The opinions of people who shoot brick walls and the run down parts of town really don't factor into my decision as to what camera I should by. My 6D gets here tomorrow, and the only test I need is the reaction from my clients when they see the final videos. No camera is going to come straight out of the box and shoot perfect, thats why the skill of the camera operator is more important than the specs and brick wall tests. How can you put any stock into a test made by someone who put such little attention into the details of the test your basing your opinions on? there are parts of the video where the person forget to put in text or animate the video across the screen. Second off, half the portions of the test are not even completed. No offense, but this is simply someone point a camera at what looks to be the most run down part of this particular town. I think it's a good counterpoint to the footage above - instead of breaking the camera, it is attempting to make the camera look as good as possible at higher ISOs (8) with 30% post sharpening and a little bit of color correction: Johnnie Behiri, who shot some of the previous test footage, added a clip to his beta test of the 6D, and I've embedded that below. For some people, that may be too much for a dual purpose camera, so it's good that you can weigh your options among all three models. That's not to say you'll never see them, but this test was specifically designed to break the cameras, and while the Mark III came out on top, it's also $1,000 more expensive. If you're not trying to shoot a lot of detailed wide shots, most of the problems you see above will be out of focus in the background. I would be fine shooting with the 6D, as I loved the Mark II except for the little quirks that have been improved upon (though we're still missing the headphone port). It may be disappointing to some that the 6D won't be as good as the Mark III, but it's clear they've put most of their energy into a few select models and will basically recycle video into the other cameras as they see fit. The 6D has other considerations that make it a better camera than the Mark II, like the HDMI output, the internal recording codec, etc., so all of these things would be upgrades for anyone who has been hindered by those in the past.
If you've been using the Mark II forever and you haven't run into anything that has bothered you considerably, I don't think the 6D will be much different. Canon made sure that was the flagship of these cameras, and it's still the best-looking camera under the 1D X, which is debatably a little sharper, possibly at the cost of letting in a bit more false color.
It's clear that the 6D is not going to best the 5D Mark III.
0 kommentar(er)
