[JJ_SO]

Could please elaborate a bit more on this? I read the other thread that you referred to, but could not find really strong points that would explain this bias towards Canon. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Well, it's my personal bias to swivel screens. I find them very useful for my photography. Canon makes one in the EOS 70D which is at the same time touchscreen. So, this helps a lot in marking a desired focus point, instead of tipping on some dials. Canon is also leading in inbuilt WLAN, another thing I'd be happy to see in a Nikon. Nikon, on the other side delivers the image quality I'm happy with, contrary to the Pentax I had before.

I've about 10 lenses, fast glasses and nice (and less nice) zooms. Except the Sigma, which I could use on a Canon after sending it in, all of them are Nikkors. It's not the loss of money alone, some Canon lenses are simply more expensive than Nikon versions.

What I wanted to say: it was not a huge question whether going Nikon or Canon when I changed brands 3 years ago. But today Canon has some more attractive models in their portfolio and maybe I would decide differently today.

More or less, the quality is not that different, it's more about personal preferences and seriously, I don't see me giving my D800 away. But in the beginning, on APS-C, Nikon had an advantage with the D7000. I liked the handling better. Of course, I could use the Nikkors with adaptors on a Canon but that's only third best. And that was what I meant: all your glass is manual focus anyway. I think you're free to choose and suggest go and grab a camera to see what feels best in your hands.

[Guest]

Well, it's my personal bias to swivel screens. I find them very useful for my photography. Canon makes one in the EOS 70D which is at the same time touchscreen. So, this helps a lot in marking a desired focus point, instead of tipping on some dials. Canon is also leading in inbuilt WLAN, another thing I'd be happy to see in a Nikon. Nikon, on the other side delivers the image quality I'm happy with, contrary to the Pentax I had before.

I've about 10 lenses, fast glasses and nice (and less nice) zooms. Except the Sigma, which I could use on a Canon after sending it in, all of them are Nikkors. It's not the loss of money alone, some Canon lenses are simply more expensive than Nikon versions.

What I wanted to say: it was not a huge question whether going Nikon or Canon when I changed brands 3 years ago. But today Canon has some more attractive models in their portfolio and maybe I would decide differently today.

More or less, the quality is not that different, it's more about personal preferences and seriously, I don't see me giving my D800 away. But in the beginning, on APS-C, Nikon had an advantage with the D7000. I liked the handling better. Of course, I could use the Nikkors with adaptors on a Canon but that's only third best. And that was what I meant: all your glass is manual focus anyway. I think you're free to choose and suggest go and grab a camera to see what feels best in your hands.

 

Thanks.

 

At the moment, I am tending towards the Canon 6D. That is mainly due to the "no-frills" impression of the body in comparison to the D600. Besides that, I find these compact lenses that Canon recently introduced quite interesting, that is the 35/2, 28/2.8, 24/2.8 and 40/2.8. The existence of the Canon 50/1.2L is also good to know, although I will probably never buy one. :-)

Positive on the Nikon side is a more modern 50/1.4, which I will probably get at some point. The 60/2.8 macro lens also looks good.

 

In the end, I will need some more time for this decision.

 

Thanks again to everybody for your helpful replies.

[Guest]

Ok, I decided earlier than expected. I made the mistake of going to a shop and trying everything out.

 

Just in case anyone is interested:

 

I tried both the D600 and the 6D with some lenses. I did not expect that the ergonomics do feel that much better on the 6D. I had a Nikon D90 some years ago, but still the 6D was much more intuitive than the D600 now. Also the grip on the 6D is a better fit for the right hand and the camera is noticably lighter. Considering the body alone, I like the 6D much better and I think I can live with the small limitations in compatibility with my MF lenses.

 

Regarding lenses, I think I will add a 35/2 IS or a 28/2.8 IS. Both felt like a very good match for the 6D. I also tried the f/1.4 flavors of both Nikon and Canon 35's on the respective cameras and also the Sigma 35/1.4, but those lenses are just too huge and heavy.

 

The salesman was quite funny. He tried to convince me of Nikon all the time for strange reasons. He said the glass in all Canon non-red-ring lenses is made of plastic while almost all Nikon glass is made of glass. Yes, he really referred to the glass inside the lens. He ran into problems with his argumentation line when he noticed that all recent Nikon lenses have the "G" in their names, just after telling me that the G was the equivalent of the Canon L. His further praise of Nikon was without any reasoning. I was prepared to pay a bit more for a good counseling, but after this I went without having bought anything.

 

[JJ_SO]

If I were you, I'd give the Sigma 35/1.4 a verrry close second look. It's not because it's a fast lens with outstanding build quality, it's because it's the sharpest lens in my bag and by far the most demanded workhorse as well. Okay, buying this cheap plastic thing won't kill you, price and weight is 1/3 of the Sigma but given both lens' verdicts, I just would not invest in a substandard quality. AF speed and noise are far away from Sigma's level.

 

As for the salesperson: What can one expect in a normal photo-dealer store? I got so many plain wrong replies and informations, together with biased and motivated by "we need to get rid of those lenses" reasons, that I just enjoy the entertaining sides of those chitchats in stores. Good dealers knowing their stuff are rare. Far away. Expensive.

 

My usual experience is, I'm prepared by loads of information when visiting a shop and could tell the salesperson some details...

[Guest]

If I were you, I'd give the Sigma 35/1.4 a verrry close second look. It's not because it's a fast lens with outstanding build quality, it's because it's the sharpest lens in my bag and by far the most demanded workhorse as well. Okay, buying this cheap plastic thing won't kill you, price and weight is 1/3 of the Sigma but given both lens' verdicts, I just would not invest in a substandard quality. AF speed and noise are far away from Sigma's level.

 

I am not sure that we are talking about the same lens. I was referring to the 35/2 IS (note the IS) that was released in 2012. It has USM, which is not slower than the AF on the Sigma 35/1.4. In fact, I had the impression that it focuses slightly faster. Weight and price are more like 1/2 of the Sigma, rather than 1/3 (which is true for the old Canon 35/2).

[PuxaVida]

...

Considering the body alone, I like the 6D much better and I think I can live with the small limitations in compatibility with my MF lenses.

Well the ones you already have might be Nikon mounts, but Canon has a clear advantage compared to Nikon concerning the register distance when it comes to old 3rd party MF lenses (e.g. M42). And of course you can mount your existing F-mount lenses on the Canon with an adapter.

 

Serkan

[JJ_SO]

I am not sure that we are talking about the same lens. I was referring to the 35/2 IS (note the IS) that was released in 2012. It has USM, which is not slower than the AF on the Sigma 35/1.4. In fact, I had the impression that it focuses slightly faster. Weight and price are more like 1/2 of the Sigma, rather than 1/3 (which is true for the old Canon 35/2).

No, then I was obviously mistaken. I have not much of an idea about Canon lenses, especially not by own experience. I was referring to the one tested by PZ.

Side note: after updating firmware of the Sigma via USB-dock, it was faster. So maybe the dealer had not the Sigma version up to date.