dpreviewTV: EF-M 22mm F2 not "ideal" for the M6 Mk II?

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

I know Nnowak will challenge this, but,

I wouldn't have said anything until you dragged me into the conversation

it would appear DPAF has a low-light advantage and AF speed advantage all things equal.

The jury is still out on this one until people start testing the actual cameras. The spec looks promising, but there are a lot of details missing from the EV-5 rating. For example, in extremely low light, does the M6 II drop back to contrast detect AF? The camera would still be doing AF, and would technically meet the spec, just not in the way that everyone is assuming. It is also likely that the AF cycle slows dramatically at these light levels. The M6 II could actually be less sensitive than the M50, but maybe the M6 II lets the AF cycle run for twice as long to collect more light.

Years ago I tested my 5D II with the 100mm f/2.0 against my M2 with 22mm f/2.0. The 5D II is rated at EV -0.5 whereas the M2 is rated at EV 1. Even though the 5D II had the much better spec, the M2 completely blew it away in low light AF. This testing was with a high contrast static target. The 5D II would keep hunting, but never lock. The M2 cycled at the usual pedestrian speed and locked the first try every time.

I'm referring to the technology as a whole, not the EOS M6 Mark II's implementation in this context, even though I fully expect the M6 Mark II will deliver the goods in reference to it's rated sensitivity.

If you visit the R forum

I don't

for a bit and listen or talk to dual-owners of Sony A7 (latest gens) and EOS R's, they'll tell you straight up the EOS R wins handily in low light. They'll also tell you the Sony A7's win in eye-AF, at the moment. That's the one grief I have with my R, which Canon is set to rectify shortly (eye-AF and facial detect sensitivity, specifically on my RF 28-70 f/2L as I noted lenses with IS perform better oddly in those regards). Canon is doing this, while playing catchup. As their firmware / software and sensors and CPUs mature, the writing is on the wall here that DPAF will dominate low-light, and Pixel Stripping will dominate metrics (DR/ISO performance).

I don't think it is as simple as DPAF vs PDAF. Nikon is using Sony sensors and the Nikon Z cameras have much lower EV numbers for AF than the Sony cameras. All three companies also have different methodologies for AF aperture vs shooting aperture. It looks like Canon may currently be on top, but I would not assume that would be the case even a year from now.

That said, I do expect both to improve to such a point in metrics and sensitivity, that although the advantages will remain to an extent, it'll blur with each revision of the product. However, for the next few years I expect these trends in metrics and low-light sensitivity.

The irony is the camera with the best low light AF is the also the worst for high ISO noise.

That thought passed through my head

At f/2 though on my 28-70 f/2L, it's never a problem. The EOS R's ISO performance when married with a fast lens is inconsequential. That's not a trying to throw it in remark, just saying it's never been a problem. Even ISO 40000 (the very few times I've used it) isn't an issue in the conditions where used. I rarely exceed 16000, and that's stinking dark on a f/2 lens for FF. Usually the only reason I'm punching that hard is due to also maintaining say 1/125 which I have C1 assigned to Fv with 1/125 minimum for "people" shooting while also shooting in near complete darkness.

Btw, in those conditions, it's better to have a camera that can hit the moving target in that light, at 1/125 and ISO 40000, than say an A7 that although would produce a slightly better shot (if it had the same lens available to it), couldn't hit the AF making the shot completely unusable.

The low-light sensitivity heavily outweighs the small ISO benefit in real-world is the point here. The R is going to get the shot and be a hair noiser in theory, and the A7 is going to miss the shot. I'm not a pro, but if I were? That's a duh decision which "wins".