Why do you say that? The main reason to upgrade to the 6D is not for resolution (if it was 18mp it would give much better IQ) but for the larger sensor. The D600 is more similar than different, if you were going to upgrade to the D600 the 6D is a very good candidate.Originally Posted by ham
John.
Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!
I think there is a very curious product line strategy by Nikon & Canon.
7d vs D7000 (APC w/ closest FPS) Canon clear winnter
D600 vs 6d (FF w/ 2k ish price tag) Nikon appears to be better
D700 vs. 5DI ??? Who cares now
???? vs 5DII Who cares now
D800 vs 5dIII (I think aimed at slightly different audiences?) - Spliting an audience vs. combining?
Both the D800 and 5dIII are routinely available for 3k or a bit less on Flea bay - The D600 and 6d don't seem to have enough seperation from their "bigger brothers" price wise. 1st, I would have liked to see Canon position the 5DIII a bit lower price wise and "clean up" the $1,800 - $2,500 and then a "4d" something that would be a clear winner over the d800 in the $3,500-4,500 market vs. splitting these audiences. I was one of the 500 or so that picked up the 5dIII for $2,750 Adorama..... Would you pay $650 for the extra features over the 6d - maybe it is a measure of how enthusiastic is the entusiast? vs. "the pro".
I dont' think the 6d or the d600 is really a "pro" level camera? compared to the reaonably close by D800 and 5dIII.
Another product positioning question is "Would a pro save $650 and have a 6d backup or get a 2nd 5dIII?"
Let me say I am very happy w/ the price/value that I got w/ the 5dIII - I would have gone further i.e. another $1,000 or so if there was something there that was more "landscaper" oriented. Just like it isn't really about the number of pixels, neither do I think is it about FPS.
Last edited by Busted Knuckles; 09-23-2012 at 07:12 PM.
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote