Just pulled the trigger on M6II + 32 f1.4

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
OP MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 16,261
Re: Just pulled the trigger on M6II + 32 f1.4

Sittatunga wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

MAC wrote:

EDWARD ARTISTE wrote:

Just got a replacement m6mkii, keeping my fingers crossed. I encourage you to test the hell out of it.

ok, I'll keep testing during the return period

getting my bearings:

The camera generates HUGE files -- files close to 16x24 inch prints

The DLA (Diffraction Limited Aperture) for this camera is just F5.2 - but I will use up to F8 when I need dof

I really dislike that term. The word "limit" implies a hard boundary where everything falls apart once crossed. Diffraction Visible Aperture would be far more appropriate.

agree

Diffraction is an optical phenomenon that occurs with every lens at every aperture. The only thing that changes as sensors increase in pixel density is the ability to record that diffraction. Even wide open, your 32mm f/1.4 has diffraction, but your M6 II lacks the resolution to record it.

Also, when Angle of View (AoV) and Depth of Field (DoF) are identical, diffraction levels will be the same across sensor sizes. For example, shooting with your 32mm at f8 on your M6 II will produce the same levels of diffraction as shooting with a 50mm lens at f13 on your RP.

I think I understand the 1.6 crop factor multiple (32 x1.6 = 51)

and 8 x 1.6 = 13

but isn't it also multivariable depending on the sensor; i.e., the m6II has a DLA of 5.2 and the RP has a DLA of 9.3

No. Diffraction is solely a lens function and is independent of the image sensor size and pixel density.

if you take 5.2 x 1.6 = you get 8.3 which would be the FF DLA if it had an analogous same generation sensor as the M6II. But in this case, doesn't the RP have a less stressful DLA of 9.3...

It is not about the sensor generation, but the number of pixels. If the RP also had a 32.2MP sensor like the M6 II, the DLA would numbers would be a closer match.

So I'm thinking the RP at F13 would not be equivalent but be under less diffraction stress than the m6II at F8. Maybe I got this wrong.

You are wrong on this part. Once you pass the DLA, diffraction is being fully resolved by the image sensor and the effects follow equivalence.

But in any case, one needs to think about stopping down - analogous to squinting ones eyes, and how one will see less sharpness when you squint too much...

Imagine the hair on a model during a portrait shoot. The lens used is irrelevant. If you had a one pixel camera, everything would just be solid gray. Go up to a 100 pixel camera and you can start to discern facial features. Go all of the way up to 32 million pixels in the M6 II, and you can count the individual eyelashes. All of those eyelashes were still in existence with the lower pixel count cameras, but those cameras lacked the ability to resolve them.

Diffraction works the same way. Diffraction is present at every aperture with every lens. As you stop down, the width of the diffraction gets larger. As sensors of a given size get more pixels, the size of those pixels gets smaller. DLA is simply the point where pixels of a given size can finally resolve the diffraction. Diffraction is still occurring at brighter aperture than the DLA, but the pixels are too large to see the diffraction.

In simplest terms, you can think of your image sensor as a ruler. As the pixels on your sensor get smaller, you have a ruler with finer gradations. The object being measured (analogous to the projected image) does not change, but the ruler with finer gradations can more accurately measure the object.

it is more complex than I thought and an interesting explanation, thanks

in practical terms, I will be doing most of my photography with the m32 f1/4 below DLA. I spent $1400 on the M6II + m32 setup. I could have just got an RF50 for $200 but I am liking the operation and results from the m6II with m32 combo and I never bought the EF 50 F1.2 for about the same $1300 because you had to stop down to F2 to get enough sharpness. The m32 is a 50 mm L for me

But stopped down to f/2 it's still slightly faster than the FF equivalent of f/2.2 maximum speed you get from the EF-M 32mm. And ultimate sharpness at that sorts of aperture depends on critical focus as so little of the image is actually in focus anyway.

understood but also the fringing on the 50L is an issue

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

I can see this m6II sensor is very demanding on lenses and I wish Canon developed more m lenses that worked as well as the 32 does with this sensor. The 56 and 16 sigmas appear to do well. I like my RP also so I'll need to research my next lens purchase - I think 11-22 might be it to keep things light and best bang for the ultra wide landscape buck for me. Until then, shallow dof is a walkaround go to for me

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS RP Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM +9 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow