[Brightcolours]

Brightcolours, what makes you think the Canon has the better ergonomics?

The 6D you can operate with one hand while shooting (right side). The D600 you have to operate with both hands, not very convenient especially with a big lens which requires you to support the lens with the left hand. 

Also, the menu from the Canon is easier to navigate, and the live view implementation is much more user friendly. There are other issues with the D600 operation too, and of course some quibbles with the 6D too.

I'm not doubting or denying, I'm just curious because I only know Nikon's "ergonomics" which sometimes appear to be extremely conservative. To the contrary, I heard of Canon shooters changing to Nikon the dial for the AF-focuspoints is so much better than it was at Canon. Maybe it really is in traditionally viewfinder use, but when I look at 70D with touchscreen I only can weep if it comes to LV shooting.

The touch screen implementation with the Canon 700D gets universal praise, actually. And you can choose not to use it, and just use the other controls. 

What Canon shooters also don't like at their sensors is massive banding at high ISO. I don't know those effects from Nikon, but as I was shown one, I had to admit that's something I would not like much. Maybe the newer cams are better, but I heard/read about 5DIII, one can see them again.

The 5D mk III does NOT have the banding one could see with the 5D mk II.

What you actually forgot to name as pluspoints: The Canon now comes regularly with Lightroom 5 and PSE while the Nikon software - well, I gave it a try but it sucks in each aspect. Although that would be no point for me because I already have good DAM and photo-editors, its still is more value at the same price. And 100% vs 97% viewfinder can be a deciding thing for some subjects, but in general, I'd not rank it that high.


And if it comes to prices, I find the last Canon lenses pretty much overpriced.


Now, that B/W thing: I thought so too, you're just the B/W type who likes strong contrasts and not so much a large tone-scale - that should not be confused with flat contrasts. I think, that's a matter of taste, too. I like large and well defined tone-scales and for that I'm happy about every bit of more DR. So, when you're talking about more or less "DR is overrated", then you're talking about your personal preferences.

Explain to me how you go about using 14 stops DR, then. And high DR just has flat contrast, no way around it. You can of course tone map high DR into a low DR scale, but that always shows as fake.

Now, if the dynamic range is really 12.1 vs. 14.2 f-stops (6D vs. D600), it makes me think again. After all, my cameras are bought to get pictures out of them. And it happens from time to time that I need highlight/shadow compensation or restoring highlights - and I'm always surprised, how much of both is possible with Nikon. Obviously I sometimes need those reserves.

You have those reserves with Canon cameras too. It is a misconception that one does not. Normal tonal curves show 6 to 8 stop DR. You can restore highlights just fine with a 6D (or 5D mk III), as you can do some shadow compensation.

 

Lowlight abilities are not only noise behavior and the higher the ISO goes, the lower goes DR. In that case I'd prefer to start from a high DR instead from one which is at optimum 2 f-stops smaller already.

The 6D actually catches the D600 and passes it at ISO 3200. Not a biggie, as the D600 is no high ISO slouch either, but the 6D matches it well.

I'd really like to do some comparison with Nikon and Canon. And although one gets a HDR easily for static objects, it's hard to get by with moving objects. So, I can pretty much live with all the flaws Nikon might have as long as they have the better sensors.

Source for DR is DxOmark

There are much better sources around.