6D vs D610

[Nir_Hason]

Hi,

I know that many people asked this question already and there are a lot of YT videos on it, but my question is more specific.

I want to move from crop to FF and I don't know if I do need to switch from Canon to Nikon. Because moving from crop to FF it's a big step from me that's why I'm thinking on the option to switch (if I had FF Canon DSLR already wouldn't open such topic at all).

Photography for me it's only an hobby, and I do care about image quality.
Mainly I'm shooting:
- Landscapes and nature (I'm not doing wildlife).
- Street photography.
- Macro, not extreme.
(You can check my flickr and see)

My current gear is:
- Canon 650D
- Canon 70-200 f4 IS
- Canon 100m 2.8 macro
- Tokina 11-16 ATX 2.8 II
- Canon 18-66 kit lens.
- YNG flash for canon.

For what I'm shooting which DSLR will give me the best for what I'm doing? or maybe there is no a big difference.
I know that the 6D is better in low light, and of course I can use it without changing my lenses. What I don't like about the 6D it's feels like Canon removed some 'pro' DSLR features (like focus sys, dual slot) from it.
The D610 got a better AF system and a sensor with more dynamic range (good for landscapes, right?).
The problem moving to Nikon is that I need to sell all my gear.

So do you think that the switch is the right thing to do, there will be a big difference for my type of photography?

I do want to buy with the new DSLR another lens - Sigma 35 1.4 and in DXoMark I saw that it's one of the best lenses for the 6D.

Thank you in advanced!

Nir.

[BernardLanguillier]

Considering that it costs only 400 US$ more, I would also consider the D750 that offers even more than the D610 (it is a competitor to the 5dIII), including what may be the best AF available.

After you factor in lenses prices and think over 3-4 years, this initial 400 US$ gap will be mostly irrelevant.

Cheers,
Bernard

[NancyP]

I am a bit biased, as I do have the 6D and have not used a recent digital Nikon body. For landscape and nature (excluding fast-moving wildlife and birds), an 11-point AF system is fine. In fact, I tend to manually focus most of the time with landscape, all of the time with macro. Dual cards I don't care about, as I have not had a card fail, and I am not shooting professionally where even an 0.01% failure, if it happens to you, can be a reputation killer. Most of the time when I shoot landscapes with the 6D I am working on a tripod and am using live view, and the live view implementation on the 6D is good and one can shoot from live view (which is the equivalent of mirror lock up). The low light performance of the 6D is very good, and this matters to me because I like to shoot astro-landscapes. I would like more dynamic range than the 6D possesses. I don't know how the Nikon 610 rates for DR and low light use. I have started using graduated neutral density filters, to supplement my other strategies of post-processing gradient-making.

There are a lot of options for macro for Nikon, both new and old Nikkor lenses, and some very good third party lenses by Tamron and Sigma. In theory you could try to find an adapter to fit your Canon to a Nikon mount, but you would lose infinity focus and electronic communication to the camera. My Canon macro is the EF 180 f/3.5L - I like long focal length macros - both for the bokeh and for the distance separating me from shy (or venomous) critters. The Nikon equivalent is the well-regarded 200 f/4, which is an old design about to be refreshed - but that means that a lot of copies will be hitting the used market soon.

I love the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. Great landscape lens, and decent bokeh for when you want to shoot at f/1.4. Splendid for astrophotography. This and the tiny (and cheap at under 200 bucks USD, and dam' sharp) 40mm f/2.8 STM are the "normal" lenses for my 6D. The 40mm f/2.8 STM is inconspicuous and might be better for "street" than the Sigma f/1.4. I haven't yet bought a modern 50 to 55 mm lens for it, but have some legacy manual Nikkors and Mamiya-Sekors that I use with adapters.

[Nir_Hason]

I am a bit biased, as I do have the 6D and have not used a recent digital Nikon body. For landscape and nature (excluding fast-moving wildlife and birds), an 11-point AF system is fine. In fact, I tend to manually focus most of the time with landscape, all of the time with macro. Dual cards I don't care about, as I have not had a card fail, and I am not shooting professionally where even an 0.01% failure, if it happens to you, can be a reputation killer. Most of the time when I shoot landscapes with the 6D I am working on a tripod and am using live view, and the live view implementation on the 6D is good and one can shoot from live view (which is the equivalent of mirror lock up). The low light performance of the 6D is very good, and this matters to me because I like to shoot astro-landscapes. I would like more dynamic range than the 6D possesses. I don't know how the Nikon 610 rates for DR and low light use. I have started using graduated neutral density filters, to supplement my other strategies of post-processing gradient-making.

There are a lot of options for macro for Nikon, both new and old Nikkor lenses, and some very good third party lenses by Tamron and Sigma. In theory you could try to find an adapter to fit your Canon to a Nikon mount, but you would lose infinity focus and electronic communication to the camera. My Canon macro is the EF 180 f/3.5L - I like long focal length macros - both for the bokeh and for the distance separating me from shy (or venomous) critters. The Nikon equivalent is the well-regarded 200 f/4, which is an old design about to be refreshed - but that means that a lot of copies will be hitting the used market soon.

I love the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. Great landscape lens, and decent bokeh for when you want to shoot at f/1.4. Splendid for astrophotography. This and the tiny (and cheap at under 200 bucks USD, and dam' sharp) 40mm f/2.8 STM are the "normal" lenses for my 6D. The 40mm f/2.8 STM is inconspicuous and might be better for "street" than the Sigma f/1.4. I haven't yet bought a modern 50 to 55 mm lens for it, but have some legacy manual Nikkors and Mamiya-Sekors that I use with adapters.

Hi Nancy, thank you for the help, i will take what you're saying in consideration.
I think that the 35 1.4 will be much better for both street and landscape.

Considering that it costs only 400 US$ more, I would also consider the D750 that offers even more than the D610 (it is a competitor to the 5dIII), including what may be the best AF available.

After you factor in lenses prices and think over 3-4 years, this initial 400 US$ gap will be mostly irrelevant.

Cheers,
Bernard

As I mentioned, photography is an hobby for me, and I already spent some money on it. I do know that lenses are expensive and I do want to invest in glass more then a DLSR body (after I'll move to FF).
I'm living in Israel and photography equipment is not so cheap here. So 400$ do count for me, because I can invest that money (and put some more $ of course) on a lens. I'll switch to Nikon I'll need to sell my gear and buy the new body and some lenses for my usage. It will be something like:
- UW lens
- Sigma 35mm 1.4
- some sharp tele lens
- macro lens (that I can buy in the future, not so critical for me right now, even though I like macro).

Buying that gear will cost more money if I will take the D750 (400$ more). I know that I opened this topic on which one do you think I need to pick up based on the info I gave you, and I didn't mentioned the financial part, which is quite important, and that's why I asked if you think that the differences between the two DSLR are worth selling my gear and buy new one.

[BernardLanguillier]

I am not recommending you to switch to Nikon, but if you do then going for a D750 is IMHO a reasonably low cost high value addition that would probably account for less than 10% of the cost.

Being able to get access to that level of image quality/AF/functions at that price point is IMHO the biggest appeal of the Nikon system at the moment.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

I am not recommending you to switch to Nikon, but if you do then going for a D750 is IMHO a reasonably low cost high value addition that would probably account for less than 10% of the cost.

Being able to get access to that level of image quality/AF/functions at that price point is IMHO the biggest appeal of the Nikon system at the moment.

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't think a switch is worth it. You won't be able to recoup the investment in your 70-200 and 100 Macro.
Also, Canon and Nikon have different color, ergonomics etc.

Edmund

[capital]

The price premium for moving to full frame lenses and bodies is on average $1000 more per item than their crop equivalents.

I did not read anything in your initial query that suggests why you need full frame, other than perhaps better image quality.

Ultimately you will make up your own mind, and you may have already done so, however, the issue of crop vs. full frame image quality is really not as dramatic as perhaps it once was. I feel you are better off applying money towards a photo related trip than a full frame body.

