# EOS-M sharper than 6D?



## ND40 (Jul 16, 2013)

First post, long time viewer.

I bought a EOS-M in the recently $299 B&H sale. So far I've just used it with my kit 22 f2 lens and am very pleased with the image quality if not the autofocus speed.

Today I tried it out with the EF lens adapter and some of my EF lenses. I was very surprised to find that the M takes sharper images than my 6D! I experimented with both my 24-105 f4 lens and 135 f2. I tried both autofucus and live view focus with the 6D and compared with Flexizone single AF on the M.

Attached are some 100% crops of the pictures I took. What do you think? Is there something wrong with my 6D?

The pictures are in this order, all taken with a 135mm f2 L lens:
EOS-M Flexizone single AF
EOS-6D Autofocus
EOS-6D Live View focus manual


----------



## ND40 (Jul 16, 2013)

I couldn't attach the 3rd picture for some reason.

Here is the 6D manual focus in live view image.

I took similar shots of some outdoor subjects in better light and the sharpness was similar - the M was much sharper.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2013)

While there shouldn't be a huge difference in perceived sharpness (SQF) between the two in bright light, the M should not be markedly sharper, IMO.

Here's the TDP comparison between the 6D and M.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 16, 2013)

My 5D3 is way sharper than my 7D. Must be a fluke...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> My 5D3 is way sharper than my 7D. Must be a fluke...



The EOS M is noticeably sharper than the 7D.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > My 5D3 is way sharper than my 7D. Must be a fluke...
> ...



Doesn't surprise me.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 16, 2013)

The comparisons at the Digital Picture don't show much of a difference. I wonder if my 6D is defective? I just bought it 5 weeks ago and haven't hand much time to spend with it until the last week or so. I thought the pictures from it were OK until I compared them with the EOS-M shots.

The 6D came out after the M and has a full frame sensor. I assumed it would have noticeably better IQ than anything with a year old APS-C sensor... 

Here are three more shots. Notice the spider web visible in the M shot that you can't make out with the 6D. I took similar shots with my 24-105.

M
6D AF
6D MF live view


----------



## tpatana (Jul 16, 2013)

That's interesting.

The 6D AF/Live -difference can be as simple as missed AFMA, but the live-view should be good anyway. Any chance that you have some setting "funny", e.g. saving as small-JPG?


----------



## Act444 (Jul 16, 2013)

Wow, that is not my experience at ALL...

I have not done side-by-side comparisons between the M and the 6D, but I did compare the M (22 @ 22mm) with the 5D3 (24-105 @ 24mm) indoors in my place and while the M wasn't shabby by any means, there was no question that the 5D3 was far superior. 

I find the 6D IQ amazing as well...used it this past weekend at a book signing and it is FAR better than the 60D I used to use at those types of events, even using the same 70-200mm 2.8 lens (!)...

The M has great IQ for its size. But my no means do I find it better than FF 6D or 5D3. At best there is little or no difference (outdoors, sunny day, landscape shots). For everything else FF pulls ahead, sometimes way ahead...

I'd check the focus on your 6D to see if something's up.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 16, 2013)

tpatana said:


> The 6D AF/Live -difference can be as simple as missed AFMA, but the live-view should be good anyway. Any chance that you have some setting "funny", e.g. saving as small-JPG?



I had both cameras set to the highest quality large JPG. I'm thinking now I need to send my 6D back to Canon to be evaluated.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 16, 2013)

ND40 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D AF/Live -difference can be as simple as missed AFMA, but the live-view should be good anyway. Any chance that you have some setting "funny", e.g. saving as small-JPG?
> ...



You shot in JPG. That's the Error here.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> You shot in JPG. That's the Error here.



I didn't realize RAW would make a difference for this type of test. I'll re-do it in RAW.


----------



## Policar (Jul 16, 2013)

Are you accounting for the 1.6x crop factor? The M will be much sharper at a given focal length, but the 6D will have a wider field of view. At an equivalent FOV it should be similar.


----------



## dadgummit (Jul 16, 2013)

Act444 said:


> Wow, that is not my experience at ALL...
> 
> I have not done side-by-side comparisons between the M and the 6D, but I did compare the M (22 @ 22mm) with the 5D3 (24-105 @ 24mm) indoors in my place and while the M wasn't shabby by any means, there was no question that the 5D3 was far superior.
> 
> ...



Ditto

My EOS M +22mm is a very good little camera combo but it is not quite as good as the 5d3 +35L or 24-105 (don't have a 6d but asume the IQ at the sensor is similar). There is no way the 6d should be that soft unless something is up (User or hardware issues). You seem to know what you are doing so I would guess your camera needs to go in for an adjustment.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 16, 2013)

Policar said:


> Are you accounting for the 1.6x crop factor? The M will be much sharper at a given focal length, but the 6D will have a wider field of view. At an equivalent FOV it should be similar.



Unless these photos were resized in addition to having been cropped, I think this would have already been taken into consideration... right?


----------



## ND40 (Jul 16, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> You shot in JPG. That's the Error here.



OK, I repeated the pictures of the clock in RAW. I converted as a batch in DPP with all the default settings. There is less difference here.

(1) M, AF
(2) 6D, AF
(3) 6D, MF live view


----------



## bholliman (Jul 16, 2013)

Surprising! I know the M takes great pictures, but mine is not as good as my 6D. 

The last two 6D shots show that you might benefit from running AFMA on your 6D and lens, the live view manual focus is slightly sharper than the AF, but AF is not always dead-on. You would need to take more pictures to check both precision and accuracy of AF.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 16, 2013)

Can you do following:

A: Confirm that you took everything on tripod with remote trigger, and/or using fast enough SS that it doesn't matter?

B: Tell the settings for all shots (SS, Aperture, ISO, focus mode)

C: Take shots at same equivalent distance/focal length/aperture, e.g. if you shoot [email protected] (x1.5), then shoot both at the 33mm, and e.g. F8.0.

It does sound there might be something wrong with your 6D, but taking some more extra tests might be able to resolve what's going on in there.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 17, 2013)

tpatana said:


> A: Confirm that you took everything on tripod with remote trigger, and/or using fast enough SS that it doesn't matter?
> 
> B: Tell the settings for all shots (SS, Aperture, ISO, focus mode)
> 
> ...



Thanks for the suggestions.

A. I did all these with a monopod, didn't have a tripod available. All at 1/250 or faster, so should be OK with a monopod. That said, I think I'll do more testing tomorrow on a tripod with a wireless trigger.

B. I kept this as much the same as I could. I don't have the values now as I won't be at home until tomorrow. But approximately 1600 ISO for the clock shots and ISO200 for the fire hydrant. 1/250 at f4. 

C. I used the 135 f2 lens for all these comparisons, so FOV is different, but I wanted to keep the glass the same to take that out of the equation. I did similar test with my 24-105 f4 with similar results.

This is kind of upsetting as I paid nearly $2k for the 6D and have higher expectations for IQ than I do for my $299 M.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 17, 2013)

There is no point comparing two different format with different pixel density if you use the same lens and at same shooting distance: The denser sensor will give you more detail in the same real world area.

Now try to frame the same shot, by choosing a longer focal length on 6D and compare the results. M @ 24mm f4, vs 6D @ 38mm f6.3, Now who's sharper?


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jul 17, 2013)

I have a funny feeling the high ISO NR settings were set differently on both cameras..
The M should have the same IQ as a 650D since it's the same sensor..
The 6D being a FF camera should be better than the M..


----------



## ND40 (Jul 17, 2013)

BozillaNZ said:


> Now try to frame the same shot, by choosing a longer focal length on 6D and compare the results. M @ 24mm f4, vs 6D @ 38mm f6.3, Now who's sharper?



Good point. I re-did the test using a borrowed 70-200 2.8 II lens for both shots. See below.



spinworkxroy said:


> I have a funny feeling the high ISO NR settings were set differently on both cameras..
> The M should have the same IQ as a 650D since it's the same sensor..
> The 6D being a FF camera should be better than the M..



I was thinking the same thing. I shot the 2nd and 3rd set of pictures in RAW so the JPG settings (like high ISO NR, sharpening, white balance, etc.) difference between the two cameras would not affect the outcome. RAW converted to highest resolution JPG in Canon Digital Photo Professional in batch mode (all settings the same).

Test #3. Same lens, EF 70-200 2.8 II IS, RAW

(1) EOS-M, 125mm, 1/160, f4.5, ISO100, flexizone single, on monopod
(2) EOS-6D, 200mm, 1/1500, f2.8, ISO400, AF, on monopod

I intentionally used a higher ISO on the 6D shot so I could use a faster shutter speed to minimize effects of camera shake on the monopod, so if anything the 6D should have an advantage there.

The white balance was messed up on the shot from the M, but I don't have access to Lightroom or other software to correct it. DPP probably can do this, but I'm not familiar with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2013)

ND40 said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > I have a funny feeling the high ISO NR settings were set differently on both cameras..
> ...



If the in-camera settings were different, you've still got an issue (as the WB shows). DPP respects and applies the in-camera JPG settings, so unless you went in and actually changed all settings to be identical in DPP (which you didn't, at least not WB), you still don't have a good test. But at least all you need to do is go back and reprocess the RAWs.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 18, 2013)

ND40 said:


> Test #3. Same lens, EF 70-200 2.8 II IS, RAW
> 
> (1) EOS-M, 125mm, 1/160, f4.5, ISO100, flexizone single, on monopod
> (2) EOS-6D, 200mm, 1/1500, f2.8, ISO400, AF, on monopod
> ...



Oh noes, you are doing it wrong, M should use lens wide open @ f2.8 to match 6D's stopped down DoF @ f4.5.

1/160 vs 1/1500? That's more that 3 stops difference in shutter speed!

Other than that, I think your 6D is messy at pixel level. My previous 1DsII gives pixel-sharp images and looks nothing like the image you posted.

If you are still keen to do comparisons, try those parameters:

M: Av, 100mm, f2.8, ISO 100
6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250

At those settings pointing to the same scene, the shutter speed should be within +/- 0.6ev range.

Remember to turn sharpness settings to middle for both.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If the in-camera settings were different, you've still got an issue (as the WB shows). DPP respects and applies the in-camera JPG settings, so unless you went in and actually changed all settings to be identical in DPP (which you didn't, at least not WB), you still don't have a good test. But at least all you need to do is go back and reprocess the RAWs.





BozillaNZ said:


> try those parameters:
> 
> M: Av, 100mm, f2.8, ISO 100
> 6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250
> ...



Sorry, I got in a hurry and messed this up. The WB on the M was set to Tungsten in my last post.
Here is another try. WB set to daylight for both. Sharpness settings in the middle for both. EF 70-200 2.8 II lens used for both shots, RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG.

(1) M: Av, 100mm, f2.8, ISO 100
(1) 6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250

Thanks again for all the help!


----------



## Swphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

Did you use manual focus on the last shots? With 10x live view?


----------



## skycolt (Jul 18, 2013)

ND40 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > You shot in JPG. That's the Error here.
> ...



This means that you need AFMA. live view and view finder shooting use different AF mechanism where the first one is more precise if the AF is not well calibrated.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

Swphoto said:


> Did you use manual focus on the last shots? With 10x live view?



No, this was an AF (single point) shot. I did some other shots with live view and manual focus and they looked similar. I'll post one this afternoon for comparison.


----------



## Swphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

ND40 said:


> No, this was an AF (single point) shot. I did some other shots with live view and manual focus and they looked similar. I'll post one this afternoon for comparison.



If that's how properly focused shots look, it appears that something is wrong with your camera.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

skycolt said:


> This means that you need AFMA. live view and view finder shooting use different AF mechanism where the first one is more precise if the AF is not well calibrated.



I've done AFMA with Reikan Focal Pro with every lens/body combination I own. W=0, T+1 on the 70-200 and 0,0 with the 24-105.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

Swphoto said:


> ND40 said:
> 
> 
> > No, this was an AF (single point) shot. I did some other shots with live view and manual focus and they looked similar. I'll post one this afternoon for comparison.
> ...



That's what I've been thinking... This is still under warranty.


----------



## miejoe (Jul 18, 2013)

Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?

Might as well use Mirror Lockup for any future test shots just to rule that out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

miejoe said:


> Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?



Not in the Live View shots.


----------



## Swphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

miejoe said:


> Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?
> 
> Might as well use Mirror Lockup for any future test shots just to rule that out.



One of the shots was at 1/1500.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

Swphoto said:


> miejoe said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any chance we're seeing vibrations from mirror slap in the 6D's large mirror?
> ...



Yes. With input from others on the CR Forum I refined my testing process. Some of the earlier shots were with camera settings that didn't make for a good side-by-side comparison. The most recent photo's were shot at recommended settings from BozillaNZ. 

I'll upload a live view, manual focus shot from the last set of pictures in about an hour.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 18, 2013)

All of your 6D shots are very soft in my opinion. I would suspect a focus issue, but you stated you have performed AFMA on the lenses and you also included some live view shots.

100% crops of my 6D images are much sharper than what you posted.

If it were my camera I would ship it back to Canon to repair or replace.


----------



## infared (Jul 18, 2013)

Hmmmm.... what on earth would cause a camera to be soft like this????????...there is no point in the frame where there is true sharpness.


----------



## ecka (Jul 18, 2013)

Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?


----------



## Swphoto (Jul 18, 2013)

ecka said:


> Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?



That's a good thought - maybe something dried and left a film (sorry) over the sensor?


----------



## ecka (Jul 18, 2013)

Swphoto said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?
> ...



That, or even damaging it.
Another possible reason - cheap UV filters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

ecka said:


> Another possible reason - cheap UV filters.



He used the same lens for both cameras. I sort of think he would have mentioned putting on a cheap UV filter for the 6D shots and taking it off for the EOS M shots, don't you?


----------



## ecka (Jul 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Another possible reason - cheap UV filters.
> ...



Yes, I thought the same thing. However, nobody here did mention this possibility, so I did .


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

Thanks for the suggestions. To answer some recent questions:
(1) I have not manually cleaned the sensor on this camera. I've only had it 6 weeks and use had been limited until now.
(2) No UV or other filters on the lenses for any of these test shots, just bare lens.

This is very strange. I've worked extensively on manual focus to see if I can get a sharp shot, but no luck so far.

Here are my latest round of test shots.

* EF 70-200 2.8 II lens
* WB set to daylight
* shot in RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG
* cameras mounted on tripod, wireless remote trigger

(1) M: Av, 102mm, f2.8, ISO 100
(2) 6D: Av, 155mm, f4.5, ISO 250 autofocus
(3) 6D: Av, 155mm, f4.5, ISO 250 live view, manual focus


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

Three more shots in the same order as above. Same tripod set-up, different subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

Time to stop testing and start calling Canon Service...


----------



## infared (Jul 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Time to stop testing and start calling Canon Service...


+1....everything is really soft!


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 18, 2013)

(1) I had the problem of subtle sharpness variations between shots with 40D and the 2.0/100 @ f/4 or f/5.6 where that lens is very sharp and contrasty.

(2) My S95 images had better visual sharpness than a lot of 40D-photos but they were unnaturally sharpened.

Following parameters are important:

(1) There is a sharpness setting in the tool box (third tab) which I cannot influence by the menu settings of the camera. I do it in DPP. Setting noise reduction to zero gives the above mentioned pixel level sharpness.
Usually I use zero noise reduction to keep images crisp.

(2) DPP uses different sharpening algorithms for both the S95 and the 40D:
DPP uses "Unsharp Mask" with S95 files which gives aggresive sharpening (for me: unnatural)
DPP uses "Sharpening" with 40D files which is "less sharp" but keeps transitions/edges more natural(IMO).
So I use sharpness, typically the value "3", sometimes 4 or 5

Below two commented screenshots according to (1) and (2) from DPP (great I see that I use the english version of DPP so no translation necessary!):


----------



## ND40 (Jul 18, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> (1) I had the problem of subtle sharpness variations between shots with 40D and the 2.0/100 @ f/4 or f/5.6 where that lens is very sharp and contrasty.



I found this menu after some poking around in DPP (I have never used it very much - LR4 is what I use for pp). The settings for (1) were zero for noise reduction. The setting for (2) was also zero, but I was unable to change the setting.

Thanks for the suggestion. I entered a repair ticket with Canon service this afternoon and will be sending the camera for them to look at.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm also leaning towards the fact that your camera is busted, and needs some TLC at service center.

Some reason it seems there's nothing in focus in your pictures.

Could you try one test, use the 70-200/2.8 at 2.8, and go low on the grass. Angle camera almost horizontal, slightly down. Grass should fill most of the view, maybe some sky on top. Focus some 2m/6ft distance. Is there certain spot on the grass that looks sharp? Manual focus is ok for this, just dial ~2m/6ft and you're good.

If that doesn't get any grass to be focus, then it's not focusing issue, but something is really wrong.

One really far fetched guess, maybe at DPP there's some setting it'll apply for 6D photos, unknowingly for you. If you share one of the live-view shot RAW-files, me (or someone else here) could check it and make sure it's not DPP. I'm 99% sure it's not that, but there's always that 1%.


----------



## ND40 (Jul 20, 2013)

tpatana said:


> I'm also leaning towards the fact that your camera is busted, and needs some TLC at service center.
> 
> Some reason it seems there's nothing in focus in your pictures.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the offer. RAW files are huge, how could I share one?


----------



## danski0224 (Jul 20, 2013)

ND40 said:


> Thanks for the offer. RAW files are huge, how could I share one?



Dropbox, Transfer Big Files are two free ways to move large files.


----------



## ND40 (Aug 16, 2013)

8/16/13 Follow-up

I just received my 6D back from Canon Service. They said they repaired the autofocus system and some electrical issues.

The sharpness problem is solved! Here are side-by-side comparisons of the same subject before (top) and after (bottom) the service work. The lighting is somewhat different, but the sharpness difference is clear.

* EF 70-200 2.8 II lens
* shot in RAW processed in DPP as a batch with all default settings. 100% crops of JPG
* cameras mounted on tripod, wireless remote trigger
* 6D: Av, 160mm, f4.5, ISO 250 autofocus

I also did a few shots to compare with my EOS-M and the 6D and the results were what I would expect: the 6D is slightly sharper than the M with the same lens in bright daylight and noticeably sharper in poor light (ISO 800 on the M, 1250 on the 6D).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2013)

The storm has passed, and once again, all is right with the world. 





...or at least, with your cameras. Glad you got your issue sorted!


----------



## bholliman (Aug 17, 2013)

Glad to hear Canon service was able to take care of the problem!


----------

