Bill73

It's not what camera we recommend, but which camera do you prefer. If the truth be told all of the major semi/pro cameras are excellent. I shoot Nikon because it would cost me a fortune to switch to a new camera and lenses. I have in digital a Nikon d300 and d800, and a Minolta. All of these camera produce high IQ and can do what I want it to. Obviously, no camera is good if the photographer doesn't know what he/she is doing. Knowledge and practice regardless of the equipment is what produces quality photos. Stop reading all the hype manufactures and their paid photographers assert about them and go out and shoot with what you have until you reach a point where the equipment fails to produce what you are trying to capture. No photographer worth their salt is satisfied with the pictures they shoot and their best picture is the one they'll shoot next. We all tend to blame our equipment for not achieving what we want in a photo when in fact it's the photographer 99.9% of the time who failed to make the correct settings or not using a tripod when they should have that caused the mistakes in the photograph. I hope this makes sense to you.

alsh Loc: Dorr, MI

No photographer worth their salt is satisfied with the pictures they shoot and their best picture is the one they'll shoot next. We all tend to blame our equipment for not achieving what we want in a photo when in fact it's the photographer 99.9% of the time who failed to make the correct settings or not using a tripod when they should have that caused the mistakes in the photograph. I hope this makes sense to you.[/quote]

But I need something to blame it on to justify more "toys"!

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

The A99 is considered by several reviewers and pro-photogs to be the best DSLR made today. That may change tomorrow (I doubt it, unless it is another Sony).

Bill73

If you think camera equipment are "toys" you're not really interested in taking excellent photographs. You're still, like me, just a child trying to resolve the issues we have of not getting enough toys when we were young. Just kidding as I knew you were in your comment.

amehta Loc: Boston

Do you think you have outgrown the NEX 6?

Full frame is not better than AFS-C, it is different. Moving from an intro-level APS-C to an advanced APS-C makes a lot of sense for most people. There are a lot of people here who are shooting with the Nikon D3x00 or D5x00, and they are very happy upgrading to the D7100 instead of the D610.

When you find you are limited by your camera, look at your options in an upgrade, and which one makes sense, the larger sensor may be part of the answer.

Unless, of course, you have money to burn, and want to help the economy along... :-)

rizer Loc: Long Island, NY

Thank you all for your comments. All very helpful. My takeaway from everyone is to stick with the NEX 6 for the moment. Although there are obviously better cameras out there, when I am ready to upgrade, I will know it, and won't have to ask.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

First, moving to full-frame is in my opinion, an excellent choice. Second, Sony is an excellent brand and I have speculated on this post they will overtake the big 2 in ten years or less if they step up their marketing. I think they are ahead of the curve in sensor technology and what's not to like about in-camera stabilization. Good luck and Happy New Year.

amehta Loc: Boston

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Compared to the two cameras you mentioned, the Sony wins easily hands down. Actually no comparison.

pauleveritt Loc: Erie, Colorado

IF you have ANY desire to do DSLR video, take a LONG, HARD look at the Sony A7 or the A7R. Video is an after thought with Nikon. Canon 6D would be my choice on the Canon side. On the Nikon side, if would be a REFURBISHED D600 for $500 less than a D610.

amehta Loc: Boston

I agree, Nikon added video because they had to, not because they saw it as a core part of their photography offerings. After watching one of the 70D/D71000 comparison videos, I got the clear sense that the answer was, "flip a coin, unless video is really important to you, then go with Canon". As a company, Sony also does a lot of video, I'm not sure how much has made it to their "Minolta" division.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

57, welcome to the Hog.
I don't know much about any of those cameras, but I go where the lenses are, and the lenses are at Canon. ;-)
57, pick well.
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

[quote=amehta]

Full frame is not better than AFS-C, it is different. []

Ahhhh, finally, something we disagree on.
A full frame IS better, not just different.
It WON'T make you a better photographer, but it WILL, make your photos better, especially if you go big. All else being equal. ;-)
SS

amehta Loc: Boston

I was really starting to miss the fan boy. Glad he's made an appearance. ;-)

amehta Loc: Boston

Ok, fine, let me put it differently: FF is not significantly better than APS-C for many people. Each photographer has to decide if the advantages of FF are significant for them. The way to test is pretty simple: take a set of pictures of things you normally shoot with each, mix them up, and display them the way you normally do. If you can tell them apart, and like the FF ones better, get FF. Otherwise, spend the $1-2k difference on better lenses. Because we both agree that better glass is also important.

In fact, here's the really simple setup: Nikon D7100 + 70-200 f/2.8 VRII vs Nikon D610 + 70-200 f/4 VR. Both sets are in the $3000-3500 range. The DxOMark for the first pair is 23, and for the second pair it's 27. That's borderline significant. But, if you don't have $3500, or want to also get a second lens with the $3500, then D7100 + 70-200 f/4 VR pair scores a 21, which is not significantly different than the 23.

Throwing the Sony Alpha 99 in the ring, with the Sony 70-200 f/2.8, scores a 21, but that pair costs more than $4500. So full frame is better, all else being equal. But sometimes all else is not equal. ;-)
They have not tested the A7r yet.