Originally Posted by danniexi
personally, after owning it for a month or so...
- cheaper than the 5dmkiii
- lighter, smaller body compared to 5Dmkiii
- on-par image quality with 5Dmkiii
- 1 card slot
- basic AF-system; 11-points with 1 center cross type
- pretty slow continuous shooting (4.5 fps)
- 97% viewfinder
it's good, not great. it has a a rudimentary af-system, but at least with a very sensitive center cross-type (down to -3EV). its lighter and smaller than its other full-frame brothers, but with very slightly poorer build quality (the rear button/wheel especially). it only has one card slot with a 97% viewfinder, but the 6d also comes with wifi/gps functionality.
i could go on and on, but you can pretty much tell that Canon deliberately stuck this camera somewhere in the middle between the 60D and 5Dmkiii. it's like porsche introducing with cayman when the 911 and the boxster were already on sale. good, but could be better, but still better than the entry level, but at middle price point.
personally, i wanted to upgrade to a full frame, and but the 5dmkiii was too big of an investment. the 6d was perfect for me. im only an amateur hobbyist, and with my shooting style (mostly portraits and stills with very little sports or wildlife) the 6d was a much better option as oppose to the 5Dmkiii.
although if i wasnt so invested with canon already (already had a FF lens), i wouldve gone for the nikon d600 instead; it's overall a better camera than the 6D.
Wow thats neat, I like the Wifi/gps. In the 5DIII you have to buy those components and its not cheap