Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Laowa 9mm

nnowak wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

What? Ed said that the Sigma 8-16 would be big and heavy.

That is not what Ed said. He said that "on the adapter" it would be "huge". And it would be. With the adapter, the Sigma 8-16mm is bigger than the Sony and Fuji lenses I suggested and in between the weight of the two. His bigger complaint appears to be distortion issues with the Sigma

Correct.  Of course, software is better today, so that might be less of a problem.

The Fuji 8-16 is about 50% heavier, longer,

Bigger and heavier than which one?

Not once you add the adapter.

and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight,

The Sony is quite a bit smaller and lighter once you add the adapter to the Sigma.

Maybe so, but the rest of the lenses for the Sony would be close enough to what I have that I would not move for one lens.

but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else,

Ed is currently using a full frame camera with the 17mm TS-E. At this point it appears that he does not own the M6 II, but is considering it as an alternative to his full frame camera. The Sony and Fuji options I suggested could provide a total package that is smaller and lighter that his current full fame setup. The full frame Sony setup would only be 102 grams heavier than the M6 II + adapter + Sigma 8-16mm.

I have to take a harder look at the Fuji system.  I hear nothing but good things about their lenses, nothing but bad things about their focusing system, and mixed reviews on IQ and high ISO capability.  I believe the hype about the M6ii's low light focusing, because the same hype on the R was understated, if anything.

it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture.

Oh, if I have to have two systems, I'm keeping the one I have now.  I'm very happy with it except for it's size, particularly when traveling by plane or on foot.  The M lenses have a big pound for pound advantage.

The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable.

That's what I am curious about.  I looked into the lens years ago and read that it was difficult to correct.  But software has advanced since then, so I might be able to use a profile that figures it out, like Canon or Adobe software handle Canon lenses.

The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

I think so.  My whole theory is based on an article that said that the 17, fully shifted both ways and stitched, will create an 11 mm AOV.  Therefore (my extrapolation) an 11 mm lens, held level and shot vertically, could be cropped to the exact same framing as the 17 fully shifted, albeit with half the pixels.  I rarely shift it all the way, so I could probably do fine with something in the 13 or 14 mm AOV range.  15 MP will work fine except for the largest prints.  Even the 12 from changing the aspect ratio to 8X10 is still going to be above my self imposed limit of 10 MP for the final crop.

I guess there is software to correct the vignetting of the Laowa 9, but that's three stops of exposure lifting, before I even get started.  Maybe the new sensors and software do better enough that I shouldn't be afraid of either.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow