Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 6D gallery, could mostly be done with with m43?

Go to last post
A

Adventsam

Veteran Member
Messages
4,983
Solutions
1
Reaction score
234
Location
N Yorks, UK
Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
 
Adventsam said:
Adventsam wrote:

Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
Click to expand...
and conversely the 6D can do just what m4/3rds can do, they both take pictures just decide which is the toy you want most
 
M43 can to a large extent do the same (barring extreme shallow DoF for which a larger sensor always helps) but to get the outstanding corner sharpness I see in these sample images (and that at 100% with images of higher resolution than any m43 camera) you need extremely good and expensive lenses.

We are getting there with lenses like the 75mm prime lens and the 12-35 and 35-100 zoom lenses, but true excellence is still pretty rare for m43, which I would attribute mostly to the lower amount of money m43 users are willing to spend on lenses compared to potential 6D buyers.
 
Member said:
illy wrote:
Member said:
Adventsam wrote:

Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
Click to expand...
and conversely the 6D can do just what m4/3rds can do, they both take pictures just decide which is the toy you want most
Click to expand...
 
I disagree a partly. While the new Panny zooms are really the only high grade mid range zooms, both UWAs are outstanding (the 7-14 is better than the 17-40L), and there are a LOT of high end primes.

i used to shoot Canon full frame with a bag full of L glass, and I think that my current m43 lenses as a whole are at least as good, if not a little better in a few cases.
 
Paul De Bra said:
Paul De Bra wrote
... but true excellence is still pretty rare for m43, which I would attribute mostly to the lower amount of money m43 users are willing to spend on lenses compared to potential 6D buyers.
Click to expand...
Without getting too much into details, m43 has the potential and the quality needed for excellent photography but IMO, if true excellence is still pretty rare, I would attribute mostly to the lower amount of money and effort people are willing to spend on learning how to take excellent photos.

Cheers
Moti
 
Last edited:
Adventsam said:
Adventsam wrote:
Adventsam said:
illy wrote:
Adventsam said:
Adventsam wrote:

Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
Click to expand...
and conversely the 6D can do just what m4/3rds can do, they both take pictures just decide which is the toy you want most
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As an aside, here's my lens kit from when I was shooting full frame vs. now:

Canon:

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon 17-40 f/4L
Canon 24mm f/3.5 TS-E
Zeiss 28-85mm f/3.3-4
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 / Canon 50mm f/1.4 (owned both)
Rokinon 85mm f/1.4
Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

Now:
Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye
Panasonic 7-14mm f/4
Olympus 12mm f/2
Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4
Olympus 45mm f/1.8
Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro
Olympus 75mm f/1.8
Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8
Canon FD 50-300 f/4.5L (adpated)

Now, there are many that aren't directly comparable, but I also have owned a lot more Canon glass than above (the 35L, 85/1.2L, 135/2L, 200/2.8L, Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, 70-200 f/4L IS, etc)

However, where direct comparisons are available:

The Panasonic 8mm fisheye is a better lens than my Sigma 15 (which was, in turn better than the Canon 15, though I would be the new 8-15L is better as well).

The Panasonic 7-14/4 is better than the 17-40L. It's sharper AND much wider.

The Oly 12 and 24 TS-E aren't comparable. The 12 is sharper overall (I owned the Mk I), but the 24 does things no m4/3 lens can do.)

The PL 25/1.4 is better overall than either 50/1.4. In fact, the PL 25/1.4 is the best overall normal lens I've ever used. Some have been a little sharper...some have had better bokeh, but none has had the top end combination of outstanding sharpness with great rendering and bokeh that the PL has.

The Oly 45 and the Rokinon 85 are a wash optically. Of course the Rokinon is much faster, but it's manual focus. I'd rather use the Oly, personally.

The Oly 60/2.8 and the Canon 100/2.8L IS are equal in my eye. Both are truly outstanding, and in fact render scenes very similarly.

The Canon 70-200/IS II is a little better than the Panasonic 35-100/2.8, though the Panasonic is very good. I'd say the Panasonic is on par with the Mark I version of the 70-200 IS, but the Mark II is the best zoom lens ever made, IMO.

As an aside, as I mentioned, I've owned the Canon 135/2 and the Sigma 150/2.8, and the Oly 75 easily is as good as those lenses. It might be the overall sharpest lens I've ever owned, and has bokeh comparable with those great FF lenses.
 
