I'm currently testing the Mark III with a bunch of lenses and it sure is a lot (!) of fun.

I saw that the 6D comes pretty close to the Mark III. IS anyone here shooting with the 6D? What's your verdict on it?

The "only" issue I have at the moment is that the video performance of the 6D is noticeably weaker than on the Mark III and footage is an important part of my work.  Also, I was surprised to read that even the HDMI output is compressed.

However, I was thinking that the 6D with its WIFI feature and Android app to control it (time lapse shooting etc.) would be a (cheaper) camera to use until the 5D Mark IV hits the stores which supposedly should perform significantly better in terms of video (instead of buying the Mark III now...).

Your input is much appreciated!

Have a great weekend to all of you!

I have the 6D, had it since September. I came from a T2i, so naturally I think the 6D is amazing. The only FF digital camera that I have used it next to once or twice is my friend's D800, and I think the 6D is not really a worse camera than that (but I am of course very much not used to the "Nikon look" as opposed to the "Canon look", nor do I ever find the right button on the D800, so it drives me nuts).

The 6D's build quality is great. This cannot be stressed enough, as on paper it's a piece of plastic as opposed to the magnesium of the 5D. But it is a very very well built piece of plastic. My friend with the D800 was shocked, in fact, when he first held it. He fears for Nikon's future.

The low-light capabilities of the 6D are a marvel, RAWs come out with absolutely no need for NR up until ISO 3200-6400 (colors already suffer there though of course) but then deteriorate quickly after that. I personally find RAWs taken at anything above 12800 to be very blotchy and can't seem to correct that well in software. HOWEVER, JPEGs look surprisingly clean and are usable (when downsized) all the way up to ISO 51200 or whatever it is up there. Coming from the T2i I cannot stress enough how amazing it is to be able to shoot ISO 400 and have it look exactly the same as ISO 100, with ISO 800 and 1600 not being much different either. In a way, this has completely freed my photography from the laws of physics as I had to accept them before. I mean, this is ISO 2500, pretty much SOOC, taken without giving it much thought at all while walking through the city night:



Sorry, but it really still amazes me. 

Wifi and GPS work great, too. I had feared that Canon would rush these things out the door just to have the nice buzzwords that Nikon doesn't have, but they really work. Nothing to complain here, it is exactly what you'd expect it to be. The Canon App for iOS isn't pretty, but it does the job.

Now, video... I don't know. I don't do video. But I think this is probably the camera's greatest weakness out of the box. However, isn't there a Magic Lantern firmware yet? If not, surely it can't be far off...

You seem to be right -- even though it says so on the bottom of their page, Magic Lantern doesn't seem to support the 6D yet, at least not in any of its main builds. Must investigate.

I got the 6D a month ago. I got it rather than the latest 5D because it had functions that were useful to me (notably GPS) that the 5D didn't have and the places where the 5D had the advantage weren't things I needed. I'm not doing video, though. My impression is that the 5D is targetting the video market and the 6D the stills market. For stills, the 6D is amazing, especially with the incredible high ISO performance it has.
I think it's about looking at the features on each and seeing which suits you best. If it is the more expensive one all you have to do then is work out if the extra functions are worth the price to you. For me, the 5D would probably have been less useful despite costing 50% more (or thereabouts). I used the money I saved to get the 100/2.8L macro lens.

Clever guy 

I got the 6D a month ago. I got it rather than the latest 5D because it had functions that were useful to me (notably GPS) that the 5D didn't have and the places where the 5D had the advantage weren't things I needed. I'm not doing video, though. My impression is that the 5D is targetting the video market and the 6D the stills market. For stills, the 6D is amazing, especially with the incredible high ISO performance it has.
I think it's about looking at the features on each and seeing which suits you best. If it is the more expensive one all you have to do then is work out if the extra functions are worth the price to you. For me, the 5D would probably have been less useful despite costing 50% more (or thereabouts). I used the money I saved to get the 100/2.8L macro lens.

The friend I got the Mark III from for testing was massively disappointed that Canon decided not to put a GPS into it straight from the factory. I totally agree that the GPS and the WIFI feature are a big selling point, no doubt.

So it boils down to the video performance/ability to grab the video from the HDMI uncompressed. I don't have the dough to get a film camera for tens of thousands of $$$ plus accessories. I need a decent D-SLR that offers "best" of both worlds (stills/video).

It's probably going to be the MArk III then.

Thanks for your post about your experience!

I saw an interesting mid-term review of the 6D today, thought you might be interested: http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/review-canon-eos-6d/