows and hair are way overexposed. What's the purpose of the exercise?
i'm trying to illustrate the fact that pixel peeping at banding in massively boosted shadow areas is for measurebators not photographers, and using the fact that the banding exists (even though it's not visible in normal use) is pointless and only good for trying to win points in some imaginary 'my camera brand is better than yours' game that gets played out in DPreview forums.
it's a trait that is becoming increasingly evident on LuLa too :-\
as for being "underexposed" were you on the shoot? do you know what ex prime ministers wife that hair belongs too? no i doubt you do. FYI it's perfectly exposed thanks.
-
as for being "underexposed" were you on the shoot? do you know what ex prime ministers wife that hair belongs too? no i doubt you do. FYI it's perfectly exposed thanks.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said "looks a bit". From that small crop, that's what it 'looks' like. Without seeing the entire image it's not possible to be certain. And I really don't give a flying fadoo who it is, to be honest.
-
i am aware of that but shadows are shadows, after working as a photographer for 20 years and using all kinds of digital cameras big and small i still have never had to lift near blacks that much that banding is visible.
it was there in the 5D II if you went looking for it but in normal use never apparent, if it was then i would have failed to deliver top quality images to the client because of severe underexposure.
i appreciate scenes with many stops of dynamic range cannot be reproduced without exposure blending or HDR and shoot accordingly but IMHO boosting shadows 2 stops in post means you have failed to expose properly.
I can think of lots of situations. Essentially, any situation where you're dealing with a high dynamic range, the transition zone is not reasonably straight (i.e. a GND filter wouldn't work), fill flash isn't possible (i.e. any landscape) and movement precludes multiple-exposure techniques (e.g. a light breeze causing flowers or leaves to flutter). For instance, I struggled with this one:
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3608/4594200731_db6c4f9dab_o.jpg)
It was only by chance that two of the hundreds of paired exposures I took matched up, and I was able to blend the exposures to produce the final image.
-
... IMHO boosting shadows 2 stops in post means you have failed to expose properly.
Are there still people out there who think that ignorant statements like this are worth debating?
-
Are there still people out there who think that ignorant statements like this are worth debating?
+1
Agreed. Getting the most from your gear means pushing the envelope. Boosting shadows is one of the places you eek out more performance. I have certainly wanted to boost shadows until banding is evident, but I find that point and back off until things look good again. If a new camera increases my latitude to boost shadows, that tells me I have a wider exposure range to work with. Yippee.
There is an undeserved disdain out there for so-called "measurebators." While there are people who take this stuff to extremes, we know that the famous Nikon D800 has measurably better exposure range at base ISOs...much better than competition. Without quantifying this attribute, we would argue endlessly about the validity...
...
...
oh....
...
...
Wait, I guess we still do argue endlessly about the validity of measured data and perceived goodness. Well, I would argue for balance. I don't automatically discount that value of measurement and analysis, even occasionally at the pixel level if it will help me understand and exploit the broader limits of my camera and post processing.
-
Well if I have to reach for the exposure/brightness slider (for more than a 1/3) then something has gone amiss somewhere with either how I have read the scene, making an exposure or understanding what is reproducable from that file. I guess that's from years of using a spot meter, a modified zone system and and doing my own developing.
Don't get me wrong the techy approach and pictures of brick walls and the info you can glean from them can prove useful but I find the best way to find out what is and isn't possible with your chosen equipment is to shoot jobs with it.
Can't say I agree with pushing the envelope (exposure) means you are getting the most from your gear, for me that's an aesthetic measure or a happy client who pays well not if i can push the shadows 2 stops and not see any banding.
-
As pointed out from a known rumors source site, D600 cameras already reached a number of retailers.
Trying not to sound biased, it's hard for me to see any good future for the 6D.
I mean, a lor of Canon user will prefer this to the Nikon model (or the ones from many other manufacturers) because of the lenses they own.
Beside that the 6D, IMHO, is worse on a lot of photographic key aspects. That's a shame.
