First time with Canon FF (6d). WOW

hazwing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
2,140
Location
Australia
Appreciate you sharing your examples. Would still like to see what it is that you feel is different from the 25 1.4 / 45 1.8?
Quantifable or good descriptive terms, would be great.

People do say sony sensor has a certain look vs other sensors. So may be there is something just different in how the sensor renders images, and provides the look you prefer.

In the end, shoot with whatever makes you happy, I just hope it's not an endless cycle of gear churn searching for the next best thing. Maybe I gotta try this magical FF stuff for myself sometime.
 

Art

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,385
Location
San Francisco, CA
Appreciate you sharing your examples. Would still like to see what it is that you feel is different from the 25 1.4 / 45 1.8?
Quantifable or good descriptive terms, would be great.

People do say sony sensor has a certain look vs other sensors. So may be there is something just different in how the sensor renders images, and provides the look you prefer.

In the end, shoot with whatever makes you happy, I just hope it's not an endless cycle of gear churn searching for the next best thing. Maybe I gotta try this magical FF stuff for myself sometime.
Sold most of my m43 gear and selling the rest shortly. E-M10+PL25 and O45, my most used lenses over the last few years don't even begin to approach the type of images I am getting with 6d+35mmf2 and 85mm f1.8.
I stopped posting here cause people on this forum get so defensive whereas I have no brand loyalty and care little about various test charts and sensor comparisons so I plan on leaving this forum soon and not look back. Only real world images matter to me. I don't know about other FF sensors, 6d to me is all about color response and skin tonality in both jpegs AND raw which is so much better to my eyes even when viewing on the smallest screen. But we all have different eyes, so to each their own. Because of such impressive color and contrast that 6d can render even with cheaper lenses, images appear sharper and more appealing/memorable than anything I've ever gotten with Oly. They have depth to them that grabs attention. AF is a learning curve for me on 6d and far from certain compared to E-M10 but it is much faster for moving subjects. Also, I love 6d video, it has the same color and simply looks breathtakingly cinematic in low light with highly effective IS on 35mm f2 prime. I am building my 6d kit and have never been so excited about photography! My RX100 will continue to serve as a compact setup.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The price between Canon FF and m43 is the same or lower when considering lenses. I am seriously questioning if it makes sense investing significant amount of money in high end m43 lenses. The advantages of FF are so obvious to me now that I won't be at al surprised if enthusiasts will start moving to FF format especially once camera bodies start to sell < $1k
 
Last edited:

T N Args

Agent Photocateur
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
3,507
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Real Name
call me Arg
...I don't know about other FF sensors, 6d to me is all about color response and skin tonality in both jpegs AND raw which is so much better to my eyes even when viewing on the smallest screen.
Hi, as long as you keep repeating ^^^^^, I will keep saying this. It never was a sensor thing... and now you include raw files in your observations, it makes no sense at all (although your statement above about raw files and smallest screen is impossible if you mean the camera's inbuilt screen, that only ever shows JPEG output).

Your sample photos are enjoyable in a bubbly way, but all I am seeing is oversaturation for 'TV-like' effect. The examples below avoid this effect:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Anyway, you're gone now, so enjoy your journey. Let's hope you stick to two small primes and don't start building a FF system that weighs you down and end up in a camera bag in the car or at home. Many of us have been there.
 

Art

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,385
Location
San Francisco, CA
A few crops from 70-200mm f/4:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


and Canon 50mm f1.4 (at f1.4):
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Attachments

Art

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,385
Location
San Francisco, CA
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

For anyone who is curious. 6d+35mm f2 fits in the same bag that my most used E-M10 + PL25 used to fit. While 6d combo is heavier, for practical purposes they are same size. I've been shooting with 6d for a week now and absolutely do not feel it is too big even coming from m43 world. In fact, I find that 6d ergonomics, grip and battery are a big step up from E-M10. AF for static objects and portraiture is not nearly as easy or precise as E-M10 but for moving objects is much better. I find Canon 35mm f/2 IS lens extremely sharp and IS is very effective for video but surprisingly quite useless for stills. It is definitely a step up for me cause 35mm is more useful as one lens solution vs. PL25mm and I was very disappointed with O17 f1.8 when I tried it.
The pictures above with 70-200mm IS f/4 are out of this word sharp. I have a lot more but they include family/people. It is quite a zoom that doesn't extend which instantly reminded me of my favorite m43 zoom - Panny 45-175mm. Only 70-200mm is so much sharper, colorful and with more effective IS especially for video. I can easily crop a small portion and be satisfied with the image without needing more range and carrying more bulk. Yes it is heavier but when I look at the images I feel it's so worth it and it's one of the main reasons I completely lost motivation to shoot with m43. I now fee like my RX100 complement 6d system nicely and m43 has no place for me anymore:(
It's somewhat heartbreaking as I am quite attached to m43 system and especially Olympus camera system. But in the end, only results truly matter and I wouldn't want to limit myself. Turns out FF can be quite manageable in size with plenty of choices.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Badminton in dim light at ISO 12,800. Excellent AF speed:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

hazwing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
2,140
Location
Australia
Quite a few of the photos are portraits with shallow DOF. I suspect this is probably one of the reasons you prefer the 6D look. I guess you also prefer the JPG rendering. According the DxO, the 6D does have better "colour depth", this might also be some of the difference you are seeing.

The 6D is a good camera. The 70-200 is known to be a good lens. I haven't been following the canon scene closely but I suspect the 35mm IS is a newer lens, and would be sharp. The canon system is certainly a good system to be in. Enjoy your shooting, and all the best!

You might already be aware, but http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ is a popular canon-centric forum.
 

Art

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,385
Location
San Francisco, CA
No, not even close. Skin tonality looks flat. Great for B&W which I rarely shoot. DoF control is only part of the appeal but not the main reason. 6d manages superb color response for skin tones in pretty much any light. Here is one of my best baby pics with E-M10+PL25. I now wish I could retake them with 6d:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Like I said earlier I don't know if even Sony FF sensors are optimized as well as Canon's. Also, I never liked Canon APS-C results and was very surprised to see such dramatic difference with their FF offering leading me to believe that Canon puts all their resources into FF sensors and simply crops APS-C out of them.
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,706
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Art - I genuinely wish you good luck in your Canon adventures, but please stop rubbishing u43. Your opinions do not match those of respected photographers with years of experience, and your one liners such as "IQ so much better even on the rear screen" just don't make logical sense.
 
Last edited:

Art

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,385
Location
San Francisco, CA
Art - I genuinely wish you good luck in your Canon adventures, but please stop rubbishing u43. Your opinions do not match those of respected photographers with years of experience, and your one liners such as "IQ so much better even on the rear screen" just don't make logical sense.
In no way I am trying to lessen m43. I am very attached to my Olympus gear and passionate about the system (world class IBIS, LiveView, pixel mapping, eye detect, design, portability, etc.). Different format for different looks. I never said IQ is better, I said images look better to me even on iPhone screen (the above was not my quote). This post is my personal opinion and not that of a professional photographer. The type of photography I do is family and travel photography. Well > 90% of my photographs include people in the frame. Landscape, macro or wildlife photographers may have entirely different experience . What works well for professionals may not work as well for amateurs and enthusiasts. Many forum members found this thread useful to them so there is no need in trying to stop the conversation. I may not always use the perfect wording - I am not a writer or blogger but I've been attaching images to the thread which should speak louder than the words.
 
Last edited:

D MATIC

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
160
Art,

If your shooting JPEG only and dont care about the size of your gear, I agree with you, and I think m43 is NOT for you. Your examples you have shown are nice, but for my taste are just a tad off for me. Highlights are blown out, darks are too dark and a little soft. The face areas lack detail (maybe dof too thin?). I understand this is what a lot of people want. This is what I used to want too. Also I find that the EM10 examples of head shots taken with a 25mm to be a bad example. You should have taken those with a portrait lens. Also, I don't agree with you on the sizing either. The 6D is huge, even with that unfair side by side image of a 6d with a pancake and no pancake on the EM10.

I am not a professional, I just wanna shoot my kids too. I'm actually just only shooting with a tiny GM5, but I post process. Which is why I think you'd be better off with the 6D since you want to shoot Jpeg straight to iPhone.

Art, no offense. I'm just offering my examples. And I understand if you don't agree. Everyone has their own opinion on color, dynamic range, sharpness, etc etc.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Your 6D image on left, GM5 on right

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,706
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
All these snapshots of kids are great - I honestly can't see the difference between any of the cameras. I don't doubt that the 6D will win out over u43 if you're taking high ISO shots that you then PP to death - but shots of people in good light can be handled by just about anything with a lens and sensor - even smartphones. Tonality and colour are all down to JPEG engine differences and individuals' preferences.
 

carlosfm

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
230
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
As for the Canon JPEGs, you may try the camera settings for color saturation.
In my S90 (admittedly a compact camera miles away from a FF) I've seen the same over-saturation and -1 in the settings was spot on.
IMO nobody, and I mean nobody gets the skin tones and overall color rendition as well as Kodak did in their digital cameras. I mean the "old" Kodak company, not the present one.
Panasonic, would you please please buy the "Kodak Color Science" technology and the stickers? Thanks in advance. :biggrin:
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
The 6D shots are nice, and I agree that it has great tonality. A lot of the M4/3 shots posted in comparison have a lot more sharpness and microcontrast, which is not always flattering for portraiture.

The main difference that I see in all the FF shots that "look significantly better" are that they have shallower DoF than is achievable with M4/3. It sounds like you've discovered your taste, and if shallow DoF is it, M4/3 is simply the wrong tool. Especially for a wide-normal field of view, the Voigtlander 0.95 lenses that could produce a similar look make too many compromises (in my opinion), and have much harsher bokeh. So your choice of FF is perfectly understandable, and the right one for your needs.

But it's also clear to me that the shots that don't have significantly shallow DoF, or are taken with telephotos (the hang glider shots or badminton) don't really show any of the "magic" of the 6D, in my opinion. They look like photos that could be taken by any camera, be it a 1/2.3" sensor, M4/3 sensor, or FF sensor.
 

WT21

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
6,638
Location
Boston
I loved, loved, loved my 6D. The reason I sold it --

  1. No effective live view, which I need from time to time.
  2. Best AF points is center point. Got frustrating sometimes.
  3. PDAF requires lens adjustment, and was not as precise
  4. Size and bulk

Never questioned the output. I have the Sony a7 right now to address these (mostly), but I do miss the lenses. Also, the 6D was more fun to shoot than the a7. Size is a downside in one way, but also more effectively spaces out controls (a7 is too cramped).
 

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
If the A7 had come with a touch-screen, and I could find a 2nd hand one for $800-900 or so, I think I would already own one. But the lack of a touch-screen and the poor manual focus aids are such a huge bummer from an usability point of view. Still, it would be nice to use my Takumar 50mm/1.4 more as it was originally intended (the old Spotmatic II's winder sprocket advance is broken, sadly...)
 

carlosfm

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
230
Location
Lisbon, Portugal

Islesfan91

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
120
the 6d was a great camera but I never used it, so I sold it. I take the em1 everywhere and actually like the photos I get from it better than the 6d, just my own preference. Nothing was wrong with the 6d, just didn't use it anymore.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom