R2D2
•
Forum Pro
•
Posts: 26,528
Re: Revisit, M usage with FF?
lumenite wrote:
R2D2 wrote:
RLight wrote:
I'll start and say M is my fun, R is either when I want certain results, or certain lenses.
Likewise. The two big differentiators for me are size and capabilities.
Like almost everyone else here, the small size of the M System is a HUGE draw for me. It too is my “fun” system. And I won’t mount HUGE lenses on it any longer. That’s what FF is for (in my own usage).
The M is absolutely my preferred shooting platform in almost all instances, save for the specific cases listed below.
My telephoto work is now done almost exclusively with the R5 and RF 100-500 (+/- 1.4x TC). This is an incredibly capable combination, and having a larger body really helps with the handling. I’ve also found at this level, the crop factor of APS-C has no advantages over the R5 and its very clean output (even with my EF 100-400L Mark II (+/- 1.4x iii) mounted on the M6ii), which itself is quite capable for everything except BIFs, IME. The handling with telephotos with the larger body really puts FF over the top for me though.
The other area where FF benefits me greatly is for my commissioned shooting. One of the requirements is that any of my shots might be printed up to 4x6 (feet) at any time, so you can probably see why I almost exclusively use the R5 for this task . It’s the reality of my life behind the camera (at least at this point in my career). You know very well that I’d much rather be bouncing along with my M6ii, especially with that great tilting LCD.
I have a question on this. Does your preference result mainly from a larger body/sensor or from more pixels? What would you say about the comparison between 20M-pixel R6 or even R3 and 32M-pixel M6mk2 as pertains to a large photo?
As much as people (in good faith) like to make little of the differences in MP counts between bodies, there really is a difference, especially when pushing the limits. Some folks don't need to go anywhere near those limits though, and will require much more modest equipment.
That's why I always stress that one's output requirements govern the IQ they will ultimately need.
But for my environmental portraiture, events, and races, using the incredible RF 28-70 f/2L zoom and the equally impressive RF 70-200 f/2.8L provide for both the IQ needed and the flexibility required for all my paid work. Here again, having a larger body to match up with a hefty lens makes the rig a lot easier to handle.
One interesting thing that’s proven out in my own shooting is that I much prefer using zooms on FF, and much prefer using those great compact primes on my M6ii. To the point that I may sell all of my RF primes now, save for the RF 100 macro and the ultra-wide RF 16.
Interesting!
Just gotta get my light tent set up at home.
Speaking of macro, I’m still torn between using the big old R5 + 100L combo, or the miniscule M6ii + Laowa 65. For now I’ll probably continue to split time between the two. They both have their advantages.
So that about sums it up for me in a nutshell. I know everyone is different and has different preferences. Fortunately there are a lot of choices available. 👍
Happy shooting all!
R2
Thank you for sharing your experience.
It's interesting how everybody's story is different!
R2