I switched from a Nikon D600 to the 6D shortly after the two cameras came out, as I got tired of constantly having to get the D600 cleaned and always having to clone out oil spots. Once Nikon agreed to replace the shutter on the D600, I thought I would go back to it but I found I preferred the 6D even though spec-wise everything about the D600 was better. What I liked so much about the 6D was first the ease of using it. After much comparison, I decided I really preferred the way Canon sets up their cameras (this is a very personal thing--sort of like Mac vs PC). I also liked the fact that the 6D could pretty much see in the dark, that I could get focus on subjects I could not with the Nikon. This is important not just in low light in the early mornings and before sunset in the evening, but in dark buildings, caves etc where flash is not allowed. The fact that you could photos at high ISOs without much noise is also a big plus. I then gradually acquired a good assortment of Canon L lenses, many of which were not all that expensive compared to their Nikon counterparts and were wonderful pieces of glass. The image quality of the 6D with the right lenses is wonderful. The camera is also very small and light for a full-frame camera. These are all powerful reasons for getting the camera especially at its current price.

What I found limiting, and why I now have the 5D Mk IV: 1) the autofocus system--that had only 9 points with one center vertical/horizontal cross--I think it limited me a bit in spite of work arounds, 2) the slow frame rate, 3) I wanted more resolution, 4) the mode dial kept falling off. There were other things like flash sync, but none of these were all that important. All of these limitations appear to be eliminated with the new 6D II.

Still, I wouldn't hesitate recommending the 6D to anyone. Even as old technology, it is an amazing camera that produces very high quality images without a lot of effort and should serve you well for a long time still.

When you have a raw file, it is analogous to working with exposed, undeveloped film. It must be developed into a bitmap before it can be printed, just as the latent image on film must be developed into a negative.

A bitmap is an array of RGB pixel values. To save it, metadata (data *about* data, or how to interpret it) is added, and the result is stored in one of dozens of different file formats (usually .psd, .tif, .jpg...).

BUT, before that bitmap is saved into a file (exported), it can be sent to a printer driver.

When we say we "print a raw image," we really mean we are "printing an on-the-fly bitmap conversion of it." This allows immediate feedback, review, RE-CONVERSION, adjustment, reprinting...

So, the difference is that a raw image can be RE-developed infinitely into a gazillion variations. Film is developed once.

Time, temperature, agitation, and choice of developer affect the permanent potential of a negative. But a raw file can be developed over and over, in different "developers" (software applications), to subtly change what's in the bitmap. The raw data NEVER changes.

The power of this is that you never lose the ability to change your mind about how the image should look.

You CAN store a 16-bit TIFF file of an adjusted image without losing anything in the conversion, but once you do that, you lose the ability to redevelop the image in the way you can redevelop raw files. A raw conversion allows the purest image adjustments possible.

That's why we "print from raw."

How big a deal is this? It depends. Are you selling a $20,000 celebrity portrait, or printing a 60" x 40" landscape for a MOMA exhibition? Or just a snapshot of a funny face at a kid's birthday party? I would print the first two from raw, and the party pix from JPEGs.