CANON EOS M6 Mark II

Have questions about the equipment used for macro- or micro- photography? Post those questions in this forum.

Moderators: Pau, rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S.

MiB
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:59 am
Location: Vienna
Contact:

Post by MiB »

It does have tethered operation. DSLR Remote Pro does support the camera-> https://www.breezesys.com/product-histo ... e-history/

In case the electronic shutter would work with flash it would be my dream camera.
***
To collage tens of thousands of photos to create a more holistic view is my passion :)

Lou Jost
Posts: 4721
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Ecuador
Contact:

Post by Lou Jost »

low-pass filter-induced loss of sharpness
So it has an AA filter.

pierre
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:37 pm
Location: France, Var, Toulon

CANON EOS M6 Mark II

Post by pierre »

Interesting :)

It would be great to have a picture test..for confirming if it is sharp enought.
Regards

Pierre

Macrero
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

I tried it for a week and returned it. No more Canon cameras for me till they (for once) get rid of the blur filter, especially in such high-pixel-density cameras.

The RAWs needs a lot of pre-sharpening/deconvolution, but it is not easy to extract clean detail, since at the same time you have to deal with the per-se high noise, even at base ISO.

I have a Fuji X-T3 on the way. Hope it will be my definitive APS-C camera. I'll see when I get it and try it...

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

Adalbert
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hello Macrero,

I don’t have any problem with the AA-filter.
you have to deal with the per-se high noise, even at base ISO
Have you observed the high noise in RAW at ISO 100 ?

BR, ADi

Macrero
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Hi Adi,

the AA filter effect is obvious at actual pixel size. If you are ok with the blurring, there is no problem, of course.

The thing is that the AA-filtered image needs quite more sharpening than an AA-less one. You need to smart-sharpen detail and that's tricky.

Luminance noise is pretty high, even at base ISO (100). Though that's to be expected from such high-pixel-density sensor.

Here is a 100% crop from a single frame of a test stack. Shot in RAW, ACR default settings.

https://images2.imgbox.com/65/b9/dfh2dOut_o.jpg

The backgound at 200%:

https://images2.imgbox.com/15/d2/T4QSNgYI_o.jpg

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

Adalbert
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hello Macrero,

Many thanks for the examples!
So, I will have to compare them to the pictures taken by my M3.

Till now I only have read the following tests:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m6-ii-review
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews ... _ii_review
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-eos-m6-mark-ii-review/
You need to smart-sharpen detail and that's tricky
Usually I remove the noise in two steps:
1) By LR during the conversion of the RAW into the TIFF (Luminance 20 +-10 and Color 30 +-10)
2) By Topaz DeNoise & Clean of the calculated stack

and I sharpen in two steps:
1) By Topaz Detail
2) By WebSharpener (during the scaling down)

BR, ADi

Macrero
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Adi,

I liked the camera pretty much, it was a joy to use in the studio, I like the look and even the lack of built-in VF. The touchscreen is really good and manual focus is easy.

It is a shame that Canon decided to put a blur filter in front of the 32MP APS-C sensor. Fearing moire too much or trying to please the video shooters? I don't know...

Now, truth be told, after a proper conversion and post edition, at a reazonable web-size, the difference would be trivial.

Best,

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Macrero wrote:Adi,

I liked the camera pretty much, it was a joy to use in the studio, I like the look and even the lack of built-in VF. The touchscreen is really good and manual focus is easy.

It is a shame that Canon decided to put a blur filter in front of the 32MP APS-C sensor. Fearing moire too much or trying to please the video shooters? I don't know...

Now, truth be told, after a proper conversion and post edition, at a reazonable web-size, the difference would be trivial.

Best,

- Macrero
But I do expect a lot of us are looking for sharpness at 100%. AA filters have kept me from buying several otherwise capable cameras.

I look forward to your review of the X-T3. I still need to find the eventual replacement for my HRT2i.

Macrero
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

Ray,

sure, that's the exact reason I didn't keep the camera.

Will let you know my impressions of the X-T3 when I get and try it. I used a X-T1 and I was really pleased with the result, despite the low MP sensor.

X-Trans RAWs are quite tricky to convert properly. If you look at samples out there, you will see a lot of horrible, improperly processed pictures, that don't do justice to the sensor.

Best,

- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Macrero wrote:Ray,

sure, that's the exact reason I didn't keep the camera.

Will let you know my impressions of the X-T3 when I get and try it. I used a X-T1 and I was really pleased with the result, despite the low MP sensor.

X-Trans RAWs are quite tricky to convert properly. If you look at samples out there, you will see a lot of horrible, improperly processed pictures, that don't do justice to the sensor.

Best,

- Macrero
Besides the image quality I'm also interested in the connectivity, software, and workflow requirements for stacking.

Macrero
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:17 am
Location: Valladolid , Spain

Post by Macrero »

ray_parkhurst wrote:
Besides the image quality I'm also interested in the connectivity, software, and workflow requirements for stacking.
Not sure how helpful I would be on that. I am an old-school guy, I don't use tethering, bracketing, nor anything that ends by -ing :lol: But will try to find out and help with what I can.
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Macrero wrote:
ray_parkhurst wrote:
Besides the image quality I'm also interested in the connectivity, software, and workflow requirements for stacking.
Not sure how helpful I would be on that. I am an old-school guy, I don't use tethering, bracketing, nor anything that ends by -ing :lol: But will try to find out and help with what I can.
I'll be appreciative of whatever info you can offer.

Adalbert
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Post by Adalbert »

Hello Macrero, hello Ray,
Could you please show me any test of the cameras with and without the aa-filter with the conclusion that the lack of the aa-filter improves the resolution significantly?
Unfortunately I haven’t found any such test up to now. Mostly the difference can be ignored e.g. NIKON D800 vs. D800E.
BR, ADi

ray_parkhurst
Posts: 2802
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by ray_parkhurst »

Adalbert wrote:Hello Macrero, hello Ray,
Could you please show me any test of the cameras with and without the aa-filter with the conclusion that the lack of the aa-filter improves the resolution significantly?
Unfortunately I haven’t found any such test up to now. Mostly the difference can be ignored e.g. NIKON D800 vs. D800E.
BR, ADi
My own tests showed a noticeable improvement, but at the expense of increased false color, on my T2i. I'm planning to pick up a used T2i so I can make a better comparison and will report some findings.

Other than that, the only places I've seen comparisons are on the sites of companies that do the conversions, and you really can't trust what you see there for obvious reasons.

I suppose you could go to a site which has camera comparisons, but I've never been happy with the results of any of those. Most camera sites are funded by the mfrs so cannot be trusted IMO.

Ultimately I think the problems with demosaicing are greater than the small degradation caused by the AA filter...for single images. However, I'm interested in SR techniques, and for sure the AA filter will limit any resolution improvements that can be had with SR. My original justification for paying hundreds of $ to do the conversion on my T2i was to get the promised 100% improvements as shown on the conversion site, but alas the new problems it created limit the overall usefulness. Once I discovered SR, I see much more potential value for AA-filter-less sensors.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic