Sorry, this offer has expired. Set up a deal alert and get notified of future deals like this. Add a Deal Alert

Expired Hot Deals

Sorry, this offer has expired.
Set up a deal alert and get notified of future deals like this.
Set up a Deal Alert
Henry's

Canon 6D body - $1,249.99

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 8th, 2018 10:07 am
Tags:
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
romsan04 wrote: How is it compared to iPhone X photos??
Not sure if this is a serious question, but with a good lens and some skill this 6D will take photos that are many times better than an iPhone X. Especially in poor light.

But if you have to ask this question, you are better off starting with a Canon Rebel (like a $200 T3i off Kijiji) and seeing if DSLR photography is for you.

Properly used, a $200 T3i will destroy an iPhone X in photo taking ability.
Last edited by Kurtz7834 on Mar 24th, 2018 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
rovert wrote: I might be able to help you on this. I purchased this camera 4 years ago upgrading from a Canon T4i. I mainly got it because I do video for work and I wanted a body that could give me great color reproduction in low light. I wanted to not worry about high ISO even though I will embrace it when I need to as noisy image is still better than no image if there is a special memory to be caught! :) I bought the body only because previously I purchased the Canon 24-104mm F4L on sale which transformed my T4i right away from the stock lens. It's the only lens I use on the 6D and I've really enjoyed its focal range even though it's considered to be a slow F4 because bumping up ISO isn't a big deal for me.
Great info, thanks.
Deal Addict
Jan 3, 2008
1580 posts
289 upvotes
This is great info. Thanks a bunch. being a novoice it may be hard for me to explain what I really liked about the DSLR, but let me try. First of all, the clearity of the picture, how quick it snapped it, accuracy, so much better quality pics in less light etc. What i disliked was how heavy it was on my little hands lol! So, if i stick with my nex F3 and buy good lens, in future if I upgrade it A6000 or higher, will I be able to use the same lens?

I will look into the lenses you suggested. I am seriously considering zoom lens because I like taking those kind of pictures, birds, buildings, nature etc. Right now, for zoom pics I am using the point and shoot camera, so I have to carry around 2 cameras with me..
ellisc wrote: Sure that's fair, but I guess to help you, it would be helpful to know what you liked about the DSLR. I am saying this because you haven't changed from your kit lens, which both the 18-55 and 16-50 sony emount lenses are known for being quite terrible in IQ. A DSLR will give you some advantages (generally focus speed is the biggest one, plus an optical viewfinder), but if you stick with the kit lens on the DSLR you are not going to benefit as much. I would stick more money on the lens than the body. A good lens will get you much better difference in quality. I would also say that a zoom will NOT give you that jump, or at least as much as you would see if you got a nice prime, or an odd duck zoom that is amazing like the Sigma 18-35 F1.8, or one of the f2.8 pro zooms. The more specific you are with what you liked about the DSLR, the better you will be able to nail your upgrade. If you are just sticking with the kit lens on your next camera though, I would be hesitant to say its worth the upgrade. I would actually recommend a large sensor fast fixed lens combo instead like a Sony RX series if you don't plan on upgrading your kit lens.
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
Catherinecc wrote: Out of stock online

This item is unavailable for in-store shopping.
You can still place an order, Henrys says ships in 7-14 business days. Anyone who has waited this long to get a 6D probably doesn't mind waiting another 2 weeks.
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
ellisc wrote: Sure that's fair, but I guess to help you, it would be helpful to know what you liked about the DSLR. I am saying this because you haven't changed from your kit lens, which both the 18-55 and 16-50 sony emount lenses are known for being quite terrible in IQ.
It depends on your expectations I guess, but I find the Sony 18-55 to be quite acceptable. I've gotten some great shots with it on my NEX-5R and it's a good lens for video. It has significant distortion that needs to be corrected in software, but this is pretty common nowadays. I only shoot RAW and sharpen and colour correct as necessary. I haven't used the 16-50 but most people seem to be happy with it. I'm not a fan of power zooms but it's nice and small. The kit lenses are fine considering that you are paying less than $100 for them when bought with a body.
Last edited by Kurtz7834 on Mar 24th, 2018 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
busybe wrote: This is great info. Thanks a bunch. being a novoice it may be hard for me to explain what I really liked about the DSLR, but let me try. First of all, the clearity of the picture, how quick it snapped it, accuracy, so much better quality pics in less light etc. What i disliked was how heavy it was on my little hands lol! So, if i stick with my nex F3 and buy good lens, in future if I upgrade it A6000 or higher, will I be able to use the same lens?

I will look into the lenses you suggested. I am seriously considering zoom lens because I like taking those kind of pictures, birds, buildings, nature etc. Right now, for zoom pics I am using the point and shoot camera, so I have to carry around 2 cameras with me..
The A6000 will use all your existing lenses. It is bigger and heavier than your NEX-F3. My opinion: Sony e-mount lenses tend to be very overpriced and many are mediocre in quality.Thus, I don't own many Sony lenses. I have many lenses for Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic / Olympus. Canon and Nikon are the cheapest by far, but you don't like big cameras, so they're out.

If you want to build a nice setup of small lenses, especially primes, i would recommend Panasonic / Olympus Micro 4/3. Lots of great lenses at great value. Olympus 40-150, Panasonic 25mm f1.7, Sigma 19mm and 30 mm f2.8.
Last edited by Kurtz7834 on Mar 24th, 2018 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Dec 14, 2008
3161 posts
3308 upvotes
romsan04 wrote: How is it compared to iPhone X photos??
As long as you don't print photos onto any physical media, iPhone pics will be fine.
Sr. Member
May 30, 2015
845 posts
457 upvotes
Qc
DFS 360 wrote: So anything that has nothing to do with actual photos? The A6000 is kinda junk, my buddy has one. Crunchy photos with terrible colour, poor battery life, terrible low light focus, bad ergonomics. Comparing it to a full frame Canon system is laughable. I have two mirrorless crop Fujis that are a fairer comparison to the A6000 and they are better in colour rendition, autofocus, lens quality, handling, and weather proofing than that Sony for sure, IMO.
The a6000 is a toy but dont try to explain that here because they are all experts even if many of them cant understand the difference between soft/oof with DOF.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 21, 2010
5924 posts
7346 upvotes
Eli2015 wrote: The a6000 is a toy but dont try to explain that here because they are all experts even if many of them cant understand the difference between soft/oof with DOF.
Lol @ "the a6000 is a toy". No matter how talented and knowledgeable you are, by that one statement you discredit yourself. The 6D, the A6000, the A7 etc etc etc are all capable cameras and serve their own balance between IQ, size, weight and ergonomics. When you buy a camera you buy into an eco system. The type of photography and the lenses needed are more important than the body.

The a6000 is a very capable, affordable crop mirrorless camera. I've owned and enjoyed using along with my 6D. When I wanted portability I chose a6000, when I wanted low light capability I choose 6D etc.
Be a nice person and enjoy life

My feedback: Heatware Redflagdeals
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 21, 2010
5924 posts
7346 upvotes
Kurtz7834 wrote: Can anyone who owns a 6D comment on the max usable ISO of the camera. I don't mean Canon's specs, I mean the point where the photos start to look like sh*t. Is it ISO 12,800? 25,600?

On my 5D2 I find ISO 6400 is about the max.
I would say it's 6400 for 6D as well. It's similar to 5D2 but will give slightly cleaner images.
Be a nice person and enjoy life

My feedback: Heatware Redflagdeals
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
fatestkid wrote: Lol @ "the a6000 is a toy". No matter how talented and knowledgeable you are, by that one statement you discredit yourself. The 6D, the A6000, the A7 etc etc etc are all capable cameras and serve their own balance between IQ, size, weight and ergonomics. When you buy a camera you buy into an eco system. The type of photography and the lenses needed are more important than the body.

The a6000 is a very capable, affordable crop mirrorless camera. I've owned and enjoyed using along with my 6D. When I wanted portability I chose a6000, when I wanted low light capability I choose 6D etc.
Yup, I don't understand fanboyism and snobbery. I have used every current system but Fuji (only because I can't really afford to invest in that system), and Canon full frame and crop, Nikon crop, Sony e-mount crop, Panny / Olympus... have gotten great images from all of them.

A 6D is a great camera but it's big and heavy, so a smaller alternative is necessary IMHO. I wouldn't wanna carry full frame gear around all the time and cell phones aren't good enough for me yet.
Last edited by Kurtz7834 on Mar 24th, 2018 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Member
Mar 3, 2012
335 posts
210 upvotes
Edmonton
busybe wrote: This is great info. Thanks a bunch. being a novoice it may be hard for me to explain what I really liked about the DSLR, but let me try. First of all, the clearity of the picture, how quick it snapped it, accuracy, so much better quality pics in less light etc. What i disliked was how heavy it was on my little hands lol! So, if i stick with my nex F3 and buy good lens, in future if I upgrade it A6000 or higher, will I be able to use the same lens?

I will look into the lenses you suggested. I am seriously considering zoom lens because I like taking those kind of pictures, birds, buildings, nature etc. Right now, for zoom pics I am using the point and shoot camera, so I have to carry around 2 cameras with me..
The speed it snapped the picture is likely due to the body being able to focus faster- a newer body will be able to provide that- certain lenses focus faster than others, but generally the body contributes significantly to the focusing speed. My decade old Nikon D90 still runs circles around most of my Sony mirrorless bodies including my a6000. To get the speed of the D90, I would be expecting a A6500 or A6300 body approx. The clarity of the picture I am going to fault on the kit lens- I've put a good piece of glass on my older Sony mirrorless bodies (NEX-5, a3000/a5000) and seen good results. Low light performance is also a factor that your body will make a big difference. The a6000 has better low light for sure over the older bodies like the f3- the canon full frame body this thread was originally about is another league above. Full frame shouldn't be your only deciding factor though- some bodies are actually not as great. The DPreview studio comparision tool is a really helpful tool to look at that- I was quite surprised to see the Sony A7 body lag behind some smaller sensor bodies like the Nikon D5500.

Consider a lens like the 18-105 F4- its got mixed reviews, but I honestly love it so much- it has plenty of zoom for most of my shots, and is relatively fast in focusing speed, and is a constant F4. Given what you described, I bet you would like a Sony RX10 though. It has a balance of a fast long zoom lens and bigger sensor. I have the Mark I and love it, although its focusing is a bit slow. The Mark II is faster in AF. The Mark III is crazy with its zoom. I picked up RX10 Mark I for quite cheap on the used market as it is aging, but I find it a great compliment to my gear.
Last edited by ellisc on Mar 24th, 2018 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Member
Mar 3, 2012
335 posts
210 upvotes
Edmonton
Kurtz7834 wrote: It depends on your expectations I guess, but I find the Sony 18-55 to be quite acceptable. I've gotten some great shots with it on my NEX-5R and it's a good lens for video. It has significant distortion that needs to be corrected in software, but this is pretty common nowadays. I only shoot RAW and sharpen and colour correct as necessary. I haven't used the 16-50 but most people seem to be happy with it. I'm not a fan of power zooms but it's nice and small. The kit lenses are fine considering that you are paying less than $100 for them when bought with a body.
I was one of the guys that would push for the best camera is the one you have with you, and praise the 16-50 for its small size. When I compared the sharpness I was getting with the 16-50 and the 18-55 with my 18-105 f4, or a prime like the 35 f1.8, I started feeling like I was really bottlenecking my body. This is especially in the corner sharpness shooting wide open.

I remember when the 18-55 kit lenses from Canon and Nikon were considered crap- the ones in the pre-IS/VR days. Nikon and Canon really stepped up their game in the newer versions. This is what I feel like Sony has made with these kits lenses, as in the crappy initial kit lenses. In comparison, the kit lens with my Nikon D90 10 years ago, the 18-105VR is perfectly fine for me- a comparison to a pro lens like the 17-55 F2.8 on lenstip shows the 18-105 has similar if not better sharpness in center and corners wide open. That's pretty solid for a kit lens. I don't get that with my 18-55 or 16-50 lenses.

I mean I don't think its something to throw away, and I totally agree with you that for less than 100, I would buy them anyways. I still shoot with them, but usually as my carry everywhere casual shoot. I never bring them for events. I just think that if you are looking to upgrade, the kit lens is a great place to upgrade from.
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
ellisc wrote: The speed it snapped the picture is likely due to the body being able to focus faster- a newer body will be able to provide that- certain lenses focus faster than others, but generally the body contributes significantly to the focusing speed. My decade old Nikon D90 still runs circles around most of my Sony mirrorless bodies including my a6000. To get the speed of the D90, I would be expecting a A6500 or A6300 body approx. The clarity of the picture I am going to fault on the kit lens- I've put a good piece of glass on my older Sony mirrorless bodies (NEX-5, a3000/a5000) and seen good results. Low light performance is also a factor that your body will make a big difference. The a6000 has better low light for sure over the older bodies like the f3- the canon full frame body this thread was originally about is another league above. Full frame shouldn't be your only deciding factor though- some bodies are actually not as great. The DPreview studio comparision tool is a really helpful tool to look at that- I was quite surprised to see the Sony A7 body lag behind some smaller sensor bodies like the Nikon D5500.