Last edited:
"The Oly 60/2.8 and the Canon 100/2.8L IS are equal in my eye. Both are truly outstanding, and in fact render scenes very similarly"

That mirrors my exeprience exactly and as I shoot almost all my bug macros hand-held the lower weight of the 60mm + EM5 vs 100 mm + 5Dmk2 is the real killer blow :)
 
Member said:
illy wrote:
Member said:
Adventsam wrote:
Member said:
illy wrote:
Member said:
Adventsam wrote:

Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
Click to expand...
and conversely the 6D can do just what m4/3rds can do, they both take pictures just decide which is the toy you want most
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Adventsam said:
Adventsam wrote:
Adventsam said:
illy wrote:
Adventsam said:
Adventsam wrote:
Adventsam said:
illy wrote:
Adventsam said:
Adventsam wrote:

Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
Click to expand...
and conversely the 6D can do just what m4/3rds can do, they both take pictures just decide which is the toy you want most
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Adventsam said:
Adventsam wrote:

Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
Click to expand...
This argument again?

I'm no Canon fan, but except for size and possibly to option of having deeper DOF, this is an argument you cannot win. And whether you consider a FF DSLR a "behemoth" or a compact, highly portable camera when compared to medium or large formats, the reason so many continue to use FF cameras superb IQ, rugged build quality, and huge choice of focal lengths from UWA to super telephotos.

To me, there is no reason at all to choose one system (P&S, m43, APS-C, FF) at the exclusion of all others.
 
marike6 said:
marike6 wrote:
marike6 said:
Adventsam wrote:

Just checked the 6d gallery which I thought was quite nice for a change, but what I notice now more than ever is the fact there is not much there that can't be done with m43, in fact for many instances m43 would be better, eg in the macro shots they are stopping down and down to get the deeper dof which is hammering the iso and shutter. All in all these behemoths are looking decidedly lacklustre.
Click to expand...
This argument again?

I'm no Canon fan, but except for size and possibly to option of having deeper DOF, this is an argument you cannot win. And whether you consider a FF DSLR a "behemoth" or a compact, highly portable camera when compared to medium or large formats, the reason so many continue to use FF cameras superb IQ, rugged build quality, and huge choice of focal lengths from UWA to super telephotos.

To me, there is no reason at all to choose one system (P&S, m43, APS-C, FF) at the exclusion of all others.
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear that marike6, I wasnt saying or even criticising 6d, it is what it is, am just saying that its not looking as flexible anymore, in fact the af its been bestowed with makes it look decidedly antiquated.
 
There is no "mine is better than yours" argument, but rather a "mine is better for what I want to do". It is subjective and there is no 1 correct answer. I think people here are very protective of FF and get offended that others have no need or want for it.

FF cameras are great if you want high quality and thin DoF. They are larger though, and Canikon does not offer IS for most lenses, so it all depends upon your needs.

Like the OP, I prefer a smaller camera that I can take anywhere, that has IS with every tiny lens I carry, and results in IQ that the average person will find the same as those larger cameras. I do lose the shallow DoF look on occasion, but can add that in post if necessary (you can't enlarge DoF though).

So I guess the point is, it is nice to know that I can achive very close to the same results (maybe better in some cases?) with my tiny camera as those with a brand new $2000 larger camera.
 
Everdog said:
Everdog wrote:

There is no "mine is better than yours" argument, but rather a "mine is better for what I want to do". It is subjective and there is no 1 correct answer. I think people here are very protective of FF and get offended that others have no need or want for it.

FF cameras are great if you want high quality and thin DoF. They are larger though, and Canikon does not offer IS for most lenses, so it all depends upon your needs.

Like the OP, I prefer a smaller camera that I can take anywhere, that has IS with every tiny lens I carry, and results in IQ that the average person will find the same as those larger cameras. I do lose the shallow DoF look on occasion, but can add that in post if necessary (you can't enlarge DoF though).

So I guess the point is, it is nice to know that I can achive very close to the same results (maybe better in some cases?) with my tiny camera as those with a brand new $2000 larger camera.
Click to expand...
i like small cameras but i don't have to keep saying why, or even say i like small cameras because......everybody knows the difference by now i hope, but why start a thread about a Canon camera in the m4/3rds forum, if these threads were never started we wouldn't have the same old load of bollocks going on and on.......i really don't care about the Canon, but this thread was arses to begin with
 
Member said:
illy wrote:
but why start a thread about a Canon camera in the m4/3rds forum, if these threads were never started we wouldn't have the same old load of bollocks going on and on.......i really don't care about the Canon, but this thread was arses to begin with
Click to expand...
Yes indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top