EOS-M sharper than 6D?

[spinworkxroy]

I have a funny feeling the high ISO NR settings were set differently on both cameras..
The M should have the same IQ as a 650D since it's the same sensor..
The 6D being a FF camera should be better than the M..

 

[ND40]

Now try to frame the same shot, by choosing a longer focal length on 6D and compare the results. M @ 24mm f4, vs 6D @ 38mm f6.3, Now who's sharper?

Good point. I re-did the test using a borrowed 70-200 2.8 II lens for both shots. See below.

I have a funny feeling the high ISO NR settings were set differently on both cameras..
The M should have the same IQ as a 650D since it's the same sensor..
The 6D being a FF camera should be better than the M..

I was thinking the same thing. I shot the 2nd and 3rd set of pictures in RAW so the JPG settings (like high ISO NR, sharpening, white balance, etc.) difference between the two cameras would not affect the outcome. RAW converted to highest resolution JPG in Canon Digital Photo Professional in batch mode (all settings the same).

Test #3. Same lens, EF 70-200 2.8 II IS, RAW

(1) EOS-M, 125mm, 1/160, f4.5, ISO100, flexizone single, on monopod
(2) EOS-6D, 200mm, 1/1500, f2.8, ISO400, AF, on monopod

I intentionally used a higher ISO on the 6D shot so I could use a faster shutter speed to minimize effects of camera shake on the monopod, so if anything the 6D should have an advantage there.

The white balance was messed up on the shot from the M, but I don't have access to Lightroom or other software to correct it. DPP probably can do this, but I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Loswr]

I have a funny feeling the high ISO NR settings were set differently on both cameras..
The M should have the same IQ as a 650D since it's the same sensor..
The 6D being a FF camera should be better than the M..

I was thinking the same thing. I shot the 2nd and 3rd set of pictures in RAW so the JPG settings (like high ISO NR, sharpening, white balance, etc.) difference between the two cameras would not affect the outcome. RAW converted to highest resolution JPG in Canon Digital Photo Professional in batch mode (all settings the same).

If the in-camera settings were different, you've still got an issue (as the WB shows). DPP respects and applies the in-camera JPG settings, so unless you went in and actually changed all settings to be identical in DPP (which you didn't, at least not WB), you still don't have a good test. But at least all you need to do is go back and reprocess the RAWs.

 

[BozillaNZ]

Test #3. Same lens, EF 70-200 2.8 II IS, RAW

(1) EOS-M, 125mm, 1/160, f4.5, ISO100, flexizone single, on monopod
(2) EOS-6D, 200mm, 1/1500, f2.8, ISO400, AF, on monopod

I intentionally used a higher ISO on the 6D shot so I could use a faster shutter speed to minimize effects of camera shake on the monopod, so if anything the 6D should have an advantage there.

The white balance was messed up on the shot from the M, but I don't have access to Lightroom or other software to correct it. DPP probably can do this, but I'm not familiar with it.

Oh noes, you are doing it wrong, M should use lens wide open @ f2.8 to match 6D's stopped down DoF @ f4.5.

1/160 vs 1/1500? That's more that 3 stops difference in shutter speed!

Other than that, I think your 6D is messy at pixel level. My previous 1DsII gives pixel-sharp images and looks nothing like the image you posted.

If you are still keen to do comparisons, try those parameters:

M: Av, 100mm, f2.8, ISO 100
6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250

At those settings pointing to the same scene, the shutter speed should be within +/- 0.6ev range.

Remember to turn sharpness settings to middle for both.

 

[ND40]

If the in-camera settings were different, you've still got an issue (as the WB shows). DPP respects and applies the in-camera JPG settings, so unless you went in and actually changed all settings to be identical in DPP (which you didn't, at least not WB), you still don't have a good test. But at least all you need to do is go back and reprocess the RAWs.

try those parameters:

M: Av, 100mm, f2.8, ISO 100
6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250

Remember to turn sharpness settings to middle for both.

Sorry, I got in a hurry and messed this up. The WB on the M was set to Tungsten in my last post.
Here is another try. WB set to daylight for both. Sharpness settings in the middle for both. EF 70-200 2.8 II lens used for both shots, RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG.

(1) M: Av, 100mm, f2.8, ISO 100
(1) 6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250

Thanks again for all the help!

 

[Swphoto]

Did you use manual focus on the last shots? With 10x live view?

 

[skycolt]

You shot in JPG. That's the Error here.

OK, I repeated the pictures of the clock in RAW. I converted as a batch in DPP with all the default settings. There is less difference here.

(1) M, AF
(2) 6D, AF
(3) 6D, MF live view

This means that you need AFMA. live view and view finder shooting use different AF mechanism where the first one is more precise if the AF is not well calibrated.

 

[ND40]

Did you use manual focus on the last shots? With 10x live view?

No, this was an AF (single point) shot. I did some other shots with live view and manual focus and they looked similar. I'll post one this afternoon for comparison.

 

[Swphoto]

No, this was an AF (single point) shot. I did some other shots with live view and manual focus and they looked similar. I'll post one this afternoon for comparison.

If that's how properly focused shots look, it appears that something is wrong with your camera.

 

[ND40]

This means that you need AFMA. live view and view finder shooting use different AF mechanism where the first one is more precise if the AF is not well calibrated.

I've done AFMA with Reikan Focal Pro with every lens/body combination I own. W=0, T+1 on the 70-200 and 0,0 with the 24-105.

 

[ND40]

No, this was an AF (single point) shot. I did some other shots with live view and manual focus and they looked similar. I'll post one this afternoon for comparison.

If that's how properly focused shots look, it appears that something is wrong with your camera.

That's what I've been thinking... This is still under warranty.

 

[miejoe]

Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?

Might as well use Mirror Lockup for any future test shots just to rule that out.

 

[Loswr]

Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?

Not in the Live View shots.

 

[Swphoto]

Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?

Might as well use Mirror Lockup for any future test shots just to rule that out.

One of the shots was at 1/1500.

 

[ND40]

Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?

Might as well use Mirror Lockup for any future test shots just to rule that out.

One of the shots was at 1/1500.

Yes. With input from others on the CR Forum I refined my testing process. Some of the earlier shots were with camera settings that didn't make for a good side-by-side comparison. The most recent photo's were shot at recommended settings from BozillaNZ.

I'll upload a live view, manual focus shot from the last set of pictures in about an hour.

 

[bholliman]

All of your 6D shots are very soft in my opinion. I would suspect a focus issue, but you stated you have performed AFMA on the lenses and you also included some live view shots.

100% crops of my 6D images are much sharper than what you posted.

If it were my camera I would ship it back to Canon to repair or replace.

 

[infared]

Hmmmm.... what on earth would cause a camera to be soft like this????????...there is no point in the frame where there is true sharpness.

 

[ecka]

Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?

 

[Swphoto]

Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?

That's a good thought - maybe something dried and left a film (sorry) over the sensor?

 

[ecka]

Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?

That's a good thought - maybe something dried and left a film (sorry) over the sensor?

That, or even damaging it.
Another possible reason - cheap UV filters.