RLight wrote:
MAC wrote:
RLight wrote:
MAC wrote:
Every system has pluses and minuses. Without owning other systems, it is very difficult to appreciate the pluses of other systems. It seems that every person making the claim that DPReview has an anti-Canon bias is someone who has been using Canon gear exclusively for years and years.
Not true:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63107712
I truly apologize if my response comes off as too harsh as that is not my intent.
Quite. But, I've known you for some time. I personally won't be letting off the gas of giving correct context, to DPR narrative I disagree with, which others share the sentiment of. And, I'll continue stubbing my toes as any person would along the way.
Let me flip this on you:
Why are you still on the M forum?
yes, a true mystery
Honestly. You're here, critiquing my responses, on a forum that is not your primary platform (it's Fuji).
they wouldn't allow this behavior on the Fuji forum
this forum is not being moderated
Not being mean, just a curiosity I've had since you sold off most of your Canon goods.
a Fuji shill?
I don't think so.
Are you considering coming back, just being helpful, or you like to debate? Any are fine answers.
not being helpful
He is, and sometimes he pokes at the M system at the same time. This makes sense when given some historical context...
A wayback moment, besides I like telling stories (feel free to correct me Nnowak)
Once upon a time I had a 5DIII and some L's. They got too heavy and stopped going places. I tried the G1X II, it didn't cut it. Then, I tried the M + 22, the OG, and it delivered, but it was slowww.
I went against my better judgement and went all in on the M and picked up an M2 and all the EF-M glass at the time with one of them turret viewfinders as I could see the writing on the wall Canon was going to grow the system in short order. They did ala the M3, I was right. I ended up being one of them weirdo American's that imported it from Japan via Tenso because Canon in their infinite wisdom didn't make it available to USA for a while. But, I didn't know exactly what I was getting myself into with GAS, not being happy with what I had, yada yada yada. Insert DPR and the forums (used to be on the CR forum too).
Nnowak at around the same time had a 5DII and some L's and dipped into the M2, and then tried the M3, and hated the colors. Truth told, I did too, but I couldn't put my finger on it was the colors till later. That's a complicated subject btw as it's a mix of the AWB of the M3, and the CFA and metering system combined IMO.
He didn't go the M route. Like many got fed up, tried the G85 (wonderful camera I'm told) and then X-T2. And then, ended up going Fuji X as primary system over the 4/3, FF and M systems as time went on. I will say this, I might agree with his reasons. If, you're going to do one system, the Fuji X is a logical choice for the well financed discerning enthusiast due to it's mature lens lineup. However, this is where we have a tale of two cities here and our paths diverged. I stayed M and "toughed it out" while he consolidated on Fuji. I felt Canon should and would do a FF mirrorless, it was the holy grail. They eventually did, after going through the M5, G1X III and having lots of fun with them but for low light it didn't cut it. Insert the R. I swung the other side of the pendulum and went all in on the R and tried to make it a sorta M-like R-like system with cheaper, EF lighter glass. That's not the way to treat the R system. I figured out you need RF glass to make the most of the system. R + RF 35 may be the M5 II most folks have been waiting for, I'll give that anecdote as Dave Seeley when he reads this will probably give a thumbs up or nod to.
Anyhow, he's thinking I'm, less than wise, jumping back and forth this whole time and we debate over the years on the M forum as I kinda just stuck around because that's where the action is, lots of folks are joining it and looking for advice and I have spare time to kill in my endeavors. Some of my endeavors I have more time than others I might add.
Now I've come full circle and I've embraced what I should've 5 years ago... I have a FF system, (R) and, an M system. I use each for what it's supposed to be used. FF for bokeh/low light and M for portability. Nnowak uses his Fuji for both. The difference is one of what you pay, what you get and features. I argue (regularly) the M system makes the most sense for most people (I feel it does, and it's the spiritual successor to the Rebel series, and even the Advanced Powershots to a degree on the higher end of things), he argues against the Canon often because it (Fuji) gives what was lacking in the past. He's right, the X-T2 and T3 have better rendering than the M3. However, the M50 and M6 Mark II are game changers. They're real M cameras and he hasn't dipped his toes in them and is happy with his X-T2, at least I think he is (but he's still on the M forum, so maybe, maybe not?)
So to double back, I asked him earlier tonight, why he's still here. Makes a little more sense as he's still hanging around either due to the action on the M forum, or other reasons. Perhaps to convince folks to Fuji to your point MAC, or, perhaps to my point I think he has somewhat of a spot for the M. I'll let him respond if he's inclined (he doesn't have to).
We have a history and hence we're old dogs around here that bicker regularly.
This is all to say no, not a shill, and, I'm quite curious where he stands given Canon's recent moves in FF mirrorless and M, even if I may not agree with him.
I got it now, thanks.
you are on the right track with combo FF + newest M approach.
I shoot events in low light with 6d + 35 f2 IS and 100L. The 6d handles iso 12800 low light, the Fuji doesn’t consistently give useable results
The new M6ii is the first M I’ve been interested in for good light shots. I pulled up image resource raws and processed base iso raws through dpp. The m6ii detail is amazing and base iso is clean and has nice colors.
So for me, I’m a prime user and I see my future with FF + M+ 9 lenses
FF ( I love my $899 6d) + FE + 24 IS + 35 IS + 100L + 70 -200 F2.8 L
Why not the RP? 6ave has it for something stupid cheap, almost $1000 flat with the adapter right now. Just silly cheap.
the IQ is not better than my 6d imo. Focus acquisition likely is better, but I do really well with my 6d center point where the vast majority of output is 8x10 or less and plenty of cropping power
I already have 35 f2 IS which is a great lens, so adapters and the 35 f1.8 R lens are not a value for me
M + 16 F1.4 (sigma) + 22 F2 + 32 F1.4 + 56 F 1.4 (Sigma) + 55-250 STM
total investment = ~ $7500 + my lights
when you invest in Fuji alone, you get more noise
also until recently the older Fuji’s didn’t have the low light focus
Now the new m has -5EV with F1.4 lenses
Costs will run up fast with Fuji alone to get comparable capability
I did some crop vs FF comparisons just within Canon's own realm ala M50 vs R and later M6 + fast glass (EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 vs RF 28-70 f/2 and Samyang 21mm f/1.4 vs RF 35 f/1.8) and there's just a place crop simply cannot touch: low light photography. Doesn't matter if you hit even f/1.4 with virtually no vignette like the Samyang 21 f/1.4 which is an overengineered piece of glass that will provide near full coverage on a FF ala A7 (folks have tried it). It just doesn't work, still too much noise to meet the acceptable mark in my taste buds.
true
Trust me, I don't fancy two systems, and hence I ran the comparisons myself to see if I can escape the madness. Nope. I shot over 50% this month on the R and fast glass. Some folks need it. I enjoy it. But man, not light or cheap, delivers the goods though and a crop equivalent would be the same size, weight and cost if it existed, which you'd need like a 22mm f/1.1 lens to compete with an RF 35mm f/1.8, but you STILL wouldn't get the FF benefits even if said option existed.
true
The M is like the Rebel, excels in places other than big, heavy expensive glass would. Fuji is going the latter route of late ala 50mm f/1 lens which I understand would be like a 85mm f/1.5-1.6-ish lens, it'll defiantly give bokeh, but they changed the 33mm f/1 on their roadmap for it which I think is a mistake; 56mm f/1.2 is already a widely loved lens, and they really needed stronger equivalence at wider to try to compete with FF. They changed their own roadmap because said lens would just be too big / heavy. The irony.
crazy when they already have 56 1.2
There's a place for systems like the M, and a place for systems like the R. Fuji's advantage is they have native lenses the M does not (56mm f/1.2, 18-55 f/2.8 for example), and, better video feature sets ala 24P, codecs, log support and mic jack but that all comes at a cost. If you want light and/or cheap, the M does not have a competitor in key lens setups that I have ala 22mm, 18-150mm and 11-22mm all of which are smaller, cheaper and lighter and comes with less rolling shutter, SOOC colors that are "better" for consumer video and nearly match stills desirability, DPAF and DIS support which are more (video) consumer friendly:
.
http://j.mp/30DRH07
X-T30 + 23 f/2 vs M6 Mark II + 22mm f/2
https://camerasize.com/compact/#816.426,829.608,ha,t
X-T30 + 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 vs M6 Mark II + 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3
http://j.mp/2AzdECW
X-T30 + 10-24 f/4 vs M6 Mark II + 11-22mm f/4-5.6
http://j.mp/2ABPzvt
.
Cheaper, lighter less hassle. Trust me, I've weighed it. There's a place for FF just as there is for crop. Just as there is Canon (lighter and cheaper on the crop, but you need a second system for low light) and Fuji (single system, broader lens lineup, but is a compromise for low light; expensive).
all true
.
Also, as I've said before and you just touched on, third party lens providers (Sigma), is a potential disruptor here. They're providing glass Canon wouldn't otherwise for the M, that changes the game as they're known for high performance glass at price points that are relatively aggressive as needed markets dictate. I personally don't care for some of their rendition (IE color and bokeh) though but I'm sure they'll find a home with folks like yourself that don't mind. It's at least an option, options are better than no option.
agree
here is the bottom line for me - a value pricing photographer
I have an $899 6d and L glass and they are sharp, have great colors, I can shoot center point loose in the frame and crop to rule of 1/3 in post and it works well for me in events and portraits for vast majority of outputs 8x10 or less
The high cost of R and the glass they are introducing is out of bounds for me considering diminishing returns
RP doesn't give me an IQ boost over my existing cameras
M6ii at base iso's would be an IQ boost for me and provide more cropping power
also focus beyond center point would be better
but I'm only interested in the 32, and the 22
I've avoided sigmas on dslr's because of focus and colors
Canon needs to step up with some more primes for the m - or I'll join the chorus - the m mount will be dead
Value Proposition, Primes, Small, IBIS, Colors, Sharp, RAW Conversion Software, Dual slots - these would be my priorities and IMO Canon could crush the competition if they just provided what is certainly feasible with the technology.
expensive and heavier just isn't going to cut it in the long run - imo
