M6 mark II vs Sony a6400

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

nnowak wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

nnowak wrote:

MAC wrote:

nnowak wrote:

I find it quite ironic that you think these Sigma lenses are so incredibly special, yet you have not purchased any of them.

well - in my case, I have alternatives like the m32 f1,4 and the RF 85 F2 IS

And that contradicts everything you have previously posted because both of those lenses are considerably more expensive than the EF-M Sigma alternatives. By your own logic, why would anyone ever buy the RF 85mm f/2.0 when the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and optically better?

Optically better? You're saying (below) Tony is simplifying things when comparing lenses, but your statement here suffers from exact the same problem.

No, the problem with Tony is he is a clickbait whore that will post whatever controversial thing he can come up with to drive more views.

The Sigma is better in some regards, but decidedly worse in many others. The RF lens is better in back lit situations. The RF lens has more contrast. The Sigma has smoother bokeh (the positive of less contrast and less sharpness....). The RF lens is definitely sharper at equivalent apertures, no contest. The RF lens is slightly shorter giving more flexibility whereas while it offers f/2.0 in stead of f/2.2 equivalent of the Sigma. The RF lens has a better magnification figure.

A few months ago Alastair posted side by samples in this forum. His Sigma 56mm was sharper than his RF 85mm f/2.0, and the Sigma had better bokeh too.

We agree on that one.

controlled testing - I don't think so

Maybe your copies of these two lenses are different.

There's always copy to copy variation in case we don't agree.

caveat - excuses

Let me just mention I did my testing with hundreds of pictures of both lenses, not just a few pics suffering from forum algorithms affecting sharpness.

In my opinion the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm is sharper than the ef-m 32mm f/1.4.

on a $4000 R5 with 45 mpxl - not surprising

there are perceptual differences on lower mpxl

The higher the Mp-count the less sharp the lens seams to be, so if it's about perception the 45Mp in stead of 32Mp is a disadvantage actually.

It's simply beyond the max level what any crop lens can touch.

my m32 is very sharp on my 32.5 mpxl - as sharp as any lens on my 20 mpxl 6d

So if it's copy to copy variation, Alastair has a bad RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm.

he was testing dxo deep prime nr - I wouldn;t jump to conclusions without controlled tests at iso 100

That said, it's possible my 56mm f/1.4 wasn't the best one on earth.

I'm looking at this closely - see 50/50 conclusion below

$3,000 Full Frame vs $1,000 APS-C Camera Setup for Portraits - YouTube

what I want to see is:

1) a body with IBIS so I can drag the shutter

2) a body with great af that keeps up with action on the 56

3) an ergo body

4) $1000 - $1400 range for the combo

the combo isn't there yet - but we shall see if it happens this year

why spend 3 times the $

He's only showing portraits from the waist up. If you're a little bit careful with your backgrounds (which he's not entirely) you don't need f/1.4 for that, so f/2.2 (equivalent) will be good enough.

For my indoor shooting with the Sigma 85mm Art I don't need f/1.4, f/2.0 is good enough, as 85mm is too long for environmental shots indoors. I will only use f/1.4 when I desperately need the light. When possible I will switch to the 40mm when I need f/1.4 to get enough light.

Outside, with my 105mm, at a large distance, that's when f/1.4 comes into play for DOF reasons or preferring swirls only.

I do know my 56mm needed pretty fast shutter speeds, 1/250th or even faster to squeeze all it's sharpness out of it.

ugh - needs ibis

My 50mm and 50-100mm didn't need 1/250th, so there's more to it.

When I did it was very close to the performance of 32mm, although with a different character.

the 32 and 56 are very sharp lenses

Maybe something in the construction didn't work well with the full mechanical shutter,

I hope we get all e-shutter someday

and maybe that could be a copy specific thing. For me it wasn't worth it to test this any further (on and M50II for instance) as I made up my mind already on this lens. I prefer the 50mm Art as it isn't significantly worse for it's IQ on crop, while it does AF better and doesn't need those too fast shutterspeeds.

In the grand scheme of things I will leave aps-c anyway.

watch the video above - 50/50 conclusion for 3 times the price

I do like the 32mm and the 18-35mm f/1.8. I've sold the 50-100mm f/1.8. The IQ of the 100-400mm Contemporary on 32Mp crop is so so. I'm hardly using the M6II for extra reach, while the RF 100-400mm is almost 600 grams less in the bag giving faster AF with the R5. The Tamron 17-35mm is way better than the 11-22mm.

on 45 mpxl maybe but 11-22 is a value on 32 mpxl as compared to 20 mpxl FF

Maybe the Sigma 70-200mm Sports turns out to be very usable with the M6II. This, together with the 32mm and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 keeps me using crop, as it's nice to have a less expensive kit sometimes.

give the sports lens a whirl on the m6II

Yeah, I will. If it works well I might even sell the 100-400mm Contemporary and eventually buy the RF 100-400mm in stead later on.

For Compactness a Sony full frame + compact fast focusing full frame primes is more interesting, while a Sony full frame gives me access to the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 too. I won't sell the R5, and a Sigma MC-11 will give compatibility with a lot of my glass giving better cross compatibility than my M6II can give.

not exactly compact setup nor easy to carry

full raw on that sony is slow

I'm using C-raw on my R5. And I never use burst modes for anything except shooting trains.

apcs + IBIS + ergo + great AF -- for 1/3 the cost of FF -- with 50/50 likeable results like the video shows -- is what I'm watching -- who gets there first

Sorry, but I think your kit is complete. And I don't think you can shrink things down without compromising IQ.

I guess that means both the Canon EF-M and RF lens lineups are going to be obliterated by Sigma too.

but like Northrup's testing, the siggy's look better IQ than the Fuji counterparts for less money

I still can't believe you are gullible enough to repeat anything posted by the Northrups. They are the same people that have repeatedly proclaimed the death of the M system and also declared that Canon has some of the worst color science.

There is the little fact that he is testing brand new Sigma lenses, delivered to him by Sigma, against used Fuji lenses of unknown quality from KEH. It is not surprising that his results do not match up with more respected reviewers like OpticalLimits. The Sigmas are better in some regards, but decidedly worse in many others. I am sure Sigma will sell plenty of these lenses, but they are very, very far from wiping out the entire Fuji lens lineup. Or any other lens lineup for that matter.