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

[Aglet]

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.

BINGO! Another one who gets it!

 

[Don Haines]

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

A lot is the nature of the internet and how hard it is to have a logical discussion when people get overly emotional. As well, it is very hard to express that emotion or "body language" over a keyboard. Confusion and misunderstanding is almost certain to creep in. Throw in some conformational bias and personal viewpoints presented as the wishes of the masses and all hope of a reasonable discussion are ended.

When you post something that lists both good points and bad points, some will fixate on the good and some will fixate on the bad.... this is very hard on maintaining a balanced viewpoint.

................................................................................................

Speaking as someone who has both Olympus and Canon in the stable:

Olympus has been far more innovative than Canon, but Canon is more stable.

Both take fantastic pictures in good light. There is not an appreciable difference between Oly and APSc in poor light, but Canon FF is most definitely better in poor light.

Canon has a better lens assortment.

Oly is better sealed.

Oly lenses and cameras are far lighter than Canon APSc....

Oly has a lot of features that I wish Canon had...

I greatly prefer the Canon (non-rebel) ergonomics. ( This is a PERSONAL opinion )

When it comes down to make a decision, Canon FF ( or 7D2) against Oly, I would pick Canon, as it is a superior product FOR MY NEEDS...... but if I were starting out and wanted to make a decision between the Canon M series and Oly, it would be no contest and Oly wins out with better bodies and better lenses.

.................................................................................

So which one is better? NEITHER! IT DOES NOT MATTER! What is important is to understand the plusses and the minuses and to evaluate them against your needs, and for all of us to realize that our personal needs are not representative of the masses.

 

[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.

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.

I think's someone is exaggerting my position.

We're both pretty critical about our print quality and that's why I went ABC, Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.

However, I think people here, maybe you as well, are merely arguing against me not because they've evaluated the data, but because it's me who presented it.


perhaps a different reference may be useful:

Imaging-Resource does their final evaluation by PRINTING.

so, from the following 2 reviews of the Olympus EM1 mk 2 and Canon 5D mk 3:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-iiA.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-ii-image-quality.htm#print-quality


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA.HTM



... some relevant excerpts:

"
Canon 5D Mark III Print Quality

Good quality 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200; ISO 3,200 shots still looked good at 16 x 20; and ISO 51,200 made a good 4 x 6.

ISO 100 images were incredible at 30 x 40 inches, with crisp detail and gorgeous color rendition.

ISO 200 shots also looked great at 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 400 shots look spectacular at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 800 images started to show a very slight indication of softness due to noise suppression, but all major elements still looked quite good at 24 x 36 inches.

Canon 5D Mark III Print Quality

Good quality 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200; ISO 3,200 shots still looked good at 16 x 20; and ISO 51,200 made a good 4 x 6.

ISO 100 images were incredible at 30 x 40 inches, with crisp detail and gorgeous color rendition.

ISO 200 shots also looked great at 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 400 shots look spectacular at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 800 images started to show a very slight indication of softness due to noise suppression, but all major elements still looked quite good at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 1,600 images were a little softer in the red leaf swatch, but other than that, these images still looked good at 20 x 30 inches.



Olympus E-M1 II Print Quality Analysis (native resolution)

A terrific 30 x 40 inch print at ISO 64/200, a good 16 x 20 inch print at ISO 800, and a nice 5 x 7 at ISO 12,800.

ISO 64 prints look absolutely superb at 30 x 40 inches (except for reduced dynamic range), with super-sharp detail, excellent color renditioning and an amazing amount of three dimensional "pop" to them. These are simply superb prints in every regard.

ISO 200 images also look quite good at 30 x 40 inches. They're not quite as super-crisp as the prints at ISO 64, but still offer an amazing amount of fine detail for this size, with rich colors as well.

ISO 400 yields outstanding prints up to 20 x 30 inches, with terrific detail and only a mild softening in our tricky red-leaf swatch. The 24 x 36 inch prints here are certainly usable as well for wall display purposes and less critical applications, anything but the most critical of printing needs.

ISO 800 shots at 20 x 30 inches come oh-so-close to passing our "good" grade, as there is still a very good degree of fine detail available, but mild softening in the red channel and some apparent noise in flatter areas of our target prevent us from officially calling these "good". You'll be fine for less critical applications, but for your more critical prints we advise a reduction in size to 16 x 20 inches here, which is still a nice size and offers virtually no apparent noise nor artifacts from noise reduction processing.

ISO 1600 prints at 16 x 20 just pass our good seal of approval and offer plenty in the way of fine detail. There is a mild amount of noise in flatter areas and minor issues with softening in a few areas, but it still makes a good overall print. For absolute critical prints here we recommend the 13 x 19's."


So, how far behind is the latest MFT, really?
Certainly not the 1/4 print area of a FF that was suggested! LOL
Even when you get to the hi iso levels it's only behind by about a stop and that's based, AFAIK, on using OOC jpgs in this comparison so both would benefit from proper PP on raw files and the Oly may gain more than the Canon because it doesn't suffer the same fixed pattern noise in its files that the older Canon bodies do.

 

[Aglet]

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

A lot is the nature of the internet and how hard it is to have a logical discussion when people get overly emotional. As well, it is very hard to express that emotion or "body language" over a keyboard. Confusion and misunderstanding is almost certain to creep in. Throw in some conformational bias and personal viewpoints presented as the wishes of the masses and all hope of a reasonable discussion are ended.

When you post something that lists both good points and bad points, some will fixate on the good and some will fixate on the bad.... this is very hard on maintaining a balanced viewpoint.

................................................................................................

Speaking as someone who has both Olympus and Canon in the stable:

Olympus has been far more innovative than Canon, but Canon is more stable.

Both take fantastic pictures in good light. There is not an appreciable difference between Oly and APSc in poor light, but Canon FF is most definitely better in poor light.

Canon has a better lens assortment.

Oly is better sealed.

Oly lenses and cameras are far lighter than Canon APSc....

Oly has a lot of features that I wish Canon had...

I greatly prefer the Canon (non-rebel) ergonomics. ( This is a PERSONAL opinion )

When it comes down to make a decision, Canon FF ( or 7D2) against Oly, I would pick Canon, as it is a superior product FOR MY NEEDS...... but if I were starting out and wanted to make a decision between the Canon M series and Oly, it would be no contest and Oly wins out with better bodies and better lenses.

.................................................................................

So which one is better? NEITHER! IT DOES NOT MATTER! What is important is to understand the plusses and the minuses and to evaluate them against your needs, and for all of us to realize that our personal needs are not representative of the masses.

Thanks Don.

And those are basically the points I'm making as well but trying to make people aware that the very latest MFT is actually so much improved that they can be considered nearly equivalent in image quality to the previous generation of Canon FF bodies while offering a lot more features for the price.

So I'd add to that, IMO, the Olympus is a far better overall value but that still doesn't mean it's for everyone. However, it's far more worthy of consideration than it was just a year or so ago.

And yes, it's easy to get a little testy with each other having these discussions online but hopefully everyone can keep a sense of humor about it and not get too insulting or offensive when challenged.
I'll put up my finger to include myself in the group of those who has crossed that line on occasion. :-[

 

[Aglet]

so back to the 6d2:

Buy it if you want it!

I'm just sayin... for the same money you get another company's flagship camera, complete with all the extra performance and useful features that includes, in a smaller, lighter package that makes few sacrifices to practical images, even at larger print sizes, and may actually provide you the ability to get BETTER images because of those unique features.

 

[Sporgon]

Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.

Jeez Aglet, what are you smoking ?

 

[Mikehit]

I think's someone is exaggerting my position.

We're both pretty critical about our print quality and that's why I went ABC, Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.

I am not exaggerating your position.
You say Canon files do not hold well beyond 18" but MFT do. I disagree strongly.
I would say prove it by posting to side by side shots - one Canon (even a 5DII) with the best possible lens and the EM1 with the best possible lens. You have made the claim so instead of quoting a site who has done 2 reviews at different times, I think you should show 2 images that demonstrate this.
I have not seen MFT images that would suggest they would be superior to FF Canon but I am more than happy to say 'fair enough' if you can because it could save me thousands.

 

[Aglet]

Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.

Jeez Aglet, what are you smoking ?

