Canon 6D

<p>Seems that Canonistas aren't too impressed with their new FX body...<br>

Highlights:</p>

<ul>

<li>20mp sensor</li>

<li>Digic 5+ processor</li>

<li>4.5fps</li>

<li>11-point AF system</li>

<li><strong>Built-in Wifi and GPS</strong></li>

<li>Uses SD cards....<strong>SINGLE SLOT</strong></li>

<li>Weather sealed</li>

<li>ISO range of 100-25600 (expandable to 102, 400)</li>

<li>Fixed LCD (no swivel)</li>

<li>±5 EV exposure comp</li>

<li>Mono microphone</li>

<li><strong>No built-in flash</strong></li>

<li><strong>$2100</strong></li>

</ul>

<p><strong><br /></strong>Guess they get the Wifi widget and the GPS Unit that D600 users would have to buy (and block the rubber door with) built in for free for a very similar price.</p>

<p>AF looks pretty poor next to the D600</p>

<p>No pop-up flash or PC socket.... weird or what?</p>

<p>Only one card slot...how retro!</p>

<p>Not that bad... give me built-in Wi-Fi and I`ll give you pop-up flashes... :P<br /> (Typo: You mean <strong>6D</strong>, isn`t it?)</p>

<p>The camera is called the 6D.</p>

<p>The 60D is an existing APS-C model.</p>

<p>From your feature list you don't have: AF down to -3EV.</p>

<p>[[seems that Canonistas aren't too impressed with their new FX body...]]</p>

<p>Was there a vote I missed?</p>

<p>Just read the treads on it and they sound just like Nikon shooters talking about a new body. Blah Blah Blah its not what I want. How can they (insert Canon or Nikon here) be so dumb as to not do whatever it is I want.</p>

<p>I cannot see it? Where did I call it a 60D??</p>

<p>Maybe a MOD corrected it for me?? If so, thanks!</p>

<p>Rob, no vote, just the usual 'Why can't they include what I want?...it's too big/small/heavy/light/expensive/fast/slow etc etc' ..... :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I updated the thread title from 60D to 6D.</p>

<p>Nikon certainly inserted some amateur features onto the D600 to differentiate it from the D800 so that their $2100 FX body does not compete directly against the $3000 one. If you want better features, pay more. I think that is fair; likewise betweent the Canon 6D vs. 5D Mark III.</p>

<p>But Nikon at least gives you 9 cross-type AF points, a 100% viewfinder and dual memory cards. As soon as I realized that Canon is bringing back to 11-AF-point module with only 1 cross-type AF point that was previously used on the 5D and 5D Mark II to the 6D, I was like "oh no." I am glad to see the built-in GPS on the 6D, but most of the other features are a half to a full grade below the D600 while the suggested prices are the same.</p>

<p>P.S. This is what DPReview has to say about the 6D's AF system, again, same as the one on the 5D and 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark III has a much better AF system:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a clear weakness of the EOS 5D series prior to the Mark III</p>

</blockquote>

<p>for off-center subjects.<br>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d/6">http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-6d/6</a></p>

<p>[[Rob, no vote, just the usual 'Why can't they include what I want?...it's too big/small/heavy/light/expensive/fast/slow etc etc' ..... :-)]]</p>

<p>Well yes, there's always grousing, (I can't be excluded from that list either, as I dislike the price of the 6D). Wouldn't be the internet without loud opinions for both sides :)</p>

<p>Let's wait and see how the autofocus system and the sensor perform in real life and what the streetprice will be in 6 months time. At the moment we're just looking at numbers (megapixels and autofocus points) but that's just part of the picture.</p>

<p>Personally I would have liked a Rebel style body at USD 1500 - that would have been a surprise, and a good opportunity for a 2nd body but apparantly Canon have chosen differently.</p>

<p>We'll see what the future brings. Now we have Sony as the most innovative, Nikon building solid, rather conservative bodies and Canon a bit lost but with the biggest market share. So they must have been doing something right somewhere.</p>

<p>What's shocking to me is that Canon's latest digital rebel, their entry level offering, outclasses the 6D quite handily. The 650D has a more sophisticated autofocus system (9 cross-type AF sensors vs 1 on the 6D), a higher flash sync speed (1/200th vs 1/180th), and higher continuous frame rate (5/sec vs 4.5/sec). Nikon shooters are complaining that the D600 isn't a suitable upgrade for their prosumer/semi-pro DX bodies. Canon shooters are jealous of Canon's bargain basement kit. Whoops.</p>

