The picture quality is simply brilliant and at a high level. Those like me who comes from APS-C or MFT wins over two diaphragms. Even at ISO 12,800 you get more useful results, but everything about it is nothing more than marketing.
But the most important feature for me in relation to the sensor is not the image quality, dynamic or noise performance but the free parking assets. The lower depth of field at full frame leaves a much greater creative freedom than with APS-C or even MFT. Do I want a higher depth of field I -Thanks full-frame still have the opportunity to ask the panel down and up ISO to still achieve the same shutter speed and the same image quality as with APS-C and Co..
For viewfinder lot was written, especially the size comparison using percentages between APS-C and full frame-seekers are unfortunately always interesting: 97% of the "full-frame" are significantly greater than 100% at the "APS-C"!
Compared to my EOS 50D This is simply much bigger and brighter. Especially in low light provides this real added value compared to the smaller Canon DSLRs.
Even compared to the large viewfinder of my OM-D wins the 6D. Although the OM-D may be a lot more information in the viewfinder display, but especially in low light convince me currently not electronic viewfinder yet. The viewfinder of the 6D is optically and therefore without delay and far brighter!
When autofocus is often criticized that this only 11 sensors in total and has only one cross-type sensor. The accuracy of the central cross-type sensor is the best I've seen so far, even in low light is focused obediently where my OM-D has long since dropped out. The other sensors are not cross-type sensors, but quite honestly, I can see the cross-type sensors on my EOS 50D is no loss of accuracy or erroneous measurements. In my view less practical relevance than you think. The biggest criticism is in my view somewhere else: The 11 sensors all jostle together in the middle and make it difficult to subject tracking by the autofocus.
An operation was often criticized that the joystick is missing. For my relatively large hands, the buttons and wheels are well positioned, so I did not realize the disadvantage here. On the contrary, by the buttons are all located on the right side, I learned a real added value and overall the grip is better formed and the weight right. One disadvantage I feel that the shoulder buttons only provide a shortcut that was better resolved on my EOS 50D.
Fi and GPS are implemented in my view rather bad, what is mainly due to the supplied software.
The WLAN connection takes too long in my opinion. Why no key is attached for this purpose to quickly turn on and off Wi-Fi? Each time has to be fiddled in the menu and intuitive operation and setting order is not really. Other manufacturers offer with NFC to connect to more elaborate solutions. The smartphone app offers only the bare minimum. Why the video recording is not blocked here reveals itself. Canon should take a lesson from the good DSLR Controller app.
GPS is a nice application but particularly Map Utility reduces thereon the fun. Example: I have edited my RAW in Lightroom and now wants JPEGs export (including all EXIF data.!). This JPEGs can not be used in Map Utility you. When Canon Support I then asked for a solution. The answer was as follows: "On the side XY of the manual has been described, the JPEGs that have been created in Canon Digital Photo Professional in Map Utility can not be used This is an indication that the use of JPEGs from other programs do not. is possible. " Interesting conclusion. Also, the benefits of the program in general is strange. Do I want a tour displayed on a map and get saved as an image, so this will only work with a detour via Google Maps.
Who has got better solved, was invited to the comments sincerely.
