[ElJamoquio]

a bare bones full frame model (like the 6D). I think I would prefer a K3, between those two, but obviously opinions differ.

What did the 6D cut that you find objectionable?

[normhead]

What I'm certain is that getting the FF into 'budget' arena there were compromises made. Some think this is a revolution to provide an FF for a low price whatever the body. Some others think that offering an FF sensor in a so-so body with lower end AF, lower end VF (etc.) is certainly a welcomed choice but surely no revolution.

I (strictly personal feeling) do not like that 6D/D600 phylosophy. YMMV

The only possible use I'd see for FF in my work would be for some landscape. What I'd really like would be a 645D with a sensor made from the same sensor material as the K-5, at a size of 50mm. I'm willing to give up dynamic range in a K-3 to get the magnification and AF. For landscape, a K-1000 would be acceptable, but I want back the stop of DR they gave up going from the K-5 series to the K-3. Of course, I probably wouldn't be able to afford it anyway... but a Q - K-3, 645D combination would do just about anything.

What did the 6D cut that you find objectionable?

No better IQ than K-3... pretty much equal. If I'm going to pay for an FF it's going to give me better IQ than my K-3. Otherwise, even if I bought it, it would never leave the house. Really there is only two reasons for going to a larger format, you want better IQ in larger prints, or thinner DoF, if you take away one of those, the package isn't as attractive.

[ElJamoquio]

No better IQ than K-3... pretty much equal.

I've never used a 6D or a K-3. DxO (best sensor measurement) shows much better colors and tones on the 6D. Both have more than enough pixels to crop to APS-C size. I don't see a disadvantage, anywhere, and the 6D goes to something like 50 ISO equivalent.

Sure, the DR on the 6D is 'only' better at ~ISO 400 and above, and significantly so there.

If you're advising about "best sensors" though we wouldn't be talking about Canon. Sure, their 6D is pretty good but Nikon has the best sensors in the 45mm mount arena.

[jsherman999]

No better IQ than K-3... pretty much equal. .

6D has better SNR (noise) throughout the ISO range, and better DR above about ISO 300. (K3 has better DR below ISO 300.) It's hard to make the case that they're 'equal' in IQ.

K3 may be a better choice for other reasons and for some applications, though... but let's not generally misrepresent.

.

[normhead]

6D has better SNR (noise) throughout the ISO range, and better DR above about ISO 300. (K3 has better DR below ISO 300.) It's hard to make the case that they're 'equal' in IQ.

K3 may be a better choice for other reasons and for some applications, though... but let's not generally misrepresent.

.

Well, you say it is, I look through the pictures, and say no it's not. I don't see any differences below ISO 1600 I can't correct in post processing.
So once again, you say tomaitoes, I say tomaatoes. I extensively investigate the 6D at one point, compared images looked at test shots, checked out what IR had to say about it etc...so I'm not buying it.

To me the 6D was significant, because it was the first FF produced, that produced the same IQ in terms of resolution as a top of the line APS_c of the day. The old thing about your worst lens on FF is better than your best on APS-c is history. At least in terms of resolution, the K-3 and D7100 will achieve the same resolution with the same lens as the 6D does. They need 4 more Mp to achieve that, but they are there. The camera manufacturers from my perspective, have finally produced an FF camera, new off the shelf that has to compete with APS-c head up feature to feature, and isn't any better in IQ, and isn't really comparable in features. . You have to give up features to get features. So in that sense the cameres are pretty much equal, but only in IQ One is better some ways, one is bert in other ways, some will be better for one type of photographer, some will be better for others.

IN features, it's not even a contest.
Frame rate, shake reduction, and many other features mean you give up a lot to look at a 6D

But in resolution, the thing that has always been big in the full frame arena, they are equal. Being interested in FF mostly for resolution in landscape, trading my K-3 for a 6D wouldn't give me better landscapes, but it would cost me my high frame rate and the advantage of smaller pixels in wildlife images I get with a K-3. I honestly wouldn't use one if someone gave it to me.

For someone completely fascinated with the narrow DoF thing it might be a good camera. But what they would give up to get that, for many would be prohibitive.

For landscape guys, and for many others, the bottom line is not, what gives me the the best high ISO image. It's what gives me the best image, period. Without qualification. That would be the K-3 on a bright sunny day at 100 ISO with a good lens. That is the ultimate best image. And I doubt the 6D can beat it. It might equal it, but why would I go for equal, when there is so much other stuff I'd have to give up, and pay more money for the body.

[monochrome]

Well I've come about full circle. I took the K3 to work Friday to show the few other nuts at work (Nikon people all) and one of them said, "You know, you should really print your stuff and hang it in your office." With a smile, but it was a challenge.

I guess I'd like to see what all these old film lenses can do on a film-sized sensor, and I don't mean adapted on a Sony camera. I mean with a fully functioning aperture control arm. Prints don't lie.

