Both these cameras have amazing low-light quality. The less expensive 6D is even slightly better! You can get well-usable images at 25,000 ISO! This is two stops more than last generation, it's outstanding. (The newest Nikons are about the same, I believe. Hang them both for not having in-body stabilization though.)
I think this guy in the video review makes good points I agree with: The 6D doesn't have sports-shooter speed autofocus and is slightly less pro-rugged, but it's 200 grams lighter, it's currently over a thousand dollars less and has the same image quality!
(It's also the most bland-looking camera ever. It seems like Canon is determined to make it look like there are never any changes in their cameras! The new Nikons are kewler looking, at least a notch. There are some lines built into them.)
It would be interesting to take some photos with the various cameras, blow them up to A3 prints and see if anyone can actually pick the difference.
Eolake Stobblehouse said...
At low ISO, it is often seen that people can't tell the difference even when a (good) pocket camera is involved, even on A3 prints (12x16"). Over five years ago I made perfect A3 prints from Canon compact cameras. (They may even have been A2 prints.)
But in very low light, the full-frame cameras blow away the small ones.
Though I'd bet it'd be difficult to tell the difference between the various full-frame models and brands in prints.
(Also with full frame, the depth of field is much narrower, which can be good or bad according to situation and desires.)