Hi All,

Looking to purchase another full frame for my wedding shoots and am torn between the 6D and MK3. I already own the MK3 and it truly is amazing in low light situations. I understand the moire issue with the 6D however for the price difference I don't think I can justify the extra cash. My only real concern is the the difference in the colour from both cameras using the same setting. Would they match up or would I be spendi hours getting them to match?

This is the thing ... unless its the same camera you will still have a small difference in colour.

I don't know about FCP on MAC, but Sony Vegas on Windows has a tool called Color Match that works really well although it drains your PC big time and makes the whole workflow sluggish. But if you have patience, its very effective and does a near enough EXACT color match with a simple click of the mouse.

Personally I would pick up another MK3, or sell the MK3 and stick to two 6D's and use the money towards other equipment (may be another lens) ... realistically speaking, you have to ask yourself how many times do you need such superior lowlight functionality? The 6D is a solid camera itself at half the price.

Hey Tariq, I'm thinking about getting the 6D with this Welcome to Mosaic Opto-Electronics, Inc - (http://store.mosaicengineering.com/) to compliment my 5Dm3, as far as color, it should be easy to match in post.

Tariq,
I have a 6D and a MkIII and to my eye all the way up to ISO 10,000 they are pretty much the same. I've not even seen the dreaded Moire duh duh duh! But I'm also not really using it for that. When I need bricks shot, I send my mkIII :)
Bill

Moire is not really that big of an issue to me, we have used the 600D and the 7D in the past and while it is present in certain situations I have never had a compliant about it. What i really don't want to do is spend 2 hours on editing each wedding, colour correcting. I think that would justify the £700 but if you say they colours are pretty much on par with each other then the 6D it is. I could use the extra cash for a better lens :)

You guys don't see aliasing on bride's hair or any wide shots like the church brick wall...? I got tired of that and that is why I went with the 5Dm3.

I don't shoot in churches so I am quite lucky in that department. I have seen some amazing weddings films shot with the MK2 and the only reason why I never purchased that was because the MK3 is so much better in low light and SD cards are so much cheaper.

The video quality of the 6D Compared to the MK2 is virtually identical however the 6D is much better in low light and takes SD cards, which for me make it an easier decision.

I would love to see a wedding film where Moire stands out and ruins the film.

Get the 6D as 2nd cam... save $1000 on a favorite lens of your choice.

I don't shoot in churches so I am quite lucky in that department. I have seen some amazing weddings films shot with the MK2 and the only reason why I never purchased that was because the MK3 is so much better in low light and SD cards are so much cheaper.

The video quality of the 6D Compared to the MK2 is virtually identical however the 6D is much better in low light and takes SD cards, which for me make it an easier decision.

I would love to see a wedding film where Moire stands out and ruins the film.

You don't see it because people like me don't included in the final products, yes you can get away with some but some are just really bad.

What percentage of footage would you say that is lost due to the moire issue?

How much footage is lost due to moire? That's hard to say. Probably not all that much.

1) Sometimes the end placement (You Tube) doesn't justify anything better.
2) Sometimes the editor/director/producer doesn't notice or care.
3) Sometimes you notice and cut around the offending parts.
4) Sometimes it matters and you fix it in post. (That could mean anything - like taking a still photo of a background scene and splicing it in, masking and painting, or synthetic replacement.)
5) What's left are shots that are done over.

So, from a bottom-line, financial analysis, one might save money and go with a camera that aliases and skip the VAF filter.

But on the other hand, if you have moire on a shirt collar, it could be in every shot and would be very expensive or impossible to fix. So maybe you accept it in your project. And then you might drop it from your demo reel. Or you include it and it loses you a future job.

So, aside from liking a silkier aesthetic, a non-aliasing solution buys you reliability. And that why pros use pro gear, rather than DIY stuff. You want to deliver high quality, reliably, no matter the situation.

For personal projects and amateur work, we can take shortcuts that might cost us time and we can choose to sacrifice quality. When competing for pro jobs, the calculus is a bit different.

What percentage of footage would you say that is lost due to the moire issue?

If you did a 100 shots of which one showed severe moire, that's just one percent so no big deal but what if that one shot was the most important one out of those 100?

Like Koi said it's there and it can be nasty, but we either don't include it, work around it (by applying shallow dof to blur out a background if that would show moire) or we are just lucky not see any patterns during the day that can produce moire.

So most of the time it's no issue at all and when we see it doesn't mean the client will as for weddings you could use a gopro but get all the keymoments and have happy clients. But I have seen footage from a 6D where the moire was very bad, so bad a client would notice and might complain about it. And if you have very demanding clients and you are doing a corporate shoot some shots would require you to just use another, moire free, camera, so like Bill said you"d leave the 6d in the bag and get a 5dIII out, either a hired one or your own.

Jeff
I have never had a shot ruined by moire. Out of three years using the mkII and 2 before that using the A1 it was never an issue. Did I see it? Occasionally but I seemed to be the only one who did. I think we have bigger problems out there than moire. But we do struggle to justify our equipment purchases don't we.
Bill

But we do struggle to justify our equipment purchases don't we.

There are also videographers that are ok with delivering shaky and out of focus footage to a client, it just depends how high you set your own standards and what level of standards your client expects. In the wedding industry you can get away with a lot and then it does apply that if we don't care, so won't the client as they are happy you got the shot in the first place if it was a keymoment, no matter if it has moire, aliasing, is shaky and out of focus..

My son was on an Indie shoot that included a climactic shot with a 5D2 (no filter) in a hotel hallway with detailed lines on the wallpaper. The shot demanded shallow DOF with a live zoom. And sure enough, as it zoomed, the moire pattern crawled up the hallway. Hero shot ruined. No getting that past any client.

I feel that this should be moot by now. Before the 5D2, if you wanted shallow DOF, you either needed to shoot film or on a Red/Alexa. The 5D2 comes along and for $2,700 you can shoot on a big sensor - but you have to tolerate aliasing.

Now, there are many non-aliasing solutions. Cameras like the C100 have filled the gap. And if that's still above your budget, for less than the price of a top lens, you can get a VAF filter.

Tolerating aliasing these days is similar to buying a cheap tripod and tolerating sticky pans, wind-up, and shake. Not everybody notices a bad pan. You can smooth things out in post. But it's really about having an overly tight budget. And that's okay for some productions, but not tolerable for others.

Well I guess what I was trying to say is that opinions on moire are relative to your situation. If I'm shooting bricks or have a tight pattern in a narrative piece, I'll take into account the best tool for the job. But as a second cam in low light, the 6D is crackerjack. I wouldn't have it as my only cam but as a second especially for.weddings it works well.
Bill

For under $400, one could add the VAF-6D anti-aliasing filter, as compared to needing a 2nd camera, upgrading to the 5D3, or tolerating aliasing.

VAF-6D Optical Anti-Aliasing Filter (http://www.mosaicengineering.com/products/vaf/6d/main.html)

To be clear, I have no interest in Mosaic Engineering whatsoever, aside from owning the original 5D2 filter.

doesn't that void the warranty?

Definitely not. You raise the mirror and slide the VAF in when you want to use it and slide it back out when you don't. Nothing destructive or irreversible done to the camera. No disassembly. Nothing touches the sensor. If anything, it's an extra layer of sensor protection, once installed.

The positives:
* Aliasing and moire is virtually all removed. Images with a harsh feel (like a face with stubble) are much smoother and natural looking. So it's not just for "problem" scenes.
* The cost, compared to a large sensor cam without aliasing, is reasonable.
* It is 100% removable with no ill effects.

The negatives:
* It needs to be removed when shooting high-res photos. (Though you can leave it in when scaling down for smaller web photos.)
* Since it blocks the mirror, you can't pre-adjust the focus using the photo AF points and you can't use the viewfinder. When installed, it's Live View only.
* It's not too hard to install and remove, but it is yet one more thing to do. And unless you're really organized, the case won't be at hand when you want to remove it. It's definitely better for video-only use than mixed use.
* The original version doesn't work well win wide lenses. Apparently the VAF-5D2b fixes that.
* It makes zoom lenses non-parfocal - or "worse-parfocal". The "b" version is supposed to be better.
* It increases the minimum focal distance. Maybe the "b" improves on this as well.

So it's not perfect. I'd much rather have a 5D3. But for the money, I'm sticking with the 5D2 + VAF. The negatives above haven't been enough for me to justify spending another $1k or so to upgrade. Besides, if the images look great, the audience doesn't care if the shooter had to spend a few extra minutes messing with the camera here and there.

In fact, rather than upgrading to the 5D3, I've considered adding a used T2i and VAF to increase my focal length options and give me a second/backup body. But for now, I'm sticking with what I have.

I think it's another MK3 for me.