<p>Shun, thank you...... typos just happen!</p>

<p>No intention of going to the white side... just waiting for the D700 or D300s replacement..</p>

<p>Course, if Nikon are going to force the fps speed guys to DX, they're going to need a 50-150mm f2.8 AF-S VR very soon!</p>

<p>I am afraid that there will never be a true "D700 replacement," i.e. a downsized D4 while retaining most of its capabilities as the D700 being a downsized D3. For 3+ years, the D700 was the only Nikon FX DSLR that was below $3000. Today, that price category is split between the D600 and D800, but both of them are quite different from the D4.</p>

<p>If you want 8, 9, 10 fps or even faster, you are pretty much restructed to 16MP to 18MP such the D4 and Canon 1DX. The main problem with those cameras is the price tag that is clearly not for everyone. Hopefully there will be a DX option soon.</p>

<p>I don't see where a D700 direct replacement would fall into the price line up either. It would almost have to fall in between the $2000 D600 and $3,000 D800, wouldn't it? If price came out at $2,500, who would buy a D600 when for $500 more you can get a D700-x? Or, who would pay $2,500 for a D700-x when you could have a D800 for $500 more? There's the D4, D800, D600--just how many FX cameras is Nikon going to sell, anyway? I think a D700-x would simply cannabalize sales from existing models.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I, too, see the D600 as superior to the 6D in almost every way. (The 6D has a slightly better screen, but otherwise I'm struggling.)</p>

<p>Re. the pop-up flash thing, Canon have historically chosen not to include a pop-up flash on any of the 5D series, as with the 1D range. Nikon don't with their high-end bodies either. I'm happy to have a flash on my D700 and D800E, but mostly as a trigger for an off-camera flash; it's an obvious weak point, so I can sympathise with Canon's decision.</p>

<p>High-end Canon owners having low-end Canon envy? Well, I'm sure a few D300 owners could make some comments about the D7000 and D3200. As a D700 owner, I've had my own share of envy there.</p>

<p>As for a D700 replacement, if we're just talking a medium frame-rate D4 without an integrated grip (as in D700 vs D3), I don't know that it necessarily has to be priced much under the D800. It's arguably competing with the 5D3 (and D4), not the D800 - it's a camera for a different purpose, and one to which the D800 is poorly-suited.</p>

<p>So, would, say, an 8fps D800/D4 hybrid (body from the former, sensor from the latter) at $3000 get in the way of sales of the D4? Possibly not too much, but to be honest I've no idea. Would it take sales from the 5D3? Very hard to say.</p>

<p>To be honest, even as someone with no horse in this race, I'd sooner see Nikon produce a D400 high-end DX body at this stage. There's room in the market for that, although I also don't think it would need necessarily need to be cheaper than the D600.</p>

<p>I completely agree Andrew. Give me a true D700 replacement camera at 16MP and some upgrades (1-2 stops higher ISO would be #1), Dual CF, higher frame rate etc etc and price it around the D800. The 2 cameras are for very different shooters.</p>

<p>I figure that Nikon is concerned the D800 sales will slip because a number of shooters have gone to that camera from D700's because there was nothing else. With the introduction of the D600, there still is noting for many D700 owners looking for an upgrade.</p>

<p>Consider me one of them and if this is the lineup for the coming 2-3 years (average product cycle). Then I am resigned to looking for 2 cameras over the next 4-5 months and will be used (a D700 and a D3s). I'll just hope they last till the next bodies come out.</p>

<p>There is no doubt that the D700 took some sales away from the D3. In fact, I was all set to get a D3 back in 2008 even after the D700 had already been announced. I took a closer took and decided that the D700 was close enough and I prefer a smaller body.</p>

<p>Back then, Nikon had to introduce something that is FX and way below $5000 to compete against Canon's 5D and 5D Mark II in the $3000 price range. The D3, D3X and the subsequent D3S were all above $5000. The D700 was the only one below that price.</p>

<p>Today, a "true successor to the D700" is going to take sales away from the D4, it is going to compete against the D800 in the $3000 category. And those who want FX but spend as little as possible have the D600. The market for another FX model around $3000 is a lot more limited and will mainly take sales away from one of three other Nikon bodies. Another issue is that the norm for pixel count has shifted. Back in 2008 12MP was still ok. Today, even the D3200, Sony NEX 7, etc. etc. are 24MP. It becomes much harder to sell a 16MP DSLR unless you only target that small sports/news/action maket such as the D4 and Canon 1DX. I hope Nikon will give us a DX version. Otherwise, a "true successor to the D700" is not going to happen.</p>