09-17-2012, 12:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2012, 12:39 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Claus' timestamp='1347882427' post='20154']
I highly doubt that, different cameras for different purposes.
At the same price as the D600 the buyer begins to look at the spec. And here the D600 outperforms the 6D by a wide margin:
- AF system (39 point vs. 11 point)
- frame rate (5.5 vs 4.5 FPS)
- megapixel count (24.3 vs 20.3)
- DR (14 stop + vs 11 stop)
- artificial horizon (the D600 has it)
- Nikon's 100% VF display is much better than Canon's
- intervalometer (D600 has it)
- 150000 vs 100000 frame shutter
- dual card slots (Nikon) versus single
- clean HDMI video (Nikon) vs none
- internal flash vs. no flash
and so on.
The D600 looks like a much better specified camera, apart from those two missing features (GPS and WiFi).
Sorry, but if I were a Canon user I would be very very dissapointed.
best regards
Claus
[/quote]
- Like I said above, the 6D's AF system may perform better than it looks on paper. The 60D is a faster focuser than the D7000, the 40D performed faster and more accurate than the D300 in AF tracking tests. Simply looking at AF point numbers means little.
- FPS, again a spec sheet thing that means little. Just look at the performance difference between the 5D mk III and the D800, while in paper they appear quite comparable there. Same is true with other nikon models (D3, D300 for instance). They do not keep up the FPS rating well in practice.
- 24 vs 20mp. Really? Come on. That is like claiming the 18mp Canons have a big advantage over the 16mp Sony/Nikon/Pentaxes. The real difference is just 544 pixels horizontally. that is 9% difference in resolution.
- If you find DR of "14 stops" really important, I guess you never take ISO 800 or higher images? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Talking about 14 stops DR is pretty silly.
- Artificial horizon, 6D has it.
- 100% view finder is nice, and in practice hardly makes a difference to the 97% viewfinder (like dpreview points out).
- Odd, I never missed a dual card slot. Ever. Hard to live without no doubt.
- Lets count the times I used the internal flash. Hmm.
The Canon has:
- optional focus screen optimized for manual focussing (nice... will be lovely to use with my Nikon MF primes)
- GPS
- WiFi (nice, especially in connection with smartphone)
- Better LCD (see D800 vs 5D mk III
- EF mount (hooray!)
- Quite a bit lighter
- Time lapse recording
As the past has shown. the specs do not say much (especially concerning AF performance). These two cameras are very closely specced, and real life comparisons will tell the real story. No doubt both cameras will be nice (but too expensive still).
I highly doubt that, different cameras for different purposes.
At the same price as the D600 the buyer begins to look at the spec. And here the D600 outperforms the 6D by a wide margin:
- AF system (39 point vs. 11 point)
- frame rate (5.5 vs 4.5 FPS)
- megapixel count (24.3 vs 20.3)
- DR (14 stop + vs 11 stop)
- artificial horizon (the D600 has it)
- Nikon's 100% VF display is much better than Canon's
- intervalometer (D600 has it)
- 150000 vs 100000 frame shutter
- dual card slots (Nikon) versus single
- clean HDMI video (Nikon) vs none
- internal flash vs. no flash
and so on.
The D600 looks like a much better specified camera, apart from those two missing features (GPS and WiFi).
Sorry, but if I were a Canon user I would be very very dissapointed.
best regards
Claus
[/quote]
- Like I said above, the 6D's AF system may perform better than it looks on paper. The 60D is a faster focuser than the D7000, the 40D performed faster and more accurate than the D300 in AF tracking tests. Simply looking at AF point numbers means little.
- FPS, again a spec sheet thing that means little. Just look at the performance difference between the 5D mk III and the D800, while in paper they appear quite comparable there. Same is true with other nikon models (D3, D300 for instance). They do not keep up the FPS rating well in practice.
- 24 vs 20mp. Really? Come on. That is like claiming the 18mp Canons have a big advantage over the 16mp Sony/Nikon/Pentaxes. The real difference is just 544 pixels horizontally. that is 9% difference in resolution.
- If you find DR of "14 stops" really important, I guess you never take ISO 800 or higher images? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Talking about 14 stops DR is pretty silly.- Artificial horizon, 6D has it.
- 100% view finder is nice, and in practice hardly makes a difference to the 97% viewfinder (like dpreview points out).
- Odd, I never missed a dual card slot. Ever. Hard to live without no doubt.
- Lets count the times I used the internal flash. Hmm.
The Canon has:
- optional focus screen optimized for manual focussing (nice... will be lovely to use with my Nikon MF primes)
- GPS
- WiFi (nice, especially in connection with smartphone)
- Better LCD (see D800 vs 5D mk III
- EF mount (hooray!)
- Quite a bit lighter
- Time lapse recording
As the past has shown. the specs do not say much (especially concerning AF performance). These two cameras are very closely specced, and real life comparisons will tell the real story. No doubt both cameras will be nice (but too expensive still).