I don't think Canon is looking for 5D users to move to the 6D.
Perhaps a Rebel owner wanting a full frame, would move in this direction.
You have to do a lot of traveling to make the GPS feature pay off.
More likely a Canon film shooter with lots of lenses finally deciding to go digital - most of them hated the cropped sensors at the entry level prices.
It may also be a means to get some market in the non-Canon and non-Nikon world to convert to Canon.
Personally, I decided the 5D Mk II was my better choice for full frame.
-
All the samples are up now:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/
Lots of detail in this example (from a zoom lens too):
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/downloads/03.jpg
Digic 5 Plus on 20.2 Megapixels and a tweaked low light AF system. Good reports on the AF so far, quite snappy and fast... A real life improvement and better than all Canons to date...
Given the sensor performance of the 5D3 and 1DX this could be a great all rounder for detail and low light work with AF to match... FTM when it matters...
Small light for full frame and some really useful new features... :)
Canon are being diplomatic saying less than 60ms shutter release lag... The 5D3 is approx 59ms. You can bet this thing is faster but they do not want to admit it after given it a great low light AF too... Must not upset existing Customers too much... ;D
-
I can think of one segment that might go for the FF with GPS - hikers!
I think that those with a good FF camera aren't the target for the 6D. People like me are the target - I own a single DSLR, the 60D , admire 5D2 (and other FF) IQ, would consider getting a second body in FF format, have a mixture of EF-S and EF lenses, with the EF lenses being L lenses that I don't want to "leave behind" in a brand switch to Nikon. Now, would I bother with the 6D? or just get a 5D2, which on IQ seems to be on a par with the 5D3 but lacks some of the features. The 6D and 5D2 seem to be at the same price point, approximately 2,000.00 body only.
-
I can think of one segment that might go for the FF with GPS - hikers!
I think that those with a good FF camera aren't the target for the 6D. People like me are the target - I own a single DSLR, the 60D , admire 5D2 (and other FF) IQ, would consider getting a second body in FF format, have a mixture of EF-S and EF lenses, with the EF lenses being L lenses that I don't want to "leave behind" in a brand switch to Nikon. Now, would I bother with the 6D? or just get a 5D2, which on IQ seems to be on a par with the 5D3 but lacks some of the features. The 6D and 5D2 seem to be at the same price point, approximately 2,000.00 body only.
Here is what a Canon rep said:
''Well obviously, we didn't design it for the sports and wildlife photographers. But we did design it for the portrait photographer who wants to shoot in natural light, who wants to be able to use the natural highlights of shooting in dusky and indoor conditions without the need for having external light. It's also for the landscape photographer who wants to be able to just shoot and travel all day with a camera to get where he wants to be, to get his shot. And because given the weight of it, at 770 grams, it's a nice, lightweight body. So really, it's targeted to a variety of user bases but ultimately, it's the photographer who wants to travel light and move quickly but still not compromise on image quality.''
-
Here is what a Canon rep said:
''Well obviously, we didn't design it for the sports and wildlife photographers. But we did design it for the portrait photographer who wants to shoot in natural light, who wants to be able to use the natural highlights of shooting in dusky and indoor conditions without the need for having external light. It's also for the landscape photographer who wants to be able to just shoot and travel all day with a camera to get where he wants to be, to get his shot. And because given the weight of it, at 770 grams, it's a nice, lightweight body. So really, it's targeted to a variety of user bases but ultimately, it's the photographer who wants to travel light and move quickly but still not compromise on image quality.''
That's me. I will wait to see if the IQ is competitive.
-
Can't say I agree with pushing the envelope (exposure) means you are getting the most from your gear...
Years of shooting film teaches you to light and expose for the final image. This is a solid skill.
A digital camera teaches you to do everything a digital camera can do. And the modern Exmor-based cameras are for the most part /gain optional/. Push the shadows at ISO100 by 4 stops gain on an Exmor camera, and you have a clean ISO1600 equiv. Employ according to creative whim.