Canon 6D Review: 1+ Year Hands-On [video review]

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,697
419
50
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Roark said:
These are stunning pictures and I like the very practical review too. I really cant see any harsh tonal transitions, color shifts or lacking DR. The files look gorgeous to my eyes.

Apart from that I would like a smaller body with better live view implementation too...

It's a great camera. I've been using a 5DIII for sevel years and seeing simular results. I'm not a great fan of ND grads...I really don't see the point in the post digital world. They rarely can captur the correct dynamic range and some of these images illustrate my point. A 2 -3 shot merge in Photoshop with images shot at different exposures for specific parts of the scene are generally a better way to go. Using the histogram to meter for different ends of the contrast scale.

There's several highlight blow outs in some of the sky images and why is the sky darker than the land / foreground...looks like to strong grad filters too me. Nice colours, but some of the scenes look like there's false colours added from the ND grads colour casts. The scenes are nice and dramatic, but many of these would fail RPS judging (or degree level photography portfolio judging) due to the exposure issues I've just mentioned. There's bad flare in one shot and another has split boulders in the fore ground, it's important not to split any in half at the edges of the frame. These are very nice and colourfull images, i'm sure they sell well to punters. Especially to the framed print crowds, but really wouldn't impress anyone with a qualification in photography.
 

dude

EOS M50
Aug 22, 2012
43
0
Graham, excellent review! Excellent photographs too!

I am glad to see someone else finds the 17-40L a great landscape lens. It is my goto long exposure landscape lens along with the Lee filter system.

Excellent work!
 

grahamclarkphoto

Just a photographer who loves to travel.
MLfan3 said:
great practical review with lots of great images, but the image quality(not photo quality) exactly shows what Canon sensor lacks.
the tonal transition is harsh , the color shift is always visible and DR seems very limited.
especially after shooting the A7R for a couple of months , I feel all current DSLRs are dated and ******* in manyways.

honestly, if I only shoot stills , I do not use Canon or Nikon ,I just go Sony A7R + Fuji XE2.

I initially hated the A7R but as I shot it a lot with my D800E or 6D in the same night sites with a solid tripod , I changed my mind, it has better sensor and its sheer resolution is simply amazing , it may easily match the Pentax 645D or Leica S class of lowend cropped MF bodies, it cannot rival Phase or Hassy but easily match or even surpass the Leica S class of fake MF, isn't it amazing?
so , despite of all its annoying quirks , the A7R might be the best 35mm format camera for many non-action shooters.
I think it just needs a supr wide zoom or fisheye zoom to completely replace all my Nikon Canon bulky so-called digital camera with a lot of annoying analogue mechanical parts.
seriously, the future is hybrid and the annoying slapping mirror AF must be replaced with the quiet and more accurate sensor based CDAF, which does not require AF micro adjustment.
the D800E can never touch the Sony in terms of sheer resolution, usability in really bad low light (shooting milky way for example) because of the annoying mirror and the OVF, which is quickly becoming a thing of the last century.

honestly, after the 70D announcement, I have been hoping next 5D4 gets the dual pixel AF + EVF for serious video and hybrid work.
with the dated OVF , we cannnot see anything in real darkness , but with the EVF we can actually see through what we are actually shooting even in complete darkness.
I know there are a lot of EVF haters here and Nikon side of the world , but they are just nostalgic or sentimental over the old film era technology , not even trying it yet hating it.
I think once they try it they will love it or at lest accept it.
Imagine what if the 6D got the dualpixel AF of the C100, tiltable LCD of the Sony A7R and amazing high quality EVF of the Fuji XE2, how much better would it be than the current boring cameras like the 6D,the 5D3 or the D800E?
I also want tocuh screen AF of the EM1 in my next Canon FF.
I know many here think the touch AF as gimmick , but it is not, it is very very handy in video or super lowlight scenes.

I believe in 3 years the D-SLRs will die out.

Thanks for your response! The image quality when exported at 80/100 does produce some lateral banding on the images above which have a very gradual and delicate gradient, however the original images do not and print out quite nicely.

I agree with you regarding the DSLR and the a7R. In fact, I'll probably buy one within the next couple of days with the metabones EF adapter to check it out. Any experience or knowledge of the Metabones adapter and if it renders focal lengths down to 16 and 17mm correctly?

For lightness and smallness I think the a7R looks like a compelling camera, and with Canon lenses it could be a strong setup. But only one way to find out...

Graham
 

grahamclarkphoto

Just a photographer who loves to travel.
Roark said:
These are stunning pictures and I like the very practical review too. I really cant see any harsh tonal transitions, color shifts or lacking DR. The files look gorgeous to my eyes.

Apart from that I would like a smaller body with better live view implementation too...

Thanks! : )

The images I posted here on CanonRumors were exported with 80/100 quality, and three of the images found here have very slight lateral banding in the sky, however the originals do not. The amount of detail is so extreme that even a small amount of compression destroys the delicate gradient :|

Graham
 

grahamclarkphoto

Just a photographer who loves to travel.
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Graham, just wanted to check in again to say that I just watched the whole video review. Great stuff. I don't agree on your degree of vehemence on the lack of usefulness of the Wi-fi (I have found quite a few very practical uses), but overall I agree with just about all of your other conclusions and appreciate the effort put into it.

Thanks Dustin! : )

Regarding the intervalometer, I was referring specifically to the lack of an intervalometer. Everyone's different, however every landscape image I capture is with an intervalometer so the lack of that functionality (which is easy to code in objective-C with the canon SDK) doesn't really make sense.

Seeing how the last update to the Canon intervalometer was in November of 1998 with the Canon EOS-3, its about time they look to the future and design for mobile devices.

Graham
 

grahamclarkphoto

Just a photographer who loves to travel.
distant.star said:
.
Thanks. Nicely done.

Your experience confirms my first comments about the WIFI and GPS. Outside of marketing hype, it seems essentially pointless.

This body is an option I continue to consider as a second to by 5D3. With the recent 7D2 news, this may be the year I can decide to go wholly FF or else choose to keep one foot in the APS-C realm.

Anyway, thanks for a great contribution to the photographic community with your work.

Thanks! I think in it's current state the wifi is essentially useless, but I do think that's a short-term issue.

GPS on the other hand is a breakthrough feature (in my opinion), despite its shortcomings on the user experience side of things.

Graham
 

grahamclarkphoto

Just a photographer who loves to travel.
GMCPhotographics said:
Roark said:
These are stunning pictures and I like the very practical review too. I really cant see any harsh tonal transitions, color shifts or lacking DR. The files look gorgeous to my eyes.

Apart from that I would like a smaller body with better live view implementation too...

It's a great camera. I've been using a 5DIII for sevel years and seeing simular results. I'm not a great fan of ND grads...I really don't see the point in the post digital world. They rarely can captur the correct dynamic range and some of these images illustrate my point. A 2 -3 shot merge in Photoshop with images shot at different exposures for specific parts of the scene are generally a better way to go. Using the histogram to meter for different ends of the contrast scale.

There's several highlight blow outs in some of the sky images and why is the sky darker than the land / foreground...looks like to strong grad filters too me. Nice colours, but some of the scenes look like there's false colours added from the ND grads colour casts. The scenes are nice and dramatic, but many of these would fail RPS judging (or degree level photography portfolio judging) due to the exposure issues I've just mentioned. There's bad flare in one shot and another has split boulders in the fore ground, it's important not to split any in half at the edges of the frame. These are very nice and colourfull images, i'm sure they sell well to punters. Especially to the framed print crowds, but really wouldn't impress anyone with a qualification in photography.

1. Some of these images have been on covers of books, including the upcoming International Masters of Photography. Those are judged by professional portfolio reviewer. Perhaps you should sign up as a reviewer! : )

2. I'm a beginner photographer, still learning the fundamentals

3. Graduated Neutral Density filters are one way to obtain a correct and balanced exposure (and as a result, native saturation), but there are others as you have suggested, namely in software.

Everyone's different. I don't use software to balance the exposure or to achieve saturation, whereas some people only use software to obtain this. Is either way better? I don't think so.

"There's so much digital adding of stuff here and there that photographers may as well become painters" - Galen Rowell

4. Looking at the professional gallery circuit (having been in it and being familiar with those who work in it) I don't see many serious landscape photographers working with software. I'm seeing more rock solid technique and willingness to be out in the natural world at the right time, and an uncanny sense for how the conditions translate into a final print.

5. Not sure if I catch the qualifications in photography bit
 

grahamclarkphoto

Just a photographer who loves to travel.
GMCPhotographics said:
Roark said:
These are stunning pictures and I like the very practical review too. I really cant see any harsh tonal transitions, color shifts or lacking DR. The files look gorgeous to my eyes.

Apart from that I would like a smaller body with better live view implementation too...

It's a great camera. I've been using a 5DIII for sevel years and seeing simular results. I'm not a great fan of ND grads...I really don't see the point in the post digital world. They rarely can captur the correct dynamic range and some of these images illustrate my point. A 2 -3 shot merge in Photoshop with images shot at different exposures for specific parts of the scene are generally a better way to go. Using the histogram to meter for different ends of the contrast scale.

There's several highlight blow outs in some of the sky images and why is the sky darker than the land / foreground...looks like to strong grad filters too me. Nice colours, but some of the scenes look like there's false colours added from the ND grads colour casts. The scenes are nice and dramatic, but many of these would fail RPS judging (or degree level photography portfolio judging) due to the exposure issues I've just mentioned. There's bad flare in one shot and another has split boulders in the fore ground, it's important not to split any in half at the edges of the frame. These are very nice and colourfull images, i'm sure they sell well to punters. Especially to the framed print crowds, but really wouldn't impress anyone with a qualification in photography.

I almost forgot to ask, what's your website URL?

Graham
 

dude

EOS M50
Aug 22, 2012
43
0
I do have a question. I noticed many of your photos had been shot at an ISO of 50. Do you see much difference between 50 and 100?