HAHA! I'm smokin' Canon's with my luvly new EM1 mk2!

more seriously, I'd reviewed images I shot with my 60D and 5d2 that were printed at 12x18" and compare them to ABC bodies, also at base ISO and printed at the same size.
The ABC produced images were just cleaner and easier to print larger without showing the artificial textures in smooth tonal gradations that Canon's noise created.
Blue-sky was a prime area where Canon files did not look as good because of noise.
Lower midtones, especially neutral or no hue areas could also exhibit unwanted noise, especially if they were in scenes where there was a lot of DR and those areas were pulled up a bit to make a more pleasing overall image.

So, same as always, Canon noise and FPN forced me to search for better image capture tools.
Fortunately, better options (for me) were/are everywhere!

 

[dak723]

When it comes down to make a decision, Canon FF ( or 7D2) against Oly, I would pick Canon, as it is a superior product FOR MY NEEDS...... but if I were starting out and wanted to make a decision between the Canon M series and Oly, it would be no contest and Oly wins out with better bodies and better lenses.

.................................................................................

So which one is better? NEITHER! IT DOES NOT MATTER! What is important is to understand the plusses and the minuses and to evaluate them against your needs, and for all of us to realize that our personal needs are not representative of the masses.

Don, you always are very rational and present your thoughts very well. The problem with others is their exaggerations and in some cases, totally incorrect comments meant only to inflame.

As someone who has been a big booster of The MFT Olympus E-M1, I could not agree more that it is an excellent camera and that in many ways and under many circumstances the images one gets from FF, APS-C and MFT can be very comparable. I do think it is important that people get the facts from people actually using the cameras and that have no bias. Yes, creating an acronym for Anything But Canon, reveals total bias and is obvious to everyone (with one possible exception). When the M5 came out, I compared it in real life shooting with my E-M1. Even though the E-M1 has a smaller sensor and less MPs. the sharpness and general image quality are virtually identical. Definitely a plus and a good selling point for the MFT system. However, the one weakness of MFT that I mentioned once before, was its weakness in low light. In some cases, when lifting shadows. their is a lack of color information. In similar situations. the APS-C performs noticeably better. FF, of course, is better still.

Of course, the biggest advantage to the M5 is the size and weight. The E-M1 (original and and mark II) are possibly the largest MFT cameras and has no size advantage over the smaller APS-C cameras.

So, as you say, whatever advantages and disadvantages there are between cameras and brands will differ based on the a person's individual need. There is no reason, on this forum or any other, to give dishonest information, propaganda, or try and mislead folks just because of personal disappointment with a brand's products. Thankfully, folks like you do it right.

 

[Don Haines]

HAHA! I'm smokin' Canon's with my luvly new EM1 mk2!

I'd reviewed images I shot with my 60D and 5d2

It is not logical to compare Olympus 2017 technology against Canon 2008 technology. Your may as well compare 2008 Olympus technology against 2017 Canon and see if the results are the same.

I have an Olympus E620 (2009) and a 6D2 (2017)

NO COMPARISON!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10Mp VS 26Mp
ISO1600 VS ISO 102,400, and the Oly is grainier at ISO1600 than the 6D2 is at 40,000
and the Oly had 3 AF points and a blistering 3FPS!

Try to guess which is which

 

[reef58]

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.

I think's someone is exaggerting my position.

We're both pretty critical about our print quality and that's why I went ABC, Canon files often didn't hold up well beyond 18" without post work.

However, I think people here, maybe you as well, are merely arguing against me not because they've evaluated the data, but because it's me who presented it.


perhaps a different reference may be useful:

Imaging-Resource does their final evaluation by PRINTING.

so, from the following 2 reviews of the Olympus EM1 mk 2 and Canon 5D mk 3:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-iiA.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m1-ii/olympus-e-m1-ii-image-quality.htm#print-quality


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA.HTM



... some relevant excerpts:

"
Canon 5D Mark III Print Quality

Good quality 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200; ISO 3,200 shots still looked good at 16 x 20; and ISO 51,200 made a good 4 x 6.

ISO 100 images were incredible at 30 x 40 inches, with crisp detail and gorgeous color rendition.

