Tech spec questions...

[JustJazzie]

I'm looking at 2 cameras, trying desperately to make a final final decision. So I am making my list of pros to each body and I'm rating each pro on a scale of 1-5 to see which comes out on top.

The first thing I'm am wondering about is shutter accuations.(I spelled that wrong didn't I?). There is a difference of 50,000 between the two. Do people even make it to 100,000 before upgrading to make an extra 50,000 a highlight?

What is the real world difference between 16 and 20 MPS?

How important is a focus assist light? I had to turn it off on my NEX7 because it actually made things worse, but I'm not sure if it's important on a dslr.

And finally, what is a focus screen, and why would I want one? I'm reading lots of complaints that one camera doesn't accept "focus screens."

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm looking at 2 cameras, trying desperately to make a final final decision. So I am making my list of pros to each body and I'm rating each pro on a scale of 1-5 to see which comes out on top.

The first thing I'm am wondering about is shutter accuations.(I spelled that wrong didn't I?). There is a difference of 50,000 between the two. Do people even make it to 100,000 before upgrading to make an extra 50,000 a highlight?

Well the shutter actuations is a test they run to see how reliable the shutter is, it's just a guestimate really as to how long the shutter will last before it needs replaced. However it's no gaurantee the shutter will actually last that long, nor does it mean that a shutter rated for 50,000 actuations will fail at 50,000 or shortly there after - it might last much, much longer.

What is the real world difference between 16 and 20 MPS?

Yes - but a lot of that will depend on the kind of photos you take. If your shooting mostly landscapes, portraits and the like you probably won't notice a huge difference between the two. If you shoot telephoto and have to crop, that's when the higher MP rating really starts to shine. I noticed a huge difference going from my 16 mp to a 24 mp sensor.

How important is a focus assist light? I had to turn it off on my NEX7 because it actually made things worse, but I'm not sure if it's important on a dslr.

And finally, what is a focus screen, and why would I want one? I'm reading lots of complaints that one camera doesn't accept "focus screens."

If your shooting in bad lighting conditions (say in a dark room and using a flash) the AF assist light will allow the camera to autofocus even without much ambient light. That way the camera can still focus even though the flash won't be of much use until you actually take the picture. So if you shoot under these conditions much it might be a nice thing to have, if not then probably not a huge selling point.

By focus assist screen I'm assuming your referring to something like the touch screen focus assist found on a camera like the Olympus OM-D EM-5, found a youtube video that gives a really quick demonstration of it:

 

[JustJazzie]

Well the shutter actuations is a test they run to see how reliable the shutter is, it's just a guestimate really as to how long the shutter will last before it needs replaced. However it's no gaurantee the shutter will actually last that long, nor does it mean that a shutter rated for 50,000 actuations will fail at 50,000 or shortly there after - it might last much, much longer. Yes - but a lot of that will depend on the kind of photos you take. If your shooting mostly landscapes, portraits and the like you probably won't notice a huge difference between the two. If you shoot telephoto and have to crop, that's when the higher MP rating really starts to shine. I noticed a huge difference going from my 16 mp to a 24 mp sensor. If your shooting in bad lighting conditions (say in a dark room and using a flash) the AF assist light will allow the camera to autofocus even without much ambient light. That way the camera can still focus even though the flash won't be of much use until you actually take the picture. So if you shoot under these conditions much it might be a nice thing to have, if not then probably not a huge selling point. By focus assist screen I'm assuming your referring to something like the touch screen focus assist found on a camera like the Olympus OM-D EM-5, found a youtube video that gives a really quick demonstration of it: YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRthRGA54lc

Thanks for responding! I was able to compare 16 to my 24 when I had my 7100 shooting in crop mode, but that's a higher jump than 16-20 kwim? I'm trying to decide if I will notice or not, and how that will actually translate to printed pictures....

As for the focus screen, it *sounds* like it's some sort of after market attachment? It's not a touch screen.... But apparently some cameras can take one- others don't.....something about "exaggerating DOF" but I'm not sure if it goes in the camera? Out of the camera? Not a clue...

 

[robbins.photo]

Well the shutter actuations is a test they run to see how reliable the shutter is, it's just a guestimate really as to how long the shutter will last before it needs replaced. However it's no gaurantee the shutter will actually last that long, nor does it mean that a shutter rated for 50,000 actuations will fail at 50,000 or shortly there after - it might last much, much longer. Yes - but a lot of that will depend on the kind of photos you take. If your shooting mostly landscapes, portraits and the like you probably won't notice a huge difference between the two. If you shoot telephoto and have to crop, that's when the higher MP rating really starts to shine. I noticed a huge difference going from my 16 mp to a 24 mp sensor. If your shooting in bad lighting conditions (say in a dark room and using a flash) the AF assist light will allow the camera to autofocus even without much ambient light. That way the camera can still focus even though the flash won't be of much use until you actually take the picture. So if you shoot under these conditions much it might be a nice thing to have, if not then probably not a huge selling point. By focus assist screen I'm assuming your referring to something like the touch screen focus assist found on a camera like the Olympus OM-D EM-5, found a youtube video that gives a really quick demonstration of it: YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRthRGA54lc

Thanks for responding! I was able to compare 16 to my 24 when I had my 7100 shooting in crop mode, but that's a higher jump than 16-20 kwim? I'm trying to decide if I will notice or not, and how that will actually translate to printed pictures....

