# Anyone else frustrated with Canon?



## JBrown (Jun 19, 2013)

Am I the only one frustrated with Canon? I have been on the market for a new camera specifically a full frame and Canon just dropped the ball.

I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back. Its not that the 6d is all that bad of a camera, its that the D600 exists. As if mocking me to switch to nikon.

The main issue is I don't see a specific way forward. The 5d3 is out of my range/needs and there won't be a refresh on the 6d for years. Even if the 7d2 and 70d are spectacular they won't have the noise performance of the full frames.

I much prefer the camera ergonomics of Canon and already have a decent amount tied up in gear. I know some would say just buy the 6d, but I have a problem paying that much for a camera with a neutered af system.

Just frustrated with Canon


----------



## Light Guru (Jun 19, 2013)

JBrown said:


> Am I the only one frustrated with Canon? I have been on the market for a new camera specifically a full frame and Canon just dropped the ball.
> 
> I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back.
> 
> The 5d3 is out of my range/needs and there won't be a refresh on the 6d for years



So in other words your upset that Canon is not selling a high end camera at a inexpensive price. 

Canon did "drop the ball" as you say they made a fair marketing decision.  Don't be upset because YOU are not willing to pay a fair price for the 5D3.


----------



## davisphotos (Jun 19, 2013)

The 6D is comparable to the 5D2 at a lower price and with some added features. What are you upset about?


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

I can't see why everyone is so bothered about noise, photography is about light if there is not enough don't take the shot, low light capability is only needed for concerts,sport, news my 5D has served me well and will do for more years to come even though i have gone back to film with 2 Leicas neither has AF and 99% of shots are in focus


----------



## JBrown (Jun 19, 2013)

In a world where only Canon exists the 6d is a great camera. However nikon exists and the d600 just shows what the 6d could have been.

Also how old is the 5d2 now and how is that even relative to current tech and competitor offerings? 

Not meant to be a bitching thread, just frustrating looking at the optiins available and none of them suiting my needs and nothing on the horizon any time soon.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2013)

I can understand some of your frustration. For quite a while, Canon was substantially ahead of all other competitors in the d-slr market. Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Samsung, Olympus all made d-slr cameras and ALL were technically behind on sensor performance. AT that time, as a long-time Nikon user, I bought a moderately nice Canon system of two bodies and 10 lenses to see if I could make the switch fully to Canon. I even bought the full-frame Canon 5D, at a time that was around two years before Nikon had its very first full-frame camera, the D3.

But since 2007 or so, Canon has begun, as Michael Reichmann called it, "Failing to innovate." I read the same thing from dPreview's writers...Canon has lately begun iterating, but not innovating much. LIke the new T5i...it's the basically the SAME camera as the T4i--except the mode dial rotates 360 degrees, with no end-click stop, and it weight .2 oz more, and the flash goes .2 foot farther. (And in all fairness, it has a new Digic processor).

As to the 6D versus Nikon D600; Nikon was lagging behind Canon, so Nikon FIRED huge numbers of senior and upper- and mid-level engineers, the dolts who were responsible for the debacle that was the D2 generation, and promoted younger, hungrier designers, and told them, "Do better than the guys who had your jobs before you, or you'll be getting fired too." What happened is that Nikon began down-migrating the professional-level stuff, like the focusing system, from their flagship models, into mid-level cameras. They designed newer, better sensors. They began to innovate. They are after all, the only true "camera and imaging company" in the d-slr business. All the other companies are huge, diversified companies. Nikon is smaller, and makes imaging-related stuff. And as to the 6D versus D600; Nikon realized back in 2007 that they simply needed to create better cameras than their competition, and so they have set out to do just that. The fact that Canon charges another $500 or so more for their 5D Mark III than Nikon prices their D800 at is an example of a smaller competitor trying to appeal to consumers on features and value and price/performance. Nikon is in effect, trying to get market share by offering better cameras than they used to. Canon is still continuing with the good sensor in EOS Elan, $389-class camera body. They did that with the 5D, then the 5D-II; they HAD to make upgrades on the 5D-III because it has to compete against the D800.

Still, I think maybe you're being a bit unfair to the 6D.


----------



## JBrown (Jun 19, 2013)

Noise performance is the main thing worth upgrading for. For your needs it may not matter, but I hate to be in a position where I either can't take the shot or its got so much noise its not worth taking. Lots of interesting stuff happens at night.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

JBrown said:


> In a world where only Canon exists the 6d is a great camera. However nikon exists and the d600 just shows what the 6d could have been.
> 
> Also how old is the 5d2 now and how is that even relative to current tech and competitor offerings?
> 
> Not meant to be a bitching thread, just frustrating looking at the optiins available and none of them suiting my needs and nothing on the horizon any time soon.



New cameras are getting full of crap that you don't need, a better camera will not make you a better photographer


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

JBrown said:


> Noise performance is the main thing worth upgrading for. For your needs it may not matter, but I hate to be in a position where I either can't take the shot or its got so much noise its not worth taking. Lots of interesting stuff happens at night.



I don't think so the pubs are open


----------



## Light Guru (Jun 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> a better camera will not make you a better photographer



Exactly.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > a better camera will not make you a better photographer
> ...



You know, I do not agree with that statement. I recently moved wayyyyyy up, from a Nikon D2x and Canon 5D pair of cameras I had for seven and five years,respectively to a Nikon D3x. The kind of pictures I can now take *easily* were impossible with the D2x and its chitty performance at higher ISO levels, or with the 5D with its list of issues. Single-exposure almost HDR dynamic range shots? NO problem! Autofocus on the money even with slower lenses? No problem for the D3x. SHooting surfing against the light? No more pure silhouettes with the better DR of the better camera.

Seriously; a pro-level camera improves almost everything. It makes some things that are simply NOT possible, quite easily possible. The idea that a better camera will not make one a better photographer is a cute little saying...but there's a reason, a whole list of reasons actually, why Nikon and Canon have made these high-end flagship level cameras for over a decade now.

If the camera did not matter, professionals would all be shooting crap like Nikon D40 and Canon Digital Rebel Xt bodies. But they are not, are they...

Here's a few analogies that show what a load of B.S. the "A better camera will not make you a better photographer" statement is"

"A better race car will not give you the chance to win more races."  "Being stronger will not win you more shot-put competitions."  "A faster computer will not allow you to process thousands of images any faster than a slow computer."  "A sharper knife makes no difference when filleting fish--a dull knife is plenty good."

Sorry...cameras are tools. Better tools are..better...better tools allow a person to perform better work, faster,easier, and more often, with less hassle, and the net result is "better" work product, time after time after time.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 19, 2013)

JBrown said:


> Noise performance is the main thing worth upgrading for. For your needs it may not matter, but I hate to be in a position where I either can't take the shot or its got so much noise its not worth taking. Lots of interesting stuff happens at night.



its not really Canons fault you cant afford the camera they produce that best suits your needs. 
you can either make do with what you can budget, or go to a photographic medium better suited to your current gear. 
how exactly is the 6D's AF system "holding your back"? 
are you suggesting that noone could shoot in low light before the 5dIII came out? the 5DII is a very capable low light body.  perhaps it it is your technique that is lacking rather than the camera itself.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> I can't see why everyone is so bothered about noise, photography is about light if there is not enough don't take the shot, low light capability is only needed for concerts,sport, news my 5D has served me well and will do for more years to come even though i have gone back to film with 2 Leicas neither has AF and 99% of shots are in focus


I can't tell you how important it is to me to have a camera that performs well with uber, duber increased ISO. I try to avoid flash, or only use it to create an even more dramatic scene, so I rely on a higher ISO to get some of my shots during weddings that really fit with my style. I know you can correct some of the noise in PP, but I would rather not lose the detail and have a capable camera in the first place. Myself and my second shooter both shoot with the 5d mark iii's, and I told her yesterday that upgrading to that camera was the best decision I ever made as far as gear is concerned. She agreed 100%. Besides the amazing low light capabilities, the focusing system is just amazing, and really customizable to your specific needs.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



It has not improved you as a photographer


----------



## Light Guru (Jun 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



The point is the person BEHIND the camera is far more important that the camera itself.  Complaining that the camera makers are not selling the high end cameras at low prices does NOT help your photography.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2013)

gsgary said:
			
		

> It has not improved you as a photographer



It has improved my capabilities, tremendously. Unlike the 5D, which struggled with f/4 lens to focus well, the D3x kicks ass with ANY AF lens I pop on it.

Here's another idea: You and I do a 50-kilometer race from your favorite pub to your partner's favorite weekend getaway spot's pub. I will ride your green street bike. YOU will ride MY vintage 1975 Honda Mini-Trail 50cc motor bike. Yes, 50cc--a whopping two-ounce displacement.

Who will win? Now, keep in mind, my Honda mini-bike has a three-speed automatic, and tops out at 27 MPH.

Yeah...I thought so...


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 5D has never held me back or missed a shot due to the AF or with my 1Dmk2's, im finding manual focus with the Leica better so going backwards 30 years for me was better


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2013)

These "new sensor" cameras like the 5D-III, D7100, D3x,D600,D800 are simply AMAZING tools. The first time I picked up a 5D-III with the re-positioned controls I thought, "God...this feels like a pro Nikon." Gone was that $389 EOS Elan body that the 5D Classic and 5D-II had. Gone was the old, clunky, 9-point AF. Instead, they souped up the sensor, beefed up the AF, and made one heck of a camera. The 5D III could easily have been named something else. It's whole *new thing.

*Back to the OP's issue: being disillusioned by Canon. I can understand that. The camera companies have products, and once in a while, other companies offer competing products that make Product X or Y seem "anemic", or "sub-par", or "non-competitive". Believe me--I KNOW the feeling. Nikon seriously lagged behind Canon for multiple generations. Right now, the 6D versus D600 is one specific, head-to-head area where Canon's design ideas are different from the direction Nikon went. The Canon offers wireless connectivity and direct uploading, which is something that many "techie" and social media photographers might like. 

"We try harder, we're number 2, so we have to try harder." Nikon has been vigorously discounting and cutting prices, and has been inching upward closer to Canon in sales. Still, I think maybe the OP ought to give the 6D a chance. YES, it is a "simplified" camera, with no pop-up flash, no flash commander, and so on. But it's got a good sensor. I personally think of it as the 5D-II Lite. On the other hand, if he's really disappointed, he could switch brands. The thing is: a few years ago, a 6D would have been *a home run camera*; what is making it not one is 1) the 5D Mark III, and the Nikon D600 and D7100.

I enjoy the tools of the photo game. Camera talk is fun. There are many different options in today's marketplace. For the hobbyist with less than 5 lenses, I can see switching systems as being not that big of a deal.,


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

I think people tend to get way to hung up on tech specs. Chances are you're not going to push the boundries on any of the hang ups you mentioned at least to the point of not being happy with the result. I mean is a few AF points really that big of a deal at the end of the day? Is super High ISO going to mean the difference between a **** photo or an award winner?

Frankly I am using a camera that is 6 years old, not by choice, but I've learned to live with the shortfalls and adjust accordingly. I like to think I make pretty decent photos and the camera honestly doesn't leave me wanting for much except full frame and that is a giant tech leap.


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2013)

Better gear works better and produces - at a technical level - better results.

Better gear also reduces the working limitations present on a photographer by the gear itself.

Each photographer will have their own set of working conditions that they operate within - some will reach a point where improvements in technical advance are no longer giving large or much gain since lesser gear has already reached a point where it meets the photographers requirements. Other photographers will have greater ranges of working situations and thus gear improvements will extend them. 

Better hardware won't make you a better artist - but it will allow you greater artistic freedom to explore and work with. That increased ability and reduced hardware limit MIGHT let you play more and thus experience more and thus lead to improvements in artistic quality - however its only as a byproduct of improved experience.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 19, 2013)

JBrown said:


> In a world where only Canon exists the 6d is a great camera. However nikon exists and the d600 just shows what the 6d could have been.


I think I understand what you are talking about.
Canon does make good cameras but to me it looks like Canon is acting like it has no competition, like its the only camera maker in the world.
Lots of variety out there and Canon needs to show the world again what it really can do and how good its cameras can be.

I think the 6D is a great camera but for sure its got its flaws and in many ways the D600 has few advantages over it.
If thats a deal breaker for you or not is only for you to decide.


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2013)

An additional point - chasing the best bodies is a war where you don't get to win. Canon was top a few years back - Nikon is now top - heck in a year or two SONY or PENTAX could be top. If you invest heavily in photography and try to chase "the best" bodies you'll lose. You'll end up spending a fortune every time to either add a new slew of gear to your setup or you'll lose as you keep trading one setup for another. 

Think long term - think a few years because your flash units, lenses, etc... are all easily going to last you years if you've bought quality options. If you've still got entry level gear or cheaper options then yes you are in a much stronger position to say "ok the other company is better for my needs - I'll switch". 

Also consider how strong your limits are - are you just chasing tech specs or are you really in serious need of the camera with the better features?


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i don't have a green bike, 1 is silver 1 is yellow  and it is not the speed that you get there it's the fun you have getting there its the same with photography i'm more into the low tech now, no meter, no AF


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

Overread said:


> Better gear also reduces the working limitations present on a photographer by the gear itself.



I am waffling on this one. While yes that is technically true, I also think its a bit of a cop out.

I think in a way its not making the user work/think hard enough to get the desired result. I mean I am racking my brain to try to come up with a scenarios where I could not overcome technical limitations by thinking outside the box or just using what I do have to my advantage.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2013)

I get that gary, low-tech, rangefinder, no meter, film--it's good stuff!!! Cheers!


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

goodguy said:


> JBrown said:
> 
> 
> > In a world where only Canon exists the 6d is a great camera. However nikon exists and the d600 just shows what the 6d could have been.
> ...



It would be a crap world if Canon made a camera that did exactly the same as Nikon and had the same spec


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I get that gary, low-tech, rangefinder, no meter, film--it's good stuff!!! Cheers!



All i want now is an M9P or Monocrom


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Better gear also reduces the working limitations present on a photographer by the gear itself.
> ...



There are many scenarios today where having one of the "*new-sensor*" cameras allows available light action shooting with no flash, at shutter speeds and f/stops that were simply UNTHINKABLE for my first 30 years in photography. When you move from a camera that is around #275 on the DxO Mark sensor performance scale to one in the Top 10, you realize that the camera actually was a HUGE, huge limitation, in many different scenarios.

What has happened is that the "new-sensor" cameras have literally MOVED the boundaries of what is now technically possible, and EASILY-shot, and which was only a DREAM even 20 years ago.


----------



## goodguy (Jun 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > JBrown said:
> ...



Agreed!


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> There are many scenarios today where having one of the "*new-sensor*" cameras allows available light action shooting with no flash, at shutter speeds and f/stops that were simply UNTHINKABLE for my first 30 years in photography. When you move from a camera that is around #275 on the DxO Mark sensor performance scale to one in the Top 10, you realize that the camera actually was a HUGE, huge limitation, in many different scenarios.
> 
> What has happened is that the "new-sensor" cameras have literally MOVED the boundaries of what is now technically possible, and EASILY-shot, and which was only a DREAM even 20 years ago.



Oh for sure, but in this case I am talking about a 6 year old camera. I just think we've gotten to the point where most DSLR made within the last 5 years are still pretty damn good and now it's just minor incrimental increases in things like MP, ISO, and AF.

At the end of the day it's going to be very very few people out there who are hitting the wall in any shape or form with most modern high end DSLRs.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> There are many scenarios today where having one of the "*new-sensor*" cameras allows available light action shooting with no flash, at shutter speeds and f/stops that were simply UNTHINKABLE for my first 30 years in photography. When you move from a camera that is around #275 on the DxO Mark sensor performance scale to one in the Top 10, you realize that the camera actually was a HUGE, huge limitation, in many different scenarios.
> 
> What has happened is that the "new-sensor" cameras have literally MOVED the boundaries of what is now technically possible, and EASILY-shot, and which was only a DREAM even 20 years ago.



That's because, like many of us, 20 years ago you were still shooting ASA 25 or 64 Kodachrome or ASA 100 Plus X or Ilford, or maybe pushing the boundaries with ASA 400 Tri-X or Kodacolor.

People who weren't into photography decades ago honestly have no idea how good they have it today.  We grew up without autofocus, without automatic exposure metering, without automatic film advance, with low ASA (ISO) film, and we had to pay for every trip of the shutter whether it was good or not.  There was no "Instant Gratification" of looking at an exposure on an LCD to see if it was good and we didn't have highlights and histograms displayed on the camera backs.  We either had to wait a couple of days to see if we got anything or go home and spend some time in the darkroom.

Personally I think it should be a requirement that everyone shoot film with a 70's vintage camera for a year before they are allowed to purchase a DSLR.  It makes you appreciate everything about even the lowest of the low digital boxes.


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Personally I think it should be a requirement that everyone shoot film with a 70's vintage camera for a year before they are allowed to purchase a DSLR.  It makes you appreciate everything about even the lowest of the low digital boxes.



Bingo. Having dug up my old A1 (camera not sauce) and running some roll through it I totally appreciate modern tech, hence my stance on the matter.


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2013)

Think about wildlife - if I want a sharp shot I need a 1/400sec or faster shutter speed:
I then have a limit on the aperture - it likely won't be f2.8 unless I have A LOT of money to spend. It will be f4-f8 kind of range - esp toward the higher numbers if I want a good depth of field. 

So I've two hard caps - my ISO is thus very important - thus any improvement in the quality and upper limit instantly allows me to shoot in dimmer or more challenging lighting conditions and get a good shot not just a blurr or a record shot. Sure I could come back with a complex lighting setup of flash units or a fortune in f2.8 glass - but that's not always on the cards or even practical. YES you can work within limits and get great shots - we've a history of them everywhere. That doesn't mean that advance doesn't increase the potential.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 19, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > There are many scenarios today where having one of the "*new-sensor*" cameras allows available light action shooting with no flash, at shutter speeds and f/stops that were simply UNTHINKABLE for my first 30 years in photography. When you move from a camera that is around #275 on the DxO Mark sensor performance scale to one in the Top 10, you realize that the camera actually was a HUGE, huge limitation, in many different scenarios.
> ...



Meh... Thats like saying you should be required to drive a manual transmission car with no power steering for a year before you can buy a new one.  (ive already covered that requirement btw) 
Should all film photographers have to start with plates so they appreciate roll or cartridge film? Or have to use flash powder to appreciate speedlights?


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

Overread said:


> Think about wildlife - if I want a sharp shot I need a 1/400sec or faster shutter speed:
> I then have a limit on the aperture - it likely won't be f2.8 unless I have A LOT of money to spend. It will be f4-f8 kind of range - esp toward the higher numbers if I want a good depth of field.
> 
> So I've two hard caps - my ISO is thus very important - thus any improvement in the quality and upper limit instantly allows me to shoot in dimmer or more challenging lighting conditions and get a good shot not just a blurr or a record shot. Sure I could come back with a complex lighting setup of flash units or a fortune in f2.8 glass - but that's not always on the cards or even practical. YES you can work within limits and get great shots - we've a history of them everywhere. That doesn't mean that advance doesn't increase the potential.



But are you really going to utilize the far ends of the spectrum which are the battlegrounds for the tech spec battle?


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



If you pass your driving test in an automatic car you cannot drive a manual car legally on the roads of the UK


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> If you pass your driving test in an automatic car you cannot drive a manual car legally on the roads of the UK



I think everyone should be able to drive every type of vehicle they can get their hands on. I'd hate to be in an emergency situation and only have a manual car and not be able to drive it.


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Think about wildlife - if I want a sharp shot I need a 1/400sec or faster shutter speed:
> ...



Yes yes I likely will - I just can't afford that end of the spectrum to take part in it. However that end of the tech war is still important because one day the features will slowly filter down to a price level I can afford or can save up to more easily. I can certainly agree, someone who takes portraits of people or similar subjects might well reach a point where the tech advance is no longer important or as important to them - that's perfectly and utterly fine and I won't argue against it at all.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 19, 2013)

gsgary said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > SCraig said:
> ...



seriously? thats awesome. should be like that here in the U.S.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Better gear also reduces the working limitations present on a photographer by the gear itself.
> ...


Come shoot a wedding with me and I will show you. I could and am able to think outside the box, but when I am in time constraints, when I could do the job 10x's faster, and more cost effectively, why would I?


----------



## SCraig (Jun 19, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Should all film photographers have to start with plates so they appreciate roll or cartridge film? Or have to use flash powder to appreciate speedlights?


Not necessary.  Going back to the 60's is plenty far enough.  Unless having done that they still think ISO 800 and 1600 are not fast enough.  I promise you, after shooting ASA 25 for a while, even a short while, you CAN find enough light with ISO 1600.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 19, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Ill shoot film, delta 3200, you can't shoot a wedding any fast than event proceeds


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Come shoot a wedding with me and I will show you. I could and am able to think outside the box, but when I am in time constraints, when I could do the job 10x's faster, and more cost effectively, why would I?



Do you feel your end result suffer? Could you use some examples?


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 19, 2013)

JBrown said:


> Am I the only one frustrated with Canon? I have been on the market for a new camera specifically a full frame and Canon just dropped the ball.
> 
> I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back. Its not that the 6d is all that bad of a camera, its that the D600 exists. As if mocking me to switch to nikon.
> 
> ...



I'm confused by your assessment of the 6D focusing system... your message implies it is somehow a "poor" system, especially as you relate it to the D600 as if it's somehow a "better" system.

Two things:

The 6D has a central cross-type focus point.  The D600 has 9.  That sounds like a score for the D600... UNTIL you look at the layout.  For example... on a 7D, 60D, or even a T4i/T5i (basically the T4i "a" and "b" version since nobody can figure out what's different on a T5i beyond the mode dial, but that's another thread) you get a focusing system in which all the focus points are cross-type but they're also spread around the viewfinder.  But that's not true of the D600... all the cross-type points are concentrated in the very center.

The "general" complaint about only having a single cross-type focus point in the center is that you have to do a focus & recompose if you don't trust the single axis focus points spread around the rest of the viewfinder.   But this doesn't help the D600... since all of it's 9 cross-type points are tightly clustered in the center anyway... you still have to do a focus & recompose method if you want to use cross-type focusing.

Next... is the sensitivity of the focus points.  Nikon's D600 cross-type AF points are rated to -1 EV according to Nikon specs.  Canon's 6D cross-type AF point is rated to -3 EV according to Canon specs.  I did run across a blog post where someone tested the two.  When it gets dark enough, the D600 focus system fails to lock focus -- but the 6D system still works.

From the perspective of these two points, the 6D's focus system is actually better than the D600.

Sure, the 6D system isn't the fantastic focus system of the flagship 1D-X or the 5D III, but it's a pretty good system considering the substantially cost savings for the 6D body.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2013)

Again, TCampbell lends some sane perspective to a (somewhat) complicated issue; I think the OP is being a bit unfair to the 6D. Sure, it *is* a bit stripped-down in some areas, but I have seen video and stills from it...the sensor's quality is very good!!! The video it shoots even in bad light--looks very good! If you want a built-in flash and built-in wireless remote flash commander capabilities, then the D600 from Nikon is for you.

I think the people who ought to be disillusioned with Canon are the APS-C shooters; Canon has been 'stuck' on the same 18 megapixel, .5 micron process APS-C sensor since 2009. They have terribly neglected the APS-C cameras for several generations now. The 6D has an all-new 20.2 MP full-frame sensor; the pictures it makes look GOOD!


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2013)

Honestly I'm happy with 18MP - I don't really want 20 or 40 or whatever the next silly number is. I'd really hope the next crop sensor works on improving the high ISO range above all else rather than pushing more pixies into things (heck I'm all for an ISO War ^^)


----------



## JBrown (Jun 19, 2013)

Im currently using a T3i and while a great camera, it is quite easy to run into limitations. IE sports at night, indoor stuff, concerts etc. etc.  I generally fall into the bang/buck area in hobbies. I dont mind spending cash when there is clear upgrade/advantage/value associated with it. So while I dont run into my cameras limitations on a daily basis or every time I shoot, but when I do want the shots that just arent possible (usually ISO related), I  to look how to correct it. So looking at the current lineup there is nothing in the crop sensor lineup to upgrade to. Of course that should change shorty, but even when it does the ISO performance wont be increased that dramatically. Then comes the full frame where we have 3 possible choices. The 5d2, 5d3, and 6D. I just eliminate the 5d2 off the bat since the 6D is essentially the same thing (I know the differences). So that leaves me with the 6D and 5D3. 

6D - Has the right ISO performance, decent features, right price. Focus system leaves something to be desired. I understand why they did it the way they did, to protect the 5d3. The frustrating part is that IMO it kills the whole package. When shooting wildlife and sports on the T3i I always wonder how much hit rate would improve with a better AF. Having watched the 2 hour video on Canon AF systems, specifically the 5d3, I realized just how epic that focus system is. Of course the 6d isnt going to have that system, but its a deal breaker when it essentially has the same as the rebel series. The super low light AF point just doesnt sell it for me. If it had the 7D AF system I would have already bought the 6d and this thread wouldnt exist. Its frustrating to be buying a premium product with a glaringly entry level AF system attached.

5D3 - Dream camera, however at over $3000 I cant justify it. To purchase this camera is essentially IMO saying you are paying 1k more for the AF system and small build quality and ISO improvements over the 6d. Thats not a bang for the buck scenario. If I was a pro it would be a no brainer decision.

So for me Canon essentially has nothing to buy right now and that's the frustrating part. To make matters worse Nikon has essentially the camera I want in the D600. Of course the easy answer is to say sell it all, but thats a PITA and a money losing situation making the cost even higher for the D600 and again skewing the value proposition.


----------



## JBrown (Jun 19, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> JBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one frustrated with Canon? I have been on the market for a new camera specifically a full frame and Canon just dropped the ball.
> ...



On point assessment. For me the super low light AF cross point is essentially worthless in any scenario I would expect to use it as I would most likely have a speed light mounted with a IR assist beam. I read the blog you are referring to and if you remember the D600 has a built in IR which essentially made it just as good as the 6D in practical use. The 6D was only superior when he turned it off. Now in comparison to crosspoint issue you mention all the cameras but the 6D except noting its 1 and mentioning the 9 of the D600. Crosspoints are part of the equation, but point selection, expanded point selection, zone selection etc are all considerations in a quality AF system. The 6D is just lacking in this regard and there is no other way around it. The question then becomes what does this mean in the real world. Well I honestly cant say as I havent had time behind the cameras. However, based on all the praise of those going from a 5d2 to 5d3 in just the AF system, I would venture to say its worth consideration.


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2013)

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon tries to work a fullframe body between the 6D and 5DMIII - price wise a body could easily fit between them - features would be a sticky topic, but it could be done and Canon do appear keen to break up their line or are at least experimenting a lot with it at present (I get a feeling they are trying to break away from simply having the same price and feature line as Nikon does so that they not only have more bodies at various price brackets, but also nothing "direct" to compete with - esp at the lower price points where Canon is more aggressive at feature cutting over Nikon are at present).


----------



## kathyt (Jun 19, 2013)

runnah said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Come shoot a wedding with me and I will show you. I could and am able to think outside the box, but when I am in time constraints, when I could do the job 10x's faster, and more cost effectively, why would I?
> ...


Here is an example. I used to use 2 speed lights for receptions off camera. During receptions things are moving so fast and I want to catch some of those crazy dance shots or something going on in the other part of the room. Instead of moving anything I can now just bump up my ISO and use the DJ's ambient light. With my Mark ii I did not do this because the noise was not acceptable at all.


----------



## runnah (Jun 19, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Here is an example. I used to use 2 speed lights for receptions off camera. During receptions things are moving so fast and I want to catch some of those crazy dance shots or something going on in the other part of the room. Instead of moving anything I can now just bump up my ISO and use the DJ's ambient light. With my Mark ii I did not do this because the noise was not acceptable at all.



For reals? 

Can I see?


----------



## Juga (Jun 19, 2013)

Overread said:


> Honestly I'm happy with 18MP - I don't really want 20 or 40 or whatever the next silly number is. I'd really hope the next crop sensor works on improving the high ISO range above all else rather than pushing more pixies into things (heck I'm all for an ISO War ^^)



I agree 100% with this. I rather win at higher ISO than 895798073098473 point focus system especially with the type of shooting that I do personally. So with that being said the 6D is flat out better than the D600 at higher ISO and that is most likely due to the lower MP count but again I rather win at high ISO than MP count because 20MP is going more than enough to provide a high quality image...given the photographer knows how to compose...something I fail at but whatever this is my hobby! :lmao:


----------



## zcar21 (Jun 20, 2013)

Nikon D40 and Canon XT are crap??? In what respect? ISO?

Must people don't need 125,000 ISO.

I took two raw pictures from Image-resource.com to compare them. D40 and D3200 at iso 3200, downsided the d3200's picture and applied 50% noise reduction and sharpening to the other one. 

Of course the D3200 shows a little more detail, but the noise can be easily fixed in post process, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 20, 2013)

zcar21 said:


> Nikon D40 and Canon XT are crap??? In what respect? ISO?
> 
> Must people don't need 125,000 ISO.
> 
> ...



Yes, in ISO performance both are poor. BY today's "new-sensor" standards, they are POOR. I have shot the D40, fairly externsively. It's a 6-megapixel camera. A D800 is a 36-megapixel camera. With a D40, a 13x19 in ch print from my EPSON printer looks like sub-par. From a 24 megapixel D3x, or a Canon 6D, it looks excellent. The newer, higher-MP cameras produce even 8x10 prints that have higher acuity. The new-sensor camera produce images that just look BETTER than what we had eight years ago, when the D40 was popular.

The D40 at 13x19 is a 130 dpi image; with even a several-years-old Canon 5D-II, at 21 megapixels, the same 13x19 print is made from a 295 dpi image, and looks "excellent".

How Big Can I Print by Thom Hogan


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 20, 2013)

gsgary said:


> I can't see why everyone is so bothered about noise, photography is about light if there is not enough don't take the shot, low light capability is only needed for concerts,sport, news my 5D has served me well and will do for more years to come even though i have gone back to film with 2 Leicas neither has AF and 99% of shots are in focus



Or, you know... anybody who wishes to photograph anything in the world during the entire half of the day when it happens to be in darkness.  A little thing I like to call night time.



> a better camera will not make you a better photographer


This is just false.  I have been teaching my girlfriend basic photography over the last few weeks, and once she learned basic composition and exposure triangle and such, her decent quality photo rate is almost twice as high already with my 6D versus my Rebel T2i.

After like 3 weeks.

Now, granted, she has lupus which makes her very sensitive to the sun, so we mainly photograph at night, where the full frame excels.  But that's ALL it took to already make a 3 week old photographer run up against a major limitation of an entry level DSLR and already begin to miss decent shots due to insufficient speed and low light performance.

Note that I also gave her my 50mm 1.8 to use, knowing that the older camera would not be as good in low light, while I was using the 24-105mm f/4L. Even with a 2.3 stop slower lens, she is *still *missing more shots on the lower end camera than on the nicer one.

*As soon as anybody gets the slightest bit good enough to hit any walls with the limitations of their cameras, a better camera WILL make them a better photographer by removing that bottleneck for them.*



> Nikon D600 vs. Canon 6D


As for the topic of the OP, I think that calling the D600 just embarassingly flat out better than the 6D is simply incorrect.

For one thing, go look at the reviews on Amazon for one versus the other, bodies only.  *The D600 gets 3.8 out of 5 stars, and the 6D gets 4.7 out of 5 stars.* Over hundreds and hundreds of reviewers each.

Why?  Well go read them, but short story:

1) Nikon's inferior ergonomics matter just as much as any technical optics or sensor differences do, and they are significantly inferior by almost all accounts of people comparing the two directly.  Even the OP acknowledges this during his rant against the 6D.

2) The D600 apparently has a mirror that flings bits of oil onto the sensor... I don't know if this has been fixed, but that is a horrible Horrible HORRIBLE flaw, and it deserves every single 1 star review it gets for people afflicted by it.  Straight up OIL.  probably the hardest thing to get off your sensor at all, short of like... tar.

3) The 6D is a good solid full stop better in ISO noise performance



If not for the oil issue, it looks like they would both get fairly identical reviews, with the poorer Nikon ergonomics and ISO balanced fairly well by Canon's somewhat lesser other technical specifications.


----------



## zcar21 (Jun 20, 2013)

I don't know if the OP shoot a lot of sport, I would guess he shoots mostly portraits. If this is the case this shouldn't be an issue.
According to digitalrev tv the nikon "feels subtly  better than the canon" so for most people the focus points shouldn't make a big different.


----------



## MarshallG (Jun 20, 2013)

I think we have to be realistic about how long it takes to design and build a professional-quality DSLR. The IC's take at least 18 months, and then the rest of the design can be completed, which probably takes a year with QA. It's not as if a guy from Canon reads a newspaper, sees that Nikon has more pixels, and then put more pixels in his camera. 

There are second-tier vendors who will execute faster than Canon and get higher res sensors out faster. But reliability and software quality add to development time, and it's the overall package that matters. 

It is possible that we're seeing delays in the 60D and 7D replacements because of the "resolution gap." But, my opinion is that ever-increasing resolution is not the path to increasing image quality. I don't take pictures where I run out of pixels. But I often run out of dynamic range.


----------



## bratkinson (Jun 21, 2013)

Let's see...9 AF points is the OPs presumed problem, and low-light shooting with the 6D.

While I'm not familiar with the full line of Canon DSLRs, until recently, more than 9 AF points was the realm of the very high end bodies. I had no problems whatsoever with 9 AF points on my 60D. When I wanted to focus on something outside the 9 points, I simply did the old focus & recompose method. 

As far as low light capabilities, from what I've read here and there, some authors, perhaps rightly, claim that the low light capabilities of the 7D are superior to the 5D3. So be it. Except that I can shoot my 5D3 at ISO 6400 all the time and not need any noise correction in post. 

Yes, I would have liked to get 5D3 capabilities for $1000 less than I paid in November. $1500 less would be even better. Although I was quite satisfied with the capabilities of my 60D, and learned how to shoot within its limitations, I wanted the 5D3 for 2 things...super sharp focusing and high ISO speeds. So, like everyone else that doesn't have a pot of money hidden somewhere, I saved up for it, and used my forthcoming tax refund to pay for the bulk of it. 

Bottom line...when Canon decided on the price point for the 5D3, they rightly determined that a 'scaled back' version with somewhat less features would be just right for $2400 or so. So they came out with the 6D. But if one wants what only the 5D3 and its big brothers offer, save up and get one. Or a used one. Or a refurb. Or dump it all and go Nikon.

Oh, and by the way...I used to shoot when ASA 64 was considered 'fast film'.


----------



## MarshallG (Jun 23, 2013)

JBrown said:


> I want to buy the 6D, but the AF system is really holding me back. Its not that the 6d is all that bad of a camera, its that the D600 exists.


What is lacking in the AF system? As I understand, more focusing points is a feature that's really used for subject tracking in high speed photography, such as sports. Thing is, that also requires faster focus processing and a faster frame rate camera... thus, the 1D, 5D and 7D cameras. It's like a high performance car; you need a collection of separate performance  improvements together in order to improve actual performance.


----------



## daarksun (Jun 29, 2013)

I have the 7D. The only camera I would upgrade for would be the 5DIII.  Being in Las Vegas I shoot at night a lot. I shoot hand held, no flash. The only lens I have with any speed is the $100 nify-fifty and I don't shoot that much with it even at night.  My images have been incredible and if there is even some unwanted noise there's some cheap software to help alleviat noise issues.  I abuse the high ISO at times with the 7D and get away with it more so than not. 

Some of the best photographs from the masters were taken with a cheap old Brownie camera. These fantastic pieces of work were made great by the users ability to get the most from his/her camera and make things happen in the darkroom. 

The camera is important to the point of the photographer feeling comfortable with his tools (no pun intended). But you can have the best and be ****ty with it. Getting the best camera and a prime piece of glass is still going to get you a perfect ****ty photograph.  It's still art. You have to show some composition, get the colors, the texture and story and put it all together. If you can't do it with the cheap stuff, you won't be doing it with expensive stuff.


----------



## JBrown (Jun 29, 2013)

daarksun said:


> I have the 7D. The only camera I would upgrade for would be the 5DIII.  Being in Las Vegas I shoot at night a lot. I shoot hand held, no flash. The only lens I have with any speed is the $100 nify-fifty and I don't shoot that much with it even at night.  My images have been incredible and if there is even some unwanted noise there's some cheap software to help alleviat noise issues.  I abuse the high ISO at times with the 7D and get away with it more so than not.
> 
> Some of the best photographs from the masters were taken with a cheap old Brownie camera. These fantastic pieces of work were made great by the users ability to get the most from his/her camera and make things happen in the darkroom.
> 
> The camera is important to the point of the photographer feeling comfortable with his tools (no pun intended). But you can have the best and be ****ty with it. Getting the best camera and a prime piece of glass is still going to get you a perfect ****ty photograph.  It's still art. You have to show some composition, get the colors, the texture and story and put it all together. If you can't do it with the cheap stuff, you won't be doing it with expensive stuff.



I find this a bit hard to believe. No flash, 2.8 glass at best, and average iso performance camera doesnt add up to a verasatile night time photography setup.  So you are either shooting landscapes with a tripod or very still persons using IS lenses.

Also even the best iso reduction software loses a ton of detail at high iso. So if you are cranking the iso you're pictures must be soft.

If I'm wrong I would love to see some pics.


----------



## tecboy (Jun 29, 2013)

If you are frustrated with Canon....,then....Just go get Nikon!!!


----------



## grafxman (Jun 30, 2013)

I specifically bought the 6D and abandoned my 7D because Kathy Thorson showed me in this forum how superior the 6D's noise handling is at high ISOs. Since I often photograph museums, many of my photos are inside dark buildings. A high ISO in the 7D results in massive noise. Removing it with the software isn't hard but often results in the softening of the image. I now have a new set of problems with the 6D such as being able to find a lens comparable to my beloved Sigma 18-250 mm macro that I used constantly on my 7D however noisy photos are a thing of the past. 

Obviously upgrading my camera isn't going to make me or anyone else a better photographer however my 6D allows me to get better photographs than I could get with the 7D. When I travel 900 miles to photograph a museum I am not under any circumstances whatsoever refrain from taking a photograph of a museum display because the light isn't adequate. I'll take the best photo I can get then make it even better with the software.


----------



## 6kimages (Jun 30, 2013)

grafxman said:


> I specifically bought the 6D and abandoned my 7D because Kathy Thorson showed me in this forum how superior the 6D's noise handling is at high ISOs. Since I often photograph museums, many of my photos are inside dark buildings. A high ISO in the 7D results in massive noise. Removing it with the software isn't hard but often results in the softening of the image. I now have a new set of problems with the 6D such as being able to find a lens comparable to my beloved Sigma 18-250 mm macro that I used constantly on my 7D however noisy photos are a thing of the past.
> 
> Obviously upgrading my camera isn't going to make me or anyone else a better photographer however my 6D allows me to get better photographs than I could get with the 7D. When I travel 900 miles to photograph a museum I am not under any circumstances whatsoever refrain from taking a photograph of a museum display because the light isn't adequate. I'll take the best photo I can get then make it even better with the software.


do faster lenses not help in this case ?


----------



## Overread (Jul 1, 2013)

6kimages The problem is whilst you can use faster lenses like f1.4 and 1.2 options they grow increasingly more expensive. Furthermore don't forget that the aperture also affects your depth of field, f1.4 is a very thin depth of field that, whilst it might give you the light for a good exposure at a lower ISO, will mean that you could end up with one eye in and one eye out of focus and thus increase your losses from slight shifts in the focal plane. A higher usable ISO is thus still a very important element even when you pair it with wider aperture lenses.


----------



## grafxman (Jul 1, 2013)

6kimages said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> > I specifically bought the 6D and abandoned my 7D because Kathy Thorson showed me in this forum how superior the 6D's noise handling is at high ISOs. Since I often photograph museums, many of my photos are inside dark buildings. A high ISO in the 7D results in massive noise. Removing it with the software isn't hard but often results in the softening of the image. I now have a new set of problems with the 6D such as being able to find a lens comparable to my beloved Sigma 18-250 mm macro that I used constantly on my 7D however noisy photos are a thing of the past.
> ...



6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow. Nearly everything I photograph is three dimensional. I photograph a lot of information placards in zoos, aquariums and museums but I often have to photograph them at an angle because they are above or below me or someone is standing in front of them. For many years now cameras have been able to take excellent photos without requiring super fast lenses. Back when I was shooting a Nikon F Photomic Tn in the '60s film ASA was often quite low and a fast lens was somewhat important. Those days are long gone. I, for one, would never ever waste any money on a fast lens. What's far more important, at least to me, is having a wide zoom range so the object of interest fills the viewfinder. A fast shutter speed, high ISO, an occasional flash and Canon's DPP software does the rest.


----------



## Overread (Jul 1, 2013)

grafxman said:


> 6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow.




I agree with your point on the depth of field aspects, but you are forgetting a few things:

1) Whilst most lenses reach their peek of sharpness around the f8-f10 area (varies from lens to lens) that doesn't invalidate their wider apertures. Whilst the shot might not be "as sharp" it is often far from unusable. Indeed many of the very wide and very high priced lenses can take a very good shot wide open or just one stop down from wide open. 

2) For your specific setup you want more depth in your shots, so the creative or functional use of shooting wide open isn't a factor - that's more of a personal factor than an overall view of wide aperture lenses. Some people specifically want that ultra thin depth of field to work with. 

3) The wide maximum aperture allows more light into the camera, this greatly helps provide not just a brighter viewfinder image, but also more light for the AF sensors to work with. Even if you're shooting at f8 the focusing and viewfinder image are from wide open and thus gain from having that wider maximum option. 

I do agree that the highly expensive options like the 50mm f1.2 are not for everyone and that the difference between an f1.2 and f1.4 is not night and day for most people and doesn't always justify the big jump in price that divides the two for the average photographer.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 1, 2013)

grafxman said:


> 6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow. Nearly everything I photograph is three dimensional. I photograph a lot of information placards in zoos, aquariums and museums but I often have to photograph them at an angle because they are above or below me or someone is standing in front of them. For many years now cameras have been able to take excellent photos without requiring super fast lenses. Back when I was shooting a Nikon F Photomic Tn in the '60s film ASA was often quite low and a fast lens was somewhat important. Those days are long gone. I, for one, would never ever waste any money on a fast lens. What's far more important, at least to me, is having a wide zoom range so the object of interest fills the viewfinder. A fast shutter speed, high ISO, an occasional flash and Canon's DPP software does the rest.



I wouldn't be so quick to write of the usefulness of fast lenses.  The secret to using a wide aperture and still having a workable depth of field is camera to subject distance.  That distance has the single greatest impact on the depth of field out of any of the other variables like aperture, sensor size and focal length.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 1, 2013)

Not too long ago, there was a brief article on the web, maybe at dPreview, where one testing facility had noted that lenses faster than about f/2 do not seem to be getting the FULL benefit of wider apertures when used on digital sensors...I searched for the article for a few minutes but could not find it. It seems like I recall them saying that digital sensors seem to have a normal,linear response to increasing aperture width in the "normal" range of f/stops, but that wider than f/2 brings less ACTUAL increase in exposure than it should, numerically, and that as a result, at least some of the camera makers seem to be "fudging" the ISO settings by increasing ISO when wider apertures are used, as a way to seamlessly compensate for the loss of what one could call _effective aperture.

Now in CANON News...the long-rumored Canon 70D is supposed to be formally announced tomorrow, 2 July, 2013....according to the rumor sites at least! SO, maybe tomorrow, we can read all the whining from Canonites disappointed in the new 70D's feature set, price, and specs!_


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 1, 2013)

Its like anything else...
if you cant afford the ABSOLUTE TOP OF THE LINE BEST, you just have to settle for what you can afford. 
not saying you NEED the best...but if you bought any camera other than the super upper end flagship model...you settled. 
The issue isnt that Canon or Nikon or whoever DOESN'T offer all the features in a camera....its that they don't offer ALL those features in a camera EVERYONE can afford. 
so, until someone either gets more money to afford the top end camera, OR the camera manufacturers start selling the top end gear a 1/4 the price, there will always be people complaining about the entry level cameras and what features they have.


----------



## grafxman (Jul 1, 2013)

Overread said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> > 6kimages this is my PERSONAL take on fast lenses. I think they are generally a waste of money. Most lenses take their best photos at f7.1 or f8 so what's the big deal about an f1.4 or f1.8 lens? Is anyone ever going to actually use it at f1.4 or f1.8 for anything other than photographing a flat surface while standing directly in front of it. The depth of field will be extremely shallow.
> ...




I suspected that some folks here would take exception to my comments that why I put "PERSONAL" in caps. I don't deny that a few people seem to find a use for fast lenses. However, I do occasionally find myself in a situation where a depth of field issue arises. In fact here is an example of just such an occurrence:

IMG_0752 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Notice that the Great Blue Heron's head is in focus while the foliage between the heron and me is blurred. I simply opened up the Sigma 50-500 mm all the way to 6.3, focused on the bird's body using the back focus button, repositioned and made the shot. I take a lot of photos under a very, very wide range of circumstances and situations. I just have never felt the need for fast lens and I can't help but be slightly sceptical as to their necessity. 

The toughest photo shoot I ever had anywhere was here:

Henry Plant Museum - a set on Flickr

Anyplace where there was no window, there was no light to speak of. Flash was not allowed. The only artificial lighting was with the ancient Edison lights which have about 5 candle power if that. It was a nightmare. However I never once wished for a super fast lens. The Sigma 18-250 mm was often wide open, the shutter speed was 1/13 or slower and the ISO was quite high. I often had to manually focus because the 7D just couldn't manage the situation. Still I never wished for a fast lens. I managed OK with what I had. Besides fast lens are normally not zoom lenses so they would be of no use to me.

I just now remembered something from over 40 years ago. This is what happens when you get old.  When I bought my Nikon F Photomic Tn I bought 3 lenses, a 50 mm 1.4 Nikkor which came with it, a 55 mm micro Nikkor and an inexpensive Sun zoom lens with a trigger grip. It was the Sun zoom that stayed on the camera while the others gathered dust.


----------



## 6kimages (Jul 1, 2013)

grafxman said:


> 6kimages said:
> 
> 
> > grafxman said:
> ...


In my case Hockey is my main shoot, However I am still a novice and will not debate with you but anything slower than 2.8 is useless for action in a rink


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 1, 2013)

Totally not frustrated with Canon cus I don't use one!

Come on, there's frustration with every brand. I'd love a spec bump based on the Nikon D700 but they came out with two models that, while opened new market sectors, doesn't quite meet my needs.

Let me tell you what's frustrating. There's no car on the market that is RWD, manual transmission, high powered with tons of quality interior space and one that looks great on the outside, reliable, low maintenance cost, for the price of a Honda civic. NONE, not even ONE on the entire world!!!


----------



## kathyt (Jul 1, 2013)

runnah said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Here is an example. I used to use 2 speed lights for receptions off camera. During receptions things are moving so fast and I want to catch some of those crazy dance shots or something going on in the other part of the room. Instead of moving anything I can now just bump up my ISO and use the DJ's ambient light. With my Mark ii I did not do this because the noise was not acceptable at all.
> ...


You want to see a shot where I just use my camera at a high ISO and the DJ's lighting w/o flash? Is that what you mean? These are my favorite types of shots. My style of reception shooting is very dramatic. Not cookie cutter at all.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 2, 2013)

Oh yea, I'm frustrated with Canon.  I can't run Lightroom in my DSLR.  It doesn't have Intel processor.


----------

