Thinking of switching to Nikon...

[jsecordphoto]

So I'll start off by saying I'm not really the type who feels the need to buy the latest and greatest gear everytime something exciting gets released. I picked up my 6D probably around 8 months ago, when I was pretty much only shooting landscapes and astrophotography, and it's been pretty good for that. After recently getting into wildlife (which I am loving) and getting hired by a local paper to cover events and assignment work, I am finding the AF system to be horrible. I've missed so many wildlife shots because the AF just can't track accurately or even lock onto subjects, even with great light (which I need with the tamron anyway). I know the 5d3 has a much better AF system, but the IQ doesn't seem much better than my 6D.

Nikon just seems to be killing Canon in the sensor department, with the shadow recovery, dynamic range, and high ISO capabilities looking amazing. I do think Canon will eventually respond, but at what price point? I guess I'm half thinking out loud, and half looking to see what everybody here thinks. I would lose some money selling off my current lenses (and where will I find a nikon mount tammy 150-600??), but the d750's are going for 2300 right now. Selling off my current gear, plus about $1200 in print sales this month, I'll have enough to grab a decent little set up.

 

[goodguy]

Went to a Hockey game few days ago and my D750 tracked the players so well!
You will love the AF on the D750 and as you already said the sensor on it is amazing, it gives you so much flexibility to fix any errors.
You will be very happy.
The 5D III is a great camera but I believe it should be replaced soon and is about 1000$ more then the D750 and in many ways is almost identical to the D750 accept in the sensor department where the D750 has the lead.

Yep go and get the D750, you will love it just as much I love mine!!!

 

[pgriz]

Can you rent a D750 and get a feeling for whether it is the camera you think it may be? The grass is always greener on the other side, until you get to the other side. Maybe it will be perfect for your needs. And then again, maybe not.

 

[jaomul]

I would advise to hold off and practice more with the different af modes. A friend has the 6d and prefers it to a 5d3 that he sold to buy it. Sure the af is simpler and has less points but he tracks no problem with it. It's better than the 11 focus points suggest.

Nikon may be killing Canon in dynamic range, but have you been lacking in dynamic range in the shots you take? If yes, fair enough, but if you only know this because you read it, you may not need another camera. You said yourself it was good enough for landscape, exactly the type of photography that dynamic range is important.

It's very easy to spend lots on gear only to see no improvement

 

[gsgary]

If you like the feel of Canon cameras you won't like Nikon try it first, it is also Sony that is leading in sensors as fitted in the D750

 

[iolair]

I just switched from Canon to Pentax, and part of my reason for not upgrading within Canon was the disappointing sensors (dynamic range, colour depth, in particular) compared to the opposition. However, if you're already on full frame and find that important, Pentax don't really have a home for you.

I didn't like the feel of Nikon; the menus and button layout just felt unfriendly to me; Pentax won out easily in that regard. I liked the feel of the Sony A7, but not the look of their lens range.

If you're happy with the IQ of your 6D and just want a boost with your sports photography, maybe you could consider a 7D mk ii body; AF for sports and wildlife is definitely the 7Dii's 'thing'.

 

[runnah]

Before you get all excited I would try different glass. The tamron is much slower than Canon glass. Secondly I would make sure that you have all your setting dialed in.

Lastly wildlife and sports take a lot of practice to get right. Even with a top of the line sports setup up lots of beginners would miss focus and shots.

 

[jsecordphoto]

While I am relatively happy with the IQ of the 6d, there are definitely some areas I'm not happy with. I do a lot of exposure blending using luminosity masks, having the added DR would mean less work on that end. Over the summer months I do a lot of milky way shooting, doing long (8 minute+) foreground exposures for focus stacking and just nicely exposed foregrounds in near pitch black. The amount of noise and hot pixels I get with the 6d is insane, lots of photos are only useable online- no printing. I've played around with a buddies RAW files from the d800, and the files were WAY cleaner than mine...and he sent over a 20 minute foreground exposure with no long exposure noise reduction.

I did consider picking up a 7dII, which does seem to handle high ISO well, but the newspaper sends me to lots of events where flash is not allowed (so annoying) or would be impractical to use. Would I be able to shoot at iso10,000 and have useable photos? I will say the 6D does. Granted it would be nice for some events and wildlife with the crop factor, but I'd rather have one body that handles everything rather than 2 for each purpose.

 

[runnah]

I hear ya. I've been really happy with my mkiii. Great all a rounder. Maybe look into that, around $2,500 now.

oh btw...canon rumors has a story on an upcoming 50mp sensor camera on the way next year.

 

[iolair]

Over the summer months I do a lot of milky way shooting, doing long (8 minute+) foreground exposures for focus stacking and just nicely exposed foregrounds in near pitch black. The amount of noise and hot pixels I get with the 6d is insane, lots of photos are only useable online- no printing.

I saw similar issues with long exposure on all my Canons (20D, 40D, 50D) so I'm not surprised it's in others too. When you do get noise on Canon sensors, it also seems much uglier than the noise from Sony sensors; my Pentax's noise looks a lot more like film grain.

Would I be able to shoot at iso10,000 and have useable photos? I will say the 6D does. Granted it would be nice for some events and wildlife with the crop factor, but I'd rather have one body that handles everything rather than 2 for each purpose.

From the samples I've seen, the 7Dii starts to fall apart over ISO 6400. (Still a big improvement on a few years back, though). But it sounds like the demands of your photography definitely do demand full-frame. I like to have two bodies around; can understand that it makes managing your gear easier with one though.

 

[jaomul]

Canon 6d likely better than Nikon for high iso or long exposures. Google 6d vs d610 and you'll find one guy who does milky way shots. The Canon is better by far (and I use Nikon so no bias)

 

[jsecordphoto]

Canon 6d likely better than Nikon for high iso or long exposures. Google 6d vs d610 and you'll find one guy who does milky way shots. The Canon is better by far (and I use Nikon so no bias)

Not from what I've seen. I shoot with a lot of astrophotographers, who use a mix of canon and Nikon. The RAW files from the d800 especially are much cleaner than the 6D. At 25-30 seconds, they're pretty even. Start doing multiple minute exposures and the nikon blows away Canon. I'm at work now but I can upload a 100% crop of a 10 minute exposure that was used with LENR...the noise and hot pixels are terrible. I've tried cleaning them up with LR, Nik, and DxO with no avail. Seeing a 100% crop of a 20 minute exposure with no long exposure NR from the d800 was pretty eye opening for me. And from the tests I've seen online the d750 handles that even better. And that test between the d610 and 6D was from David Kingham who has actually switched to Fuji mirrorless

 

[goodguy]

Canon 6d likely better than Nikon for high iso or long exposures. Google 6d vs d610 and you'll find one guy who does milky way shots. The Canon is better by far (and I use Nikon so no bias)

D750 which OP is considering uses the Expeed 4 which uses 100-12800ISO in its native range, I can tell you that I use it happily at that range, granted 12800ISO is not a setting I use all the time but I do use it and get reasonable results, loose some detail but very little noise.
I think up to 6400ISO the D610 and D750 should be par but above it you are getting outside the D610 native range and its picture falls apart (according to what I heard as I never tested them side by side) while the D750 still keep it very usable.

There is no argument the D6 is good at low light but the DR and shadow recovery on the D750 is much better, not sure who is better in low light 6D or D750 but I am sure the different cant be huge either way and you do get so much more with the D750 as mentioned above plus the much better AF system, tilty screen for video and hard shots and the list goes on and on.

 

[runnah]

Canon 6d likely better than Nikon for high iso or long exposures. Google 6d vs d610 and you'll find one guy who does milky way shots. The Canon is better by far (and I use Nikon so no bias)

Not from what I've seen. I shoot with a lot of astrophotographers, who use a mix of canon and Nikon. The RAW files from the d800 especially are much cleaner than the 6D. At 25-30 seconds, they're pretty even. Start doing multiple minute exposures and the nikon blows away Canon. I'm at work now but I can upload a 100% crop of a 10 minute exposure that was used with LENR...the noise and hot pixels are terrible. I've tried cleaning them up with LR, Nik, and DxO with no avail. Seeing a 100% crop of a 20 minute exposure with no long exposure NR from the d800 was pretty eye opening for me. And from the tests I've seen online the d750 handles that even better. And that test between the d610 and 6D was from David Kingham who has actually switched to Fuji mirrorless

Apples and organes. The sensors are vastly different.

 

[goodguy]

Canon 6d likely better than Nikon for high iso or long exposures. Google 6d vs d610 and you'll find one guy who does milky way shots. The Canon is better by far (and I use Nikon so no bias)

Not from what I've seen. I shoot with a lot of astrophotographers, who use a mix of canon and Nikon. The RAW files from the d800 especially are much cleaner than the 6D. At 25-30 seconds, they're pretty even. Start doing multiple minute exposures and the nikon blows away Canon. I'm at work now but I can upload a 100% crop of a 10 minute exposure that was used with LENR...the noise and hot pixels are terrible. I've tried cleaning them up with LR, Nik, and DxO with no avail. Seeing a 100% crop of a 20 minute exposure with no long exposure NR from the d800 was pretty eye opening for me. And from the tests I've seen online the d750 handles that even better. And that test between the d610 and 6D was from David Kingham who has actually switched to Fuji mirrorless

I do want to add the D810 and D800 has an advantage over any sensor in the market in base ISO, at 100ISO nothing can touch it not even the D750 but at higher ISO the D750 has a slight advantage, its mostly not a huge deal as the D800/D810 are still commanding respect at high ISO.
Over all the D800/D810 are cameras that feel right at home in a studio while the D750 is just a fantastic general use camera, it doesn't do anything amazing but it does everything very, very well with really no real Achilles Heel just a fantastic solid camera.
7D II is designed to be a sports camera and in that its untouchable in its price range but its not exactly a camera you would take for portrait work, D800 is great for studio but its not exactly a sports camera. The D750 can do sports very well and so it can do wonderful portraits...............and lots more!