# First 6D review up - does [KR] read [CR] ?



## Marsu42 (Nov 14, 2012)

If you enjoy a good laugh, check out what pops up when you google "canon 6d review" - it's the busy bee "Mr. JPEG" Ken R0ckwell (if that guy exists at all and isn't a front for a clever team) that knows how search engines work, so no "hands on" here though it really is a "no hands on" review:

www. kenrockwell. com/canon/6d.htm
www. kenrockwell. com/canon/6d/vs-5d-mark-iii.htm

Actually he has a point when he states that the specs of the 6d are made to upsell the 5d3 to "rich people". But he seems to read this site because he enjoys contradicting some things that are eternal common knowledge here, so esp. the 5d vs 6d is worth checking out :-> ... just that the 5d isn't $3500 anymore, but he didn't notice that.



> The 6D has a simpler AF system. You may prefer either; gearheads will prefer the 5D Mark III.





> The Canon 6D adds an eight-way up/down/left/right control to the big rear control dial, and thus eliminates the need for the old thumb nubbin.





> Top shutter and sync speeds are the same. No one uses 1/4,000, much less 1/8,000, so the 5D Mark III having 1/8,000 makes no difference in actual shooting.





> Yes, there are many minor differences in the sensors and shutters as I'll outline below, but these are designed merely to help upsell innocent rich amateurs to the 5D Mark III; they aren't different enough for a *real photographer* or someone without a spare $1,400 lying around to blow on camera bodies to worry about.


----------



## DanielW (Nov 14, 2012)

I had read this already; he wrote it in September, when I think the cost was really ~ $3,500.
Don't you like it? I think it's great! The guy really speaks his mind! Some (many?) may not like him, but it can't be said that he doesn't stand for what he thinks. (May I say that more often than not I agree with him or had I better not?)
Well, even though it's not a real review yet, just some specs-based opinion, I like the bottom message: better specs doesn't necessarily matter that much. Something like "stop saying it's crap just because of inferior specs".
Can't wait for real in-depth reviews, though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Some (many?) may not like him, but it can't be said that he doesn't stand for what he thinks. (May I say that more often than not I agree with him or had I better not?)



No, it can't. But what he thinks and therefore what he stands for is about as consistent as the ocean during a storm. So if you agree with him today, that may not be the case tomorrow, unless you change you mind like you change your shirt.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 14, 2012)

DanielW said:


> Don't you like it? I think it's great! The guy really speaks his mind!



I used to think the exact same thing, but over time I have to agree with others and concede that KR just doesn't get the facts straight (this is an updated 6d "review", the first was simply factually wrong in some parts) and even his hardcore amateur approach isn't consistent. So now I just admire his (their?) marketing skills, and don't forget to support his growing family


----------



## jfretless (Nov 14, 2012)

Why the zero in the links? Don't want to inadvertently help KR rise to the top of the searches?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 14, 2012)

jfretless said:


> Why the zero in the links? Don't want to inadvertently help KR rise to the top of the searches?



Got it in one  ... outbound links from a large site with Canon content to KR are worth a lot of money because of the way google works - if I set them (even from the forum), I want a free 5d3 ... no, wait, I'd be even ok with a 6d!


----------



## PackLight (Nov 14, 2012)

I don't understand why KR gets so much negative press. 
With his enlightened wisdom he has guided many amatures in his spray and pray ways.

He is truley the Chuck Norris of camera reviewers.


----------



## DanielW (Nov 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > Some (many?) may not like him, but it can't be said that he doesn't stand for what he thinks. (May I say that more often than not I agree with him or had I better not?)
> ...



Oh, I do change my shirt daily and my pajamas once a week!
I guess I just like his "have fun with what you have" line of thought, even though I'd give an arm for a 5D mIII with a 24-70 mII. (Oh, wait, I'd rather have both arms to shoot with it... Hm, a toe, maybe?)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2012)

PackLight said:


> He is truley the Chuck Norris of camera reviewers.



Or perhaps the Austin Powers..."Judo CHOP!"


----------



## distant.star (Nov 14, 2012)

.
I think Rocky has taken too many punches.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 14, 2012)

The guy has figured out how to make a living off of photography and internet. I admire that, as it's no easy task. 

His writing is entertaining and he manages to get people to go to his site, even though it's probably one of the ugliest sites on the internet. No frills. Candidly, I much prefer his down-to-earth, don't-confuse-me-with-the-details, cut-to-the-chase approach than many of the pompous pseudo-artiste Ansel-Adams-Wannabes out there.


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 14, 2012)

> Top shutter and sync speeds are the same. No one uses 1/4,000, much less 1/8,000, so the 5D Mark III having 1/8,000 makes no difference in actual shooting.



That is one of the more silly things I've heard him say. And that's saying something. I use 1/4,000 and 1/8,000 quite often, Mr. Ken.


----------



## Ben Taylor (Nov 14, 2012)

Indeed, I wonder if he's tried shooting at f/1.4 on a bright day. Surely shooting at 1/8000 is easier than attaching and detaching an ND filter every time the light changes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 15, 2012)

I checked 40K of my images, only 19 are at 1/8000, so for some, its not a frequent thing. 

I do agree that some who do a lot of very bright day outdoor photography may hit that limit fairly often.


----------



## cocopop05 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ken Rockwell is good in that he is very direct and speaks his mind. He is not o good in that his mind does not always give the best advise. 

He tends to oversimplify things and shuts off options to readers.

Example:
He wrote in his 5D Mark III review that you should not touch Microfocus Adjustment as you will only make the autofocus worse. 

I purchased the 5D Mark III kit, it is my first DSLR. The autofocus seemed not quite right (not far off mind you). I am a novice and did the calibration using the EOS utility method, I discovered at all focal lengths my system was out by 5 points. I simply entered the +5 microadjustment over the whole lens and now is it pin sharp almost every time.

I always take what Ken Rockwell says with a grain of salt.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 15, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I checked 40K of my images, only 19 are at 1/8000, so for some, its not a frequent thing.
> 
> I do agree that some who do a lot of very bright day outdoor photography may hit that limit fairly often.



i shoot alot in bright sunshine typically at f8 or f11 though and i very rarely go over 1/500th at iso 100
i guess if you did heaps of high speed sync stuff 1/8000 might be used a fair bit however i wouldnt let 1/4000 vs 1/8000 determine if i got a particular camera


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> > Top shutter and sync speeds are the same. No one uses 1/4,000, much less 1/8,000, so the 5D Mark III having 1/8,000 makes no difference in actual shooting.



Aperture 1.2 @ISO 100 and sunlight anyone? 

p.s. 6D is my dream so far. Fullframe and "cheap". If i can afford it perhaps there will be 6D2 already tough  Anyway easiest review from me here:

Any APS-C user will love 6D, rest who go from 5d mk2 or equal should get the mk3 or 1DX.


----------



## mariusx1 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ryan_W said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > > The Canon 6D adds an eight-way up/down/left/right control to the big rear control dial, and thus eliminates the need for the old thumb nubbin.
> ...



That would be cool (I guess) if the grip had a joystick, but according to this photo, it doesn't. :-\

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7995600430/#

I've never used the joystick/control dial combo like on the 60D, but it seems like it would at least make diagonal moves a bit easier.


----------



## Zv (Nov 15, 2012)

Speaking of joysticks - does anyone else find their 5D mk ii joystick a bit 'sticky' when selecting AF points? Especially the corner ones. My 7D works just fine. Wondering if I should get it looked at it still under warranty. 

KR is annoying and innacurate. He's kinda misleading too. Some people need 1/8000s , personally I'd rather have that feature than use NDs. I think he's stuck in a time bubble. We need a new prophet to guide us in these troubled times of lens caps and blinking AF points! 

As for reviews I stick to the digital picture. I'll wait for Bryan's 6D review.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> jfretless said:
> 
> 
> > Why the zero in the links? Don't want to inadvertently help KR rise to the top of the searches?
> ...



As a side comment - broken links cause Google to lower the rank of the web site that carries them (in this case, CanonRumors.com), as broken links indicate the site is not maintained and lets info (such as said links) go out of date. It might be best to not mark the URL as a link, or allow marking links as nofollow.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 15, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> It might be best to not mark the URL as a link, or allow marking links as nofollow.



Thanks, I changed the first post - though I couldn't get the automatic url tagging and I don't know how to insert nofollow in the board url=... syntax - any hints?


----------



## Admin US West (Nov 15, 2012)

The jokes get old fast. This is not a KR bashing site. If you want to discuss a review fine, but bashing posts will be removed, or the topic locked.


----------



## Positron (Nov 15, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Aperture 1.2 @ISO 100 and sunlight anyone?



Assuming Sunny 16, 1.2 and ISO 100 should result in a shutter speed of 1/16000, if my calculations aren't completely off-base. And that's just a rule of thumb, it could be brighter.

Frankly, I think shooting at 1.2 in sunlight without an ND filter is risky anyway. Even with an available shutter speed of 1/8000 you will be bumping up against it constantly, which means no latitude (for underexposure, etc.). Relying on the camera's max shutter speed to cover that scenario for you seems like pretty poor value, if that's the only reason it's necessary and leaving it out would reduce the cost of the camera.

Now using it for other things is a different matter altogether. For example, I don't know what kind of shutter speed you need to freeze a hummingbird's wings (I've never tried). If 1/8000 does it but 1/4000 doesn't, and that's a subject you shoot regularly, then in my book that would be a good reason to stick with a camera that provides 1/8000.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2012)

Positron said:


> Frankly, I think shooting at 1.2 in sunlight without an ND filter is risky anyway. Even with an available shutter speed of 1/8000 you will be bumping up against it constantly, which means no latitude (for underexposure, etc.).



Indeed. I went and checked my stats, very few shots at 1/8000 s despite shooting with fast primes in sunlight. That's because when doing so, I always have a 3-stop ND on the lens. If that's a little too much (cloud passing by, for example), the 'penalty' from going to ISO 400-800 is minimal on the 5DII and 1D X.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 15, 2012)

Positron said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > Aperture 1.2 @ISO 100 and sunlight anyone?
> ...



I only had one time where my cams maximum of 1/4000 wasnt enough. that was sunny and f1.8 iso 100. In that moment i wished for faster shutter speed. But it never happened again so far 
Now i really dont know what the 1/8000 shutter is needed for. Sports perhaps to freeze the action but i think for sports one uses tele lenses and they arent super wide open so they dont need 1/8000 also. And often some kind of "action blur" is not bad but enhances the image.

Just checked the hummingbird and saw many photos with 1/4000 and u could see the birds wings clearly.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 15, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> I only had one time where my cams maximum of 1/4000 wasnt enough.



With my 60d, I have a couple of hundred 1/8000s shots when I wanted to capture very fast motion like an insect in flight departing from a flower or shooting a train at full speed. But considering the 6d isn't made for that type of shots anyway cutting 1/8000 isn't what would stop me from buying it.


----------



## Bosman (Nov 16, 2012)

With sports I am usually F4-F7.1, F4 for participants out on the course, F7.1 for finish-line since bunches of people coming thru will more likely be in focus. Even at F4 I never go much beyond like 1/2500 sec on the brightest of days. Now shooting big apertures I havent done a lot of and I don't have any ND filters. I just don't like fiddling with them during weddings. I am open to something of that sort but only now because i have the 85 F1.2 again.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > It might be best to not mark the URL as a link, or allow marking links as nofollow.
> ...



I'm no expert on the subject, so I would have to let the site owner to check, if he wants to, on the abilities of this site's forum and answer. As he might not be reading every message on the forum, you might want to contact him personally on this issue.


----------



## rpt (Nov 16, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...


rel="no follow" is a property of the HTML Anchor <a> tag. Take a look at:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=96569

The admins will need to look into that...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 16, 2012)

rpt said:


> rel="no follow" is a property of the HTML Anchor <a> tag.



I know, but the board syntax meta-language doesn't allow for such tag additions (afaik). But just putting spaces between www. test. com works as well, so I won't bother with more fancier methods.


----------



## rpt (Nov 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > rel="no follow" is a property of the HTML Anchor <a> tag.
> ...


That is why I said the admins need to look at it... Your techniques work great.


----------



## TeenTog (Nov 21, 2012)

> stick was always rubbing up on my clothes and inadvertently setting my AF points weird as it bounced around during a shoot




True. I've never had a camera with a joystick (hey, im 13) but when going over all the specs and looking at the images, I saw that canon had made some adjustments. They finally figured it out!


----------

