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

rz64 wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

rz64 wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

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.

That's simply not true. If it were, everyone would be shooting on tiny sensors with "bright" lenses. I suggest you read the whole article below.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care

As fas as I understand, a f/2,0 lens gathers the same amount of light per unit area of the sensor, independent of its size. So a lens with f/2.0 for a 1''-sensor needs the same settings for exposure as a f/2.0-lens for FF. Or am I wrong here?

Yes, you're right. So if you are shooting f/2.0 on a G7x and f/4 on full frame with the same shutter speed, you'll need higher ISO on the full frame to get the same exposure. But full frame can deal with the high ISO much better. So in every way that matters to the end result (DOF, noise, detail, dynamic range, etc.), equivalent F-number is much more meaningful than actual F-number when comparing lenses across sensor sizes. There's no magic benefit obtained by using a tiny sensor with a lens with a bright F-number. The article explains this all in detail with examples.

Thanks.

But f/1.8 remains a "bright" lens, if you just look at the exposure.

Most smartphones have f/1.8 lenses, or even brighter.

By the relation of sensor sizes (crop factor) you can always convert the FL and the DOF (optical impression). Of course, FF can better deal with high ISO, but APS-C is to my mind a kind of "sweet spot". You can still keep lenses small, but if you take "bright" lenses, you can get a pleasant DOF. FF sometimes offers you a DOF, you probably won't need.

Whether or not APS-C fits your personal "sweet spot" does not change the physics of equivalence.

My comment was a reply to the contribution of nnowak. To my mind, he sometimes tells us - as a strong R-supporter - only "one half of the truth".

Just because you apparently do not understand how equivalence works, please don't falsely accuse me of posting "one half of the truth".