[climbertrev]

Agree completely. I have a hunch that Nikon's future will be with replaceable sensors. They could then sell a handful of different kinds of bodies all (re)using Nikon sensors cum "film":

• a high-speed body (a la D4)
• a water-proof body (a la AW1)
• a small body (a la DF)
• a mirrorless body (a la Sony A7)
• etc.

and for sensors:

• a low-light sensor
• a high pixel count sensor
• a B&W sensor
• a sensor optimized for underwater (More red, less green)
• etc.

Disentangling the sensor from the body could be a goldmine for Nikon in that they could reduce the number of bodies they need to build and support (I certainly would be VERY interested). They have the patents for it. Let's see if they execute on it.

Michael

Fascinating point
After-all sensors are just computer chips, and computers are very upgradeable

Imagine in 10 years time having a K3esq body
And waking up in the morning and thinking
"What today? 24mm x 35 mm with no shake reduction or APSC with?"

[thibs]

What did the 6D cut that you find objectionable?

The (almost) D7000 body with an FF sensor ?
Well, mostly everything but the sensor ? (considering the entire Nikon range of course).
It's like the first 5D, a very nice sensor in a meh body.

[Rondec]

What did the 6D cut that you find objectionable?

Frame rate is just 4 fps, only center point auto focus is decent and tracking is poor, and build just isn't great. In addition, sensor performance isn't great, with base dynamic range less than either the K3 or K5.

[ElJamoquio]

Frame rate is just 4 fps, only center point auto focus is decent and tracking is poor, and build just isn't great. In addition, sensor performance isn't great, with base dynamic range less than either the K3 or K5.

Fair enough. I didn't think the build of any of the Canon's were that great, personally (up to 5DIII), but it's tough to tell just holding it. AF is noted... most of my stuff isn't AF critical, I'm just glad the Nikon AF sensors are small.

The 6D sensor isn't great but I thought we were comparing Canon to Canon (or I was, let me know if you're not). Is the 6D much worse than the 5DIII? I thought they were similar... the D600 and D800 are line-on-line.

The DR is a complaint on all Canon's I've looked at. Always inferior to Pentax/Nikon. Again I haven't compared 6D to 5DIII.

[ElJamoquio]

Looked it up. 6D is worse in DR by about 0.4 stops. Everything else is the same, sensor wise. I'm going to call this almost a draw, and certainly not too much of a regression between 5DIII and 6D.

DR is one of Canon's weakest spots, though... if that's what you were saying...

[RobA_Oz]

Fascinating point
After-all sensors are just computer chips, and computers are very upgradeable

Imagine in 10 years time having a K3esq body
And waking up in the morning and thinking
"What today? 24mm x 35 mm with no shake reduction or APSC with?"

At the risk of restarting the many discussions we've had about this, you could probably have 24 x 35 with SR (ie clipping 1mm on the long edge), if the lens could provide a large enough image circle. I've checked the sensor SR carrier size, and a 24 x 36 sensor would fit but probably requires heavier electromagnets. Of course, you'd need some extra space for the removable sensor mount, too. In any case, the limitation would probably be a fixed maximum pixel count.

[Rondec]

Looked it up. 6D is worse in DR by about 0.4 stops. Everything else is the same, sensor wise. I'm going to call this almost a draw, and certainly not too much of a regression between 5DIII and 6D.

DR is one of Canon's weakest spots, though... if that's what you were saying...

Well, I shoot landscape at base iso. So having a base dynamic range of 12.11 EV for the 6D kind of looks bad compared to base iso dynamic ranges of 14.1 for K5 and 13.4 for the K3. Odd that the DXO Mark gives equivalent scores to the three sensors (less than 5 points is not detectable in real life shooting).

Obviously if you shoot high iso a lot, there will be a stop benefit with 6D compared to either of the other sensors, but to me, Sony/Nikon sensors just are better than anything that Canon offers currently.

[ElJamoquio]

but to me, Sony/Nikon sensors just are better than anything that Canon offers currently.

No question. Sony/(Toshiba?) sensors just outclass Canon. But i don't feel like Canon is really de-contenting the 6D. It's just that they make their own sensors and their sensors are not the best.

Nikon 'de-contents' the D600 - lower max shutter speed. Less durable body, maybe. But it's nothing I have a real issue with.

[Rondec]

No question. Sony/(Toshiba?) sensors just outclass Canon. But i don't feel like Canon is really de-contenting the 6D. It's just that they make their own sensors and their sensors are not the best.

Nikon 'de-contents' the D600 - lower max shutter speed. Less durable body, maybe. But it's nothing I have a real issue with.

That's fine, but clearly you don't get something for nothing. If Canon put 1D specs in the 6D, who would buy the 1D? I understand that fact and don't really see cut rate full frame as being the answer to "all of photography's woes" despite some people's insistence to the contrary.