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

[Mikehit]

Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
(It's nearly 30 MB of images so beware if you're trying to view this on a smart-phone w-o a good data plan.)

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

Isn't that what it's about then?... REAL WORLD ABILITY?!?

It speaks volumes that none have even commented on those examples.

I did comment on those samples - but I guess you were too busy deciding my opinion is worthless because I am a fanboy. I said that resulting from the smaller sensor, the images do not meet what I would want to see in my photos. I don't give a damn if they have higher DR, or what other features the Olympus has if the images start to break up when I view at a size I want to view them.

As I have said several times: I have Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses and choose what I need for what I want to do.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

[quote author=Aglet
The difference in DR... a little, yes.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DOZEN OTHER AMAZING FEATURES THE OLYMPUS HAS THAT ARE USEFUL IN REAL LIFE EVERY-DAY SHOOTING THAT NO CANON EVEN HAS?!?
Didn't look at those, did you.
[/quote]

Not really been engaging on this thread but I am curious as to the "THE DOZEN OTHER AMAZING FEATURES THE OLYMPUS HAS THAT ARE USEFUL IN REAL LIFE ". I have played with some of the newer Olympus Cameras and they seem pretty good to me for general use. Unfortunately I don't see great high ISO performance (perhaps I am wrong here?) and I don't see any long lenses (100-400 Max?). Please correct me if I am wrong but I am not sure if they (Olympus) have optical viewfinders? This is absolutely critical for my photography as even the best EVF viewfinders that I have tried are hopeless for my uses (wildlife).

Olympus have always made good cameras and some rather nice lenses but I am not familiar with many of their current products - hence my curiosity.

 

[jeffa4444]

Aglet

As Ive posted Ive owned Olympus 4/3rd and micro 4/3rd cameras and lenses since they started the system. I don't own the OM-D E-M1 II but I do own the OM-D E-M5 II and a OM-D E-10 plus a number of lenses, so I don't consider myself a Canon fanboy!
Lets get straight to the picture quality or fundamental differences. The m4/3rds system has a larger apparent depth of field compared to the Full Frame system so people confuse this as meaning its sharper, its not. Enlarging from m4/3rds and from Full Frame after using comparable high performance lenses I invariably have more sharper detail in the Full Frame shots the larger I increase the shot because its a smaller enlargement for the full frame camera. Obviously you know all this.

Olympus use Sony sensors (Sony is also a shareholder of Olympus) and this definitely improved their sensor performance over the sensors provided by Panasonic (and in the past Kodak) but they are not silver bullets and if you have the money for the pro lenses Olympus now make that's great but their regular consumer lenses are pretty awful relying greatly on in-camera corrections (and no support in LR unlike Canon & Nikon).
The m4/3rds system was designed with concentric lens design in mind but Olympus uses a tight image circle partially to limit the lens size but also to save cost. The lens choice whilst better since the arrival of the original OM-D E-M1 is still limited compared to Canon or Nikon and if I were making a living from my cameras I would not chose m4/3rds but for recreation its fine.

 

[slclick]

I have the latest Oly MFT and NO, it will not, does not and cannot outperform my 5D3 and EF glass in any way shape or form. It will compliment it but that's where the comparisons stop. Ridiculous.

I'm callin' "Bollocks!"
EM1v2 has plenty of places it can outscore that noisy mirror-flapper 5d3.
If you're comparing another model you missed the point.

Speed. Size. Weight, price, just to start with. And I'll take it for better raw file quality too.
And that's not even touching the advanced features your Canon flapper will never have.
IBIS, in-camera focus-stacking and bracketing, pre-trigger frame storage up to 60fps, live-composite/bulb, high-res mode, etc.

You're praising your dinosaur for being able to do one trick, sort of adequately.
This hot little mammal is gonna eat the eggs from your nest soon enough. LOL


Meanwhile, were you both too lazy to even look at that link above?
Pour yourself a tall one and read it. Then read it again til it sinks in. Especially if one of you fancies yourself a birder, there are some good examples. Too lazy to scroll up? Here it is again.
http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

Oly's little flagship even out-scores the 5d3 in PDR at base and keeps up to it at higher ISO from a sensor 1/4 the size!

Apologies to Bill Claff for snagging a screenshot of his page but some people are too lazy to look for themselves

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

I'll leave it for you to click on the 1dx mk2 to add it to the comparison link above and see how superior it is. (chuckle, snort)

Now, if you gave yourself a minute or two do you think it would have been possible to rephrase your post in a non inflammatory and insulting way? Think on it.

 

[Larsskv]

Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
(It's nearly 30 MB of images so beware if you're trying to view this on a smart-phone w-o a good data plan.)

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

Isn't that what it's about then?... REAL WORLD ABILITY?!?

It speaks volumes that none have even commented on those examples.

I did comment on those samples - but I guess you were too busy deciding my opinion is worthless because I am a fanboy. I said that resulting from the smaller sensor, the images do not meet what I would want to see in my photos. I don't give a damn if they have higher DR, or what other features the Olympus has if the images start to break up when I view at a size I want to view them.

As I have said several times: I have Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses and choose what I need for what I want to do.

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.

 

[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.

+1
My experience exactly

 

[slclick]

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.

+1
My experience exactly

I love my mft, however I am not delusional about it's capabilities when it comes to DR, IQ and noise. Hell, it's a tiny sensor. Size, weight and space saving attributes do nothing to a photographs quality. Every time I shoot with my Oly gear I accept it's limitations, when I shoot with Canon FF it's usually my own limitations that handicap me.

 

[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.

 

[Talys]

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.

 

[stevelee]

Now, if you gave yourself a minute or two do you think it would have been possible to rephrase your post in a non inflammatory and insulting way? Think on it.

What fun would that be?

And it might require some thought and maybe a bit of rational argument.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
(It's nearly 30 MB of images so beware if you're trying to view this on a smart-phone w-o a good data plan.)

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

Isn't that what it's about then?... REAL WORLD ABILITY?!?

It speaks volumes that none have even commented on those examples.

I did comment on those samples - but I guess you were too busy deciding my opinion is worthless because I am a fanboy. I said that resulting from the smaller sensor, the images do not meet what I would want to see in my photos. I don't give a damn if they have higher DR, or what other features the Olympus has if the images start to break up when I view at a size I want to view them.

As I have said several times: I have Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses and choose what I need for what I want to do.

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.

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
(It's nearly 30 MB of images so beware if you're trying to view this on a smart-phone w-o a good data plan.)

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

Isn't that what it's about then?... REAL WORLD ABILITY?!?

It speaks volumes that none have even commented on those examples.

I did comment on those samples - but I guess you were too busy deciding my opinion is worthless because I am a fanboy. I said that resulting from the smaller sensor, the images do not meet what I would want to see in my photos. I don't give a damn if they have higher DR, or what other features the Olympus has if the images start to break up when I view at a size I want to view them.

As I have said several times: I have Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses and choose what I need for what I want to do.

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.

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.

No there are some good looking bird in flight images in there, all be it cl9se to take off from perch stuff, and running people but mostly across the frame.

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.

 

[Aglet]

I have seen some excellent photos with the latest Olympus bodies and Oly 300mmf4 or Panasonic 100-400 . But when viewed large on a 24" screen the image quality deficiencies compared to FF (of any marque) become apparent. Your words 'quite favourably' are right, but given your interesting description of your demands from a camera system you seem to be over-egging the pudding when talking about MFT.

what are you going to see on a 24" screen that it going to make a big difference between FF and MFT? And there's a lot more to photos than long tele's.

unless you're comparing the same scene and composition in the same conditions the only FFs that are going to beat Oly's EM1v2 are the 5d4, 1dx/2 and the SoNikons, 5ds by a hair. OK, so that's most of them out there. But I'm beating it against the 5Dx and 6Dx series here, where the Oly is not gonna get embarrassed and certainly not considering the price difference and feature sets.

Dynamic range measured in a lab may be better, but the sensor is 1/4 the size of the FF and when you blow it up to the same size you have more problems than just DR.

Dynamic range measured in a lab may be better, but the sensor is 1/4 the size of the FF and when you blow it up to the same size you have more problems than just DR.

Like what, for example?..

 

[Aglet]

Images of what? Underexposed back of a lens cap and pushed seven stops? What's the name of the coffee shop again? Ye olde DRone & Measurebator?

it's the one where we take REAL Canon lenses and use them for coffee mugs.

 

[Aglet]

Here it is, again, for those who may be just dropping in to this thread.
(It's nearly 30 MB of images so beware if you're trying to view this on a smart-phone w-o a good data plan.)

http://www.intufisuri.ro/2017/07/olympus-om-d-e-m-1-mk-ii-review-or-how.html

Isn't that what it's about then?... REAL WORLD ABILITY?!?

It speaks volumes that none have even commented on those examples.

I did comment on those samples - but I guess you were too busy deciding my opinion is worthless because I am a fanboy. I said that resulting from the smaller sensor, the images do not meet what I would want to see in my photos. I don't give a damn if they have higher DR, or what other features the Olympus has if the images start to break up when I view at a size I want to view them.

As I have said several times: I have Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses and choose what I need for what I want to do.

Well, you did not mention what model of Oly you had experience with, did you? If you did I missed it.
If it's anything less than the latest EM1 mk 2 it's not relevant because it's that big a jump ahead in metrics.

Don't be put off by the term fanboy, it's not aimed at anyone specific as there are plenty here who will jump to defend their platform choice almost religiously without first having a serious look a the information available in this comparison.
I used to be one of them, back when I knew less..

 

[Aglet]

Not really been engaging on this thread but I am curious as to the "THE DOZEN OTHER AMAZING FEATURES THE OLYMPUS HAS THAT ARE USEFUL IN REAL LIFE ". I have played with some of the newer Olympus Cameras and they seem pretty good to me for general use. Unfortunately I don't see great high ISO performance (perhaps I am wrong here?) and I don't see any long lenses (100-400 Max?). Please correct me if I am wrong but I am not sure if they (Olympus) have optical viewfinders? This is absolutely critical for my photography as even the best EVF viewfinders that I have tried are hopeless for my uses (wildlife).

Olympus have always made good cameras and some rather nice lenses but I am not familiar with many of their current products - hence my curiosity.

Well, for one thing, if your avatar is any indication along with your post, you like wildlife/bird photography?
All the recent and current Oly cam's are pretty good... I'm not into their little compact units without an EVF, they're no good to me for outdoor shooting and they're not meant for demanding conditions.

Small, light, fast are a few things the new EM1v2 is.
Good battery life too.
very good focus system
very high frame-rate and deep buffer + pre-release capture when you need to get the picture you missed before you pressed the shutter release. love it!
And an EVF that may surprise you with how well it works, especially when dealing with low contrast subjects. If you haven't tried THIS camera's EVF you haven't tried one of the present very best. I find it better than optical VF and can't think of a time I would have wished for optical when using it.
an optional optical targeting device to help you locate your subject when using long lenses
easy manual focus overide with focus peaking in the EVF when you need to get past branch or grass clutter to the subject when normal AF might be confused
fantasic IBIS so you can handhold long focal-length lenses for most shots and thus quickly react to different shooting conditions.
Hi ISO performance that, despite the arguments here, competes with Canon's mainstream FF bodies. Their 1Dx series is certainly better, as is the 5d4... bigger , heavier, costlier...

Lenses.

Oly 40-150mm f/2.8. Equivalent to FF 80-300mm in focal length, still 2.8 for light gathering but ~ 5.6 for DoF.

