G9 vs. Z6 @ 2.8 in low light

Started 3 months ago | Questions thread
jwilliams Veteran Member • Posts: 6,182
Re: If ...
1

Sundre wrote:

Thank you. For some reason it has been difficult for me to figure out that you would need a 35-100/1.4 MFT lens to match a 70-200/2.8 full frame lens in terms of light gathering.

What you are stating is 100% correct so just keep that 2 stop difference in mind. Keep the analysis simple because it is.

I can't afford to buy Canon, their used cameras and lenses seem to fetch a bigger premium than any of the other brands. At least here in Europe.

I'll rent MFT, Sony & Nikon gear and see what I like best.

One thing to not overlook with Canon is that their EF DSLR lenses adapt very well to their cameras. I own a Canon R and RP and all of my EF lenses work as well as they did on a DSLR. At least in the US, you can find the earlier versions of their 70-200 f4 L series lenses used for around $500 USD (and their f2.8 versions under $1K). Although f2.8 obviously is better I wouldn't be afraid of using f4 on FF and you can always upgrade the lens to a f2.8 later. Also, the R6 while a little bit pricey is probably the best mid level FF mirrorless camera on the market (my slightly biased opinion).

In the bang for the buck department a Sony A7 III w the Tamron 70-180 2.8 is tough to beat. Also, the A7IV is rumored to be out soon so the III will probably go on sale then. Sony has a huge lens selection available with many Sigma and Tamron lenses available at good prices. Just make sure you like the camera bodies which is more personal taste. Technically they are capable.

-- hide signature --

Jonathan

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow