keith_anderson7

Some nice starscapes taken with a Canon 6D, along with comparative remarks for better and worse vs Nikon and Sony, can be found here. As has been the case for years now, in nearly all forms of photography, Nikon seems to take a slight lead based on more polished overall implementation of Sony sensors, Sony themselves never seem to know WTH to do with their own sensors (so A7 performance is all over the place depending on application), and Canon 6D floats serenely in the middle, nipping gently at Nikon's heels.

This was my feeling re: Nikon quality and not to be a PITA, I am unlikely to buy a Sony. I know DPreview raves about some Sony models but I feel like Canon and Nikon have a better understanding of a photographers needs and have a more refined user experience. In terms of pixel peeping, I tend to agree about Nikon having an edge but realize Nikon and Canon both have their pros/cons and each have models that hit and some that miss, and it’s largely a personal about which of the two options are best for the individual.

Considering the budget, the original EOS 6D can certainly be found within budget, and 2nd hand light used 5D Mk. 2 and 3 probably as well. Sure the D750 is a great option (and definitely the Nikon I'd recommend - consider 2nd hand here as well), I wonder about the rationale of changing brands. Apart from 'muscle memory' for the Canons (which helps getting up and running in no time), you may still have Canon lenses which may actually free up some budget for other things too.

With switching brands, the grass is always greener somewhere else. The differences between similar specified cameras from the same era are getting so small, that switching brands seldomly makes sense. The only serious argument I can think of is availability of specific lenses. But 24-70 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4 are readily available for both brands, so there is little gain there too.

Just to be clear, though, I divested my crop sensor Canon stuff in favor of m4/3 with the understanding that crop sensors are maybe very slightly better in performance than m4/3 and that’s become even more so (in my opinion) over time. So I felt that if I were to go back to a non-m4/3 where quality was my primary goal, it should be FF. I’ll look for a used 6D. But since I have no canon glass anymore and I haven’t had a canon in years I think I’ll have to buy new glass and learn a new camera whichever way I go.

I agree with @Mary Doo upon the 2 stops difference between MFT & FF for the same DOF and basically facing the same problem in the end. - I guess in the macro realm things turn even worse since you 'll shoot a MFT 2:1 shot 1:1 on FF with even less DOF. - If DOF in macro shots is your main problem: Better learn focus stacking; FF can't get you anywhere.

Won’t get me “anywhere” or will get me marginally better but not night/day better?

I do think there is still a decent upgrade in quality comparing m4/3 sensors like in the Oly M1 II vs a FF camera regardless of the shutter type. I also think night and low light are superior with a larger sensor (and presumably larger pixels).

Yeah no problem! The OP said that his M4/3 mirrorless didn't deliver the quality like the DSLR so what I said to him that the reason is sensor size and not whether the camera is DSLR or Mirrorless. So as example taken the Z6 and Z7 which have the same sensor size as the D750 and D850 the Z deliver the same image quality if not even better because they have some newer processors.

Yeah you’re both right. Mirrorless doesnt mean small sensor necessarily and I wasn’t specific about what format I was using.

I've been a satisfied Nikon user, film and digital, going back nearly 40 years. Wonderful system, with hits and misses just like every other brand. But I'm gonna go rogue here based on your feedback so far, and suggest: forget Nikon altogether, and buy a nice used Canon 6D (first version) instead. Since you were "previously a Canon user" you'll already be somewhat familiar with the control mentality and color output. The price is an outright steal at the moment: nice clean low-use 6D bodies are going for $600-$750, often complete in original box with all accessories. The 6D has primitive AF so isn't great for sports or wildlife, but in that price range, there is simply no better general-purpose "starter" full frame camera. Canon takes a lot of heat for having "obsolete" sensors, but the 20MP chip in the original 6D is very very good, in some respects the best they've ever offered in that MP range. Colors are nice and predictable, dynamic range is decent if not spectacular at low ISO while quite competitive at high ISO, and banding and noise (Canon's curse) is absolute minimum even compared to top-line Canons.

 

Going with Canon also gives you more flexibility if you ever migrate to mirrorless in future. The all-electronic lenses are easily adapted for full function (metering, stop-down and AF) to the popular Sony full-frame bodies and the new Canon full-frame mirrorless. Nikon lenses, OTOH, are a PITA when used on non-Nikon bodies: you lose every feature (no coupled metering, no auto-stop-down, and no AF). Don't get me wrong: I enjoy occasionally using my Nikon lenses on Sony and Canon bodies, but being limited to full manual operation doesn't bother me for my projects. Most photographers are extremely unhappy to lose AF, and lose it you will (even on the new Nikon Z mirrorless) unless you limit yourself to the subset of the AFS Nikkors with Canon-style all-electronic design. Sooner or later, most mirrorless users pick up dedicated mirrorless lenses to go with their new bodies, but in the short run being able to use your previous lenses is a great crutch. Quite a few exotic or nice affordable DSLR lenses take forever to appear in dedicated mirrorless versions, are disappointing when they do, or never appear at all: choosing a Canon 6D as your "starter" full frame means any lens you buy for it will migrate with you to mirrorless.

 

Lenses aside, in the real world today, where people on a budget shop used as well as new, Nikon has nothing quite competitive in the price range of a used Canon 6D. The Nikon D700 is a legendary, beloved older semi-pro body that sells for about the same as a used 6D: phenomenal camera but only 12MP, VERY large/heavy and VERY loud. If you don't mind those drawbacks, it has killer fast AF and a lot of other nice features, but its simultaneously too much yet not enough camera for noobs who don't have specific need for it. The infamous Nikon D600 also goes for about the same as a Canon 6D, but is a lousy option unless you simply must have a "current" Nikon at lowest possible cost. The D600 is the Nikon even Nikon fanatics hate on, and thats before you consider the dreadful oil-spattering shutter that can bite you big time. I'd give the D600 a hard pass unless you find one at a fire-sale price like $400.

 

If you have your heart set on buying brand new, and have some specific reason to prefer Nikon (like you seriously have full intention to exploit its dynamic range to the hilt in your work), then I agree with all the other recommendations that your best bet is a D750. My only caveat there is I'd suggest buying it sooner rather than later: odds are 50/50 that its 2019 successor D760 will drop desirable features like backwards AF and metering compatibility with older lenses. Should that be the case, D750s will suddenly become more sought-after, used and new. Other than probable loss of those key features (to maintain the current retail price), the new D760 is not expected to be dramatically different or better. Take the backwards compatibility while you can get it: theres a lot of good older affordable Nikon glass out there that works nicely with the 24MP sensor.

I like the 6d for obvious reasons :)

I haven’t done much pixel peeping to see how it is in low light.

Still don't know what kinda stuff you shoot or want to shoot better? ;)

 

Would a secondhand D3S provide the fps speed and high ISO you need for sport in the dark, or a used D810 provide the DR and pixels for large landscape prints?

I love cameras and getting out and about to take pictures. I was looking at a dSLR for general purpose photography.

I think the biggest deficiency with my m4/3 is when shooting macro where depth of field demands stopping down and then the diffraction is an issue so I’d like to use a dSLR for that. I’d also like to do night sky shooting and like the performance in low light due to larger pixel size. I thought some of the Nikon models were better performers for low light relative to Canon.

You might be running into defraction issues at smaller apertures.

If so, you will have the same problem on a dSLR.

I thought diffraction issues were more pronounced in m4/3 due to the smaller sensor (and high pixel count) and while I’m not a physicist I suspect the distance from the back of the lens to the sensor may play a role.

at this point I might just start with a mirrorless system

I have a mirrorless and a decent set of lenses. I feel it’s limitation is the camera having optimal resolution close to wide open and reduced resolution stopped all the way down. It makes me compromise more than I’d like to in certain situations. I was thinking of getting a dSLR again with 2 lenses such as a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4. The budget I suggested was for the body. I realize it’s a commitment for the full frame glass. So I’ll have to weigh that.

Sound like everyone recommends the 750D. I’ll research it a bit.

Been wanting a new dSLR and was previously a Canon person but want to get a full frame Nikon this time. Was looking at something comparable to the 6d in terms of sensor size but at a budget around $1500 or so. Maybe more but ideally not.

What should I looks at as a noob to the Nikon line?

I'm looking for a GoPro-like camera to take with me on hikes in hopes of capturing an endangered snake on video. Key features are at

least 1 hour of battery life and storage, more is better, a lens that's sufficient to accurately the species of the camera is attached to my

body (resolution and FOV at roughly 6-20' distances) and a sensor high res and with sufficient color rendering to see detail and color at

that same distance. Any thoughts are appreciated. Anything under $500 is fine.

The Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 spectacular. Aside from build quality it's perhaps a tier above the Leica 24mm.

I think the ever improving lens choices is making m4/3 very attractive.

Just got an FL50 on eBay for under $200. Barely used. Keeping my fingers crossed :)

Thanks for the advice y'all!

<p>I'm going to buy this camera as well. It's a clear upgrade to my GF1.</p>

<p>When m4/3 hit the scene, I felt pretty sure that it was a matter of a short period of time before the advantages on APS-C and APS-H sensors would diminish relative to the m4/3 offerings. I bought my GF1 knowing that it was clearly my FIRST m4/3 body and would not be the last. Don't get me wrong, I know there are still advantages to cameras with larger sensors, just none that matter much to me at this point. The Oly E-M5, to me, is proof that I was correct in my assumption about the narrowing gap, but more importantly, is just an awesome addition to the m4/3 system.</p>

<p>It's also why I hoped Fuji would make the interchangable lens version of the X100 with a smaller sensor and the lenses compatible with the m4/3 standard... you can get outstanding results with a m4/3 sized sensor if you engineer it properly AND have good image processing. I think there is plenty of room for players like Fuji to push the envelope of what you can get from a smaller sensor, and in the case of Fuji, would also be a welcomed addition to the assortment of lenses available.</p>

<p>Personally I find Fuji and Oly pretty exciting right now, and more or less feel bored and unimpressed with Canon and Nikon's recent offerings. I am happy I divested my dSLR stuff. Tomorrow I will ship my EOS flash to my father as a gift, I no longer see any reason to waste time on those bulky things.</p>

You're saying the Oly flashes are fully compatible with the Panny cameras? I thought they were not, otherwise I'd have

just gotten the FL50R.

<p>I have a GF1 and a DMW-FL360 TTL flash. The flash isn't powerful enough for me in general, and I'm also thinking of upgrading the body to the OM-D E-M5 and want to use the GF1 as a backup body. Ideally I'd like a more powerful flash but would like it to be cross compatible with both bodies. </p>

<p>Anyone have feedback on the Metz 58 AF-1? On paper it seems spectacular. One review on Amazon says the tilt and swivel joint feels flimsy. Anyone have direct experience with it who can comment?</p>

<p> </p>

A Sony-Olympus alliance is under

discussion. Sony is probably good for

some things (sensors) but I'm tired of

them dumbing things down for the

"soccer mom" (figuratively, I personally

like soccer moms), when we really

need serious camera equipment like

Oly could do with the OM-D. God save

us from the company with a good

reputation which hasn't been lived up

to for at least a decade, maybe two

decades.

<p>Do Panasonic and Olympus do a good enough job that they're not needed as much as for the NEX (eg there's an obvious NEX niche)? <br>

Does Tamron, SLR Magic, etc, like the NEX better?<br>

I wish the m4/3 community had a bigger selection of lenses. Where the heck are they?</p>

<p>I think the only time I cared about MP count was when I had a ~3MP and wanted at least 5, I ended up getting a 6 or 7 model. After that, I haven't paid much attention, I don't think it makes much difference in IQ.</p>

<p>@ Scott, my earlier comment was to suggest the camera companies probably deliberately focus on incremental changes because there isn't much to gain by forging ahead by leaps and bounds. Staying a little bit ahead and putting out new models when the market suggests its time is perhaps a better business model. The consumer pays (in $$) for the strategy and thinking their camera is now "obsolete" because a new model with 3 additional MP just hit the market.</p>

<p>Who gives a F&%k?</p>

<p>They make a lot of money stringing the consumer along by putting out something [barely] incrementally better every year or two. Milk it baby, milk it!</p>

<p> </p>

I like nude photography because I imagine the story behind the shoot. Are the photographer and subject a couple? Hot, wild sex

after the shoot because it's so arousing? If the subject is a paid model, do they spend time with the photographer and get to know

eachother before doing the shoot? Do they talk a lot about what they each want from the shoot and types of poses or locations to be

the appropriate foil for the subject? And then did I mention the hot and wild sex they must have after the shoot :)

Art makes you think and feel, unartistic nudes don't. So it's mostly in the eye of the beholder of course.

I'm personally liking the stuff Olymups is doing lately. The XZ 1 seems pretty sweet. IQ would be similar to a Canon G12 or Panny

LX5 or the aforementioned Samsung. That said I think if size isn't a primary concern I agree with the others that a m4/3 should be

considered, or the Samsung or Pentax or Sony equivalent-ish's (eg the Q or NEX or NX).

I personally think good IQ is addictive and so far can never again bring myself to buy a compact again due to soft lenses, tiny sensors,

and no ability to mount a flash.

If you want a compact go to a good shop and try all the models and Pick the one that feels best.