Hands on Field Test of the Canon EOS 6D Mark II

[Aglet]

The last Olympus camera that I owned was an E-P5. This was actually the last, expensive non-Canon body that I owned.

At the time, nearly all the photography that was important to me was either macro (miniature subjects about 2" tall), or garment stills, where it was important for something like a sweater to fill at least about 12MP (3500x3500 or higher resized), have a both a pleasing image when zoomed out, and clearly see the thread and yarn of the fabric when zoomed in, with no softness anywhere on the garment. Things that were really important were, for example, the ability to perfectly represent embroidered logos, since the application allowed you to move a magnifying glass over any part of the garment and see it at pixel-level, based on a 12MP-ish image (chosen because of file size).

Though I generally enjoyed the camera, unfortunately, the Olympus E-P5 was not really great at either task, though it was dubiously acceptable. Eventually, I sold it. Is the current generation of Olympus going to do the task? Maybe, but I would be surprised. I'm not really willing to take the time and energy and cost to try, now, and besides, I'm happy with Canon.

Specifics: The sharpness that I can get out of a 50mm 1.8, 100 L 2.8, and 24-70 L 4 on an 80D is simply amazing. Even at full resolution, going to 100% gives me perfect crispness on any corner of the image, which future-proofs my unresized photos -- it's very possible, as 4k monitors and faster internet become more common, the client may one day ask for higher resolution than 3,500 x 3,500. Since most garments fit a rectangular bounding box rather than square, it's quiet easy to get 6000x6000 out of a 24MP image, and since I did all my post based on the maximum image size, I could charge a whole bunch of money for doing, well, nothing.

Now, who knows, maybe I was doing something wrong with Olympus, but when photographing miniatures (models that are a few inches tall at the most) for the purpose of reprint onto full page letter/A4 sized magazines, the Olympus did not really produce acceptable results at all. I can't recall what lens I had anymore, but I'm sure I spent close to $3,000 on the system, and added to it for a while. I made my images work with Photoshop, but it was a real chore. With 80D, the most I have to do is get rid of tiny specs of dust that manage to get onto the subject between being cleaned off and being photographed.

It's also worth noting that the RAW support in various tools is just WAY better for Canon cameras and lenses than Olympus. Again, maybe that's changed, but I don't really care anymore, because I'm happy where I am.

The main reason I got a 6DII (other than, I wanted one) is because it allows me to take larger subjects on where space is constrained. There are some that are really huge, like work coveralls, or sometimes, I have a request to photograph items on a mannequin or live model, but in a space that isn't very large.

You're doing some interesting product shots in apparently less than ideal conditions but none that should really make any particular system that much better. Frankly, with controlled lighting, smaller sensors than FF should have no problem accomplishing what you need.

EP5 was eons ago in tech time. It was capable little compact camera, similar to an EM10 i still use.
EM1 v2 is a big leap ahead in many ways.

I use DXO pro when I need it. I find the MFT products are pretty well supported.
I think Capture 1, Irridient Developer and others also have good support and LR/ACR probably does better now too.

If you're content with the Canon results then that's cool.
but if you're really after good resolution and depth of field, Oly's glass is good, resolution is improved and noise further reduced by multi-shot hi rez mode, and you have focus-stacking/bracketing built into the camera as well if you need more DoF.

I don't think there's anything you're doing that can't be done just as readily with an Oly at the same or lower price with equivalent results.

 

[Aglet]

And worse (for me) they're all stationary (or relatively) stationary targets: landscapes, models, perched birds, landed insects. Not a single one of an athlete, or even the moment a dog catches a Frisbee (unless I missed it in the endless landscapes). If it can't do that, it's useless to me. If it can, why not show it?

Yes, it's an unconvincing argument.

there are shots of birds in the middle of some serious maneuvering or nearly head-on in flight you may have missed in all the other examples.

yes, I agree, he should have had the model do more running towards or away instead of all those side shots or included some other common sports and action work.

But overall it's a good showing of what the EM1v2 can and can't do well.

FWIW, i've done some fast action work with it (horses) using the 12-100mm zoom and CAF tracking hit rate was impressive. Probably around 90% or better keeper rate if I didn't lose the subject to my own error.

I would pit this Oly directly against a 5d3 in any circumstance, it won't lose often.

 

[tomscott]

There is a difference between having an opinion and forcing your opinion. Perfect examples going on in this thread.

Since actually getting my 6DMKII and shooting 2 paid shoots with it im finding little wrong with it and finding some of these comments rather amusing.

 

[Aglet]

Yes there are some interesting bits of tech in there, but they mostly seem like compromises to get around poor technique or the smaller sensor size. It certainly isn't a good advert for people looking to print big or crop hard.

yes, lots of interesting tech stuffed into that little camera. much of it useful. Like great 5-axis IBIS that also works very well for video, in-camera focus-stacking and focus bracketing, crazy high frame rates, big buffer and pre-release capture mode (cuz FF users have separate time-machines), 4k and cinema 4k, WiFi, hi-rez mode, weatherproof, more AF points than you can shake a joystick at, touch-screen functions, etc...

HAHA! Yup, somehow that compensates for smaller sensor or poor technique. ;D

I'm sure I can make a really nice 30 to 36" print from the EM1v2 at lower ISOs without much effort. Probably even larger near base ISO.

 

[Mikehit]

I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.

That review does in no way convince me that m4/3 is a full frame replacement for me. It does the opposite.

I found very few examples oversharpened, not that it's a system issue anyway since most of the processing was done in 3rd party software so sharpening was done however the author wished. For the most part I think his sharpening was well done for the intended medium.
Are you accustomed to mushy muddy images after having to NR them or you just prefer them softer?

As for the DoF characteristics you're looking for, he covers that pretty well too. perhaps you missed it.
There's little you can do with APSC or FF you can't do with MFT as far as shallow DoF in a practical way.
It does require a bit of a different approach.

You linked that site as an example of what the EM-1 can do and both Larssky and I have said we find them unacceptable so you now say that is the fault of the user. Those images are about on par with others I have seen on the internet so I don't go along with the claim of processing style.

Don't get me wrong - I have taken some great photos with my MFT gear and several professionals have gone full bore to MFT - and I note that most are studio photographers with controlled lighting and street photographers who value the discretion of the small size. It may suit your style but certainly not mine. But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.

 

[jeffa4444]

And worse (for me) they're all stationary (or relatively) stationary targets: landscapes, models, perched birds, landed insects. Not a single one of an athlete, or even the moment a dog catches a Frisbee (unless I missed it in the endless landscapes). If it can't do that, it's useless to me. If it can, why not show it?

Yes, it's an unconvincing argument.

there are shots of birds in the middle of some serious maneuvering or nearly head-on in flight you may have missed in all the other examples.

yes, I agree, he should have had the model do more running towards or away instead of all those side shots or included some other common sports and action work.

But overall it's a good showing of what the EM1v2 can and can't do well.

FWIW, i've done some fast action work with it (horses) using the 12-100mm zoom and CAF tracking hit rate was impressive. Probably around 90% or better keeper rate if I didn't lose the subject to my own error.

I would pit this Oly directly against a 5d3 in any circumstance, it won't lose often.

Should you not be posting on the 4/3rds forum clearly you dislike Canon and are not really offering anything constructive or engaging in an even handed review. As I said I'm invested in both Canon and Olys m4/3rds system and work professionally in both Still rental and motion picture rental where we try to be even handed about equipment.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.

Counterclaims...and being thought of as completely out of touch with reality. Not that that's a a surprise to anyone.

 

[Larsskv]

I just had a look at Aglets link. If the pictures there are regarded as m4/3 pictures, I guess I would be satisfied. If I view them from a full frame standpoint, I would with a few exceptions be dissatisfied with the results/pictures. They all look oversharpened, and they lack the sense of depth/3D-look that I am used to from my Canon lenses.

That review does in no way convince me that m4/3 is a full frame replacement for me. It does the opposite.

I found very few examples oversharpened, not that it's a system issue anyway since most of the processing was done in 3rd party software so sharpening was done however the author wished. For the most part I think his sharpening was well done for the intended medium.
Are you accustomed to mushy muddy images after having to NR them or you just prefer them softer?

As for the DoF characteristics you're looking for, he covers that pretty well too. perhaps you missed it.
There's little you can do with APSC or FF you can't do with MFT as far as shallow DoF in a practical way.
It does require a bit of a different approach.

I found almost every picture to be oversharpened. I hate seeing sharpening artifacts. Additionally, it makes it hard to get a real impression of the true resolution of the lenses. And since I use FF and good glass, I rarely need or apply sharphess or NR at all. ;D

I really do think mft is a good system. The system offers a variety of good small, light and compact lenses, that takes advantage of the smaller sensor. It makes sense.

What you seem to claim is that the best mft camera is better than all other Canon FF cameras, than the 5DIV and 1DX/II. In some technical aspects, you are correct. In terms of how good the pictures look, which I really do care about, you are flat out wrong. Give me a soon to be 10 year old 5DII and a 20 year old 35L, or the even older 85 L (version 1), and I could take pictures that look substantially better than anything I could make with any mft camera/lens-combination. And the link you provided illustrates that point to me.

 

[BillB]

But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.

Counterclaims...and being thought of as completely out of touch with reality. Not that that's a a surprise to anyone.

If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.

 

[Mikehit]

If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.

In one of his posts, Aglet says he prints 36"+ and claims MFT is as good as anything up up to 5D4 and I can only take his comments in that light.

 

[privatebydesign]

But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.

Counterclaims...and being thought of as completely out of touch with reality. Not that that's a a surprise to anyone.

If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.

He has very regularly derided the 5D MkIII IQ as being horrific and unusable, yet is saying the Olympus is nearly as good?

At this point it is clear he is just out to get a reaction from people here and his main focus is tech and toys rather than actual images as an end product. Which are both fine if you have the time and inclination to play his game and/or are also more interested in features in a body than images that come out of it.

As for printing large, it always depends on subject matter and people's personal ideas of acceptable. I find 24mp 135 format prints to 20"x30" about as big as I am critically happy. The 50mp 135 format can easily go out to 24"x36" but in truth, generally, I am not happy with them much bigger. Even if the 4/3 outperformed the 135 format on a per area basis that would put prints or crops from that system at around half the area, or 18"x24" without cropping, plenty good enough for most users most of the time but certainly not a big print/heavy crop capable system.

I just printed a series of abstracts by other photographers for an exhibition, one image was easy to print to 30cm x 40cm even though it was very low resolution because it had no fine detail and was blurred, another printed to the same size used every pixel of its 26MP as it was a hyper sharp image of architectural trusses and the sharpness was a critical element to the image.

 

[BillB]

If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.

In one of his posts, Aglet says he prints 36"+ and claims MFT is as good as anything up up to 5D4 and I can only take his comments in that light.

Well, one interpretation of what he is trying to say is that nothing short of a 5D4 (and he has at times mentioned an 80D IIRC) is much better than a good MFT camera (at least under certain largely unspecified conditions.) As far as 36" is concerned, anything can be printed at 36". As far as print quality is concerned, opinions can vary.

 

[stevelee]

Bigger prints often come with longer viewing distances. The extreme example would be billboards. You don't need a lot of resolution for them.

 

[privatebydesign]

Bigger prints often come with longer viewing distances. The extreme example would be billboards. You don't need a lot of resolution for them.

And often they don't. Billboards are a poor example because relatively few people exhibit their prints on billboards. What I do know is however big I print people will, if they are physically able, walk right up to it, that doesn't necessarily give them the best viewing experience, but it is the same with large paintings. People who have more than a passing interest in the image will look at the details, the brush strokes (in a painting), they want to experience all that the image can give them, basically the 'rules' of viewing distance go out the window when people get the opportunity to ignore it.

 

[dak723]

I am constantly amused by how you Canon fan boys can't engage in a real debate when it challenges your primary choice of equipment platform. Are you that insecure and-or suffering from inferiority?

I am constantly amused by how a troll gets to stay on this site so long when they don't debate - but rather just make totally biased comments regarding Canon cameras and inflammatory statements regarding those that use Canon equipment. I have found that anyone incapable of taking excellent photos with Canon cameras and believes them to be "mediocre" may be placing the blame at the wrong end of the camera, so to speak.

I really like my Olympus E-M1. While I have owned it since it first came out, I have also owned a Canon 6D, SL-1 and now the M5. Yes, Olympus makes excellent camera and lenses, but there are limitations to the MFT system's smaller sensor. To argue that the IQ of MFT's images are equal to Canon FF is just plain stupid. Yes, when viewed small - and in relatively simple daytime conditions - I have taken pics with each system and found them to be virtually identical, but try and print large - or take pics in low light - and Canon FF and crop outperform MFT. I do a lot of sunset pics and the Olympus does a nice job on those, too, but in very low light - if I try and lift shadows from essentially black silhouetted areas - the MFT sensor is too small to get much if any color information. Both the crop and FF cameras do a much better job on those types of shots. View or print large? Same benefit.

So, feel free to keep making ridiculous statements about cameras that you probably don't even use - or if you do , probably don't know how to use well. Your bias is so obvious - and very unwelcome on this site.

well, you contradict yourself in some ways but let's got get technical about your argument skills and instead refute what it seems you're trying to say.

Let's start with the camera's being compared.
I'm talking about the EM1 mk2, not the original EM1. FWIW, I own and use BOTH along with other models.
The new mk2 is a huge leap over the previous model in every metric. see graphic below.

If you have a look at the measured metrics, you'll find the only Canon cameras beating the EM1v2 are the 5d4 and 80d plus the 1dx bodies. I made the initial argument against the 5d3 and by association the 6d and 6d2 as they are quite similar in overall IQ.

So, what point were you trying to make?... Please try not to get distracted.

My points?:

Point 1: My argument skills are fine. My comments clearly state that in real life experience, my MFT camera can not equal the IQ of a FF Canon camera under many conditions. Not sure what you didn't understand about that. Your chart - however nice it looks - does nothing to refute that. You may notice that there is no mention of any overall IQ improvement between the E-M1 and E-M1 II, so your chart does not address the question we are discussing.
Point 2: I am not at all distracted.
Point 3: The fact that you need to insult me is the best proof that you, in fact, have no legitimate argument.

I hope these relatively simple sentences were clear enough for your understanding.

 

[stevelee]

Bigger prints often come with longer viewing distances. The extreme example would be billboards. You don't need a lot of resolution for them.

And often they don't. Billboards are a poor example because relatively few people exhibit their prints on billboards. What I do know is however big I print people will, if they are physically able, walk right up to it, that doesn't necessarily give them the best viewing experience, but it is the same with large paintings. People who have more than a passing interest in the image will look at the details, the brush strokes (in a painting), they want to experience all that the image can give them, basically the 'rules' of viewing distance go out the window when people get the opportunity to ignore it.

They make an extreme example, as I said.

I have a 13" x 19" print of a photo I made of a glacier on Glacier Bay in Alaska. The print is framed and hangs with others down my hallway. It was shot in 2002 with the not-quite-4-megapixel camera I used at the time. Yes, you can walk right up to it. From 4" away it looks a little blocky, but you can't view the whole picture very well. If you move back to 18" to two feet away until you can see the whole picture comfortably, it looks great. That resolution may not work so well with other subject matter at that size, but this picture is just fine. Printed 4" x 5", you'd probably hold it six or eight inches from your face.

At art museums I enjoy looking up close to paintings by French Impressionists. And then I step back gradually (trying not to run into other people). At some viewing distance the little dots or blobs suddenly look like water and other surfaces with light playing off of them. I still wonder how the painter can stand close enough to the canvass to put the paint on, and yet still have some sense of how it all will work out when viewed from many feet away.

 

[Don Haines]

isn't this thread about the 6D2? How is comparing 5D series against Olympus relevant?

Have you considered moving this traffic to a relevant thread?

 

[Aglet]

But to make a blanket statement that MFT suprasses anything but the 5D4 and 1Dx is oversimplistic and the sort of thing that will get counterclaims.

Counterclaims...and being thought of as completely out of touch with reality. Not that that's a a surprise to anyone.

If I am following Aglet correctly, he is not saying that image quality from the latest Olympus is better than the 5DIII, he is saying that it is almost as good, whatever he means by that. He is also saying that the latest Olympus has some features that 5DIII lacks, which is true. What all this adds up too I am not sure. My guess is that his intended message is that you can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, especially if you don't print too big, and that the Olympus is a lot smaller than a FF Canon DSLR (and it has some neat features). Not exactly news in my opinion.

Thank-you BillB

You have read and understood me correctly.

I'm wondering why others who are replying are exaggerating what I've stated and are often missing the point.

 

[zim]

Been following this thread for a while and I think I’ve just had an epiphany!

You can get some decent pictures from the latest Olympus, the latest Oly IQ is about as good as a 5D3
Therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 5D3

The 6D and 6D2 have similar IQ to the 5D3
Therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 6D
and therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 6D2

The 5D4 and 1Dx2 have generally better IQ than the latest Olys and 5D3 and therefore the 6D and 6D2
Therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 5D4
And therefore you can get some decent pictures from a 1Dx2

Unfortunately I have none of these cameras so I can neither prove or disprove anything.

 

[Aglet]

I am constantly amused by how you Canon fan boys can't engage in a real debate when it challenges your primary choice of equipment platform. Are you that insecure and-or suffering from inferiority?

I am constantly amused by how a troll gets to stay on this site so long when they don't debate - but rather just make totally biased comments regarding Canon cameras and inflammatory statements regarding those that use Canon equipment. I have found that anyone incapable of taking excellent photos with Canon cameras and believes them to be "mediocre" may be placing the blame at the wrong end of the camera, so to speak.

I really like my Olympus E-M1. While I have owned it since it first came out, I have also owned a Canon 6D, SL-1 and now the M5. Yes, Olympus makes excellent camera and lenses, but there are limitations to the MFT system's smaller sensor. To argue that the IQ of MFT's images are equal to Canon FF is just plain stupid. Yes, when viewed small - and in relatively simple daytime conditions - I have taken pics with each system and found them to be virtually identical, but try and print large - or take pics in low light - and Canon FF and crop outperform MFT. I do a lot of sunset pics and the Olympus does a nice job on those, too, but in very low light - if I try and lift shadows from essentially black silhouetted areas - the MFT sensor is too small to get much if any color information. Both the crop and FF cameras do a much better job on those types of shots. View or print large? Same benefit.

So, feel free to keep making ridiculous statements about cameras that you probably don't even use - or if you do , probably don't know how to use well. Your bias is so obvious - and very unwelcome on this site.

well, you contradict yourself in some ways but let's got get technical about your argument skills and instead refute what it seems you're trying to say.

Let's start with the camera's being compared.
I'm talking about the EM1 mk2, not the original EM1. FWIW, I own and use BOTH along with other models.
The new mk2 is a huge leap over the previous model in every metric. see graphic below.

If you have a look at the measured metrics, you'll find the only Canon cameras beating the EM1v2 are the 5d4 and 80d plus the 1dx bodies. I made the initial argument against the 5d3 and by association the 6d and 6d2 as they are quite similar in overall IQ.

So, what point were you trying to make?... Please try not to get distracted.

My points?:

Point 1: My argument skills are fine. My comments clearly state that in real life experience, my MFT camera can not equal the IQ of a FF Canon camera under many conditions. Not sure what you didn't understand about that. Your chart - however nice it looks - does nothing to refute that. You may notice that there is no mention of any overall IQ improvement between the E-M1 and E-M1 II, so your chart does not address the question we are discussing.
Point 2: I am not at all distracted.
Point 3: The fact that you need to insult me is the best proof that you, in fact, have no legitimate argument.

I hope these relatively simple sentences were clear enough for your understanding.

I think you are still missing the point of the argument.
Your MFT camera is not an EM1v2 or you'd be quick to confirm that.

Since you missed that most salient point more than once how can you properly engage in this discussion?