|
6D is hard to beat especially at the price and plenty of super images around showing how good it is.
Canon 6D versus Nikon D610 versus Sony A7 would be an interesting debate. All are good. Different aspects to each and that depends on how you weigh those factors. But in the end its usually the brand you have the most lenses for that seals the choice. Sony A7 is unique there as it takes all lenses. One of my latest favourite lenses is a Canon 70-200mm F4 L on my Sony A7r. Wow, that a lens! 2nd hand it was only about $650 or so. So 36.4mp full frame with the best of Canon lenses or from anyone else - Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta. I got a Zeiss Contax Yashica 28-85mm F3.5 zoom for $600 and it is super sharp and way better than a normal zoom. But its a bit big and heavy.
The main plus of the Sony full frames are very small and light, uses any lens just about from anyone past or present, superb and easy manual focusing, the best sensors currently on the market. The downside is noisy shutter, large file sizes, rangefinder lenses under 35mm give a magenta cast to the sides of the image so one minor limitation.
Its attractive to Canon users who have lovely L glass but want more megapixels so they can use their L glass and get 36.4 megapixels. Low light performance is almost the same as the Nikon equivalent which is very very good. 6D is a bit cleaner. 6D jpegs though may not be for everyone - I personally find them too smoothed but RAW handles that to get away from the smoothing algorithims the camera uses. You really have to check out each model as a new model with seemingly similar specs can have quirks like the Fuji XE2 has too much smoothing at ISO6400 in jpeg whereas the XE1 did not.
Also for astro work I am not sure anything beats a modified Canon 5D2. Still right up there. You don't use ISO6400 anyway on a telescope DSLR shot only for nightscapes and not all the time. Greg Gibbs images are superb and done at ISO3200.
A modified Canon 6D could be very interesting.
Greg.
|