Anyone else frustrated with Canon?

[Overread]

Honestly I'm happy with 18MP - I don't really want 20 or 40 or whatever the next silly number is. I'd really hope the next crop sensor works on improving the high ISO range above all else rather than pushing more pixies into things (heck I'm all for an ISO War ^^)

 

[JBrown]

Im currently using a T3i and while a great camera, it is quite easy to run into limitations. IE sports at night, indoor stuff, concerts etc. etc. I generally fall into the bang/buck area in hobbies. I dont mind spending cash when there is clear upgrade/advantage/value associated with it. So while I dont run into my cameras limitations on a daily basis or every time I shoot, but when I do want the shots that just arent possible (usually ISO related), I to look how to correct it. So looking at the current lineup there is nothing in the crop sensor lineup to upgrade to. Of course that should change shorty, but even when it does the ISO performance wont be increased that dramatically. Then comes the full frame where we have 3 possible choices. The 5d2, 5d3, and 6D. I just eliminate the 5d2 off the bat since the 6D is essentially the same thing (I know the differences). So that leaves me with the 6D and 5D3.

6D - Has the right ISO performance, decent features, right price. Focus system leaves something to be desired. I understand why they did it the way they did, to protect the 5d3. The frustrating part is that IMO it kills the whole package. When shooting wildlife and sports on the T3i I always wonder how much hit rate would improve with a better AF. Having watched the 2 hour video on Canon AF systems, specifically the 5d3, I realized just how epic that focus system is. Of course the 6d isnt going to have that system, but its a deal breaker when it essentially has the same as the rebel series. The super low light AF point just doesnt sell it for me. If it had the 7D AF system I would have already bought the 6d and this thread wouldnt exist. Its frustrating to be buying a premium product with a glaringly entry level AF system attached.

5D3 - Dream camera, however at over $3000 I cant justify it. To purchase this camera is essentially IMO saying you are paying 1k more for the AF system and small build quality and ISO improvements over the 6d. Thats not a bang for the buck scenario. If I was a pro it would be a no brainer decision.

So for me Canon essentially has nothing to buy right now and that's the frustrating part. To make matters worse Nikon has essentially the camera I want in the D600. Of course the easy answer is to say sell it all, but thats a PITA and a money losing situation making the cost even higher for the D600 and again skewing the value proposition.

 

[JBrown]

Am I the only one frustrated with Canon? I have been on the market for a new camera specifically a full frame and Canon just dropped the ball.

I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back. Its not that the 6d is all that bad of a camera, its that the D600 exists. As if mocking me to switch to nikon.

The main issue is I don't see a specific way forward. The 5d3 is out of my range/needs and there won't be a refresh on the 6d for years. Even if the 7d2 and 70d are spectacular they won't have the noise performance of the full frames.

I much prefer the camera ergonomics of Canon and already have a decent amount tied up in gear. I know some would say just buy the 6d, but I have a problem paying that much for a camera with a neutered af system.

Just frustrated with Canon

I'm confused by your assessment of the 6D focusing system... your message implies it is somehow a "poor" system, especially as you relate it to the D600 as if it's somehow a "better" system.

Two things:

The 6D has a central cross-type focus point. The D600 has 9. That sounds like a score for the D600... UNTIL you look at the layout. For example... on a 7D, 60D, or even a T4i/T5i (basically the T4i "a" and "b" version since nobody can figure out what's different on a T5i beyond the mode dial, but that's another thread) you get a focusing system in which all the focus points are cross-type but they're also spread around the viewfinder. But that's not true of the D600... all the cross-type points are concentrated in the very center.

The "general" complaint about only having a single cross-type focus point in the center is that you have to do a focus & recompose if you don't trust the single axis focus points spread around the rest of the viewfinder. But this doesn't help the D600... since all of it's 9 cross-type points are tightly clustered in the center anyway... you still have to do a focus & recompose method if you want to use cross-type focusing.

Next... is the sensitivity of the focus points. Nikon's D600 cross-type AF points are rated to -1 EV according to Nikon specs. Canon's 6D cross-type AF point is rated to -3 EV according to Canon specs. I did run across a blog post where someone tested the two. When it gets dark enough, the D600 focus system fails to lock focus -- but the 6D system still works.

From the perspective of these two points, the 6D's focus system is actually better than the D600.

Sure, the 6D system isn't the fantastic focus system of the flagship 1D-X or the 5D III, but it's a pretty good system considering the substantially cost savings for the 6D body.

On point assessment. For me the super low light AF cross point is essentially worthless in any scenario I would expect to use it as I would most likely have a speed light mounted with a IR assist beam. I read the blog you are referring to and if you remember the D600 has a built in IR which essentially made it just as good as the 6D in practical use. The 6D was only superior when he turned it off. Now in comparison to crosspoint issue you mention all the cameras but the 6D except noting its 1 and mentioning the 9 of the D600. Crosspoints are part of the equation, but point selection, expanded point selection, zone selection etc are all considerations in a quality AF system. The 6D is just lacking in this regard and there is no other way around it. The question then becomes what does this mean in the real world. Well I honestly cant say as I havent had time behind the cameras. However, based on all the praise of those going from a 5d2 to 5d3 in just the AF system, I would venture to say its worth consideration.

 

[Overread]

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon tries to work a fullframe body between the 6D and 5DMIII - price wise a body could easily fit between them - features would be a sticky topic, but it could be done and Canon do appear keen to break up their line or are at least experimenting a lot with it at present (I get a feeling they are trying to break away from simply having the same price and feature line as Nikon does so that they not only have more bodies at various price brackets, but also nothing "direct" to compete with - esp at the lower price points where Canon is more aggressive at feature cutting over Nikon are at present).

 

[kathyt]

Come shoot a wedding with me and I will show you. I could and am able to think outside the box, but when I am in time constraints, when I could do the job 10x's faster, and more cost effectively, why would I?

Do you feel your end result suffer? Could you use some examples?

Here is an example. I used to use 2 speed lights for receptions off camera. During receptions things are moving so fast and I want to catch some of those crazy dance shots or something going on in the other part of the room. Instead of moving anything I can now just bump up my ISO and use the DJ's ambient light. With my Mark ii I did not do this because the noise was not acceptable at all.

 

[runnah]

Here is an example. I used to use 2 speed lights for receptions off camera. During receptions things are moving so fast and I want to catch some of those crazy dance shots or something going on in the other part of the room. Instead of moving anything I can now just bump up my ISO and use the DJ's ambient light. With my Mark ii I did not do this because the noise was not acceptable at all.

For reals?

Can I see?

 

[Juga]

Honestly I'm happy with 18MP - I don't really want 20 or 40 or whatever the next silly number is. I'd really hope the next crop sensor works on improving the high ISO range above all else rather than pushing more pixies into things (heck I'm all for an ISO War ^^)

I agree 100% with this. I rather win at higher ISO than 895798073098473 point focus system especially with the type of shooting that I do personally. So with that being said the 6D is flat out better than the D600 at higher ISO and that is most likely due to the lower MP count but again I rather win at high ISO than MP count because 20MP is going more than enough to provide a high quality image...given the photographer knows how to compose...something I fail at but whatever this is my hobby! :lmao:

 

[zcar21]

Nikon D40 and Canon XT are crap??? In what respect? ISO?

Must people don't need 125,000 ISO.

I took two raw pictures from Image-resource.com to compare them. D40 and D3200 at iso 3200, downsided the d3200's picture and applied 50% noise reduction and sharpening to the other one.

Of course the D3200 shows a little more detail, but the noise can be easily fixed in post process, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon D40 and Canon XT are crap??? In what respect? ISO?

Must people don't need 125,000 ISO.

I took two raw pictures from Image-resource.com to compare them. D40 and D3200 at iso 3200, downsided the d3200's picture and applied 50% noise reduction and sharpening to the other one.

Of course the D3200 shows a little more detail, but the noise can be easily fixed in post process, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Yes, in ISO performance both are poor. BY today's "new-sensor" standards, they are POOR. I have shot the D40, fairly externsively. It's a 6-megapixel camera. A D800 is a 36-megapixel camera. With a D40, a 13x19 in ch print from my EPSON printer looks like sub-par. From a 24 megapixel D3x, or a Canon 6D, it looks excellent. The newer, higher-MP cameras produce even 8x10 prints that have higher acuity. The new-sensor camera produce images that just look BETTER than what we had eight years ago, when the D40 was popular.

The D40 at 13x19 is a 130 dpi image; with even a several-years-old Canon 5D-II, at 21 megapixels, the same 13x19 print is made from a 295 dpi image, and looks "excellent".

How Big Can I Print by Thom Hogan

 

[Gavjenks]

I can't see why everyone is so bothered about noise, photography is about light if there is not enough don't take the shot, low light capability is only needed for concerts,sport, news my 5D has served me well and will do for more years to come even though i have gone back to film with 2 Leicas neither has AF and 99% of shots are in focus

Or, you know... anybody who wishes to photograph anything in the world during the entire half of the day when it happens to be in darkness. A little thing I like to call night time.

a better camera will not make you a better photographer

This is just false. I have been teaching my girlfriend basic photography over the last few weeks, and once she learned basic composition and exposure triangle and such, her decent quality photo rate is almost twice as high already with my 6D versus my Rebel T2i.

After like 3 weeks.

Now, granted, she has lupus which makes her very sensitive to the sun, so we mainly photograph at night, where the full frame excels. But that's ALL it took to already make a 3 week old photographer run up against a major limitation of an entry level DSLR and already begin to miss decent shots due to insufficient speed and low light performance.

Note that I also gave her my 50mm 1.8 to use, knowing that the older camera would not be as good in low light, while I was using the 24-105mm f/4L. Even with a 2.3 stop slower lens, she is still missing more shots on the lower end camera than on the nicer one.

As soon as anybody gets the slightest bit good enough to hit any walls with the limitations of their cameras, a better camera WILL make them a better photographer by removing that bottleneck for them.

Nikon D600 vs. Canon 6D

As for the topic of the OP, I think that calling the D600 just embarassingly flat out better than the 6D is simply incorrect.

For one thing, go look at the reviews on Amazon for one versus the other, bodies only. The D600 gets 3.8 out of 5 stars, and the 6D gets 4.7 out of 5 stars. Over hundreds and hundreds of reviewers each.

Why? Well go read them, but short story:

1) Nikon's inferior ergonomics matter just as much as any technical optics or sensor differences do, and they are significantly inferior by almost all accounts of people comparing the two directly. Even the OP acknowledges this during his rant against the 6D.

2) The D600 apparently has a mirror that flings bits of oil onto the sensor... I don't know if this has been fixed, but that is a horrible Horrible HORRIBLE flaw, and it deserves every single 1 star review it gets for people afflicted by it. Straight up OIL. probably the hardest thing to get off your sensor at all, short of like... tar.

3) The 6D is a good solid full stop better in ISO noise performance



If not for the oil issue, it looks like they would both get fairly identical reviews, with the poorer Nikon ergonomics and ISO balanced fairly well by Canon's somewhat lesser other technical specifications.

 

[zcar21]

I don't know if the OP shoot a lot of sport, I would guess he shoots mostly portraits. If this is the case this shouldn't be an issue.
According to digitalrev tv the nikon "feels subtly better than the canon" so for most people the focus points shouldn't make a big different.

 

[MarshallG]

I think we have to be realistic about how long it takes to design and build a professional-quality DSLR. The IC's take at least 18 months, and then the rest of the design can be completed, which probably takes a year with QA. It's not as if a guy from Canon reads a newspaper, sees that Nikon has more pixels, and then put more pixels in his camera.

There are second-tier vendors who will execute faster than Canon and get higher res sensors out faster. But reliability and software quality add to development time, and it's the overall package that matters.

It is possible that we're seeing delays in the 60D and 7D replacements because of the "resolution gap." But, my opinion is that ever-increasing resolution is not the path to increasing image quality. I don't take pictures where I run out of pixels. But I often run out of dynamic range.

 

[bratkinson]

Let's see...9 AF points is the OPs presumed problem, and low-light shooting with the 6D.

While I'm not familiar with the full line of Canon DSLRs, until recently, more than 9 AF points was the realm of the very high end bodies. I had no problems whatsoever with 9 AF points on my 60D. When I wanted to focus on something outside the 9 points, I simply did the old focus & recompose method.

As far as low light capabilities, from what I've read here and there, some authors, perhaps rightly, claim that the low light capabilities of the 7D are superior to the 5D3. So be it. Except that I can shoot my 5D3 at ISO 6400 all the time and not need any noise correction in post.

Yes, I would have liked to get 5D3 capabilities for $1000 less than I paid in November. $1500 less would be even better. Although I was quite satisfied with the capabilities of my 60D, and learned how to shoot within its limitations, I wanted the 5D3 for 2 things...super sharp focusing and high ISO speeds. So, like everyone else that doesn't have a pot of money hidden somewhere, I saved up for it, and used my forthcoming tax refund to pay for the bulk of it.

Bottom line...when Canon decided on the price point for the 5D3, they rightly determined that a 'scaled back' version with somewhat less features would be just right for $2400 or so. So they came out with the 6D. But if one wants what only the 5D3 and its big brothers offer, save up and get one. Or a used one. Or a refurb. Or dump it all and go Nikon.

Oh, and by the way...I used to shoot when ASA 64 was considered 'fast film'.

 

[MarshallG]

I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back. Its not that the 6d is all that bad of a camera, its that the D600 exists.

What is lacking in the AF system? As I understand, more focusing points is a feature that's really used for subject tracking in high speed photography, such as sports. Thing is, that also requires faster focus processing and a faster frame rate camera... thus, the 1D, 5D and 7D cameras. It's like a high performance car; you need a collection of separate performance improvements together in order to improve actual performance.

 

[daarksun]

I have the 7D. The only camera I would upgrade for would be the 5DIII. Being in Las Vegas I shoot at night a lot. I shoot hand held, no flash. The only lens I have with any speed is the $100 nify-fifty and I don't shoot that much with it even at night. My images have been incredible and if there is even some unwanted noise there's some cheap software to help alleviat noise issues. I abuse the high ISO at times with the 7D and get away with it more so than not.

Some of the best photographs from the masters were taken with a cheap old Brownie camera. These fantastic pieces of work were made great by the users ability to get the most from his/her camera and make things happen in the darkroom.

The camera is important to the point of the photographer feeling comfortable with his tools (no pun intended). But you can have the best and be ****ty with it. Getting the best camera and a prime piece of glass is still going to get you a perfect ****ty photograph. It's still art. You have to show some composition, get the colors, the texture and story and put it all together. If you can't do it with the cheap stuff, you won't be doing it with expensive stuff.