which is best for me

[suppyx]

so my question is which camera is right for me
between the new 70d the 6d or nikond600 i sold all my lenses and im starting new most of my photograph is for live bands not all of it but most of it. I also like having the gps in a camera and most of my pictures are in low light. i wouldnt mind buying a gps for a camera tho im trying to get more into video so if that helps you decide which is best for me

thanks!

 

[Juga]

The 6D, has wi-fi so you can remote shoot and upload straight to the web if you want, built in GPS, and amazing low light performance. The 70D on paper looks like it will be a nice addition to the Canon line-up but it is still a crop sensor which won't match either the 6D or D600 in low light. With that being said I know the D600 has oil spot issues with the sensor, a better AF system then the 6D, and more MP although I know that when getting into higher ISO the D600 can't hang with the 6D. Also the D600 is rated for 6 FPS but I have read several reviews stating that after about 10 shots it slows down significantly while the 6D can keep up its 4.5 FPS for an extended period of time, when I was doing my research I was able to keep that up for about 25 shots before I let off the shutter release. I think both cameras have their advantages and disadvantages but I am a bit biased....I LOVE :hugs: my 6D

 

[Gavjenks]

6d is significantly better than the d600 for the low light situations you say you shoot most (live bands). As in probably about 2 stops better. And the 70D will be inferior to either of them for low light, being a crop sensor.

6D is the clear choice amongst those for your usage case. 1.5 - 2 stops better ISO for the same noise is absolutely huge for somebody who shoots in dark rooms most of the time.

 

[imagemaker46]

The only way to truly know which camera is right for you is to hold each one. Check and see in your area if any camera stores have rentals that you can try out for a day and see which one feels the most comfortable. If it doesn't feel right in the beginning it never will.

 

[Light Guru]

The only way to truly know which camera is right for you is to hold each one. Check and see in your area if any camera stores have rentals that you can try out for a day and see which one feels the most comfortable. If it doesn't feel right in the beginning it never will.

You don't need camera stores to rent a camera. Borrowlenses.com or lensrentals.com are great online sources to rent gear. I stope renting from the the camera shop in town because renting online was much cheaper and they had a bigger selection.

 

[SCraig]

6d is significantly better than the d600 for the low light situations you say you shoot most (live bands). As in probably about 2 stops better. And the 70D will be inferior to either of them for low light, being a crop sensor.

6D is the clear choice amongst those for your usage case. 1.5 - 2 stops better ISO for the same noise is absolutely huge for somebody who shoots in dark rooms most of the time.

That's not how DxO Mark sees things, and I'd be a lot more inclined to trust their results. They rate the D600 #2 in low light and the 6D #8 with a difference of only 1/4 to 1/5 stop (600 ISO).

 

[Gavjenks]

6d is significantly better than the d600 for the low light situations you say you shoot most (live bands). As in probably about 2 stops better. And the 70D will be inferior to either of them for low light, being a crop sensor.

6D is the clear choice amongst those for your usage case. 1.5 - 2 stops better ISO for the same noise is absolutely huge for somebody who shoots in dark rooms most of the time.

That's not how DxO Mark sees things, and I'd be a lot more inclined to trust their results. They rate the D600 #2 in low light and the 6D #8 with a difference of only 1/4 to 1/5 stop (600 ISO).

Well DxO is blind then (or more likely, they base their sports rating off of other things related to sports or only use engineering specifications or something. I don't know, because they don't actually tell me). A simple search engine query for comparison photos makes the reality painfully obvious. The d600 looks horrendous above 3200 ISO, and the 6d outperforms it in an extremely obvious way.

Some example links (Simply the first four images in a row I got when typing "6d d600 noise comparison" into Bing):

Canon 6D vs. Nikon D600 - High ISO Test - New Camera « NEW CAMERA
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LPhffypP5...0/C12NvuKPsB8/s1600/D600vs6D-hi-ISO-video.jpg
Canon 6D vs Nikon D600 - More High ISO Comparison « NEW CAMERA
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ly0ZfJFvv...EB8/r2eULliB5Wc/s1600/D600vs6D-jpeg-noise.jpg

 

[CaptainNapalm]

6d is significantly better than the d600 for the low light situations you say you shoot most (live bands). As in probably about 2 stops better. And the 70D will be inferior to either of them for low light, being a crop sensor.

6D is the clear choice amongst those for your usage case. 1.5 - 2 stops better ISO for the same noise is absolutely huge for somebody who shoots in dark rooms most of the time.

Just because a camera is capable of going 2 stops higher in ISO, doesn't necessarily make it produce better quality images in low light. Having said that the D600 will actually produce cleaner looking images at ISO 3200, 6400, and so forth.

 

[Juga]

6d is significantly better than the d600 for the low light situations you say you shoot most (live bands). As in probably about 2 stops better. And the 70D will be inferior to either of them for low light, being a crop sensor.

6D is the clear choice amongst those for your usage case. 1.5 - 2 stops better ISO for the same noise is absolutely huge for somebody who shoots in dark rooms most of the time.

Just because a camera is capable of going 2 stops higher in ISO, doesn't necessarily make it produce better quality images in low light. Having said that the D600 will actually produce cleaner looking images at ISO 3200, 6400, and so forth.

From my research and having shot both I have to completely disagree. The 6D clearly out performed the D600 when I shot both. Which is why I now own the 6D.

 

[Gavjenks]

Just because a camera is capable of going 2 stops higher in ISO, doesn't necessarily make it produce better quality images in low light. Having said that the D600 will actually produce cleaner looking images at ISO 3200, 6400, and so forth.

Did you look at the links I posted? I'm not talking about how high the software will let you set the ISO. I'm talking about image noise that you get at equal ISOs, which is really obviously worse in all of those images for the D600, until you lower its ISO to be about 2 stops lower. In other words, a D600 at ISO 3200 looks about as clean as a 6D at ISO 12,800, etc.

The links above also already include images at both 3200 and 6400, so we don't have to speculate about those ISO levels. The same is true at those levels just like all the other higher levels: 6D is much cleaner, about 2 stops' worth. Look at the very top two comparisons on the first link:
Canon 6D vs. Nikon D600 - High ISO Test - New Camera « NEW CAMERA

Also, ISO noise in general (regardless of brand) tends to scale pretty much linearly with ISO level. There is no reason to suspect that this relationship between the two bodies wouldn't continue all the way on down to ISO 100 vs 400, etc. It's possible that it doesn't, but it is safe to assume it probably does, unless somebody can find or take themselves a handful of comparison photos at those levels that shows otherwise.




Also, note that the D600 is unarguably better in some other specifications, like FPS, and so forth. But since the OP said he mainly shoots live bands in dark rooms, the ISO performance is almost certainly more important than those for HIM in particular, making the 6D the clear choice for him in particular.

 

[SCraig]

Well DxO is blind then (or more likely, they base their sports rating off of other things related to sports or only use engineering specifications or something. I don't know, because they don't actually tell me). A simple search engine query for comparison photos makes the reality painfully obvious. The d600 looks horrendous above 3200 ISO, and the 6d outperforms it in an extremely obvious way.

Some example links (Simply the first four images in a row I got when typing "6d d600 noise comparison" into Bing):

Canon 6D vs. Nikon D600 - High ISO Test - New Camera « NEW CAMERA
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LPhffypP5...0/C12NvuKPsB8/s1600/D600vs6D-hi-ISO-video.jpg
Canon 6D vs Nikon D600 - More High ISO Comparison « NEW CAMERA
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ly0ZfJFvv...EB8/r2eULliB5Wc/s1600/D600vs6D-jpeg-noise.jpg

I don't know how DxO comes up with their values either. Oh wait, actually I do since they publish their methods On Their Web Site. What I don't know is how the others obtain their results.

My comment stands. *I* am more inclined to trust DxO Mark. What *You* choose to trust is entirely up to you.

 

[Gavjenks]

I don't know how DxO comes up with their values either. Oh wait, actually I do since they publish their methods On Their Web Site. What I don't know is how the others obtain their results.

My comment stands. *I* am more inclined to trust DxO Mark. What *You* choose to trust is entirely up to you.

Perhaps you are referring to this page? DxOMark - Noise
Perhaps you can help me out here by pointing me in the right direction, because I don't see anywhere on that page where theys ay how they calculate their sports/low light performance score that you were originally linking to as a comparison between the 6D and the D600.

I do see a list of disorganized equations for various ways of measuring noise. What I don't see is:

1) Any mention of how any of them are weighted or combined together to come up with the actual ranking score. Is one of them 5x more important the the others? If so, why? Also, at least one of those is logarithmic, which means it has to be converted somehow to be combined with the others without screwing things up. Do they use Z-scores on everything or something? No idea whatsoever.
2) Whether they consider any other non-noise factors in their "sports" score (which is ambiguous, even after also reading their sports score blurb, which you can get by clicking on the sports score, and which is even less helpful than this noise page)
3) Whether they are comparing images straight out of camera for RAWs? Or jpegs? or post-converted RAWs? This matters, because RAW conversion software is specific to each company's RAW format, and the 6D's better visual performance to the eye may very well be due to them having better conversion software or storing different metadata to help with noise, etc. If DxO is basing their ranking only on unmodified RAWs, then perhaps Nikon is better with those. But who cares, because nobody uses unmodified RAWs. We modify them using separate software that can't be mixed (proprietary formats), and so one company's software being better is a legitimate part of that company's image quality.

On the other hand, the comparisons I posted are usually pretty straightforward. For example, the first link I posted said they are comparing jpegs SOOC. Nothing ambiguous about that. And after that, there are no equations to know, because they are simply presented to you to judge with your own eyeballs. Thus, we do know exactly how the "results" are obtained.

 

[Gavjenks]

As a point of general interest:

The reason why almost everybody uses jpegs to compare things between companies (not lenses), is because that's a universal format. RAW isn't universal, and its conversion doesn't even always have the same sliders and options available between companies. Or if the same sliders are provided by a converter software company, they could be based on different data, etc. Thus, its difficult or impossible to make a "fair" comparison between processed RAWs, and especially pointless to compare unprocessed RAWs (in addition to being different b/w companies, they aren't even intended for viewing). So jpegs are the de facto standard.

Of course, you may want to know about how much quality you can get out of the converted RAWs, though! Perhaps you never shoot jpeg. Jpeg is still a useful format for comparison anyway, because the same company is going to use almost exactly or exactly the same algorithms to convert noise in camera to jpegs or in post processing to jpegs. The post processing version of the algorithm might have more "cycles" or whatever, depending, but they aren't going to switch over to some completely different mathematical strategy. Thus, if two jpegs under equal conditions show a difference, then most likely, that difference will also transfer to converted RAWs, if the same person with the same tastes and preferences is doing the converting. It just isn't as scientific or objective to publish comparisons that way, because there's more of an "art" to converting using two different conversion methods, whereas jpegs SOOC are all machine-controlled the whole way with the exact same inputs (light) and outputs (universal format jpeg)

 

[SCraig]

Perhaps you are referring to this page? DxOMark - Noise
Perhaps you can help me out here by pointing me in the right direction, because I don't see anywhere on that page where theys ay how they calculate their sports/low light performance score that you were originally linking to as a comparison between the 6D and the D600.

I do see a list of disorganized equations for various ways of measuring noise. What I don't see is:

1) Any mention of how any of them are weighted or combined together to come up with the actual ranking score.
2) Whether they consider any other non-noise factors in their "sports" score (which is ambiguous, even after also reading their sports score blurb, which you can get by clicking on the sports score, and which is even less helpful than this noise page)
3) Whether they are comparing images straight out of camera for RAWs? Or jpegs? or post-converted RAWs? This matters, because RAW conversion software is specific to each company's RAW format, and the 6D's better visual performance to the eye may very well be due to them having better conversion software or storing different metadata to help with noise, etc. If DxO is basing their ranking only on unmodified RAWs, then perhaps Nikon is better with those. But who cares, because nobody uses unmodified RAWs. We modify them using separate software that can't be mixed (proprietary formats), and so one company's software being better is a legitimate part of that company's image quality.

On the other hand, the comparisons I posted are usually pretty straightforward. For example, the first link I posted said they are comparing jpegs SOOC. Nothing ambiguous about that. And after that, there are no equations to know, because they are simply presented to you to judge with your own eyeballs. Thus, we do know exactly how the "results" are obtained.

Your examples are not at all straightforward. Did the comparisons use exactly the same lens or did they use a similar lens? Were they taken in exactly the same controlled ambient light conditions or were they taken under slightly varying lighting conditions? What "Adjustments" were made to the JPEG's in-camera, especially what in-camera noise-reduction was used? All I See are a set of JPEG files that say "A" is better than "B" with no mention of how they were obtained in any way, form or fashion. No mention of how the cameras were set up or anything whatsoever.

As to the equations, no I can't help with that. Unlike some I don't pretend to have answers to everything which is why I rely on people like DxO Mark to provide them for me. Funny thing about physical equations though: They are usually founded in empirical fact.

But, as I said, you do what you want and I'll do what I want. I'm done with this discussion.

 

[table1349]

I think this explains it all.

Originally Posted by Gavjenks

Hey my day job is a research psychologist.