RP or M6 mk II

MAC wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

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.

well, some don’t realize that even between ss 1/125 - 1/200 image stabilization plays a role

Maybe, which is why 1/125 is the absolute minimum speed for me on the 56, and I'm usually faster.

moreover, when the lights get low, rather than push yourself toward iso 6400 and noisy pics, pros will drag their shutters down to ss 1/80 or even 1/60 - when folks are standing and talking.

Good for them. They'll also get blurry shots that way. I've seen plenty of them. I prefer not to.

In any case at these long FOVs and high pixel density, IS is invaluable.

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.

when I didn’t have it, I didn’t think it was a big deal. Now that I have it, the control ring set to EC makes a huge difference in fast exposure adjustments with real time exposure simulation - I would miss it - even the location of the ring makes sense vs the location of the ring on the special adapter for EF lenses - I’m an advocate for RF lenses, and the control ring is terrific - particularly for quickly lighting subjects in backlit situations

OK, I'll take your word for it. I will say that I have never missed a shot on my M6II through taking too long to make an adjustment.

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).

the 1 stop you gain with the f1.4 lens over the f2 ff lens, you lose the stop to the noise RT crop sensor.

Yes, that was my point, that there is no noise advantage for the RP (and in fact a slight disadvantage, because it's not a whole stop).

And your depth of field is f2.2 vs the RF’s f2.

Well, if you're going to quibble about 1/3 stop, I'll point out that the 56 has a FF FOV equivalent to 90mm, as opposed to 85mm. I guarantee you no-one will see any DOF difference between them with the same subject framing.

Yes, I mean at all.

Not

Do the math.

F2.2 is not shallower than f2

See above. And I didn't say it was shallower. In fact, I didn't talk about DOF at all. You brought that up. But since you did, I stand by what I wrote above. No-one will ever notice any difference in DOF between the 85 at F2 on FF and the 56 at F1.4 on Canon crop, for the same subject framing.

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.

sure it is as I explained above

Not really. You said that some pros like to drag the shutter. I don't consider that an advantage, because I don't think the results are worth it.

If you use your 85 for still life, or death, shots, fair enough. But that's not my use case.

As photographers we encounter plenty of situations where dragging the shutter is important to reduce noise

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.

in fact, I may sell my 100L - which would give me 600+ extra dollars

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.

we disagree on relevance

Yep.

So, in terms of image quality, unless you're shooting still life at low shutter speeds in low light,

yep, that is one of several use cases

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.

yep, that is another use case

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.

it is a personal claim - you’d be closer to the truth if you had IBIS in your camera from my perspective of my use cases

Fair enough. I was talking about my use cases.

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.

all of a sudden we’re into way too much money and weight in the comparison. Canon is targeting the RF system as competing with the m system with their less expensive RF stuff - so that is where the comparisons should be made

Right, and that is where, as I've said, you won't actually see an advantage overall with the RP. You'll gain a bit in some use cases that you like, but I don't, and you'll still lose in expense, weight and size, but not as much as with the bigger and heavier RF 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.

see my details above

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.

the setup you have would be great if it had 1) IBIS 2) internal EVF and 3) a native bright normal zoom

I wouldn't say no to IBIS, though, as I've said, it wouldn't help with portraits for me. I prefer the external EVF, because it gives me the option of not having it on the camera when I don't use it, which is most of the time. I don't know whether I would get a bright normal zoom if they release one. I like shooting with primes so much now that there are some excellent ones for the M, that I doubt whether I'd use a normal zoom much at all on the M6II. I would always have the nagging suspicion that I would have gotten better results with the prime.

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?

back at ya - do you have an RP with latest firmware?

No, that's why I said I can't compare, and it seems you can't either.

I've seen people who have both saying the M6II is a bit better,

repeat of hearsay...

That's all either of us has, it seems, given that we don't have each other's camera.

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.

same with RP - astonishing AF

Glad to hear it.

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.

Ive explained above the RF advantages. Certainly for me, there are RF advantages.

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.

Gosh in the harsh sunlight of a shoot this summer the screen was unusable with a need to move fast with trigger and ocf

I've never had a problem seeing the screen in bright sun, and I live in one of the sunniest parts of the US. I have a button set to maximize screen brightness with one push, and I have an anti-glare screen protector. Between those two things, I've never had a problem.

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.

being invested already in m, I think you should wait also. At some point when you do make the move, I’d highly recommend the RF 24-105 F4L lens

I'll definitely get it. I still miss my original 24-105, but it would have cost nearly as much to repair as getting a new one, and by then I'd moved to mostly prime shooting.

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.

understood - times are really tough

Thanks, but I can't really complain. I don't have it nearly as bad as a lot of people do. I still have a job (though we all had to take a pay cut), and so far I'm still healthy.

It seems pretty clear where we agree and where we disagree. Thanks for the interesting discussion.