# Canon Announces EOS 6D Full-frame Camera



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Canon EOS 6D: The Cheapest Full-Frame HD Video DSLR Ever

This one was rumoured for quite a while. It compares favourably to Nikon's newest entry, the D600.

I think both cameras are slightly overpriced, and I expect them to drop in price after the holiday season.

Both are interesting concepts - more for serious hobbyists than professionals. I see the 6D as a full-frame 60D. It doesn't have the durable shell and weather-proofing of the 5D MKIII, and it only has one SD slot. Its viewfinder is 97% and it has less than a quarter of the AF points. 

Amazing camera, great for a backup for pros, and very cool for hobbyists, but that price point just isn't sitting well with me. Both the 6D and D600 should be $1800. They would fly off the shelves. Then again, where would that leave the 7D? Hmmm.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

okcomputer said:


> Canon EOS 6D: The Cheapest Full-Frame HD Video DSLR Ever
> 
> This one was rumoured for quite a while. It compares favourably to Nikon's newest entry, the D600.
> 
> ...


Let me see. Canon and Nikon both introduce Full Frame cameras that are hundreds, maybe thousands less than the previous cheapest full frame models, and you think they're both overpriced?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

okcomputer said:


> Canon EOS 6D: The Cheapest Full-Frame HD Video DSLR Ever
> 
> This one was rumoured for quite a while. It compares favourably to Nikon's newest entry, the D600.
> 
> *I think both cameras are slightly overpriced*, and I expect them to drop in price after the holiday season...


The D600 is only $2100 down $900 from the D700's from the entry MSLP. Seems like a pretty substantial price drop to me.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

You seem to think that the 6D compares directly with the previous 5D MKII and thus is a steal at $2100. It doesn't. The body isn't even as good as the 7D. All of the speculation was around $1700-1900. 

It's a full frame camera, yes, but a lot of other features are prosumer. The price point is reaching pro levels, which doesn't match the camera. 

Just my opinion. Feel free to share why you think it's worth the asking price.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The prices seem a bit steep to me too, but I think that's mostly just a personal thing. 

The simple fact is that a 24x36 sensor must still be a very expensive part (note the Sony RX1). If prices come down, it will be because cameras like the D600, 6D and RX1 get some traction with enthusiasts at their current price. That would make the sensor format a more mainstream item benefitting from economies of scale.

Until now, it has been a specialty part for professional and semi-pro gear, so the cameras have a ton of media coverage and lots of people lusting after them, but presumably very low actual volumes.

In other words, I'd be surprised to see short-term price drops, but do expect to see prices come down by the time these models' successors come around.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

okcomputer said:


> You seem to think that the 6D compares directly with the previous 5D MKII and thus is a steal at $2100. It doesn't. The body isn't even as good as the 7D. All of the speculation was around $1700-1900.
> 
> It's a full frame camera, yes, but a lot of other features are prosumer. The price point is reaching pro levels, which doesn't match the camera.
> 
> Just my opinion. Feel free to share why you think it's worth the asking price.


I don't know what you are on about I was talking about the D600's price compared to the D700's...


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

screature said:


> I don't know what you are on about I was talking about the D600's price compared to the D700's...


Same thing. Replace D700 with Canon MKII in my post. The D600 is not comparable to the D700, which it would be replacing if Nikon kept it in the lineup like Canon kept the MKII.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

okcomputer said:


> Same thing. Replace D700 with Canon MKII in my post. The D600 is not comparable to the D700, which it would be replacing if Nikon kept it in the lineup like Canon kept the MKII.


No the D800 replaced the D700 and the D600 is debatablely a superior camera to the D700 depending on ones needs (e.g. much higher pixel count, video capabilities)... The D600 represents a new category of "enthusiast" full frame DSLR below the semi-pro D800 at $3000 and the pro D4 at $6000. 

Anyway you slice it I think the D600 represents a significant price differential for those who want to shoot full frame but don't need all the "bells and whistles" of the D800 or D4.

It seems the writer of the  Preview of the D600 at dpreview.com gets the point that milhaus and I are making:



> At $2099/£1955 body only the 24MP D600 is significantly cheaper than its big brother the D800, and in fact every other current full-frame DSLR.
> 
> *As such, the D600 - which offers similar build quality and operational ergonomics as the popular DX-format D7000 - is hugely significant. It's full frame, but not only that, it matches or exceeds the pixel count of every other full-frame DSLR bar one (the D800) at the sort of price point that up to now, has been almost exclusively the preserve of high-end APS-C cameras.*
> 
> ...


----------