300 f/4 - like a fast 600mm

Panasonic 100-400mm. It's decent optically, at least up to the 300mm (600 equiv)... I'm not a big fan of the controls.. they felt a little ... stiction. maybe it loosens up with use, not sure.

I don't have much need for long teles so the only one I use is the Oly 75-300mm variable aperture. It's slow but it works plenty well enough for the few shots I need to use it for and it's cheap and very light and small. I had poor AF performance with it too until I put it on an EM1 where the keeper rate jumped up many-fold.

If you're ever around a well-equipped camera store that stocks the Oly gear, try it out. You may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Aglet]

Aglet

As Ive posted Ive owned Olympus 4/3rd and micro 4/3rd cameras and lenses since they started the system. I don't own the OM-D E-M1 II but I do own the OM-D E-M5 II and a OM-D E-10 plus a number of lenses, so I don't consider myself a Canon fanboy!
Lets get straight to the picture quality or fundamental differences. The m4/3rds system has a larger apparent depth of field compared to the Full Frame system so people confuse this as meaning its sharper, its not. Enlarging from m4/3rds and from Full Frame after using comparable high performance lenses I invariably have more sharper detail in the Full Frame shots the larger I increase the shot because its a smaller enlargement for the full frame camera. Obviously you know all this.

Olympus use Sony sensors (Sony is also a shareholder of Olympus) and this definitely improved their sensor performance over the sensors provided by Panasonic (and in the past Kodak) but they are not silver bullets and if you have the money for the pro lenses Olympus now make that's great but their regular consumer lenses are pretty awful relying greatly on in-camera corrections (and no support in LR unlike Canon & Nikon).
The m4/3rds system was designed with concentric lens design in mind but Olympus uses a tight image circle partially to limit the lens size but also to save cost. The lens choice whilst better since the arrival of the original OM-D E-M1 is still limited compared to Canon or Nikon and if I were making a living from my cameras I would not chose m4/3rds but for recreation its fine.

I do not disagree with anything you've stated here. .. except maybe the cheap kit lenses... they're not fabulous but they're not bad either. At least the newer versions I've had deliver pretty well and if considering the price and physical characteristics, very well. Software effectively manages the optical shortcomings and suits the intended market. Plenty of seriously good glass is available.

I would say, however, that the new EM1v2 is good enough that it can be used professionally in many circumstances where it fits.
Certain specialty lenses are still lacking in the MFT system, yes. But mainstream imaging with good (not necessarily the pro grade) lenses it's in the ballpark and will outperform any Canon crop body before the 80D where it's nearly equivalent across the ISO range.
Just Check out the photonstophotos.net PDR charts for that metric. For any others I'll take the Oly's feature set and any day and the ergo's are great too, for me anyway. It's a very enjoyable camera to use.

 

[Aglet]

Now, if you gave yourself a minute or two do you think it would have been possible to rephrase your post in a non inflammatory and insulting way? Think on it.

Well i did mean it to be a little inflammatory because I'd like to make the point that you did not come out and say you have and are using an EM1 mk2. It's a big leap over everything else Oly's made so far so if you're comparing it to a lower level body your argument loses cred and I've seen many poor arguments made here already.
You also made no reference to the large number of really good real-world shooting examples available in the link I provided.
So if you are comparing it to YOUR EM1v2, please say so. I can't read your mind, I only see you dissin' a solid argument with no backup.

I did not mean to insult you, my apologies if I did.
I do mean to take a little poke at your 5d3 tho.
Can it defend itself against the best ML cameras with smaller sensors?
Because if you think it can, you may want to have another look at the specs and features of those 2 very different camera bodies. I'm tellin' you, the new Oly's not gonna get beat at much, and, it has way more tricks built into it that are useful in many shooting conditions that flappy-mirror cameras can not compete with.. Tho Nikon is apparently gonna give it a try with the D850.

ML cameras aren't coming of age..
They are more than good enough for most things right now and, in many ways, far better already.

 

[Aglet]

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.

 

[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.