[JJ_SO]

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


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.


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.


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.

 



 

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.

 

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

[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.

[mst]

Personally, I don't think that there is a significant difference regarding image output between those two cameras in real life. In fact, my impression is that both brands were really close in this regard over the recent years. Not for those who discuss decimal DR advantages, for sure, but to those who actually just go out and use those cams.

Specifically regarding the two cameras discussed here: somehow Nikon managed to make the D600 feel arkward, at least in my hands. It's basically the same body as the D7000 or D7100, but they changed the grip and thus made it less comfortable.

Apart from that, ergonomics is not necessarily something that can be discussed objectively. Some like the Canon way better, others prefer Nikon's approach. It comes down to the advice given right at the beginning at the thread: try both and decide yourself which you like better.

-- Markus

[JJ_SO]

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. 

I find you're replacing one statement "better ergonomics" with another "operating with one hand", but I don't get it - Canon has also one function wheel on the left side. And I'm no big fan of one-hand shooting (as Kai Wong is, i.e.) so I can't see the big advantage. But I agree with Markus, one should just try it and ergonomics is as well also an individual thing. I just see no buttons on the left side which I regularly need in my kind of photographing. And with huge lenses one hand shooting? Anyway, I asked, thank you for replying.

 

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.

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. 

 

I was only referring to 70D and would be happy if Nikon designers would also dare to do a good job with swivel touchscreens, but I realize some of the Nikonians would not like 'em, fearing problems like "I'd rip it away", "not weather proof" (but it is as good as any other prosumer cam), "I'm not shooting LV" and real progressive other opinions like "who needs touchscreens". So I guess I wait without hope...

 

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

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.

Not logical. Just because there are these days not much devices to playback high DR full range, it's stupid to talk about flat contrast. And talking about fakes - your B/W interpretations are then as well a fake. Everything you do in postprocess - all fake and we're doing it all the time.

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.

 

<p style="margin-left:0px;">So, while the Canon already shows a white sky, the Nikon will show still some structures, given the same conditions. I consider that as good, but if you think, each photo using more than 8 stops is fake or flat contrast, well, fine.

 

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.

There are much better sources around.

 

It would have been more convincing, not only to write another statement but also to put a link into the post. It's always easy to say, sources are unreliable or of bad reputation if their conclusions dare to be different from the desired ones.

 

Anyway, I'm not interested in another Canon vs Nikon debate and I'm also no Nikon fanboy, I just like the touch and output of Nikons better than the ones from Canon. Which doesn't mean I would give the G11 away for some Nikon. Even Canon pictures can be nicely tuned 

[Brightcolours]

I find you're replacing one statement "better ergonomics" with another "operating with one hand", but I don't get it - Canon has also one function wheel on the left side. And I'm no big fan of one-hand shooting (as Kai Wong is, i.e.) so I can't see the big advantage. But I agree with Markus, one should just try it and ergonomics is as well also an individual thing. I just see no buttons on the left side which I regularly need in my kind of photographing. And with huge lenses one hand shooting? Anyway, I asked, thank you for replying.

You hold/support the lens with left, you hold and operate the camera with right. The 6D is totally controllable while shooting with right. Also, reviewing images is possible just with the right hand (thumb). It really makes sense. The 5D mk III is not that convenient. Ergonomics is about how well/easy something is operated.

I was only referring to 70D and would be happy if Nikon designers would also dare to do a good job with swivel touchscreens, but I realize some of the Nikonians would not like 'em, fearing problems like "I'd rip it away", "not weather proof" (but it is as good as any other prosumer cam), "I'm not shooting LV" and real progressive other opinions like "who needs touchscreens". So I guess I wait without hope...

 

Not logical. Just because there are these days not much devices to playback high DR full range, it's stupid to talk about flat contrast. And talking about fakes - your B/W interpretations are then as well a fake. Everything you do in postprocess - all fake and we're doing it all the time.

What is not logical? It is just that way.  Big DR has a FLAT look to it, because the white point and black point are shifted far out. Has nothing to do with playback devices... Just with having such a huge dynamic range. The fakeness I am talking about is the silly HDR look (they start to look not real, so fake), or when people make sunny days look like overcast days where shadows are no longer shadows.

<p style="margin-left:0px;">So, while the Canon already shows a white sky, the Nikon will show still some structures, given the same conditions. I consider that as good, but if you think, each photo using more than 8 stops is fake or flat contrast, well, fine.

<p style="margin-left:0px;">That is just not true. Canon in fact blows out highlights later than Nikon, in the latest cameras. You do not seem to understand what 14 stops of DR actually means? It means this:

<p style="margin-left:0px;">index.php

<p style="margin-left:0px;">That is a normal tonal curve on the left, with a DR of between 6 and 8 stops. And on the right 14 stops. The white and black points are pushed so far apart that whet we normally perceive as dark and bright all gets to be greys.

<p style="margin-left:0px;"> 

<p style="margin-left:0px;">Since 6 to 8 stops looks normal, with a 6D you also have a lot of headroom lurking in RAW, if you are a person who likes to pull up shadows or who likes to make photos have less contrast. Sure, at base ISO the D600 offers even more headroom. A headroom almost no one has use for, though, and that is worth pointing out, instead of constantly hammering on "14 stops DR".

<p style="margin-left:0px;">Both cameras are good.

<p style="margin-left:0px;"> 

It would have been more convincing, not only to write another statement but also to put a link into the post. It's always easy to say, sources are unreliable or of bad reputation if their conclusions dare to be different from the desired ones.

 

Anyway, I'm not interested in another Canon vs Nikon debate and I'm also no Nikon fanboy, I just like the touch and output of Nikons better than the ones from Canon. Which doesn't mean I would give the G11 away for some Nikon. Even Canon pictures can be nicely tuned 

[JJ_SO]

No doubt, both are good.

 

Also, today I went in a shop and played a bit around with them. Well, if it comes to ergonomics - matter of taste. And actually both are (don't kill me) second best, right thumb has to do nearly all work while a lot of other fingers remain unemployed. But that's another story.

 

One better grip than the other? Question of hand-size, I'd say. I failed to operate the focuspoints else than with fiddling in the menu. That's something I prefer while looking through viewfinder, but I guess, that's possible in some way I wasn't able to find out. Also, the LCD did not show what I expeceted, again, my lack of Canon knowledge.

 

If somebody tells me "You do not seem to understand what blabla is", I totally loose interest in any further discussion. Consider, there are as well things you do not understand for sure. It's just dumb to argue that way.