I fully agree that 6d is an absolute hassle to use as I mentioned previously. It feels very obsolete in use. LiveView is unusable, horrid video with no IBIS, forget face/eye detect, off angle shooting, touch shutter, live bulb, AF is much less precise and without EVF you never know if you nailed it - upon review on LCD the moment is gone. There is no question Oly is much more modern. However, at the end of the day, it's the results that matter and the gap is huge, IMO. I love how 6d can achieve vivid, saturated colors without looking unnatural. Skin tones are incredible and I thought Oly was good. I am in the process of building a 6d system with three lenses. I may keep m43 just in case if I have second thoughts after using FF for a while. But after seeing the results and how all my family was wowed by the snapshots, I am simply not motivated to continue using m43. 6d+40mm pancake is pretty manageable, not at all heavy and produces outstanding images with strong contrast and colors, plus battery lasts for 1000 shots.I've owned the 6D. The IQ is noticeably better than MFT, but there are some things to consider:
-Phase detection AF is not as accurate as MFT's contrast detect for static subjects. Even after micro-adjusting my Canon lenses with the Dot Tune method, there is more variability in focus accuracy than with MFT. I get a far higher rate of hitting critical focus with MFT than with the 6D, except for tracking AF where the 6D is better.
-If you pixel peep, many of the older Canon lenses designed in the film era are soft compared to the newer MFT lenses, as is to be expected. The 135L might be an exception. But I think Canon should update some of its bread-and-butter primes like the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for the digital age, like they did with the 35mm f/2 IS. Many recommend the Sigma lenses but I feel they are too large and heavy for travel. The 40/2.8 is a great lens, though.
-No IBIS (Oly only) means that if you're comparing with non-IS Canon lenses in low-light shooting of static subjects, the Oly system can actually put out cleaner output than the 6D due to being able to get sharp shots at ridiculously low shutter speeds.
-I prefer having an EVF and live preview of exposure, but some prefer the OVF so this is a wash.
-The 6D feels great in the hand when you first pick it up, but after carrying it with lenses for 20 minutes, the weight difference becomes very apparent.
Other than that, I think the 6D is enough of an upgrade in IQ to own both systems. After lugging around the 5D on a couple of vacations, I probably wouldn't use it for travel, though.
I tried that and WB is still not as good as E-M10 out of camera. Hues are off, for portraits-skin tones it's those very subtle casts that have impact. I am also building my workflow around transferring jpegs to iPhone via EOS app and sync all my keepers to Google Photo. EOS wifi transfer app is quite a bit faster than E-M10 (with iphone 6).I Used to change WB even with my JPEGS, especially when I had my eos 5D. And that was before I had lightroom. I opened the jpegs in camera raw and adjusted the wb in there. Not as good as a RAW but still better than "at shot".
This forum used to be so much better when members could openly share their thought process and observations without users becoming so defensive. Based on the replies I am getting, this community is becoming much more like dpreview which I don't bother posting anything on. Flickr, 500px is full of samples if you need them. This is m43 forum, I've posted plenty of m43 pictures over the years. I've been shooting with m43 for 5 years during which time I've tried countless lenses and camera bodies and it helped to improve skills due to ease of use and ease of carrying around. I never seriously considered FF primarily due to high cost.Honestly - if you're serious about your photography at all, you need to be shooting raw. With CMOS sensors, it matters not one iota what WB you use at exposure time - you can adjust it later with no impact on noise or anything else.
Hope you continue to enjoy the "organic, clean full frame look". Whatever that is... ( oh, and remind me what resolution you get on Google Photo from your iPhone WiFi uploads ). Snarky I know, but please stop coming back and telling us how wonderful FF is but refusing to post any photographic evidence as justification.
You can hardly call it defensive comments when you are making claims that seem to be unlikely, i.e. they seem exaggerated. You keep referring to the "huge difference even on the small back screen", "special Canon tech only in their FF cameras", "forget the science, it's an art, and canon FF (and only FF) have nailed the art to a level vastly superior not only over m43 or APS-C but also over Sony FF." You repeatedly make it out to be a superiority, a 'gap', and this arcs a few members a little, when in reality I think you only mean the it's a look that you like a lot more.This forum used to be so much better when members could openly share their thought process and observations without users becoming so defensive. .... I simply found that by far I prefer 6d images even when looking on a small screen (it's the depth to them that matter to me). ....charts and measurements do not demonstrate how significant the gap between m43 and FF....