thunder storm wrote:
MAC wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
MAC wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
MAC wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
Firmware is exactly as important as hardware. Good firmware isn't for free. It takes R&D costs to get good performing firmware. The M50II isn't a minor update over the M50I. It's a HUGE update. Don't forget the price isn't substantially higher! If it even has the AF speed of the M6II I might prefer the M50II over the M6II. In that case I'm ready to go back to 24Mp, the only thing I don't want to sacrifice is it's better dynamic range of the M6II...
in addition the m50II has internal EVF
I'd prefer the M50II over the M6II
For mounting speedlites it's not that important anymore to me as I will use full frame in low light conditions anyway.
an open hot shoe for odin triggers is important to me
Still the internal EVF is better, as I hate to mount and dismount that evf all the time, and with the evf permanently attached to the M6mkII the combo is simply bigger in the bag. Using the backscreen is not as good as you're spilling distance that could have been used to use more a more telephoto focal length.... Using the back screen you can have to switch to the 32mm while with the viewfinder the 56mm would have been fine.
that is my impression also
Using the back screen also makes the 11-22mm less suitable to cram as much as possible in the frame. Using the 50-100 f/1.8 or 100-400mm the viewfinder is absolutely needed
That said, when I have enough working space and with small lenses I do use the back screen, and that flip up design is nice for getting your lower angles very quick.
M50II + 56 + 32 may be for me -- we'll see at Christmas
RP for the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm and RF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM, 70-200mm and a wide angle zoom.
agree
M50II for the Sigma 56 f/1.4+ ef-m 32mm f/1.4.
agree
How about the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm and 85mm f/2.0 IS stm?
I haven't bought the 50 yet so the 32 would be my 50
In a portrait shoot with cameras with 1 slot I'd use both the 56 and the 85 for redundancy
I see some redundancy.... And would you want to leave the house with nothing wider than 32mm on crop? Or would you take the RP + RF 14-35mm f/4.0 IS stm with you in the bag next to M?
depends on where I'm going
The 11-22mm would be needed too I guess, but than again, as soon as you're tired of changing between the 32mm and 11-22mm you need to have the RF f/4.0 L AND your RP.
on the fence between 11-22 and 14-35
Not sure if two incompatible systems are a good idea, unless you are willing to buy into a full lens lineup for both systems. I made that mistake (well, when I got the 18-35mm the 5DIV was 4000 euro, and at the time when I got the 50-100mm the R was 2700 euro and there was no RP, and no 56mm for ef-m, and I didn't have a crystal ball). It's probably a better idea to save up to the R6, eventually keeping the RP so you can have two bodies compatible with the same lenses. RP + 14-35mm and R6 RF 50 or RF 85mm for instance. Or R6 + 35mm f/1.8 stm and RP + 85mm f/2.0 IS stm. The R6 will give you a stop or more with all your lenses. Low light performance of f/2.8 while only carrying (and paying for) f/4.0. There's no thing saving so much weight as a light sensor.
now this R6 idea may make sense - but I'm not use to paying $2500 at a time and M50II - I like the small size
M50II is 500 euro at least, both lenses will be around 900 euro extra, and that's without the 11-22mm which clocks in at 350 euro..... 1750 euro.... That's a big part of your future R6.
yes but I can just buy the M50 II + 32 at xmas for 1/3 the price of R6 - this gives me your beloved 50 FOV focal length
Yep. The 32mm is a good reason, especially as a portrait lens. Keep in mind at landscape apertures (f/5.6 - 8.0) the RF 50mm f/1.8 stm is hard to beat (go compare at optical limits with the RF L f/4.0 zoom, the RF f/2.8 zoom, the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm prime, and even the RF 50mm f/1.2....), and although the bodies are expensive for now, IBIS is at least available for the RF mount.
an RF 50 f1.4 could change my mind on this
I wouldn't count on that one. It's the classic Canon gap. Sigma has a mirrorless 85 Art and a mirrorless 35mm (f/1.2!), but even for Sony no mirrorless designed 50mm yet (there's the Sony/Zeiss already...). Samyang stopped producing the 85mm for RF, so there's no hope for their 45mm..... RF and 50mm will be a problem for a long long time.
If you want that compact portable 50mm equivalence being useful for both portraits and landscapes M is your system, and eye AF working at larger distances than the M6mkII provides is certainly useful.
a small RP-II could change my mind on this
You will get the same sensor or the sensor of the R (with it's green skin tones sometimes....). They might improve AF like they did with the M50II, but if you're happy with your current AF there's probably not much in it.
then if I like the 11-22, I don't have to shell out for the 14-35
That is a very very good argument to go M! Not buying that RF 14-35mm pays for your whole M system, 11-22mm included.
I've received that Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 by the way, and to be honest, I'm not crazy about it. From the reviews I was expecting a bit more. Of course I will get my low light performance from the larger aperture, the high ISO performance of the R5 and the IBIS, but for sharpness it can't keep up with 45Mp. I was shooting it in turn with the 40mm Art, so that might have made me a bit more critical than I should have been. It's possible it is actually sharper than the 11-22mm, however, it's still less satisfying, as the R5 sets the bar pretty high.
then I could buy the 56 for portrait shoot redundancy with single slot cameras
Whether you have that RF 85mm f/2.0 or not, if you have an M camera you simply should have that 56mm. Very small lens, very good IQ including attractive bokeh, fast AF, unobtrusive, not truly expensive. Just lovely. Forget about stabilization. That's less than a stop for portraits especially on 24Mp. M50 colors and M50II eye AF are way more important than IBIS.
