6D Mark II vs Fuji XT20

I said it before, now I'll link you:

http://cpn.canon-europe.com …ftware/colour_y​our_way.do

If you want straight out of camera JPGs, and you want a certain look, use picture styles !!!!!!!

This is just so personal and specific to your needs/wants, and that's what it'll all come down to, so it's hard to give you meaningful advice. Especially with the differences in those two cameras. FWIW, I use a 6DmII as my main and I won't be exchanging it for a mirrorless. However, I also love Fuji and keep an X-A1 with 27mm on me at all times as my quick, small, walk-around snapshot camera. They fill different needs/roles and I maintain that separation in an effort to capitalize on their strengths. If I could only choose one, though, I'm going with the FF (and that's the system I invest in).

I know your budget isn't infinite, but as I follow this thread I wonder if you can get the best of both worlds by changing the specific cameras you target. Does it have to be either of those models? They're the newest, yes, but what about a 6D and one of the 16mp Fujis? You'd get FF DOF and Fuji colors. It sounds like you might want/need both.

watson76 wrote in post #18635953
Ok so what keeps me coming back to Canon is the handling, the feel, the menu system and the speed (just always feels instantly on).

What keeps me coming back to Fuji is the colors. The images just really stand out. People often tell me how incredible my Fuji images look.

Trying to get the FF look on Fuji crop however is challenging. I have only used the Fuji 35 F2 and the DoF just isn't there for me. I like the 35 however, it's a good general purpose lens. Would the 35 1.4 give me the extra depth I am looking for ?

The ballpark dof you'd get with a Fuji with 35 f/1.4 is approx like f/2.1 on a full frame. Not sure but I've seen some ball park calculation like 35 f/1.4 x (1.5 sony crop factor) = 52.5mm f/2.1

Tony Northrup has some vague explanation.

https://petapixel.com …ts-focal-length-aperture/

My take on primes is to always try to buy the fastest you can. I own a Canon 35 f/2IS and on a full frame it's relatively fast on my 5dmk3/4. However I sold my 35L f/1.4mk1 because I like the IQ more on the 35 f/2IS. Since I am not in love with the 35mm focal length I compromised.

If you are in love with the 50mm FL I'd say go with the older clunky Fuji 35 f/1.4 as it's faster glass than the newer version 35 f/2. However the AF on the 35 f/1.4 is quite dated and the modern f/2 prime is much faster and quieter.

Sorry but your gonna battle this Fuji/Canon thing LOL!!!

I love Canon and Fuji colours. I am "ok" with Sony colours. If someone says they can post process any colour they like regardless of what camera it comes from .......... yes you can if you have all the time in the world and you're an expert in colour science. The thing is workflow doing such modifications to match colour would drive you nuts and have poor time management.

As someone has suggested in a previous post. BUY BOTH

I just did a portrait session with a family and in the beautiful light the Fuji was excellent. If I used my Canon gear I would also love the render it provides with how it captures human subjects and Canon colours. I will say as a fact that If I put my Sony A7iii with sigma adapter and Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 the image would have more contrast and bleeding razor sharp. For human subjects I must dumb down and reduce contrast and sharpness. The Sony colours to my eyes is harder on the eyes in punchy colours. This is where I put more effort in my Sony files to achieve the colours I want.

Simple task ........analyze the images on the POTN fuji thread and Sony thread. There is a massive shift in how many photogs present their photos and the big differences in colours. If you look on the Canon threads you'll see the differences too.

I think if you want to be totally safe consider the Canon 6dmk2. You will be able to do virtually anything you want with that camera. Down the road keep your eye on a previously owned 35 f/1.4 and in due time the Fuji X-t2 will be very cheap as new models comes out.

Depending on my photo shoots I may lug my Canon 5dmk3 or 4 and sometimes have the Fuji X-t2 equipped with the 50-140mm or 56mm. The combo is AMAZING depending on what I am shooting.

Remember Fuji's crop factor will be apparent when you shoot slower f/2 prime glass. If your shooting f/1.2 or the f/1.4 you will achieve a nice thin shallow dof. If your using the 90mm you'll have more compression so the f/2 will still provide beautiful shallow dof and creamy bokeh.

When I shoot my Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 in many cases I am fully aware that it provides similar dof as if I was using a 70-200 f/4 on a full frame. Does it bother me???? Yes! but unfortunately Fuji does NOT make a 50-140mm f/1.8 (it'd be a heavy pig). Photography isn't always about shallow dof but there is pros and cons to anything.

You can get that full frame look if you only shoot fast primes with a Fuji crop sensor.

watson76 wrote in post #18635953
Ok so what keeps me coming back to Canon is the handling, the feel, the menu system and the speed (just always feels instantly on).

What keeps me coming back to Fuji is the colors. The images just really stand out. People often tell me how incredible my Fuji images look.

Trying to get the FF look on Fuji crop however is challenging. I have only used the Fuji 35 F2 and the DoF just isn't there for me. I like the 35 however, it's a good general purpose lens. Would the 35 1.4 give me the extra depth I am looking for ?

You can pretty well replicate those colors if you build a profile in Capture One (you can do it in LR and PS too, but I don't know how to), there are even plenty pre-done online that you can import and use right off the bat. If you're seeking that look SOOC however, Fuji really does stand out above the rest IMO.

I really don't get the "FF look" argument... I heard that so often that I think it forced me to believe it for a long time... then finally realized that if I were blind testing between my FF shots and APS-C shots it would be a toss up as for which camera took which shot. We're talking about 1 stop of difference here... in terms of DOF that's almost always a minute difference realistically. Would you care to show an example of where you think f2 on APS-C ruined the image or otherwise would have been notably better with slightly less DOF?

As for whether the 35/1.4 would give you the DOF you seek, that depends entirely on what you're expectations are and what system you're used to. If you're looking for the equivalent of 50mm f1.4 on FF... no, it won't quite equal that, more similar to 50mm f2 on FF. That said, my 35/1.4 is easily my favorite lens.

AlanU wrote in post #18636069
I love Canon and Fuji colours. I am "ok" with Sony colours. If someone says they can post process any colour they like regardless of what camera it comes from .......... yes you can if you have all the time in the world and you're an expert in colour science. The thing is workflow doing such modifications to match colour would drive you nuts and have poor time management.

I used to think this too, but if you just make presets for the color profile of your choice then it's really not any more time consuming. The big advantage of the Fuji colors (and it's a big one for me since I do this all the time) is using the SOOC JPEG images, especially useful if you're doing on site WiFi transfers.

AlanU wrote in post #18636069
Simple task ........analyze the images on the POTN fuji thread and Sony thread. There is a massive shift in how many photogs present their photos and the big differences in colours. If you look on the Canon threads you'll see the differences too.

What does the underlined part mean?

As for differences in colors... isn't it you who frequently champions that you can't see any meaningful differences in colors or detail when viewing web sized JPEGs on the forums?

For once I do agree with you though; if you're this on the fence buying both systems to see which works best for your needs isn't a bad option. Renting for a few days or a week doesn't really give you enough time to know whether a system is right for you. We're at a point now where a 3-5 year old camera from just about any manufacturer is going to be a pretty solid piece of gear.

I’d keep 6dii for sure for portraiture. FF look, more detailed images, better low light, and kids are growing and moving; 6dii af should be more suitable for action than Fuji in low light. And if you want that creamy cinematic video of your family, 6dii has dpaf which is the best follow focus for video on the market right now. By the way you can transfer both jpegs and videos wirelessly to your phone with excellent camera connect app. 6dii can be small and lightweight with 40mm pancake although 6dii+35IS combo is more versatile. You do have to consider lenses. Canon has multiple useful picture styles: Standard, Neutral, Fine Detail and Landscape. I switch between them but recently prefer Fine Detail.
I would never use Sony jpeg files. Alpha system is really for advanced users with well developed post processing skills, may require very delicate color correction for portraits which is not suitable for family/travel type of photography, IMO.

artsf wrote in post #18636240
I’d keep 6dii for sure for portraiture. FF look, more detailed images, better low light, and kids are growing and moving; 6dii af should be more suitable for action than Fuji in low light. And if you want that creamy cinematic video of your family, 6dii has dpaf which is the best follow focus for video on the market right now. By the way you can transfer both jpegs and videos wirelessly to your phone with excellent camera connect app. 6dii can be small and lightweight with 40mm pancake although 6dii+35IS combo is more versatile. You do have to consider lenses. Canon has multiple useful picture styles: Standard, Neutral, Fine Detail and Landscape. I switch between them but recently prefer Fine Detail.
I would never use Sony jpeg files. Alpha system is really for advanced users with well developed post processing skills, may require very delicate color correction for portraits which is not suitable for family/travel type of photography, IMO.