As for the focus screen, it *sounds* like it's some sort of after market attachment? It's not a touch screen.... But apparently some cameras can take one- others don't.....something about "exaggerating DOF" but I'm not sure if it goes in the camera? Out of the camera? Not a clue...

Ok, so it sounds like they are actually talking about the focus screen inside the camera, on some models they are actually interchangeable:

Shutter Mike Photography | What is a Focus Screen for a DSLR Camera?

 

[TCampbell]

You didn't tell us which two cameras you are looking at.

The focus-assist beam helps the camera focus when there is very little (or even no) light. On most Canon DSLRs, the camera doesn't have one because it would be in the speedlite flash rather than in the body.

My Canon 5D II can take interchangeable focus screens (and I actually have one in it now). My 5D III cannot (and it's the better camera). But that's because the 5D III has an active focus screen (it's LCD and the camera can change what you see on the focus screen.) The 5D II focus is not electronic.

Currently I have a "super-fine" focus screen in the 5D II (not the factory default screen) though the alternate screen is actually made by Canon for that camera. The replacement screen comes with a special tool... basically tweezers and a hook. You remove the lens and there's a tab on the top front of that chamber which releases the focus screen. It's simply resting in a door-frame. You use the hook to pull the tab which releases the catch and the focus screen frame swings down (hinged at the back). You use the little tweezers to pick up the old focus screen (it has a little tiny tab on the edge of it so that you don't have to grip the main screen surface). They do NOT want you to touch the screen with your fingers. You'll never get your finger oils off. Then you put the replacement screen in and swing the frame back up until it clicks.

My "new" screen is designed to exaggerate the blur in out-of-focus areas to make it much easier to manually focus the camera lens. Incidentally that screen is designed only for f/2.8 or faster lenses.
They make focus screens with grid lines. Focus screens with split prisms. The list goes on. Third parties also make focus screens.

BTW... changing the focus screen can change the metering (the metering sensor is often up in the pentaprism) and that means a different screen will change how much light passes through. On my 5D II there's a custom-function menu that I have to use to tell the camera which focus screen it's uses so that it meters accurately.

 

[JustJazzie]

You didn't tell us which two cameras you are looking at. The focus-assist beam helps the camera focus when there is very little (or even no) light. On most Canon DSLRs, the camera doesn't have one because it would be in the speedlite flash rather than in the body. My Canon 5D II can take interchangeable focus screens (and I actually have one in it now). My 5D III cannot (and it's the better camera). But that's because the 5D III has an active focus screen (it's LCD and the camera can change what you see on the focus screen.) The 5D II focus is not electronic. Currently I have a "super-fine" focus screen in the 5D II (not the factory default screen) though the alternate screen is actually made by Canon for that camera. The replacement screen comes with a special tool... basically tweezers and a hook. You remove the lens and there's a tab on the top front of that chamber which releases the focus screen. It's simply resting in a door-frame. You use the hook to pull the tab which releases the catch and the focus screen frame swings down (hinged at the back). You use the little tweezers to pick up the old focus screen (it has a little tiny tab on the edge of it so that you don't have to grip the main screen surface). They do NOT want you to touch the screen with your fingers. You'll never get your finger oils off. Then you put the replacement screen in and swing the frame back up until it clicks. My "new" screen is designed to exaggerate the blur in out-of-focus areas to make it much easier to manually focus the camera lens. Incidentally that screen is designed only for f/2.8 or faster lenses. They make focus screens with grid lines. Focus screens with split prisms. The list goes on. Third parties also make focus screens. BTW... changing the focus screen can change the metering (the metering sensor is often up in the pentaprism) and that means a different screen will change how much light passes through. On my 5D II there's a custom-function menu that I have to use to tell the camera which focus screen it's uses so that it meters accurately.

Thanks so much! I kinda understood what is was, but not why I would want one. You've answered that perfectly. Good to know about the metering being offset by a new focus screen. I will file that one away!

Since you asked, my final contenders are the nikon DF and the 6D. The mkiii is out. Both are small enough to fit my hands, which is how they landed here.

Highlights of the DF: user capped Auto iso in manual mode, (GENIUS!) the sensor just seems amazing- and nikon really impressed me with the d7100, superior AF system for my kids sports, and extra frame per second burst, and 10 extra fps buffer, higher flash sync speed (1/250 vs 1/180) the option of vintage glass, and it reminds me of my first nikon SLR. Yes, nostalgia has captured my heart.

Highlights of the 6d: up front, and long term price.; My lens wish list comes out to over $2k less with canon over nikon. Wireless shooting, c1&c2 buttons, better kit up front, better user ratings on amazon, 4 extra mpx, video (a very small consideration. I don't shoot video), can get a remote release for self portraits vs a cable, has a focus assist light, magnifying image in live view for critical focus, interchangeable focus screens (though I have no idea if I would ever need one)....

 

[TCampbell]

A few comments...

I wouldn't worry about the 4MP difference ... you will probably never notice that. Cameras are already so high we don't use most of the resolution they capture already.

The 6D doesn't have a focus-assist beam built into the camera. You get focus-assist by attaching a speedlite which offers the feature and the camera will take advantage of it. See: Canon EOS 6D In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review and scroll down the table to the section titled "Optics & Focus" and there's a row labeled "Autofocus assist lamp" and the answer in the box says "optional by dedicated speedlite" ... meaning if you attach a speedlite such as a 430EX II, a 580EX II (which they no longer make) or a 600EX-RT, then the camera will take advantage of the built-in focus-assist beam. ALSO... if a speedlite is attached and you press the DoF preview button on the camera, the speedlite will pulse very rapidly for about a second in order to help focus (I never use that feature... I use the focus-assist beam on the flash. It project a red pattern that the camera can use to lock focus.)

It looks like you can actually get a remote release for the DF. From my reading of the specs, you can get a wireless remote (this might require an adapter.)

The price difference is significant... and you've already noticed that.

 

[tirediron]

What do you see being the camera being primarily used for?

 

[gsgary]

6D won't cut it for sports unless it is in the right hands

 

[TCampbell]

6D won't cut it for sports unless it is in the right hands

Was sports usage a selection criteria? Video usage (a very significant difference between these two cameras), for example, was not.

 

[JustJazzie]

What do you see being the camera being primarily used for?

I am really looking for a jack of all trades. I am mostly interested in portraits and macro, however the entire reason mirror-less isn't cutting it is the AF while I am trying to shoot my boys in sports. I also like to do some wildlife when I get the opportunity.

6D won't cut it for sports unless it is in the right hands

* sight* in another thread users said it would be adequate.

Was sports usage a selection criteria? Video usage (a very significant difference between these two cameras), for example, was not.

yes, sports is a large factor for changing from mirror-less in the first place.

 

[JustJazzie]

A few comments... I wouldn't worry about the 4MP difference ... you will probably never notice that. Cameras are already so high we don't use most of the resolution they capture already. The 6D doesn't have a focus-assist beam built into the camera. You get focus-assist by attaching a speedlite which offers the feature and the camera will take advantage of it. See: Canon EOS 6D In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review and scroll down the table to the section titled "Optics & Focus" and there's a row labeled "Autofocus assist lamp" and the answer in the box says "optional by dedicated speedlite" ... meaning if you attach a speedlite such as a 430EX II, a 580EX II (which they no longer make) or a 600EX-RT, then the camera will take advantage of the built-in focus-assist beam. ALSO... if a speedlite is attached and you press the DoF preview button on the camera, the speedlite will pulse very rapidly for about a second in order to help focus (I never use that feature... I use the focus-assist beam on the flash. It project a red pattern that the camera can use to lock focus.) It looks like you can actually get a remote release for the DF. From my reading of the specs, you can get a wireless remote (this might require an adapter.) The price difference is significant... and you've already noticed that.

Thanks for catching that! I must have mis read the info. I feel like I am reading Greek half the time when looking into the specs. *sigh*

 

[Derrel]

I checked out the Canon 6D at Pro Photo Supply for you on Friday. I was NOT impressed by the highly centrally-located, diamond patterned autofocus layout. That sucks...it's like the highly-centrally-located, tight diamond pattern on my 20D...you know...the SAME AF system they slapped into the 5D Classic, then modified ever-so-slightly for the 5D Mark TWO...as gruff as he sounds sometimes, I think gsgary's right...the 6D is probably not going to cut it for sports unless it's in the right hands...

The 6D has ONE, single cross-type AF sensor...the MIDDLE ONE. That's pretty much a focus-and-recompose kind of AF system concept underlying that, and that is the way a lof of Canon users advocate using a modern AF camera...I do not subscribe to that type of old-school thinking about autofocusing, and neither do the people that run Nikon, the company.

Nikon does have a better AUTO-ISO system than Canon...and they should, since they stole some of their ideas from Pentax. The majority of the young newbies who reviewed the Df when it came out seem to be utterly ignorant of the fact that with a truly state of the art sensor in terms of High ISO noise and massive pixel well size and modest resolution, the Df can be user-configured with a "cap" ISO that is sky high, and there's no need to ***** and moan that, "I cannot set my ISO while looking through the eyepiece," because.....there's no NEED to ride herd on the ISO....you've already SET the parameters you want for exposure when you set up your AUTO ISO settings for the session!

You'll probably not be able to notice the 4 MP Difference; the Df sensor is better, with wider dynamic range,better color depth, and much better High-ISO capability than the Canon sensor made with old technology on the 6D. Lower MP count, better DY, better high ISO performance. Canon has a higher MP count, but lower performance in the metrics that most people care about. Canon wins on the specification sheet, the Df wins on the street. TCampbell is right" resolution is not that big a deal....but much better High ISO performance, better color, and better dynamic range ARE noticeable, and are actually meaningful.

DxO Mark Sensor Comparison, head-to-head. (You know DxO Mark... the scientific testing service that Canon users loooove to try and discredit, often very eloquently. Since Canon's ancient sensor fabrication technology lags behind that which Sony,Tosihiba, and even Nikon possess, they have to come up with some excuse as to why Nikon smashes the white-lens-company's sensors...)

Nikon Df
Overall Sensor Score: 89
Color Depth: 24.6 Bits
DYnamic Range in EV:13.1 Evs
Low-Light/High-ISO Score: 3,279 (three thousand two hundred seventy-nine)

Canon 6D
Overall Sensor Score:82
Color Depth:23.9 Bits
DYnamic Range in EV:12.1 Evs
Low-Light/High-ISO Score: 2,340 (two thousand three hunded forty)

 

[JustJazzie]

I checked out the Canon 6D at Pro Photo Supply for you on Friday. I was NOT impressed by the highly centrally-located, diamond patterned autofocus layout. That sucks...it's like the highly-centrally-located, tight diamond pattern on my 20D...you know...the SAME AF system they slapped into the 5D Classic, then modified ever-so-slightly for the 5D Mark TWO...as gruff as he sounds sometimes, I think gsgary's right...the 6D is probably not going to cut it for sports unless it's in the right hands... The 6D has ONE, single cross-type AF sensor...the MIDDLE ONE. That's pretty much a focus-and-recompose kind of AF system concept underlying that, and that is the way a lof of Canon users advocate using a modern AF camera...I do not subscribe to that type of old-school thinking about autofocusing, and neither do the people that run Nikon, the company. Nikon does have a better AUTO-ISO system than Canon...and they should, since they stole some of their ideas from Pentax. The majority of the young newbies who reviewed the Df when it came out seem to be utterly ignorant of the fact that with a truly state of the art sensor in terms of High ISO noise and massive pixel well size and modest resolution, the Df can be user-configured with a "cap" ISO that is sky high, and there's no need to ***** and moan that, "I cannot set my ISO while looking through the eyepiece," because.....there's no NEED to ride herd on the ISO....you've already SET the parameters you want for exposure when you set up your AUTO ISO settings for the session! You'll probably not be able to notice the 4 MP Difference; the Df sensor is better, with wider dynamic range,better color depth, and much better High-ISO capability than the Canon sensor made with old technology on the 6D. Lower MP count, better DY, better high ISO performance. Canon has a higher MP count, but lower performance in the metrics that most people care about. Canon wins on the specification sheet, the Df wins on the street. DxO Mark Sensor Comparison, head-to-head. (You know DxO Mark... the scientific testing service that Canon users loooove to try and discredit, often very eloquently. Since Canon's ancient sensor fabrication technology lags behind that which Sony,Tosihiba, and even Nikon possess, they have to come up with some excuse as to why Nikon smashes the white-lens-company's sensors...) Nikon Df Overall Sensor Score: 89 Color Depth: 24.6 Bits DYnamic Range in EV:13.1 Evs Low-Light/High-ISO Score: 3,279 (three thousand two hundred seventy-nine) Canon 6D Overall Sensor Score:82 Color Depth:23.9 Bits DYnamic Range in EV:12.1 Evs Low-Light/High-ISO Score: 2,340 (two thousand three hunded forty)

thanks Derrel! I really really appreciate you checking out the 6d for me! I think this thread has made it clear that the 6d won't suit my needs. Especially considering that the main reason I am switching is for sports. So it looks like nikon is winning this battle, and I'm soon to be a hipster. Lol

Now to choose a general lens until I can swing a telephoto!

 

[gsgary]

Just looked A7 beats both those cameras on sensor score