EOS-M sharper than 6D?
- Thread starter ND40
- Start date
- Status
neuroanatomist said:ecka said:
He used the same lens for both cameras. I sort of think he would have mentioned putting on a cheap UV filter for the 6D shots and taking it off for the EOS M shots, don't you?
Yes, I thought the same thing. However, nobody here did mention this possibility, so I did
.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the suggestions. To answer some recent questions:
(1) I have not manually cleaned the sensor on this camera. I've only had it 6 weeks and use had been limited until now.
(2) No UV or other filters on the lenses for any of these test shots, just bare lens.
This is very strange. I've worked extensively on manual focus to see if I can get a sharp shot, but no luck so far.
Here are my latest round of test shots.
* EF 70-200 2.8 II lens
* WB set to daylight
* shot in RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG
* cameras mounted on tripod, wireless remote trigger
(1) M: Av, 102mm, f2.8, ISO 100
(2) 6D: Av, 155mm, f4.5, ISO 250 autofocus
(3) 6D: Av, 155mm, f4.5, ISO 250 live view, manual focus
(1) I have not manually cleaned the sensor on this camera. I've only had it 6 weeks and use had been limited until now.
(2) No UV or other filters on the lenses for any of these test shots, just bare lens.
This is very strange. I've worked extensively on manual focus to see if I can get a sharp shot, but no luck so far.
Here are my latest round of test shots.
* EF 70-200 2.8 II lens
* WB set to daylight
* shot in RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG
* cameras mounted on tripod, wireless remote trigger
(1) M: Av, 102mm, f2.8, ISO 100
(2) 6D: Av, 155mm, f4.5, ISO 250 autofocus
(3) 6D: Av, 155mm, f4.5, ISO 250 live view, manual focus
Attachments
Upvote
0
(1) I had the problem of subtle sharpness variations between shots with 40D and the 2.0/100 @ f/4 or f/5.6 where that lens is very sharp and contrasty.
(2) My S95 images had better visual sharpness than a lot of 40D-photos but they were unnaturally sharpened.
Following parameters are important:
(1) There is a sharpness setting in the tool box (third tab) which I cannot influence by the menu settings of the camera. I do it in DPP. Setting noise reduction to zero gives the above mentioned pixel level sharpness.
Usually I use zero noise reduction to keep images crisp.
(2) DPP uses different sharpening algorithms for both the S95 and the 40D:
DPP uses "Unsharp Mask" with S95 files which gives aggresive sharpening (for me: unnatural)
DPP uses "Sharpening" with 40D files which is "less sharp" but keeps transitions/edges more natural(IMO).
So I use sharpness, typically the value "3", sometimes 4 or 5
Below two commented screenshots according to (1) and (2) from DPP (great I see that I use the english version of DPP so no translation necessary!):
(2) My S95 images had better visual sharpness than a lot of 40D-photos but they were unnaturally sharpened.
Following parameters are important:
(1) There is a sharpness setting in the tool box (third tab) which I cannot influence by the menu settings of the camera. I do it in DPP. Setting noise reduction to zero gives the above mentioned pixel level sharpness.
Usually I use zero noise reduction to keep images crisp.
(2) DPP uses different sharpening algorithms for both the S95 and the 40D:
DPP uses "Unsharp Mask" with S95 files which gives aggresive sharpening (for me: unnatural)
DPP uses "Sharpening" with 40D files which is "less sharp" but keeps transitions/edges more natural(IMO).
So I use sharpness, typically the value "3", sometimes 4 or 5
Below two commented screenshots according to (1) and (2) from DPP (great I see that I use the english version of DPP so no translation necessary!):
Attachments
Upvote
0
mb66energy said:
I found this menu after some poking around in DPP (I have never used it very much - LR4 is what I use for pp). The settings for (1) were zero for noise reduction. The setting for (2) was also zero, but I was unable to change the setting.
Thanks for the suggestion. I entered a repair ticket with Canon service this afternoon and will be sending the camera for them to look at.
Upvote
0
I'm also leaning towards the fact that your camera is busted, and needs some TLC at service center.
Some reason it seems there's nothing in focus in your pictures.
Could you try one test, use the 70-200/2.8 at 2.8, and go low on the grass. Angle camera almost horizontal, slightly down. Grass should fill most of the view, maybe some sky on top. Focus some 2m/6ft distance. Is there certain spot on the grass that looks sharp? Manual focus is ok for this, just dial ~2m/6ft and you're good.
If that doesn't get any grass to be focus, then it's not focusing issue, but something is really wrong.
One really far fetched guess, maybe at DPP there's some setting it'll apply for 6D photos, unknowingly for you. If you share one of the live-view shot RAW-files, me (or someone else here) could check it and make sure it's not DPP. I'm 99% sure it's not that, but there's always that 1%.
Some reason it seems there's nothing in focus in your pictures.
Could you try one test, use the 70-200/2.8 at 2.8, and go low on the grass. Angle camera almost horizontal, slightly down. Grass should fill most of the view, maybe some sky on top. Focus some 2m/6ft distance. Is there certain spot on the grass that looks sharp? Manual focus is ok for this, just dial ~2m/6ft and you're good.
If that doesn't get any grass to be focus, then it's not focusing issue, but something is really wrong.
One really far fetched guess, maybe at DPP there's some setting it'll apply for 6D photos, unknowingly for you. If you share one of the live-view shot RAW-files, me (or someone else here) could check it and make sure it's not DPP. I'm 99% sure it's not that, but there's always that 1%.
Upvote
0
8/16/13 Follow-up
I just received my 6D back from Canon Service. They said they repaired the autofocus system and some electrical issues.
The sharpness problem is solved! Here are side-by-side comparisons of the same subject before (top) and after (bottom) the service work. The lighting is somewhat different, but the sharpness difference is clear.
* EF 70-200 2.8 II lens
* shot in RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG
* cameras mounted on tripod, wireless remote trigger
* 6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250 autofocus
I also did a few shots to compare with my EOS-M and the 6D and the results were what I would expect: the 6D is slightly sharper than the M with the same lens in bright daylight and noticeably sharper in poor light (ISO 800 on the M, 1250 on the 6D).
I just received my 6D back from Canon Service. They said they repaired the autofocus system and some electrical issues.
The sharpness problem is solved! Here are side-by-side comparisons of the same subject before (top) and after (bottom) the service work. The lighting is somewhat different, but the sharpness difference is clear.
* EF 70-200 2.8 II lens
* shot in RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG
* cameras mounted on tripod, wireless remote trigger
* 6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250 autofocus
I also did a few shots to compare with my EOS-M and the 6D and the results were what I would expect: the 6D is slightly sharper than the M with the same lens in bright daylight and noticeably sharper in poor light (ISO 800 on the M, 1250 on the 6D).
Attachments
Upvote
0
- Status