Consider a lens like the 18-105 F4- its got mixed reviews, but I honestly love it so much- it has plenty of zoom for most of my shots, and is relatively fast in focusing speed, and is a constant F4. Given what you described, I bet you would like a Sony RX10 though. It has a balance of a fast long zoom lens and bigger sensor. I have the Mark I and love it, although its focusing is a bit slow. The Mark II is faster in AF. The Mark III is crazy.
A D5500 beat a Sony A7 in sensor performance? I'm curious, do you have a link? I regularly use a D3200 and D7100 and I find the new Nikon 24 MP DX sensor to be very capable.

I find my NEX-5R and kit lens focuses as fast as my DSLRs with kit lens. But focusing speed is very lens dependent on any camera, in my opinion.
Member
Mar 3, 2012
335 posts
210 upvotes
Edmonton
fatestkid wrote: Lol @ "the a6000 is a toy". No matter how talented and knowledgeable you are, by that one statement you discredit yourself. The 6D, the A6000, the A7 etc etc etc are all capable cameras and serve their own balance between IQ, size, weight and ergonomics. When you buy a camera you buy into an eco system. The type of photography and the lenses needed are more important than the body.

The a6000 is a very capable, affordable crop mirrorless camera. I've owned and enjoyed using along with my 6D. When I wanted portability I chose a6000, when I wanted low light capability I choose 6D etc.
When I bought the a6000 years ago, it was considered a mind blowing body for the price, and it completely upsurped the Sony mirrorless flagship at the time the NEX-7. It was the first time a mirrorless camera started to show an ability to run with the DSLRs in comparison to previous NEX efforts. I totally agree with you, it has its place despite its limitations. I think its just easy to crap on the a6000 because its the more accessible camera body now.
rovert wrote: I might be able to help you on this. I purchased this camera 4 years ago upgrading from a Canon T4i. I mainly got it because I do video for work and I wanted a body that could give me great color reproduction in low light. I wanted to not worry about high ISO even though I will embrace it when I need to as noisy image is still better than no image if there is a special memory to be caught! :) I bought the body only because previously I purchased the Canon 24-104mm F4L on sale which transformed my T4i right away from the stock lens. It's the only lens I use on the 6D and I've really enjoyed its focal range even though it's considered to be a slow F4 because bumping up ISO isn't a big deal for me.

Here is a picture I took when I was in Rome, Italy at 3200 ISO, handheld at 1/20th of a second.
Image
Many enthusiasts were forced to use a tripod in this scenario to capture something grand and I felt very fortunate that I could go about my business swiftly and spend much more time using my own eyes and heart to experience this cathedral. I've been there where I spend so much time just trying to take a photo that I forget to live in the moment of the surrounding I'm in. For that, great low light ISO is priceless.
I love this shot- the way you described getting this shot and what was needed for this shot make me want to upgrade now haha. I don't have anything in my arsenal that would let me do what you did here. I might be able to replicate that shot but with a lot more deliberation and being burdened with the tripod you mentioned.
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
DFS 360 wrote: 6D isn’t big or heavy. I mean, throw a 70-200 on there and you’ll know it, but when I pick up my 6D/50mm after the 5D3/35L II it feels like nothing. I also get steadier shots with my DSLRs compared to my little fujis, the weight in your hand balances better and they are easier to hold. People saying tiny cameras are better have never shot for 10 hours straight, a DSLR can hang off your fingers, where a tiny camera needs a death grip so it doesn’t fall to the ground. Size only matters if your keeping it in your pocket and not actually using it.
To each his own. I'm a pretty big guy (6'1 and 230 lbs) and I feel a big difference between my D7100 (about the same size and weight as 6D) in my bag, and my Olympus OMD-EM5. Definitely for a paid shoot or if I knew I was gonna be using it constantly all day, I would want a large DSLR body with me (better grip, battery life, balance with a flash etc). For anything else, small camera is the win for me.
Deal Addict
Dec 29, 2006
2748 posts
942 upvotes
Kurtz7834 wrote: Yup, I don't understand fanboyism and snobbery. I have used every current system but Fuji (only because I can't really afford to invest in that system), and Canon full frame and crop, Nikon crop, Sony e-mount crop, Panny / Olympus... have gotten great images from all of them.

A 6D is a great camera but it's big and heavy, so a smaller alternative is necessary IMHO. I wouldn't wanna carry full frame gear around all the time and cell phones aren't good enough for me yet.
6D isn’t big or heavy. I mean, throw a 70-200 on there and you’ll know it, but when I pick up my 6D/50mm after the 5D3/35L II it feels like nothing. I also get steadier shots with my DSLRs compared to my little fujis, the weight in your hand balances better and they are easier to hold. People saying tiny cameras are better have never shot for 10 hours straight, a DSLR can hang off your fingers, where a tiny camera needs a death grip so it doesn’t fall to the ground. Size only matters if your keeping it in your pocket and not actually using it.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 4, 2008
5752 posts
2585 upvotes
Toronto
Kurtz7834 wrote: The A6000 will use all your existing lenses. It is bigger and heavier than your NEX-F3. My opinion: Sony e-mount lenses tend to be very overpriced and many are mediocre in quality.Thus, I don't own many Sony lenses. I have many lenses for Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic / Olympus. Canon and Nikon are the cheapest by far, but you don't like big cameras, so they're out.

If you want to build a nice setup of small lenses, especially primes, i would recommend Panasonic / Olympus Micro 4/3. Lots of great lenses at great value. Olympus 40-150, Panasonic 25mm f1.7, Sigma 19mm and 30 mm f2.8.
This is a bold statement.

E-Mount is relatively new in comparison to EF from Canon.

E-Mount is pricier but Sony has proven that their GM lenses usually beat out Canon's best L Glass.

I had the 6D paired with the f/2.8 trinity zooms. I moved over to the A7R3 and just started adding their GM f/2.8 zooms. Both the 70-200 and 16-35 GM variants are sharper than Canon's version.
Plus the 16-35 is a lot lighter than the Canon 16-35 Mark 3, which I owned and carried around for a two week road trip.
The 24-70 GM meets the quality of the Canon 24-70 Mark 2, but I also like the fact I get a stabilized 24-70 on my Sony then a non-stabilized version on Canon out of the box. It just adds more function for the lens in situations where you are limited to f/2.8 and not being able to carry a tripod.

The new Sony 24-105 G has also shown to be more capable than the Canon's 24-105 included in the kits.

Sigma is also releasing their Art lenses for Sony now which is supposed to compete with Zeiss lens for Sony.
Deal Expert
Oct 27, 2003
18444 posts
9757 upvotes
Greater Toronto Area
rebel_rfd wrote: This is a bold statement.

E-Mount is relatively new in comparison to EF from Canon.

E-Mount is pricier but Sony has proven that their GM lenses usually beat out Canon's best L Glass.

I had the 6D paired with the f/2.8 trinity zooms. I moved over to the A7R3 and just started adding their GM f/2.8 zooms. Both the 70-200 and 16-35 GM variants are sharper than Canon's version.
Plus the 16-35 is a lot lighter than the Canon 16-35 Mark 3, which I owned and carried around for a two week road trip.
The 24-70 GM meets the quality of the Canon 24-70 Mark 2, but I also like the fact I get a stabilized 24-70 on my Sony then a non-stabilized version on Canon out of the box. It just adds more function for the lens in situations where you are limited to f/2.8 and not being able to carry a tripod.

The new Sony 24-105 G has also shown to be more capable than the Canon's 24-105 included in the kits.

Sigma is also releasing their Art lenses for Sony now which is supposed to compete with Zeiss lens for Sony.
I should qualify... I'm talking about the lower end E-Mount lenses for APS-C bodies. I find they are overpriced for what you are getting vs Nikon DX or Canon EF-S.

I haven't used full frame Sony gear, I absolutely can't afford it. Unless you use adapted legacy glass, full frame Sony is too expensive. I'm sure some of the lenses are great if money is not a concern.

Canon and Nikon have lots of affordable glass available for full frame.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 4, 2008
5752 posts
2585 upvotes
Toronto
DFS 360 wrote: 6D isn’t big or heavy. I mean, throw a 70-200 on there and you’ll know it, but when I pick up my 6D/50mm after the 5D3/35L II it feels like nothing. I also get steadier shots with my DSLRs compared to my little fujis, the weight in your hand balances better and they are easier to hold. People saying tiny cameras are better have never shot for 10 hours straight, a DSLR can hang off your fingers, where a tiny camera needs a death grip so it doesn’t fall to the ground. Size only matters if your keeping it in your pocket and not actually using it.
Weight matters when you need to lug it around all day, whether in use or not.
The 6D is lighter compared to the 5D series but its still heavy in comparison to mirrorless options. Adding a grip solves the equation of ergonomics for most people that complain.
I would have preferred carrying around a mirrorless and two zooms, instead of the 6D + 24-70+16-35 for two weeks on 14 hour trips on the East Coast of the US.

Top