Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 7,205
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.

Even with the adapter, the Sigma is lighter than the Fuji, and barely any longer, and narrower. So the Fuji is still overall heavier and bigger (size has three dimensions).

His bigger complaint appears to be distortion issues with the Sigma

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

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.

But the adapted Sigma added to the M6II is smaller and lighter than the Sony on the A7III. You need a camera to take a picture, not just a lens. That's the point. And that's just the architecture setup. As I said, you'd have to be crazy to get a whole different system just for one application, where you actually don't get any size or weight advantage at all for that application, and then get a considerable size and weight penalty for every other application. And you pay a massive, and I mean massive, price penalty. I understand your enthusiasm for the Fuji system (not so much for the Sony system), but your recommendations have to make at least a little sense in the context of the discussion, and this one doesn't.

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.

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

-- hide signature --

As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) +26 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow