Talk me out of the Canon 6D

...or into getting something else. Whichever you prefer.

I've been going back and forth on this for a while now.
The D600, D800, 6D, and 5D Mark III are all pretty great. I'm convinced I can't really go wrong with any...which makes deciding more difficult.

I'm leaning toward the 6D for the following reasons.

- Price: vs. the Mark III there's about a $1000 difference between the cheapest options (refurb mark III, retail 6D)
- high ISO performance
- Size/weight: small differences, but lighter nonetheless
- Built-in wifi & GPS: I like the idea of not having to keep track of an IR remote, and I dig geotagging
- Never owned Canon, want to give it a shot

A little about what I typically shoot:
- Landscape/night
- Dogs, so kinda wildlife
- Still life
- Interested in getting into astrophotography

So, should I just pull the trigger? Am I stupid for not just spending the money on a Mark III? Have I been brainwashed out of owning a superior Nikon?

What says advrider?

buy it.

buy it now.

6D and other full frame DSLRs are overkill for probably 99.99% of non pro users. Having gotten that out of the way -
You don't mention if you've had a Nikon SLR/DSLR system before. If you have and have good glass I'd stick with Nikon. If you're just stepping into SLRs/DSLRs, Id mosey on over to dpreview or the Luminous landscape (I have zero affiliation with either) and see if some of the reviews/comments are helpful to you. I'd personally go with Nikon, but I'm partial to that system from the 35mm days when I felt they had a more robust/rugged camera in their F series.

Canon's are certainly well thought out controls-wise. It's absolutely my favorite interface...mostly wrt the metering, and flash-integrated metering as a distinguishing factor to me.

Price-wise, are you comfortable figuring in the cost of much-needed pieces of additional kit? I know it's cheaper than the MK-III, and Getting the body & kit lens will cover alot of ground...but you will almost certainly run into limitations that you wish you didn't have if you don't pick up a flash of respectable capability, and decently bright lens (the f/4 that comes with it sucks in that regard).

landscape needs: If you already do landscapes, I assume you have a respectably sturdy tripod already, so you won't need to consider that. The kit lens comes down to a nicely wide 24mm, too, so for landscapes at least you have a reasonably wide option in the kit.

But you will certainly wish for a telephoto option longer than 105mm. And if it's headed towards astrophotography...uh...*much* longer than 105mm.

Shit, that's going to be a big-ass kit.

Reason I'm asking about the kit: it was a dream of mine a while ago to do what you're doing. But when push came to shove, I found it to be such a hassle to go full frame, I ended up going more compact myself. I wasn't getting paid for my stuff, so the $$s hurt a little more than if I were pro too. Do I miss the extra few stops of exposure, and the extreme OOF? exposure...occasionally. OOF? not a big deal; I get plenty, just with managing my focal length.

Net net, it's definitely sweet stuff. But boy it's big, and even if the body is $1k cheaper than the pro platform...you're still talking about at *least* another $1k in accessories (assuming you go with cheap mid-grade options) before your kit offers you *meaningful* flexibility (that could not be replicated with a lesser platform). If you go with high end stuff that really capitalizes on the ff sensor, and pixel density...you're talking many multiple $k's more. When I did the math on all that, it occurred to me that I could replicate most of that for several thousand less with a smaller sensor platform w/o losing that much performance wise, and I had more $$s to throw at top-tier lenses and accessories like polarizers, filters, tripod, off-camera flash, & what not. I cannot stress to you how gi-friggin-normous some of those lenses are. :) It's a huge kit, if you're going long and fast. Huge kits are a nice novelty for a very short while, as you consider yourself well-prepared, and well-equipped for photographic "war." But it wears thin quickly, when you realize how absolutely cumbersome that setup gets.


There...how's that?

I've previously shot with a Nikon DX camera. I'm replacing the body due to water damage (and because I like new toys). I purchased all of my Nikon stuff used (glass, speedlight, etc), so the the loss of selling it off for Canon gear is minimal.

Which gets me to my next consideration the total cost of the "kit." Really, the bulk of the cost will be the body. As I said previously, I bought my previous gear used, I'll sell it as such, and I'll buy my Canon gear used as well. I've done some looking around, and the total investment for new glass (after the sale of my old stuff) should be minimal.

I won't be buying with any kit lenses. My lens requirements aren't extensive. I'd really be happy with a shortish prime (50mm), and a nice ultrawide zoom or prime. A fast telephoto would be great, but a luxury, really. It'd be something added in the long run. The astro stuff is something I'll move into slowly, and those costs will be incurred regardless of camera brand or format.

Off-camera flash is something that'd be added regardless of platform. Though I rarely shoot anything requiring a flash, I do use speedlights exclusively. I just prefer the results even if they're just handheld.

So, really, it just comes back to which camera body all over again. Unless I'm missing something

Buy one.

used D600, 50 1.4, 85 1.8

$2250 or so, used

Add another $900 for a D800

The D600 was my initial choice, but I've been chased away by oil/sensor contamination issue that seems to be fairly prevalent.

78 megapixels.

​

I just picked up a Canon 1DMkII body in beautiful condition for around $400 - it's pro body 1.3 crop with 8 fps and its weatherproofed. I bought it with a 17-40L lens (for another $500) and with my 70-200 F4 L lens (around $550) I've got a pretty good set-up for under $1500.Yes it's heavy but it takes great pictures - this is straight out of the camera - just reduced in image size:

6D just doesn't stack up well against the D600. D800 beats the 5D III in performance and IQ as well.

Yes I am biased but not totally so, I'd get a D800 refurb for the high ISO performance and dynamic range. It's one of the best sensors out there period and is the best for all the types of photography you listed.

What kinda telescope will you be using?

I'm a Canon 7D user. That said, unless you've got canon glass you don't want to replace I'd go with the Nikon D600.

gotta disagree ... it's all about the glass!

long time Nikon & Hasselblad fan with a butt load of prime Nikkor lens.

Nikon D2H with a miserly 4.1 megapixels is what I shoot the most. exposed properly, that 4.1 meg will blow up to 20x30 pro quality prints. don't know about you, but that covers all my needs...

what I like most about D2H and other pro level Niko is ability to use older Nikkor lens. AFS Nikkor lens delivers full auto functions and can be found for dirt cheap. it's routine to find world class AFS lens for under $100. sometimes $30 attached to a film camera that nobody wants.

catch is AFS lens require Nikon bodies with motor built into body, not inside lens. since very few newer Nikon bodies come with motor. AFS lens cannot be used by most modern Nikon bodies.

best of all .. AFS lens are full frame (35mm film) ... perfect for my next upgrade, a full frame Nikon (D3 or D600) that works with AFS Nikkor lens.

it's all about the lens!!!

Nikon D2H wearing Nikkor AFS 1.4 lens, Nikkor 55mm macro, DX 18-55 cheap plastic lens


a few longer lens ... Nikkor 75-300, Nikkor 18-70 DX, Tamaron SP 500mm mirror lens


mostly AFS with a few prime Nikkor DX lens

Do you shoot in RAW or JPEG?

I made a similar hard choice recently about full-frame or not despite having the funds available for the higher end. But I was intellectually honest with myself and understood that 90%+ of my images would be JPEGs.

I sorta agree. On paper it would appear the D600 blows the 6D out of the water, but it's all in features I don't really find personally relevant. Ex: on board flash, dual SD card slots, more autofocus points (though in a narrower area of the sensor).

It seems every review I've found seems to show the 6D as being superior in low light. I find that more appealing than the other stuff.

Also, am I blowing the "oil on the sensor" thing out of proportion? It doesn't look like the issue has been fixed. I've been reading that replacement D600s are having identical problems.

I can't wait to go telescope and mount shopping

You misunderstood. My point was I'll have the same amount of money invested in glass regardless of the body I choose.

RAW exclusively.

If you want Canon, pick up a used 5D MKII. The ergos alone are worth the extra over the 6D.

Something else to consider is that supposedly (I dont have a full frame DSLR to verify this on) the full frame sensors are doing an excellent job of showing the shortcomings in all but the best glass.

If you can in anyway swing it D800, seriously it blows the rest out of the water for your intended uses.

Talk to me about dynamic range. Why is it better on the D800, and what effect will it have on how I shoot and my final product?

I want to believe your last statement, I really do, but I'm just not really seeing any evidence that the D800 blows the competition away.

Check this out:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/836|0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/795|0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/792|0/(brand3)/Nikon

You get over 2 stops better dynamic range than either of the Canon cameras as well as a full stop better high ISO performance.

The extra dynamic range will help in getting a proper exposure for the ground and sky in a landscape.