Parting Ways with the M6ii

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

Portability is of course still slightly to the M series camp. But the RP with 50mm 1.8 isn't that bad in terms of portability as well,

“Not that bad” (RP), and “Excellent” (M6ii) are on 2 different levels.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#815,829

You missed the part about "with 50mm 1.8"

And some will read this and say -- wow, same

but not same

one misses the points:

1) The RF 50 f1.8 needs stopped down to F2.8 to get sharp enough for me; whereas the 32 is sharp wide open (FF equivalent of F2.2)

f/2.2 to f/2.8 is only 2/3 of a stop. Most people would never spot the difference in depth of field.

Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM Lens Image Quality (the-digital-picture.com)

That is a pretty worthless comparison given the massive difference in bodies used for the testing. The OP has already posted their own testing on this matter.

2) The RF 50 F1.8 wide open or near wide open is useless in direct sunlight without an ND filter and only ss 1/4000. The M6II has e-shutter up to 1/16,000

Since you said you would need to stop the RF 50mm down to f/2.8, 1/4000 would work in the same situations that you would need 1/16000 at f/1.4 on the EF-M 32mm.

3) The M6II has the better dynamic range at base ISO's

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20M6%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%20RP

The OP has stated that a large percentage of their shots are at high ISO, and in that scope, the RP has much better dynamic range than the M6 II. The OP also has the R6 which has even better dynamic range at all ISO's.

4) The RP is 4 fps and the m6II is 14 or 7 fps.

The OP's R6 can do 20 fps

You can cherry pick singular spec's where the M6 II might look better than the RP, but as an overall system package, the OP has determined that the RP makes a better compliment to the R6 than the M6 II.

And I own both RP and M6II - versus you own neither -- as you replied to me once I didn't own the stuff I was talking about

Read what Op said in the thread about succumbing to F1.2/F1.4 primes

RP is a poor compliment to R6 for expensive low light primes with only ss 1/4000 and only EFCS -- creating bokeh cut off issues above ss 1/1000.

It is far better than the M6 II which can not even mount those RF lenses.

both use EF lenses -- most of the lenses the op has are EF. The op posted an m6Ii photo in this thread with the 35-150

Again, the OP does a large percentage of their shooting in low light where those high shutter speeds are irrelevant and the RP has an image quality advantage over the M6 II

well, that is a generalization that you make that depends...

does the op need 7-14 fps vs 4 fps?

does the op need reach?

how much is being spent on Rf lenses to make the transition?

are clients happy already with the current work? what additional business will it buy you so you can buy what you need to drive more business -- are you already at a level of diminishing returns?

anyway I just got my EVF for m6II and love it -- it adds stability as I hold it to my face and I have it now set up to shoot with my 100L at 160 FOV at f2.8 and drag the screen for focus and magnify with the back button to see critical focus on the speakers-- speakers at the podium with the 33 mpxl sensor versus using my 70-200 f2.8 on my 20 mpxl 6d or 26 mpxl RP. My RF 24-105 F4L is the best 24-105 ever made and the best lens ever to do the group shots I'll be taking here shortly with my 60 inch umbrella, backdrop, triggers and radio lights. Sometimes you need wider than 35 for group shots and it is a pain to change lenses so that 35-150 wouldn't "work for me"

Reach and Flexibility and fps

then figure out what works!

RP was better set up for zooms

R5 would be a much better compliment to R6, not RP.

Once you add the lenses, there is not much difference in size and only 2 grams difference in total weight

RP+RF 50mm f/1.8 vs. M6 II+EF-M 32mm f/1.4

https://camerasize.com/compact/#815,829.791,ha,t