Well I may need to evolve my sense of colors then.
Sony A6000 with sigma 60mm f/2,8

artsf wrote in post #18636240
I’d keep 6dii for sure for portraiture. FF look, more detailed images, better low light, and kids are growing and moving; 6dii af should be more suitable for action than Fuji in low light. And if you want that creamy cinematic video of your family, 6dii has dpaf which is the best follow focus for video on the market right now. By the way you can transfer both jpegs and videos wirelessly to your phone with excellent camera connect app. 6dii can be small and lightweight with 40mm pancake although 6dii+35IS combo is more versatile. You do have to consider lenses. Canon has multiple useful picture styles: Standard, Neutral, Fine Detail and Landscape. I switch between them but recently prefer Fine Detail.
I would never use Sony jpeg files. Alpha system is really for advanced users with well developed post processing skills, may require very delicate color correction for portraits which is not suitable for family/travel type of photography, IMO.

Fujifilm with decades of making film stock have a great understanding of colour, their built in colour profiles are a cut above the rest IMO & can be tweaked if needed in camera.

Portrature

Photo from Two Hot Shoes's gallery.

Photo from Two Hot Shoes's gallery.

Photo from Two Hot Shoes's gallery.

Photo from Two Hot Shoes's gallery.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UynX​R9

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18636342
censored mirrorless

i think pekka is trying to make the forum more inclusive, not less.

Hahaha oops

artsf wrote in post #18636240
I’d keep 6dii for sure for portraiture. FF look, more detailed images, better low light, and kids are growing and moving; 6dii af should be more suitable for action than Fuji in low light. And if you want that creamy cinematic video of your family, 6dii has dpaf which is the best follow focus for video on the market right now. By the way you can transfer both jpegs and videos wirelessly to your phone with excellent camera connect app. 6dii can be small and lightweight with 40mm pancake although 6dii+35IS combo is more versatile. You do have to consider lenses. Canon has multiple useful picture styles: Standard, Neutral, Fine Detail and Landscape. I switch between them but recently prefer Fine Detail.
I would never use Sony jpeg files. Alpha system is really for advanced users with well developed post processing skills, may require very delicate color correction for portraits which is not suitable for family/travel type of photography, IMO.

I would agree the Sony files are more for photogs massaging the files in post. Fuji does have good files with the least amount of effort for that pleasant easy on the eyes look.

My 80d I owned I was able to throw anything at it and it was a stellar performer. The 6dii is suppose to be basically a full frame version of the 80d. My 80d For family documentation even AF-S single shot with active kids was like landing focus like a sniper. It definitely seems canon AF algorithm is a confident incredibly fast CLICK actuations. I would give the mirrored body the edge for positive lock AF-S. My Fuji with many of my lenses in lower light sometimes pumps the AF motor which I do not ever get with my Canon bodies in identical situations.

I will agree the full frame with 35 f2IS is an amazing combo. That lens is a leap in IQ over the 35Lmk1 at f/2 and smaller aperture

If you look at the sharpness and micro contrast of the 35f2 vs Fuji xt20 with 23f1.4. The canon setup will have that new canon render of sharpness and rich colours. Analyze the Fuji render and it’s more like old generation mk1 glass in the canon world. The sharpness is different looking. Canon almost has this mild effect of unsharp mask in photoshop with nice pop. I will say all of my Sony A7iii files has this look of hitting the files with very aggressive unsharp mask and that is a negative for me.

My 85Lmk2 has this similar sharpness render like my Fuji XT2 with 56mm. However if you compare the new 85Lf1.4is the new gen nano coated Canon glass the sharpness, micro contrast and render is quite different. Canon files all look different now due to new generation nano coatings.

I will continue to shoot with Canon but Fuji just is the easiest in getting great shots due to colour science.

Post work is another big variable. Try making couple hundred Fuji files to look like Sony or canon colours. It’s NOT what I would do but if you like the Fuji colour it’s the signature colour science that cannot be easily removed....same as any brand out there. Good luck even attempting batch processing hard Sony colours to even match appealing eye candy Fuji colours. Maybe a file or two you can get close but ever so slight lighting variations will make a preset less effective.

There is specific reasons why I happily own multiple systems. If I had to choose just one system I would sell the Sony and with great remorse sell Fuji. My gut relies on auto focus and for “my” shooting style and challenging event work I have 100% confidence in my canon gear. Fuji meets 90% of my needs except for “my” low light events. Using canon I never ever worry about that 10%. This is me but others just may say different which is all about personal preferences and tolerances.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18636186
You can pretty well replicate those colors if you build a profile in Capture One (you can do it in LR and PS too, but I don't know how to), there are even plenty pre-done online that you can import and use right off the bat. If you're seeking that look SOOC however, Fuji really does stand out above the rest IMO.

I really don't get the "FF look" argument... I heard that so often that I think it forced me to believe it for a long time... then finally realized that if I were blind testing between my FF shots and APS-C shots it would be a toss up as for which camera took which shot. We're talking about 1 stop of difference here... in terms of DOF that's almost always a minute difference realistically. Would you care to show an example of where you think f2 on APS-C ruined the image or otherwise would have been notably better with slightly less DOF?

As for whether the 35/1.4 would give you the DOF you seek, that depends entirely on what you're expectations are and what system you're used to. If you're looking for the equivalent of 50mm f1.4 on FF... no, it won't quite equal that, more similar to 50mm f2 on FF. That said, my 35/1.4 is easily my favorite lens.

I used to think this too, but if you just make presets for the color profile of your choice then it's really not any more time consuming. The big advantage of the Fuji colors (and it's a big one for me since I do this all the time) is using the SOOC JPEG images, especially useful if you're doing on site WiFi transfers.

What does the underlined part mean?

As for differences in colors... isn't it you who frequently champions that you can't see any meaningful differences in colors or detail when viewing web sized JPEGs on the forums?

For once I do agree with you though; if you're this on the fence buying both systems to see which works best for your needs isn't a bad option. Renting for a few days or a week doesn't really give you enough time to know whether a system is right for you. We're at a point now where a 3-5 year old camera from just about any manufacturer is going to be a pretty solid piece of gear.

Lucas the underlined portion is a visual comparison in Potn Fuji and Sony threads. Analyze Sony render and you will see a lot of contrast and crushed blacks. Human subjects are crisp and almost have a sooc over sharpened look or more aggressive unsharp mask treatment in photoshop.

It’s is easier to make a canon or Fuji colours aggressive or “harder” looking. Its not so easy making harder Sony colours to match easy on the eyes look from Fuji.

Easier to get more RAW looking realistic real world images from a Sony though. Sony has this unaltered non cooked render that you see as you look at your surroundings real time. Fuji has this certain look that we expect photos should appear in magazines or social media.

Perception of what images should look in social media to real world images with our unaltered human vision.

Here’s a quick edit of my explanation of perception with my iPhone photos .

Even though these are iPhone photos the unedited photo is what you actually see. Sort of like SONY a bit more non cooked with more contrast and hard colours and requires more involved post work. canon or Fuji will have a more cooked brand signature look easier to manipulate in post for a more eye candy expected look.

almost like saying a photographer giving straight out of camera JPEG images or a wedding photographer giving a product of carefully edited raw images then converted to JPEG . So far Sony requires more work in editing to meet my expectations. This is me creating a lot of presets and colour profiles with my xrite passport. Lighting changes the effectiveness in how a preset effects the image so i’m finding Sony to be a little bit more sensitive in batch processing

Sony colour and images are worlds apart in signature look.

Just googling images from Sony and Fuji has a distinct difference in real world render.

Is this bad? No a client hires a photographer due to their portfolio. That is a collective effort in gear, composition and post skills. Colour science and render is just variables included in the mix.

Naturally all the different camera manufactures will have a different colour and look to their raw files in Lightroom (or whatever) as will putting on different lenses, I happen to think the Fuji ones look the closest to what I saw in terms of colour but all that is pointless as the raw files need to be converted before they can be used/seen in print or online. I don't think the raw files have a look anywhere near what an image will look like in a magazine (least not the ones I look at or see in the shops). From weddings I get files from all kinds of different cameras ( one of my seconds still shoots with a 20D - his shots are great) it only takes a little to get the colours looking right but I just 'eyeball it' can't be bothered with setting up passport profiles, loads of messing where colour accuracy is really not that important, unless you are shooting an add for a product like a clothing line & I'm guessing most here don't shoot that.

Really the camera should be the least of you worries, just try to find the one you like using as you will probably use it more and the more you shoot the better your shots will get. Have a great weekend shooting.

So this picture was taken with the Canon 50 1.8 STM and 6D Mark II, a simple snapshot before my girls went to dance. Just some window light indoors. The Fuji might have rendered the colors better, didn’t have time to compare, but the Canon’s skin tones are “glowing”, the way the image is rendered due to the shallow DoF adds a subtle touch (may not be your cup of tea) of beauty to
the file. I have tried doing the same with every everything from the Fuji 35 1.4 to the 56 1.2 and can’t achieve this look and this is a $125 lens by comparison. Yes both Fuji lenses produce nicer bokeh and sharpness and are better built by comparison so it’s not the lenses I am knocking. The 56 1.2 is so front heavy that by comparison it pretty much negatives the weight savings of mirrorless. Again, I still prefer the Fuji for its colors, EVF, Electonic Shutter, etc, but critically speaking I can’t match that FF look. This is one area I seem to be hung up. It’s ok you can criticize me, maybe I am not correct in my line of thinking I am not knocking Fuji, I am trying to figure out how to get the best of both systems.
I think Fuji needs faster glass...

watson76 wrote in post #18638180
So this picture was taken with the Canon 50 1.8 STM and 6D Mark II, a simple snapshot before my girls went to dance. Just some window light indoors. The Fuji might have rendered the colors better, didn’t have time to compare, but the Canon’s skin tones are “glowing”, the way the image is rendered due to the shallow DoF adds a subtle touch (may not be your cup of tea) of beauty to
the file. I have tried doing the same with every everything from the Fuji 35 1.4 to the 56 1.2 and can’t achieve this look and this is a $125 lens by comparison. Yes both Fuji lenses produce nicer bokeh and sharpness and are better built by comparison so it’s not the lenses I am knocking. The 56 1.2 is so front heavy that by comparison it pretty much negatives the weight savings of mirrorless. Again, I still prefer the Fuji for its colors, EVF, Electonic Shutter, etc, but critically speaking I can’t match that FF look. This is one area I seem to be hung up. It’s ok you can criticize me, maybe I am not correct in my line of thinking I am not knocking Fuji, I am trying to figure out how to get the best of both systems.
I think Fuji needs faster glass...

Hosted photo: posted by watson76 in
./showthread.php?p=186​38180&i=i25010170
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

It's a lovely shot, but you're talking about a 1/3 stop of difference in DOF from the 35/1.4... probably less due to the 35/1.4 being slightly more telephoto equivalent as well.

If you tried a shot like that side by side with both cameras, I don't think you'd be able to tell the two shots apart based on DOF alone.

People see and believe what they want to see and believe, but this "FF look" thing has been debunked over and over.

Your correct I have seen comparisons online where the differences are minimal, but in my own testing I can see a visible difference. It’s not simply the DoF with the background, but the foreground as well. Also I believe that perspective is somehow altered when shooting with a bigger sensor, and I think this changes how the scene is “rendered”. When I shot m43rds there was something incredibly “flat” about the way images were rendered, and I’m not talking about DoF. It was if everything was compressed into the same plane and lacked the three dimensional “feel” when we look at something with our eyes. Lenses really didn’t solve this issue. Moving onto crop helps achieve a more “realistic” view and full frame IMHO really nails it. It’s obviously very subjective but I can see it clear as day. I am not arguing with you but I feel people wish to dispel this as a myth to justify the limitations of what they use. m43rds users spend lots of time on their forum trying to explain away why you don’t need FF. And to each their own in this regard. I do feel crop can match and ever surpass FF in terms of detail and dynamic range and Fuji does a very convincing job of this (I think it beats the FF Canon in many areas), but there is still a certain element to a bigger sensor which simply cannot be ignored.