The Sweet Spot

nolten wrote:

So far my M6II won't replace my G1XIII. There is just no native M lens to compete with the G1X' lens. OTOH the two cameras complement each other very well. For hiking I use the G1X with the M + 55-250 or 70-300 IS II as a two camera kit. I keep 11-22 and 28 macro in my pack. Less than 4 lbs with 55-250. Instant access to 24-400 mm (35 equiv) with no lens changes. RLight's lizard image (2nd to the last) with the 70-300 shows how capable this combo is.

My gripe with the M6II is that you really have to use DPP to get the most out of it. I'm pretty committed to and happy with the Lightroom library organization and editing capability up to the 5D4, 80D, G1XIII generation. DPP throws a monkey wrench into this since it edits and makes changes a camera's raw file. LR doesn't like that a bit. So the M6II lives in a different post processing universe from my other cameras. DLO and ALO are impressive though and the M6II resolution demands these.

Here are two variations of an image. The first PPd in LR the 2nd in DPP. The color difference is obvious but you'll have to view 100% to see the sharpness difference. The DPP version does introduce some sharpening artifacts visible at 100% but produces the more pleasing image. IMHO.

Lightroom Post Processing.

Canon DPP Post Processing.

The colors and corrections are better in DPP4 than LR. LR's machine learning driven auto-lighting is a good starting point for light changes and it's graphics acceleration support for live changes though can't be matched by DPP4 in return. Doing DPP4 > TIFF > LR is a good option for best of both worlds, which in fact of the 10 image samples up, the last one was DPP4 exclusively vs the first 9 were DPP4 > TIFF > LR > JPEG.

I do have a modified M50 color profile I slapped M6 II meta-tag on which works well that at least addresses colors if you want a single product (LR) solution. But you loose ALO and DLO respectively, and LR color matching is good, but not quite as good. Sometimes (around 40% of the time) I still prefer DPP4 output, without LR intervention.

The JPEG NR of DPP4 and in-camera is highly aggressive for the 32MP resolution. For low ISO images, set the NR to zero (in DPP4) for restoration of detail. It's a balancing act though; I've noted Canon's picture profiles appear tied to their noise reduction somehow and sometimes turning off NR on certain images, negatively impacts colors and tones for no logical reason when the reverse should be happening.

Also, if you've read the white paper on the upcoming 1DX mark III, HEIF support is coming, which could in fact come to DPP4 and in turn the M6 Mark II which supports HDR. To get the most of HDR, consider using D+ or D+2 to preserve highlights as necessary as this does in fact change your exposure at time of shot. Granted you could do the same manually, but remembering to do so is a very Sony, not Canon thing to do apparently. That's where I use D+2 which I've been playing with this week.

Oh, the G1X III lens is it's own beast. Copy that. The G1X III though, is a bit slow in terms of AF, and hence why I sold mine. If it had a DIGIC8 in it? I'd still have it like yourself to complement my M6 mark II. Right now the only fast zoom alternative is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM adapted. I'm giving that another go by the way. It's worth the $20 to ship it back to Canon if I decide it still doesn't work on the M6 Mark II like it didn't on the EOS M6 Mark I. I'm hoping I get a better copy that doesn't have a hump in the zoom-action, and the M6 mark II's grip and better battery life improve my feelings of the lens. It's a gamble, but, The EOS R and RF lenses are already huge. Trading one large for another, even a compromise (adapting optics), is a bargain if it yields the results (improved 4k indoor video; decent-enough stills). We'll see.