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

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

borris14 wrote:

The type of photography is mostly family and travel related. Capturing moments together with the family and out and about on trips/travel.

............................................

Budget wise: Happy to spend around £1000-1200-ish first of all for the camera and kit/first lens. I can buy additional lens over time.

For your application, the below Canon choices are available. I have my preferences which are specific to my needs.

.................................

if you'd be happy with just one lens for two years I'd probably go with the R10 and RF18-150 kit and hope they develop more that you would want down the road

$929 Canon EOS M50 Mark II Mirrorless Camera with 15-45mm and 55-200mm Lenses (Black)

$699 Canon EOS M50 Mark II Mirrorless Camera with 15-45mm Lens (Black)

$999 Canon EOS M6 Mark II Mirrorless Camera with 15-45mm Lens and EVF (Black)

$1249 Canon EOS M6 Mark II Mirrorless Camera with 18-150mm Lens and EVF (Silver)

$1379 Canon EOS R10 Mirrorless Camera with 18-150mm Lens

$1299 Canon EOS RP Mirrorless Camera with 24-105mm f/4-7.1 Lens

Yes, for a one-camera system the R10 and RP are both viable choices, if one doesn’t mind a bump up in size (and cost). Right now I would definitely prefer the EF-M selection of lenses over the RF/RF-S if going the crop sensor route. The R10 promises better subject-detection autofocus than the M6ii however, but I’d bet the M6ii’s Spot AF will perform at least as well (it does vs my R5 and R6).

You are better suited to offer advice regarding the RP (since you own it). What would you think about going the FF route with that one? Be prepared to have nnowak come in and blather on about how it’s unsuitable due to equivalence though!

R2

G7X II = 24-100mm f/5.0-8.0

respectively 24-100mm f/1.8-2.8 concerning brightness

EF-M 15-45mm = 24-70mm f/5.6-10.0

respectively 24-70mm f/3.5-6.3 concerning brightness

EF-M/RF 18-150mm = 29-240mm f/5.6-10.0

respectively 29-240mm f/3.5-6.3 concerning brightness

RF 24-105mm STM = 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1

The values of nnowak are responsible for DOF and AOV, I just added the data for brightness, since these are the necessary values for exposure.

Again, equivalence has absolutely nothing to do with identical exposure settings. Equivalence is about matching the final printed image. Noise levels change with sensor area and equivalence accounts for these differences in area and seeks to equalize noise levels. Even though they may both have f/1.8 lenses, a smartphone will produce an image with dramatically different noise levels than a full frame camera with the same exposure settings. Equivalence is not just about matching Depth of Field (DoF) and Angle of View (AoV). Equivalence is also matching motion blur (shutter speed), noise levels, and dynamic range.

Equivalence is not about promoting full frame above all other formats. If one has a good understanding of equivalence, and their own personal needs, they can use equivalence to find the smallest possible camera system that will meet their needs.

To my mind, equivalence has also something to do with the brightness of the lens.

Lens brightness is obviously important, but so is the size of the sensor behind the lens.  If sensor size didn't matter, we would be happily capturing all of our photos with smartphones and their f/1.8 lenses.

According to your writing, the RF lens turns out to be the "best" in this comparison, since it offers the "largest" aperture (though you can claim that everyone in this forum has a "good understanding of equivalence").

I have never claimed everyone has a good understanding of equivalence.  Not even close.  Quite the contrary.  Far too few people understand equivalence.

But in this case, however, the RF lens is the slowest (or darkest) one. Of course, you can easily use higer iso with FF, but if you want e.g. the same shutter speed, you must use higer iso.

That is exactly the point.  Higher ISO on a larger sensor will have similar noise levels to a lower ISO setting on a smaller sensor.

To match what you can do with the RF 24-105mm f.4.0-7.1 on full frame, you need a 15-65mm f/2.5-4.5 on the M system.  A lot of people bashed the RF lens solely on the basis of the f/7.1 aperture, but in reality, it makes a better low light lens than any of the zooms available for the M system.

That's what I meant with "only one half of the truth". In order to get a "fair" comparison, the lens of the G7X II should be described as:

24-100mm f/1.8-2.8 (f/5.0-8.0)

Otherwise the great advantage of this lens, its brightness, is turned into its opposite.

It only looks like a disadvantage if you don't understand equivalence.

Someone else already posted this link, but I would highly recommend you read it thoroughly What is equivalence and why should I care?

If you fully understand equivalence, full frame no longer looks like the panacea some make it out to be.