[BernardLanguillier]

There is a cheap, effective, contemplative and fun way to increase image quality with very little investment that is called stitching. It doesn't apply to all types of images, but judging from your Flick stream, a good deal of your images would be stitchable probably those that would benefit most from higher resolutions.

It will even increase the DR of the 650D by reducing the magnification required for a given print size.

Your 650D can easily top 25,000 US$ digital back single frames with good lenses such as your 100mm macro or 70-200 f4.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Nir_Hason]

Capital - I'm using my friend's Canon 6D sometimes and I see a big difference (with my lenses) in the shots: color, DR, quailty in low light (I'm facing it when I'm shooting street photography afternoon or in shadow places and I need to bump my ISO higher then 800, the image is BAD).
The functionality of the 6D is much better and more natural from the current 650D. Better weather sealing - nice thing for the landscape photography.
So I will move to FF, and now I have the answer - 6D

BernardLanguillier - Can you give me a link to this method, I will be happy to learn about it (or it's just a regular stitching like panorama stitching?)

[NancyP]

You will enjoy the 6D and will enjoy one of the following: Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4, Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS, or Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. I don't have experience with the EF 35mm f/2 IS, but many people like it. I can tell you that the Sigma is da bomb. Most of the time I shoot with manual focus, so I can't comment on my copy's AF accuracy rate and I haven't yet gotten the Sigma Dock that allows you to modify the lens' AF firmware (an alternative to in-camera AF adjustment). The thing is sharp at f/1.4, and I like the bokeh. It is a handful of lens at 665 grams, which is why I picked up the 40mm (130 grams) when I saw a used copy locally and had a spare $125.00. The 40 mm gets substituted if I am carrying a LOT of weight and I am planning on using it only for daytme landscape at f/8 or so.  I needn't add that the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS is a wonderful lens, as is the Canon 100 f/2.8 macro (either version).

Have fun!

[Nir_Hason]

Thank you Nancy! I will start to search for an opportunity to buy a second hand of the 40mm STM.

Any experience with the Tokina 16-28 2.8? any bad flares issue for landscapes shots?

[NancyP]

No experience. By the way, consider the Canon refurbished lens program. The lenses are warrantied and have been inspected. I have bought from Canon refurbished (they have a website) and many other people have been very happy with the refurbished  lenses.

[eronald]

Actually there is another way, which is to mount a fast CHEAP prime on a crop camera eg. 50/1.8.

Edmund

There is a cheap, effective, contemplative and fun way to increase image quality with very little investment that is called stitching. It doesn't apply to all types of images, but judging from your Flick stream, a good deal of your images would be stitchable probably those that would benefit most from higher resolutions.

It will even increase the DR of the 650D by reducing the magnification required for a given print size.

Your 650D can easily top 25,000 US$ digital back single frames with good lenses such as your 100mm macro or 70-200 f4.

Cheers,
Bernard

[allegretto]

actually the "differences" in Nikon's DR are mainly at the low ISO's. Higher brings them closer in absolute dB and often some Canon models outpace their counterparts. Depends on the model. Based on specs I'd give a long look to the unloved but very fast Df. YMMV

Capital - I'm using my friend's Canon 6D sometimes and I see a big difference (with my lenses) in the shots: color, DR, quailty in low light (I'm facing it when I'm shooting street photography afternoon or in shadow places and I need to bump my ISO higher then 800, the image is BAD).
The functionality of the 6D is much better and more natural from the current 650D. Better weather sealing - nice thing for the landscape photography.
So I will move to FF, and now I have the answer - 6D

BernardLanguillier - Can you give me a link to this method, I will be happy to learn about it (or it's just a regular stitching like panorama stitching?)

[BernardLanguillier]

Actually there is another way, which is to mount a fast CHEAP prime on a crop camera eg. 50/1.8.

Edmund,

Yes, a good prime will bring a 25%~ enhancement over an average zoom.

Stitching is more in the range of 200-500%.

And yes, it is the same technique used to build panoramas, but used differently to increase resolution. Many times it can be performed handheld, just by snapping 4-6 images (2 rows or 3 images) at a longer zoom focal length. Instead of using your zoom at, say, 24mm, you zoom in to 50mm and stitch 6 images. To reduce the risk of something going wrong, you can always capture one image at 25mm anyway.

Cheers,
Bernard

[gadgeteer]

Thank you Nancy! I will start to search for an opportunity to buy a second hand of the 40mm STM.

Any experience with the Tokina 16-28 2.8? any bad flares issue for landscapes shots?

I've got the Tokina 16-28 and of all my lenses this has probably been the biggest disappointment.  It's noticeably soft at 2.8 which isn't a big deal for landscapes I guess but I dunno, I just never seem happy with any of the shots taken with my Tokina.

Also, given you are doing this as a hobby I agree with what others have said in that it probably won't be worth it to swap to Nikon.  I'm a Nikon shooter and have two D600's.  Love the IQ and the DR but I honestly don't think it'd be worth taking the financial hit in changing.

[Nir_Hason]

No experience. By the way, consider the Canon refurbished lens program. The lenses are warrantied and have been inspected. I have bought from Canon refurbished (they have a website) and many other people have been very happy with the refurbished  lenses.

Unfortunately I don't have that option here in Israel

Edmund,

Yes, a good prime will bring a 25%~ enhancement over an average zoom.

Stitching is more in the range of 200-500%.

And yes, it is the same technique used to build panoramas, but used differently to increase resolution. Many times it can be performed handheld, just by snapping 4-6 images (2 rows or 3 images) at a longer zoom focal length. Instead of using your zoom at, say, 24mm, you zoom in to 50mm and stitch 6 images. To reduce the risk of something going wrong, you can always capture one image at 25mm anyway.

Cheers,
Bernard

That can work on none moving subjects only.

I've got the Tokina 16-28 and of all my lenses this has probably been the biggest disappointment.  It's noticeably soft at 2.8 which isn't a big deal for landscapes I guess but I dunno, I just never seem happy with any of the shots taken with my Tokina.

Also, given you are doing this as a hobby I agree with what others have said in that it probably won't be worth it to swap to Nikon.  I'm a Nikon shooter and have two D600's.  Love the IQ and the DR but I honestly don't think it'd be worth taking the financial hit in changing.

Thank you, I will try to find someone with that lens to check it first.

[BernardLanguillier]

That can work on none moving subjects only.

In fact it can work:
- on moving subjects that don't occupy more than a frame,
- on moving subjects that move slowly (clouds for example),
- on moving subjects of continuous nature, such as many cases of water flows.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwswager]

Photography for me it's only an hobby, and I do care about image quality.
Mainly I'm shooting:
- Landscapes and nature (I'm not doing wildlife).
- Street photography.
- Macro, not extreme.
(You can check my flickr and see)

This say's image quality to me as opposed to say shooting speed. 

Looking at DxOMark's Camera Sensor ratings, Nikon has 6 of the top 10 including the D610 (with 3 Sony's which supplies Nikon sensors and a MF Back).  The 1st Canon is the $6,800 Canon 1Dx ties  with the $500 Nikon D3300 at #31.  The 6D is listed at #32.  The Crop sensor Nikon D7100 comes in at #22.

Sensor performance isn't all there is to a camera or even image quality, but it is a big limiting factor.  Sensor Ratings Comparison here:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D750-versus-Nikon-D610-versus-Canon-EOS-6D___975_915_836

[eronald]

Bernard,

 I don't think that replacing one dog by 6 cats is a straight swap
 But then I'm not a cat-lover

Edmund

Edmund,

Yes, a good prime will bring a 25%~ enhancement over an average zoom.

Stitching is more in the range of 200-500%.

And yes, it is the same technique used to build panoramas, but used differently to increase resolution. Many times it can be performed handheld, just by snapping 4-6 images (2 rows or 3 images) at a longer zoom focal length. Instead of using your zoom at, say, 24mm, you zoom in to 50mm and stitch 6 images. To reduce the risk of something going wrong, you can always capture one image at 25mm anyway.

Cheers,
Bernard