Canon M6 II with kits lens or Body only + buy a lens? Locked

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

borris14 wrote:

I'm looking to upgrade from a Canon G7X II which was my first camera that got me into photography.

I want something to step up to and the M6 II seems to tick a lot of the boxes - I know it is three years old but still looks a good camera and something newer like the R7 is a little too big of a leap for me price wise.

My main question is whether people think the M6II kit with the 15-45 lens and EVF for around £1050 is a good deal and an acceptable lens for that package? Or whether the 15-45mm lens should be skipped, and I should go for body only and buy a lens separately? That would mean not having the EVF too though. My main uses are family and travel photography.

What do people think?

I'll go against the grain a bit. (If you get a good copy of the 15-45) it'll give you a 24-70mm equiv lens, which with the M6ii's higher MP and much better image quality (over the G7X ii), with some cropping you'll easily get out to the G7X ii's 100mm equiv zoom. So no loss there. The 15-45 is so nice and light too.

Cropping to get a 100mm equivalent view drops the M6 II all of the way down to 16.7 megapixels on a sensor area smaller than micro 4/3.

The G7X II has a much brighter f/1.8-2.8 lens than the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3. In full frame equivalence, the G7X II is a 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0. The EF-M 15-45mm has a full frame equivalence of 24-70mm f/5.6-10. Cropping to a 100mm equivalent puts you at f/14 equivalent.

Yes, the M6 II sensor is much better than the G7X II sensor, but the slow apertures of the 15-45mm neuters much of that advantage. Cropping only exasperates the situation.

Concerning the amount of light: A f/1.8-2.8 lens always remains a bright lens, also compared to FF. The equivalent of f/5.0-8.0 can only refer to the optical impression (DOF). The same goes with the 15-45mm lens.

Will a smartphone with a f/1.8 lens produce a better image than a full frame camera with a f/4.0 lens?  Equivalence is not about matching exposure settings, but about matching the final print.  ISO 1600 on a micro 4/3 sensor will have the same noise levels as a full frame sensor at ISO 6400 (assuming similar technology).  The following two scenarios will produce the same final image with the same angle of view, the same depth of field, the same motion blur, the same noise levels, and the same dynamic range:

• m4/3 with 12mm lens - f/2.0, ISO 1600, 1/100
• full frame with 24mm lens - f/4.0, ISO 6400, 1/100

The only setting that remains the same in the comparison is the shutter speed.

Concerning the megapixels: I have taken more than 90% of my shots (with my M6 in 4,5 years) with reduced resolution (ca. 11 MP) instead of 24 MP. Since I do almost no cropping, this is more than enough for me. To my mind, the influence of more megapixels is exaggerated, if one does not need cropping.

11 megapixels may be fine for your needs, but I don't think we can assume that is all the OP needs.  Cropping because the wrong lens was used is a waste of megapixels and should only be used a last resort.