ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Well this one could get ugly, but I really hope it doesn't. Long story short, I sold all of my crop sensor dslr gear, I had a 7D and wasn't really happy with the image quality since I've been shooting with a Fujifilm X-Pro1.

90% of the time for what I shoot, the X-Pro1 is great. But there's situations where I'd really like a full frame DSLR. Price is a factor, I'm not rich. Focusing speed is pretty important, as is dynamic range. I'm ok-ish with noise, but I'd prefer it to be less noise than the XP1 (so I'm likely looking at current gen FF DSLRs).

Right now I'm looking at the Nikon D600 as my favorite, but still intrigued by the Canon 6D. There's also the possibility of Sony's entries, but I am incredibly ignorant when it comes to their features and capabilities.

I like lightweight primes, but one lens I'll be needing to get at some point is a telephoto for certain nature situations.

So there you have it... give me opinions, don't turn this into a flame war, because I like all of the brands mentioned.

If you are into nature then you should had considered the crop sensor since it has better reach. I stayed with one crop and one FF but thats if you can afford it. The D600 is a stripped down version of the D800. You can still get a used D700 for less with low shutter count if you look around. Can't say about Canon because I don't use them. If you want to go cheap then you would be looking a 2nd gen or older lenses just like buying a used car.

AJScalzitti wrote:
If you were somehow disappointed with the amazing 7D...

The body was great, in fact probably more than I needed. The sensor and image quality were what was disappointing to me. Otherwise the camera is ace.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
The body was great, in fact probably more than I needed. The sensor and image quality were what was disappointing to me. Otherwise the camera is ace.

I don't think the 6D will be much different, or any better then want Fuji has managed on their cameras when it comes to image quality (in fact the 6D has a lower end AF and limited lens options compared to the 7D) Would be nice to see what Fuji has up their sleeve for next year lol

P.S. that Fuji compares very well to the 5DMkII so even that will not get you much, maybe the MkIII but that is a hard sell against the Nikons right now

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
The body was great, in fact probably more than I needed. The sensor and image quality were what was disappointing to me. Otherwise the camera is ace.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the 6D is not yet out, so there's no way to really compare it to the D600. The D600 would seem to have the better overall specs, other than the 6D's AF sensor has two stops better low light performance (according to Canon). But the Nikon's AF unit has a lot more AF sensors. I suspect the Canon will have superior low light performance to the D600, too, but again, it's only speculation at this point. Conversely, I would expect the D600 to have higher dynamic range.

Another option, of course, is the 5D Mk II, which is going for around $1,500 brand new right now.

You know Canon's UI, which may or may not be important to you. You've learned Fuji's UI, so there's no reason you couldn't adjust to Nikon's.

If you're just looking to move to FF with a limited budget, a Mk II plus the 28-135 IS is a surprisingly good combo. The 28-135 is a lot of lens for the price, and it's quite sharp. You can do that for under $2,000.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:

Part of the problem, of course, is that the 6D is not yet out, so there's no way to really compare it to the D600. The D600 would seem to have the better overall specs, other than the 6D's AF sensor has two stops better low light performance (according to Canon). But the Nikon's AF unit has a lot more AF sensors. I suspect the Canon will have superior low light performance to the D600, too, but again, it's only speculation at this point. Conversely, I would expect the D600 to have higher dynamic range.

Another option, of course, is the 5D Mk II, which is going for around $1,500 brand new right now.

You know Canon's UI, which may or may not be important to you. You've learned Fuji's UI, so there's no reason you couldn't adjust to Nikon's.

If you're just looking to move to FF with a limited budget, a Mk II plus the 28-135 IS is a surprisingly good combo. The 28-135 is a lot of lens for the price, and it's quite sharp. You can do that for under $2,000.

Canon AF > Nikon AF.  I own both haha.  I don't care if nikon has 300 AF points, its probably still gonna suck.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:

The body was great, in fact probably more than I needed. The sensor and image quality were what was disappointing to me. Otherwise the camera is ace.

You should probably sell all of anything Canon you have and by the Nikon D800.  It will probably solve your sensor and image quality issues.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Well this one could get ugly, but I really hope it doesn't. Long story short, I sold all of my crop sensor dslr gear, I had a 7D and wasn't really happy with the image quality since I've been shooting with a Fujifilm X-Pro1.

90% of the time for what I shoot, the X-Pro1 is great. But there's situations where I'd really like a full frame DSLR. Price is a factor, I'm not rich. Focusing speed is pretty important, as is dynamic range. I'm ok-ish with noise, but I'd prefer it to be less noise than the XP1 (so I'm likely looking at current gen FF DSLRs).

Right now I'm looking at the Nikon D600 as my favorite, but still intrigued by the Canon 6D. There's also the possibility of Sony's entries, but I am incredibly ignorant when it comes to their features and capabilities.

I like lightweight primes, but one lens I'll be needing to get at some point is a telephoto for certain nature situations.

So there you have it... give me opinions, don't turn this into a flame war, because I like all of the brands mentioned.

If it was me, between the 6D and the D600.  I would go with the D600 + 85mm f1.8G, the 50mm f1.8G, 35mm f1.4G (I have no idea bout the new Sigma's 35mm f1.4 Artistry as it might be an alternative to the Nikon 35mm f1.4G).  Nikon's 70-200mm f2.8G VR II is very sharp lens.

  Alternatively, you can rent the D600 and some lenses and play with it and to see if you like it or not before moving to a new System.

K E S L E R wrote:
Canon AF > Nikon AF.  I own both haha.  I don't care if nikon has 300 AF points, its probably still gonna suck.

Do do I and I think Canon's AF sucks (with the exception of the new 61 point AF).  I am referring to AF accuracy.


  Most of Canon's USM is faster than Nikon's SWM.

Jesse Villa wrote:
Full frame beats crop every time.

There are reasons to stay with a crop sensor camera like if you shoot wildlife for the extra reach and the lenses are cheaper.
In regards to the brand- I never like canon camera feel- nikon has been good to me.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Well this one could get ugly, but I really hope it doesn't. Long story short, I sold all of my crop sensor dslr gear, I had a 7D and wasn't really happy with the image quality since I've been shooting with a Fujifilm X-Pro1.

90% of the time for what I shoot, the X-Pro1 is great. But there's situations where I'd really like a full frame DSLR. Price is a factor, I'm not rich. Focusing speed is pretty important, as is dynamic range. I'm ok-ish with noise, but I'd prefer it to be less noise than the XP1 (so I'm likely looking at current gen FF DSLRs).

Right now I'm looking at the Nikon D600 as my favorite, but still intrigued by the Canon 6D. There's also the possibility of Sony's entries, but I am incredibly ignorant when it comes to their features and capabilities.

I like lightweight primes, but one lens I'll be needing to get at some point is a telephoto for certain nature situations.

So there you have it... give me opinions, don't turn this into a flame war, because I like all of the brands mentioned.

Wats?  I was going to follow to your steps.  Sell all my DSLR junks and get a X-pro 1 or X100.  I guess I am going to hold onto my D800e till the dust settle.  But ..... 

K E S L E R wrote:
Canon AF > Nikon AF.  I own both haha.  I don't care if nikon has 300 AF points, its probably still gonna suck.

Yeap.....  i like sucky

K E S L E R wrote:
Canon AF > Nikon AF.  I own both haha.  I don't care if nikon has 300 AF points, its probably still gonna suck.

you'd probably feel different if you had a nikon that worked properly

i was actually shocked at how solid the original 5D's AF was when i had one for 6months or so. people bitched endlessly about that thing. i didn't have more than a couple out of focus shots, and they were during a shoot in a subterranean parking garage.

i'm enjoying my d600 so far. AF seems to be solid. dynamic range is ridic. files are surprisingly clean at ISO 3200. i haven't really put it through its paces yet (busy with other things for the time being), but what i have seen has pleased me. i feel like it has a certain realness to the images that i haven't seen previously (including other current cameras, even from nikon). skin tones are almost decent for once too. lol (defs a canon strong point - although that's more about pleasingness, not accuracy). i fully recommend it.

Jesse Villa wrote:
Full frame beats crop every time.

riiiiiiiiight, except in terms of price, weight, size, etc.. and obviously at some point you decided that the advantages of aps-c outweigh the disadvantages for your own work or you wouldn't be using a 7d.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
With all of the interest in the D600 I decided to pick one up to evaluate.  FWIW my workhorse cameras for studio are the D3x and D800 and I shoot with a D700 on occasion as well.

I am fairly impressed with the D600.

I like the IQ though I find the D3x and D800 somewhat better.

I like the high ISO performance

I deplore the focusing speed in low light -   I shoot in a darkened studio with only modeling lamps, tracking my EV adjustments.   The D3x and D800 snap into focus quickly and accurately.  While the D600 winds up focusing accurately the great majority of the time,  it is slower to acquire focus and hunts a bit.

I have two fashion stories published shooting the D600 and within certain limitations can recommend it as an alternative in your search.

Out of curiosity, are you experiencing the slower focus with screw-drive lenses or AF-S lenses?

With AF-S lenses, I would think there should not be a noticeable difference, so hopefully it is a stronger AF motor and not poorer AF sensors (or perhaps you're using an off-center sensor and not a cross-point type, or "3D" which is going to be slower.)

Neil Snape wrote:
At the Paris camera show Friday I got to shoot some frames on the D800 with the new 70-200mm F4 VR, also tried the 105mm micro VR.

As expected the 105 is not as good as the Canon macro, yet still very acceptable, and the zoom is truly excellent.

The camera is like fantastic. They had the 5200 Nikon too but it's only released in Europe.

They are giving away a grip with the Canon 5DIII if you buy it with the 24-105. Since mine is getting loose, I might do that for now.

Personally as said before I'd go Nikon for the quality of the files, yet from what I see and shoot the Canon lenses are in most ways superior.

Nikon have only one lens that compares to the 24-105 L which is the 24-120. It is just not near as good. And the only macro I found with good characteristics is the Sigma 150.  Perhaps as some said the 105 DC might work with an extender as they have no new extension tubes for the new lenses. A shame as their 70-200s both the 2.8 and new f4 are great and to do beauty that would have been better than their 105.

These days tables have turned, Canon are lagging with their DSLRs yet Nikon have to make better lenses for their two studio cameras the D800+D600.

I didn't look for the new Canon 6D there.

Yep, what Neil said, Canon lenses seem to be way better right now, and the 24-105L is no exception. I've just got the 17-40 4.0L, yet to be fully put through the acid test, but I suspect it will be another winner!

AJScalzitti wrote:
I don't think the 6D will be much different, or any better then want Fuji has managed on their cameras when it comes to image quality (in fact the 6D has a lower end AF and limited lens options compared to the 7D) Would be nice to see what Fuji has up their sleeve for next year lol

P.S. that Fuji compares very well to the 5DMkII so even that will not get you much, maybe the MkIII but that is a hard sell against the Nikons right now

lol the 7d is a crop sensor. The 6d isn't. The IQ will be completely different.

That said, out of a d600 and a 6d, I'd probably buy a d600 unless there were specific Canon lenses you wanted or you liked the feel of Canon - both of which are reasons I'm with Canon

Honestly? Unless your needs are very specific or you're looking to push files massively, the difference will be relatively small.

Schlake wrote:
I think lenses are the only area that you should compare brands in.  The body race for DSLRs is neck and neck with no one really having the upper hand for very long at a time. 

You're looking at a long term investment in lenses.  Bodies come and go.  But the lenses stick around.  So you need to buy the best lenses you can, and cameras to accommodate them.

Since you want full frame, then I think Canon has the better lenses.  I like the feel of the lenses (ergonomics) and I like the larger back ends.  I think the glass quality is roughly similar between high end brands.

Agree. Body performance seems to switch every 5 years.

Lenses are a much longer term investment.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Well this one could get ugly, but I really hope it doesn't. Long story short, I sold all of my crop sensor dslr gear, I had a 7D and wasn't really happy with the image quality since I've been shooting with a Fujifilm X-Pro1.

90% of the time for what I shoot, the X-Pro1 is great. But there's situations where I'd really like a full frame DSLR. Price is a factor, I'm not rich. Focusing speed is pretty important, as is dynamic range. I'm ok-ish with noise, but I'd prefer it to be less noise than the XP1 (so I'm likely looking at current gen FF DSLRs).

Right now I'm looking at the Nikon D600 as my favorite, but still intrigued by the Canon 6D. There's also the possibility of Sony's entries, but I am incredibly ignorant when it comes to their features and capabilities.

I like lightweight primes, but one lens I'll be needing to get at some point is a telephoto for certain nature situations.

So there you have it... give me opinions, don't turn this into a flame war, because I like all of the brands mentioned.

I had the same trend of thought this morning while the coffee was brewing.

After over a decade of slugging it out with APS-C cropped sensor and the accompanying lenses of DX and EF-S variety, I find myself back to where I started from: Full Frame

I have, at the start of this year, slowly replaced my inventory with FF bodies and have sold off (and selling off) all my DX and EF-S lenses.

I am at home with FF because this is where I grew up on: FD on Canon and AIs on Nikons.

I still keep and maintain my A1, F1N, F2AS, F3 and my beloved EOS3.

The Canon 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 are my sweet spot right now.

My 15 year old Full Frame lenses will work on these brutes.

Feels like doing a full circle...

(I use both Canon and Nikon equally, so I am unaffected by these squabbling from each side's minions...)

.

K E S L E R wrote:
Canon AF > Nikon AF.  I own both haha.  I don't care if Nikon has 300 AF points, its probably still gonna suck.

Again, MY expirence is just the opposite. Before I got my D800 the #1 reason I shot Nikon over Canon was the superior AF. I'm old and my eyes need the help. It's the only auto function I use.  Aside from ergonomics, this has been Nikon's main advantage for years. Now with the D800 there are even more reasons to go Nikon. And the D600 looks like a stripped version of the D800. If you have the $2100 I'd consider it. Then the Canon 5DM3 (The AF is MUCH improved on that model). Then The Nikon D800.

PS if High ISO is a factor (The D800 isn't great there) I'd consider a used D700. I also forgot to mention that I have seen 2 videos showing how sluggish the AF on the D600 is in low light. Not a problem for me but may be for you. Of course, for the price difference, I'm getting a second D800 body when I can unless the D600 drops more. To me there IS $900 worth of difference in the 2 bodies.

R Michael Walker wrote:
I also forgot to mention that I have seen 2 videos showing how sluggish the AF on the D600 is in low light. Not a problem for me but may be for you. Of course, for the price difference, I'm getting a second D800 body when I can unless the D600 drops more. To me there IS $900 worth of difference in the 2 bodies.

That is REALLY good to know.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you experiencing the slower focus with screw-drive lenses or AF-S lenses?

With AF-S lenses, I would think there should not be a noticeable difference, so hopefully it is a stronger AF motor and not poorer AF sensors (or perhaps you're using an off-center sensor and not a cross-point type, or "3D" which is going to be slower.)

The lenses I use in studio are the 24-70f2.8  and the 85f1.4G  - in my experience quite fast with the other cameras.

I always use the single center point of focus in studio which is again in my experience the fastest and most accurate approach.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
The lenses I use in studio are the 24-70f2.8  and the 85f1.4G  - in my experience quite fast with the other cameras.

I always use the single center point of focus in studio which is again in my experience the fastest and most accurate approach.

Thanks... as R Michael mentioned above... and I had not heard there was an AF issue with the D600..   very good to know, as that is something I CANNOT live with.

Now, my decision is tougher... D800 or 300mm... hmmm

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Well this one could get ugly, but I really hope it doesn't. Long story short, I sold all of my crop sensor dslr gear, I had a 7D and wasn't really happy with the image quality since I've been shooting with a Fujifilm X-Pro1.

90% of the time for what I shoot, the X-Pro1 is great. But there's situations where I'd really like a full frame DSLR. Price is a factor, I'm not rich. Focusing speed is pretty important, as is dynamic range. I'm ok-ish with noise, but I'd prefer it to be less noise than the XP1 (so I'm likely looking at current gen FF DSLRs).

Right now I'm looking at the Nikon D600 as my favorite, but still intrigued by the Canon 6D. There's also the possibility of Sony's entries, but I am incredibly ignorant when it comes to their features and capabilities.

I like lightweight primes, but one lens I'll be needing to get at some point is a telephoto for certain nature situations.

So there you have it... give me opinions, don't turn this into a flame war, because I like all of the brands mentioned.

What's so special about full frame?

I use a 5D3, a 1D4 and recently an NEX 7. When I choose the 5D3 over the 1D4 it's usually because of the body size more than anything else. The 1D4 is a better camera by far. The 5D3 can get better IQ in some contexts.

I'd rather have a crop an not get stuck with such a crappy, thin DoF. I don't get why people want that. Pick a better location and then you don't have to blur out the background.

That said, the 7D has some specific issues. The noise looks good, but there's a lot of it. There are also the random soft images that no one talks about, so there aren't really any crop options where you can shoot at 12,800 other than the 1D4.

I think 80% of all professional work could be done with a 1D4, a 24mm and a 50mm. It makes for ideal focal lengths.

If you need more field of view on a crop, you can solve that problem with a lens.

If you're thinking of MP, then get a D800e - that's a reason to go full frame, but DoF is not. A 24 1.4 wide open looks as good on a crop as the 50 1.2, and comes close to the 35 1.4, or maybe as good.

The only place FF matters is in the forums.