Unimpressed with 6D + 24-105. Am I doing something wrong?

[ArtVandelay12]

Fortunately for me, most of what I shoot requires more DOF and mft is an advantage there.

It is not. It only has the disadvantage of not being able to provide less DOF when needed. You do not have a format based limit how deep DOF you can get - the only limit is diffraction.

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF. Rarely do I want the DOF that even f2.8 provides on FF, so I like that more is in focus. It works for me.

 

[Pi]

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF.

And why is that an advantage?

 

[ArtVandelay12]

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF.

And why is that an advantage?

Why would it not be? For portraits I prefer to have the entire face in focus, not just eye lashes or a nose. I like as much as possible to be in focus for landscapes as well.

 

[Loswr]

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF.

And why is that an advantage?

Why would it not be? For portraits I prefer to have the entire face in focus, not just eye lashes or a nose. I like as much as possible to be in focus for landscapes as well.

So you stop down on FF. You can use cheaper/lighter lenses. The point is, FF gives you the freedom to choose shallow or deep DoF, to suit your creativity. Smaller sensors don't give you that same freedom.

 

[ArtVandelay12]

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF.

And why is that an advantage?

Why would it not be? For portraits I prefer to have the entire face in focus, not just eye lashes or a nose. I like as much as possible to be in focus for landscapes as well.

So you stop down on FF. You can use cheaper/lighter lenses. The point is, FF gives you the freedom to choose shallow or deep DoF, to suit your creativity. Smaller sensors don't give you that same freedom.

I'm not saying they don't. Just that for me it works just fine.The biggest reason for me to use mft is size and weight.

Anyway, this thread wasn't intended to be a crop vs ff debate. I have applied micro adjustments and now I am much happier with the gear. Definitely much better IQ than what I had originally. ISO performance is simply amazing too. Sensor tech has come a long way.

 

[Rocguy]

I am having the same underwhelming experience with my 6D and 24-105. But I've no idea how to tell if it needs any afma done. Or how much. Or where. Help? Lol

 

[Zv]

I am having the same underwhelming experience with my 6D and 24-105. But I've no idea how to tell if it needs any afma done. Or how much. Or where. Help? Lol

Search : Dottune MFA method or buy Reikan Focal.

Link : http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1187247/0

 

[Hannes]

Canon's raw files are often pretty flat and may well need a bit of extra contrast and/or saturation to really pop, especially in a muted scene like that. However in those two you have much better bokeh in the 6D picture which makes a difference and it looks a bit crisper but the colour balance of the olympus makes it look a bit more appealing.