MAC wrote:
RLight wrote:
MAC wrote:
RLight wrote:
MAC wrote:
RLight wrote:
MAC wrote:
RLight wrote:
m100 wrote:
RLight wrote:
Have you tried any L glass to compare ?
I was thinking what is your bestest lens that will nail focus the best on your M6II ?
What lens is your test standard that will fit a M camera ?
I can’t say any of them. The 32 is the most accurate, but also the slowest AF motor; it misses a lot of shots, but when it hits, it’s out of the ballpark.
All to say none of em. Canon needs a nano-USM EF-M, but, that goes against the inexpensive bullet point that’s apart of the Ms DNA.
You’re posting shots from defective equipment that you sent back
your AF technique isn’t correct
my hit rate at f1.4 is better than my hit rate from 7d2
My R, and G, don’t share the same problems, with the same person behind the camera.
As I said, I knew it wouldn’t be a popular post around here…
I just motored on a playground today using 32f1.4 wide open servo and spot focus - hit rate was high
different equipment
different person behind the camera
I agree it’s good, when it gets it.
Trouble is when it doesn’t.
you had defective gear and fixated on cheap zooms
at 14 fps my 100 L on m6II hit close to 100% of award winners accepting their trophy in front of packed stadium - when it mattered
at 7 fps my 32 is really good at tracking at f1.4 using spot in servo
you used cheap zoom lenses on the m and give the nod to the G for AF when the G leaves DPReview scratching their heads when Canon leaves out burst shooting when in Face detect tracking mode
Fast transitions under 12ft become problematic.
eye detect works fine with stationary subjects relatively close.
on fast transitions track with spot -- Your G is not better when using a quality lens on the M - you just refused to embrace the m32 f1.4 because you have the R and 28-70. The 32 makes my jaw drop at F1.4 it is so sharp on the eyes and got some great shots yesterday on the playground. But I grew up tracking the old fashioned way with spot. And culling 14 fps or 7 fps with Faststone at 3 seconds per image and a great magnifier is no issue once you learn the best technology to do the job - tips from my old days doing weddings
your powershots are expensive and need more updates to be what I would buy - and so far three years have gone by
Otherwise you’re correct, no disagreement here.
as I've said, with a quality lens and tracking with spot and using faststone, your complaints would go away
The 32mm really kills it, you're not hearing me agree with you...
the sharpness is good in this shot across the frame but
your noise is lousy -- why aren't you using PL5
your colors are lousy - you can profile to old secret sauce Canon colors in PL5
But as Thunder and others will tell you, when dealing with fast kids up close, that 32mm STM motor has trouble keeping up...
Thunder and you are hung up on using eye focus - that is why Storm bought the R5 - to up the game on eye focus -- but as an old timer - like R2 - we get results using spot - even with stm lenses like the m32 f1.4 - yes it is not a sports lens - but we know how to track using spot - and we are not lazy
This shot above, I must've missed 75% of possible shots due to the motor trying to keep up with the action. Now sure, I got some killer takers including the above at the end of the day, but, this is a price you pay with STM.
it's your lazy technique on tracking
.
Now the other lenses in the EF-M format? They do well, but they suffer, "hiccups" at times. Again, like the EF-M 32mm, I come away with a ton of killer keepers, but have to cull quite a few that aren't tack sharp as I've cited examples of what to expect.
for $849 - what do you expect?
birds in flight takes more gear
pro sports take more gear
not being lazy, I learned to track the old fashon way
No system is perfect, and given the tradeoffs, the M format is hard to beat, but it's not infallible as folks around here have the impression of, myself included previously I might add.
results can be improved on with practice
For MyReality's purposes, EF-M glass behaves similar to EF-S glass, EF-S glass is better in terms of AF acquisition, but, not as advanced when it comes to "optical performance" that is sharpness, etc, or keeping those shots in focus in tracking when compared to say the M6 II; DPR touched on this when reviewing the 90D vs the M6 II where they wish they could shoot the 90D in live view full time. Example, the EF-M 18-150 f/3.5-6.3 IS STM, is alot sharper, and smaller I might add than the EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, go figure being both sharper and smaller, and more reach too, crazy. But, AF acquisition? The one is Nano-USM, the other is STM. It shows. It's normally not a problem btw. In my playing with both, I'd say the optical performance of the EF-M 18-150 IS STM completely outweighs the AF acquisition advantage of the EF-S 18-135 IS USM. It's not even close, the EF-M 18-150 is a much sharper lens. The flange distance advantage is to blame.
these are not sports lenses
my 70 -200 L is a sports lens
Everything can track motion if you have high enough shutter speed.
But another example, the EF-M 55-200, it's ALOT smaller, lighter than the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, and a bit sharper on the wide end (55mm), but at 250mm, the EF-S 55-250 is quite a bit sharper, reaches farther. The two are tied in terms of AF acquisition, and in terms of AF hit rate, very similar. But, that EF-M 55-200 really "wins" in terms of size of the system in my book. That's a common "fight" around here though as the 55-250 adapted isn't huge by any means and longer and sharper on the long end is still longer and sharper...
my 55 - 250 stm has shutter shock at ss 1/60 and 1/80 on my m6II but is fine at ss 1/100 and above - solution - I use e-shutter at slower ss
my impression - the 55-200 would be even worse for shutter shock on the m6II
I treat the m6II as an adjunct camera not using it as a complete system
11-22 and 32 and my 100L rock on the m6II
My RF 24 - 105 L rocks on my RP
one needs to research what combined equipment works well and what techniques are best