ISO 200 shots also looked great at 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 400 shots look spectacular at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 800 images started to show a very slight indication of softness due to noise suppression, but all major elements still looked quite good at 24 x 36 inches.

Canon 5D Mark III Print Quality

Good quality 30 x 40 inch prints at ISO 100/200; ISO 3,200 shots still looked good at 16 x 20; and ISO 51,200 made a good 4 x 6.

ISO 100 images were incredible at 30 x 40 inches, with crisp detail and gorgeous color rendition.

ISO 200 shots also looked great at 30 x 40 inches.

ISO 400 shots look spectacular at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 800 images started to show a very slight indication of softness due to noise suppression, but all major elements still looked quite good at 24 x 36 inches.

ISO 1,600 images were a little softer in the red leaf swatch, but other than that, these images still looked good at 20 x 30 inches.



Olympus E-M1 II Print Quality Analysis (native resolution)

A terrific 30 x 40 inch print at ISO 64/200, a good 16 x 20 inch print at ISO 800, and a nice 5 x 7 at ISO 12,800.

ISO 64 prints look absolutely superb at 30 x 40 inches (except for reduced dynamic range), with super-sharp detail, excellent color renditioning and an amazing amount of three dimensional "pop" to them. These are simply superb prints in every regard.

ISO 200 images also look quite good at 30 x 40 inches. They're not quite as super-crisp as the prints at ISO 64, but still offer an amazing amount of fine detail for this size, with rich colors as well.

ISO 400 yields outstanding prints up to 20 x 30 inches, with terrific detail and only a mild softening in our tricky red-leaf swatch. The 24 x 36 inch prints here are certainly usable as well for wall display purposes and less critical applications, anything but the most critical of printing needs.

ISO 800 shots at 20 x 30 inches come oh-so-close to passing our "good" grade, as there is still a very good degree of fine detail available, but mild softening in the red channel and some apparent noise in flatter areas of our target prevent us from officially calling these "good". You'll be fine for less critical applications, but for your more critical prints we advise a reduction in size to 16 x 20 inches here, which is still a nice size and offers virtually no apparent noise nor artifacts from noise reduction processing.

ISO 1600 prints at 16 x 20 just pass our good seal of approval and offer plenty in the way of fine detail. There is a mild amount of noise in flatter areas and minor issues with softening in a few areas, but it still makes a good overall print. For absolute critical prints here we recommend the 13 x 19's."


So, how far behind is the latest MFT, really?
Certainly not the 1/4 print area of a FF that was suggested! LOL
Even when you get to the hi iso levels it's only behind by about a stop and that's based, AFAIK, on using OOC jpgs in this comparison so both would benefit from proper PP on raw files and the Oly may gain more than the Canon because it doesn't suffer the same fixed pattern noise in its files that the older Canon bodies do.

You seem very passionate and I myself love my Olympus m4/3. That being said it is hard to quantify the terms good, excellent, and spectacular as they are not really defined. That seems subjective.

 

[Aglet]

You seem very passionate and I myself love my Olympus m4/3. That being said it is hard to quantify the terms good, excellent, and spectacular as they are not really defined. That seems subjective.

My MFT has become my main go-to, especially the new EM1v2.
It's not the best IQ in my inventory, but it's the best overall camera by being the most versatile and fun to use and easy to take along.

I agree, it's difficult to compare images subjectively, which is what a lot of people here are doing, mostly, it seems, based on past experience with older MFT systems that were decent but not as good as the latest.

But when provided with more objective results, like this:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%2080D,FujiFilm%20X-T20,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

..then I hear the opposite request about how well it performs in real world and real pictures.
The best I can do is provide that info and hopefully people will look at it and at least scratch their heads when they think about making a choice.

It may be hard for some people to acknowledge that a modern MFT camera can pretty much keep up with Canon's previous generation of FF imagers while at a lower price and higher functionality.

The D800s now only come out when I need bigger print ability, cropping or some application where it's warranted.
Otherwise MFT is plenty good for most things these days.
Looking fwd to the new EM10 mk 3

 

[Aglet]

ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHER ON USING OLYMPUS MFT GEAR

Scott Bourne's Bird Photography Gear Guide
MFT Olympus edition (2017-08-14)

https://spark.adobe.com/page/WuwmbVyXe6NLl/

his Canon based list: (2016-07-07) with Panasonic MFT also mentioned

https://photofocus.com/guides/scott-bournes-bird-photography-gear-guide/

 

[Mikehit]

You seem very passionate and I myself love my Olympus m4/3. That being said it is hard to quantify the terms good, excellent, and spectacular as they are not really defined. That seems subjective.

My MFT has become my main go-to, especially the new EM1v2.
It's not the best IQ in my inventory, but it's the best overall camera by being the most versatile and fun to use and easy to take along.

I agree, it's difficult to compare images subjectively, which is what a lot of people here are doing, mostly, it seems, based on past experience with older MFT systems that were decent but not as good as the latest.

But when provided with more objective results, like this:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Canon%20EOS%2080D,FujiFilm%20X-T20,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II

..then I hear the opposite request about how well it performs in real world and real pictures.
The best I can do is provide that info and hopefully people will look at it and at least scratch their heads when they think about making a choice.

It may be hard for some people to acknowledge that a modern MFT camera can pretty much keep up with Canon's previous generation of FF imagers while at a lower price and higher functionality.

The D800s now only come out when I need bigger print ability, cropping or some application where it's warranted.
Otherwise MFT is plenty good for most things these days.
Looking fwd to the new EM10 mk 3

Now that is a much more reasoned view. If you had said it in those terms initially you would not have had the flak you did.
It really is becoming difficult to discuss with you because you make inflammatory statements (and previously admit to doing so on purpose), defend yourself, then make a much more reasoned statement later.

 

[Mikehit]

ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHER ON USING OLYMPUS MFT GEAR

Scott Bourne's Bird Photography Gear Guide
MFT Olympus edition (2017-08-14)

https://spark.adobe.com/page/WuwmbVyXe6NLl/

his Canon based list: (2016-07-07) with Panasonic MFT also mentioned

https://photofocus.com/guides/scott-bournes-bird-photography-gear-guide/

I agree with every bit of that.
But I note that he talks in terms of the quality of the Olympus in relation to the size and cost of DSLRs - he is not talking in absolute quality of image. But also note that he is a professional and pros are great to listen to because they buy equipment that gives them sales and who cares if the quality is not the same as a 1Dx2+600mm? If the public buy the image it is job done.

But that is far from saying (as you started off) that the IQ of the MFT is the same as DSLR. I very nearly went full MFT myself a year or so ago with the E-M1 v2 (or Panasonic) and 100-400 but decided I wanted the absolute image quality.

My comments on the images he posted - the picture of the boobie is starting to get crunchy and the third image (the blue and orange bird) is not what I would consider sharp at all and showing smearing. But as I say, if this gear gets him sales then as a pro that is the main point for him.

 

[Sporgon]

Blue-sky was a prime area where Canon files did not look as good because of noise.

What planet are you on ? Here's a typical blue sky shot on the 5DII at 100 ISO with zero noise reduction. 100% crop, the whole image is shown for reference. Where is the noise ? It's as clean as anything else from Nikon or Sony - certainly cleaner than MFT.

I just don't get this "colour noise" and "FPN" crap that you throw at the Canons, especially the 5DII.

 

[tomscott]

Can we get back on topic now.

Move your Olympus stuff to the Third Party section, sick of seeing it.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
May be Canon should follow Nikon and remove the bias (offset) information from their raw file, so that those people who said Canon low ISO is noisy guy will be happy, but I think if they do this Astrophotographer using Canon DSLR will be quite angry... ha ha ha

Have a nice day.

 

[Talys]

Can we get back on topic now.

Move your Olympus stuff to the Third Party section, sick of seeing it.

+100

 

[Talys]

What planet are you on ? Here's a typical blue sky shot on the 5DII at 100 ISO with zero noise reduction. 100% crop, the whole image is shown for reference. Where is the noise ? It's as clean as anything else from Nikon or Sony - certainly cleaner than MFT.

I just don't get this "colour noise" and "FPN" crap that you throw at the Canons, especially the 5DII.

There's nothing wrong with blue sky on 6DII, either. It's just a blue sky.