RP or M6 mk II

MAC wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

As a few others have said, it comes down to what lenses you get and like to use. The RP has a full frame sensor, but a fairly mediocre one by current standards. The M6II has the best crop sensor currently available. The noise advantage of full frame sensors, comparing equivalent generations is about 1 1/3 stops (the FF sensor has about 2 1/2 times the light gathering area of the crop sensor, which translates to about 1 1/3 stops). But in the case of the RP versus the M6II, the advantage is a bit under one stop, closer to 2/3. What this means is that, to get the full frame advantage with the RP over the M6II, you need to use lenses with similar apertures. If you compare the Sigma 56 F1.4 on the M6II against a full frame 85 F2 or F1.8, you won't see any advantage on the RP at all.

I continually feel the need to correct you on the "at all" statement. The new RF 85 f2 IS HAS 1) - Image stabilization (the siggy 56 does not), 2) the RF lens has a control ring (the siggy 56 does not), 3) the RF lens takes advantage of the 1 stop better high iso difference, and 4) the RF lens can be shot at lower shutter speeds, and 5) the RF lens has macro capability -- therefore the "at all" statement will not hold up.

OK, let me be clearer. I'm considering the Sigma 56 primarily as a portrait lens. That's the vast majority of my use for it. So, with that in mind, let's look at your 5 points: 1) is irrelevant to me, because I shoot portraits of living things, which move, even when they're trying not to. I'm usually at 1/125 or faster for portraits. IS is irrelevant for me in this use case. If I shot portraits of corpses, I would probably appreciate the IS, but I don't, so I don't. 2) I don't need it at all. If it's an advantage, it's a tiny one. I can make any adjustments I want to very easily with the available dials and buttons on the M6II. 3) here is where you seem to have completely missed my point. The RF 85 is F2, compared with the Sigma 56, which is F1.4. Given that the high ISO advantage of the RP is actually less than a stop, this is no advantage at all (actually a slight disadvantage). Yes, I mean at all. Do the math. 4) Isn't this just the same as point 1)? It can be shot at lower shutter speeds, because it has IS. But, as I pointed out, for portraits of living things, that's not an advantage. If you use your 85 for still life, or death, shots, fair enough. But that's not my use case. As for 5), you're right, the 85 will focus 6 inches closer than the Sigma 56. If you want the 85 to do double-duty as a semi-macro lens, that is a slight advantage. For me, it's not an advantage at all. For portraits, the close focus distance of the Sigma will fill the frame with considerably less than a head. For macro, I have the 100L macro. If I want to fill more of the frame with something than I can manage with the 56 (or the 32 for that matter), I'll be shooting the specialized macro lens. So, of your 4 points (eliminating the double counting of your points 1 and 4), none of them is relevant to the comparison between the Sigma 56 on the M6II and the Canon RF 85 F2 on the RP as portrait lenses. So, in terms of image quality, unless you're shooting still life at low shutter speeds in low light, you'll see no advantage with the 85 F2 on the RP over the 56 F1.4 on the M6II. At all. In terms of allowing you to get six inches closer to your subject, if you want to use it for that, you'll get that advantage. In turn, the Canon is 50% more expensive, 50% longer, almost twice as heavy, and a bit wider (both physically, and in terms of FOV) than the Sigma. That's not nearly as much difference as between the faster 85 lenses and the Sigma, but still not inconsiderable. Taking everything into account, I stand by my "at all" claim.

But if you mount an 85 F1.4 or F1.2 on the RP, you'll get close to that extra stop (or a bit more in the case of the F1.2). With primes, you'll need big, heavy, and expensive to get the full frame advantage with the RP.

my RP was $850. The RF 85 F2 IS with control ring is $599 and shoul arrive in November. These are not that big and expensive as you make them out to be

Again, you missed my point. I was talking about the lenses that would actually give you the full frame advantage here. That's the F1.4 or F1.2 lenses.

And even to get equivalent performance, you're looking at bigger, heavier, and more expensive, just not by as much.

And this is the bit where I'm talking about the 85 F2, where we agree. The RF 85 F2 is bigger and more expensive than the Sigma 56 (see the details above), but not by as much as an 85 F1.4 or F1.2.

As others have pointed out, it's with (some) zooms that you'll likely see an advantage with the RP, albeit at a size and cost. If you're the kind of shooter who likes to shoot a lot, or even mostly, with a zoom or two, the RF 24-105L will be great, and has no M equivalent.

this is one of many reasons I went with RP + RF 24-105 L

I had the original 24-105L for many years, and used it more than any other of my lenses until it finally broke. It was a fine lens, and from everything I've read, the RF version is better.

yes, with more edge to edge sharpess, no CA, nano focus, and control ring the RF is much better, as Dustin Abbott also points out, it is the best 24-105 ever made

Notice, though, that for pure quality of results, various primes on the M6II will actually give better results at a lot of the focal length settings of the RF zoom.

different animals

Yes, as my next sentence makes clear. Perhaps you could read all of what I say, before replying to bits of it.

But at the expense of convenience. In terms of performance, the M6II has it all over the RP. It's much faster. You can actually use it as a sports camera, with its 14fps burst speed. Even the lower speed of 7fps, which I use more often, is faster than the RP. In terms of AF performance, the RP is, at best, a match for the M6II,

AF is a match

OK, do you have the M6II? I've seen people who have both saying the M6II is a bit better, but I don't have the RP, so can't judge. All I can say is that I have been astounded by how good the AF in the M6Ii is.

and according to some reports not even that.

The bottom line is that, if you like shooting with primes, and are prepared to spend a lot on the excellent, but bigger and heavier, RF lenses, you can see an advantage with the RP. Also, if you mostly like to shoot with an all-purpose zoom, you'll see an advantage, albeit at a size and weight cost (and actual cost), with the RP and RF 24-105.

balanced view

If you like primes, and would mostly be shooting with F2 or F1.8 full frame primes, you'll get equally good results with the various EF-M primes (most of which are F1.4), at a size, weight, and money saving.

well above - I point out 5 advantages of the RF 85 F2 IS with control ring has over the non IS siggy 56

As I point out, first you only list 4 different points, and whether any of them are actually advantages depends on whether you're using them as portrait lenses, or mainly for other things. Only the IS might actually affect the quality of the results, and then only for shooting still life in low light.

and I didn't even bring up the EVF issues with flash -- add that

Yes, some people think this is a big deal. For me, it's a non-issue. I only use the EVF for long lenses, and never use flash with them. I rarely use flash at all (I hate most of the results), but when I do, I'm not using the EVF, and so have no problems.

From my perspective, I've realized that I would see no advantage at all to getting an RP, and considerable disadvantages. I've come to the financially painful conclusion that it's simply not worth it for me to get an R camera until I can afford the R5.

I'm hoping there are less expensive releases vs getting an R5

I don't think so, but maybe Canon will surprise us. Right now, none of the other R models would be an overall advantage for me, compared with the M6II.

I hope to do that at some point, because it looks like it's a simply amazing camera. I comfort myself right now with the consideration that I would just be frustrated to have such a camera with far fewer photographic opportunities, because of the pandemic. Most of my shooting is of other people, either in action settings (mostly runners) or informal portrait settings. Right now, I'm mostly avoiding other people, for obvious reasons.in my opinion the R6 is for people shooting

and the R5 is better if your focus is on wildlife and big poster size prints of landscapes

Yes, I could still do some of that shooting right now, but I've actually found working from home to be more taxing than going into campus (I teach at the University of Colorado), and I'm left with less free time.