which is best for me

[TCampbell]

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).

DxO Mark really isn't an authority on sensors. They use pseudoscience to come up with their scores, don't disclose things YOU REALLY WOULD PREFER TO KNOW about how they do testing, and guard how they tally up scores as a "secret sauce".

I wish people would just stop citing them since they don't have credibility.

 

[Landwomble]

Holy cow. I shoot gigs and having it usable at 12k iso would be a dream. My 650d gets unusable over 3200. Speeding all my lenses up by 2 stops sounds like a dream come true. Must... Resist....

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gavjenks]

Holy cow. I shoot gigs and having it usable at 12k iso would be a dream. My 650d gets unusable over 3200. Speeding all my lenses up by 2 stops sounds like a dream come true. Must... Resist....

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

2 stops from the 650D is pretty accurate, I'd say, looking at two different standards comparison sites with photos just now, for both RAW and jpeg. Possibly even slightly more than that for jpeg in camera results, 2 1/3 stops or so.

Keep in mind that it's not QUITE the same as having all your lenses be 2 stops faster. You will not get shallower depth of field like you would for actually having 2 stops more aperture. This may be a drawback or a benefit, depending on what you shoot (benefit for macro, for example, versus more aperture, where you usually always want more DOF, not less, but drawback for portraits, for example, where 2.8 to 1.4 would be seen as generally an upgrade for background blur ability)

You WILL get shallower depth of field effectively by going from crop frame to full frame, mind you, but that's much less than 2 1/3 stops' worth. It's roughly more like 1 stop's worth (more complicated than that, depends on FL, etc., but yeah)