There is zero reason to restrict the Sigma lens to just the R7 body. None of the 3 prime lenses it would replace are stabilized on any M body. As for the 15-45mm, that lens is only rated for 3.5 stops of IS and the Sigma is 2 stops brighter on the wide end and 3-2/3 stops brighter on the long end. For low light handheld use, the two are basically equivalent. The only place where the IS of 15-45mm would have an advantage would be for video use.
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Lifespan of my beloved M6 Mark II?
- Thread starter aaaarrrrteee
- Start date
I am well aware of the term Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA). It is an extremely misleading term as the use of the word "limit" implies something that should never be exceeded. A far more accurate term would be Diffraction Visible Aperture. Too many people see DLA and assume a camera with more megapixels will produce worse images than their current camera (it won't).You may wish to acquaint yourself with the term Diffraction-Limited-Aperture before going off on a long treatease. You either knew what was meant or, evidently, you didn't. Of course, the effect of diffraction is continuous rather than discrete or binary.There is no such thing as a diffraction "limit". Diffraction occurs at every aperture on every lens. The only thing that changes is whether or not the sensor has the resolution to record that diffraction. An image sensor is not really any different from a ruler. Imagine if you had two rulers, but one had millimeter increments and the other only had centimeter increments. Now, try to measure the width of a USB cable. You might get a value of 3mm with the millimeter ruler, but you would get a value of zero with the centimeter ruler. The USB cable did not cease to exist just because the centimeter ruler was too coarse to measure it.If the M6 II with its 32MP on APS-C begins to be diffraction limited at around f/5.6, I shudder to think what the diffraction limited aperture would be on a 25MP M4/3 sensor.I really wonder if OM will upgrade their sensor. Panasonic has 25MP micro four thirds sensors in bodies. There is already an 100MP micro four thirds sensor in the wild (new DJI drone with sensor made by Hasselblad). Not that it needs that much MP but around the 30MP range would be nice.Still using my M5 with the 18-55, 22, and 55-200 lenses. It still works fine (and I have had to superglue the leatherette recently), and I appreciate its compact nature, which makes it ideal for travel. I only shoot raw and generally edit with mastin presets, so I'm not too concerned with its "colour science".
However, I don't use it as much as I should, and my iPhone 15 Pro does incredible service as an EDC camera, not to mention as a wide-angle second camera when my 18-55 doesn't go wide enough. The lack of development (or rather total abandonment) of this system puts me off investing any further into it. Whilst the 32mm would be nice to have, I can't justify it.
If or when it gives up the ghost, or maybe sooner, I'll probably opt for a Sony A6xxx if I want to stay with APS-C or OM. I'm particularly drawn to the OM-5 (or even a used EM-5 mkiii) - it seems to tick all the boxes I want from a camera, not to mention the weather sealing.
That said, it's interesting to see how smartphones are evolving.
The Sony A6700 is a beast but at that price you could get full frame.
Going a step further, if pixel counts are the same, you will have identical diffraction levels at equivalent apertures and focal lengths. A 32MP m4/3 camera mated to a 25mm f/1.1 lens would have the exact same diffraction as the M6 II mated to the EF-M 32mm f/1.4
Your own comment "I shudder to think what the diffraction limited aperture would be on a 25MP M4/3 sensor" suggests you do not really understand diffraction. As I mentioned above, equivalence comes into play with diffraction. If you think the M6 II has a DLA of f/5.6, any m4/3 camera could match that depth of field at f/4.5. The 25MP m4/3 camera would show less diffraction than your M6 II at equivalent depths of field.
The whole idea of DLA is really quite pointless in actual practice. In general, people should just be using the widest possible aperture that will provide enough depth of field. Too many beginners just stop down to some really tiny aperture like f/16 in the hopes of getting everything in focus. While there will certainly be some image softening due to diffraction, the bigger issue is that images with near infinite depth of field are just generally not good.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,312
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
They aren't at all. The Sigma lens is much better for stopping motion, the Canon lens is much better for keeping enough of the scene in focus if that's what you need. The Sigma lens is for doing the job of a full-frame camera. That's why it's four times the size and weight. The Canon lens is for when you want a good, but small, cheap, inconspicuous camera.There is zero reason to restrict the Sigma lens to just the R7 body. None of the 3 prime lenses it would replace are stabilized on any M body. As for the 15-45mm, that lens is only rated for 3.5 stops of IS and the Sigma is 2 stops brighter on the wide end and 3-2/3 stops brighter on the long end. For low light handheld use, the two are basically equivalent.Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?
Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?
I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.
Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.
- Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
- Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
- Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
- Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
- Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g
As I keep saying, In terms of size, usefulness and ergonomics, that lens is more comparable with a full-frame outfit them with EOS M, not that it's ever likely to be usable on EOS M cameras anyway. The lens alone weighs as much as the M6 II with the EF-M 15-45mm mounted and has neither the reach nor the wideangle of the 15-45mm. When it's mounted on the smallest APS-C R series camera it's within 10% of the weight of the R8 with the stabilised RF 28-70mm. It just completely misses what, for me, is the point of EOS M.The only place where the IS of 15-45mm would have an advantage would be for video use.
How much depth of field do you need? At 17mm and f/1.8 you can already have everything from 5m to infinity in focus.They aren't at all. The Sigma lens is much better for stopping motion, the Canon lens is much better for keeping enough of the scene in focus if that's what you need.There is zero reason to restrict the Sigma lens to just the R7 body. None of the 3 prime lenses it would replace are stabilized on any M body. As for the 15-45mm, that lens is only rated for 3.5 stops of IS and the Sigma is 2 stops brighter on the wide end and 3-2/3 stops brighter on the long end. For low light handheld use, the two are basically equivalent.Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?
Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?
I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.
Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.
- Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
- Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
- Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
- Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
- Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g
You could compare it to full frame, or in rz64's case, the Sigma could replace at least three different prime lenses and save a total of 210g. Maybe it is not a lens for you, but from the beginning of the M system, a lot of people have been asking for a better standard zoom.The Sigma lens is for doing the job of a full-frame camera. That's why it's four times the size and weight. The Canon lens is for when you want a good, but small, cheap, inconspicuous camera.
As I keep saying, In terms of size, usefulness and ergonomics, that lens is more comparable with a full-frame outfit them with EOS M, not that it's ever likely to be usable on EOS M cameras anyway. The lens alone weighs as much as the M6 II with the EF-M 15-45mm mounted and has neither the reach nor the wideangle of the 15-45mm. When it's mounted on the smallest APS-C R series camera it's within 10% of the weight of the R8 with the stabilised RF 28-70mm. It just completely misses what, for me, is the point of EOS M.The only place where the IS of 15-45mm would have an advantage would be for video use.
I agree, the Sigma could replace two of my favourite primes (16+32), but at the expense of more weight and more size. And I also agree, a better standard zoom would have been a good supplement for the M. But Canon excluded it, otherwise the M would have become "too succesful".How much depth of field do you need? At 17mm and f/1.8 you can already have everything from 5m to infinity in focus.They aren't at all. The Sigma lens is much better for stopping motion, the Canon lens is much better for keeping enough of the scene in focus if that's what you need.There is zero reason to restrict the Sigma lens to just the R7 body. None of the 3 prime lenses it would replace are stabilized on any M body. As for the 15-45mm, that lens is only rated for 3.5 stops of IS and the Sigma is 2 stops brighter on the wide end and 3-2/3 stops brighter on the long end. For low light handheld use, the two are basically equivalent.Sorry, I had a brain fart. That Sigma lens is ⅓ stop faster than the EF-M 22mm lens, but my EOS M cameras will slip into my jeans pocket with the 22mm mounted and I would struggle to get an R7 with that lens mounted into even a coat pocket.I have no idea what you are talking about with "quarter the speed" and "half the speed". The Sigma f/1.8 zoom is 2/3 of a stop slower than the 16mm f/1.4 and 32mm f/1.4, but 1/3 of a stop faster than the 22mm f/2.0.The new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 would be an RF mount replacement for the 15-45mm if you didn't value the extra 10° of wideangle coverage, the image stabilisation and don't mind over 4× the weight. It's not available in EF-M mount. It's a quarter the speed of the 16mm & 32mm primes and half the speed & 5× the size and mass of the 22mm. It doesn't have the wideangle coverage of the 11-22mm IS, the reach of the 55-200mm or the reach and even a quarter of the speed of the 56mm.The original M6 sold in lower quantities, so it may be harder to find than some other M cameras in the future, but there won't be a shortage of other options.The same with me. I don't know how long my M6 will work, and if I will still find a "quite new" body.My concern is with the longevity of my lenses. I have had my EF and EFS lenses for over 20 years and can still use them on any modern Canon camera. But what of my EFM 32mm, 28mm and 22mm when I can no longer find a working EFM body? Am I right in assuming that once the second hand market for EFM camera bodies dries up these EFM lenses will just be dumped?
Looking solely at image quality, things haven't appreciably changed for several years. What has changed are the support functions (AF, burst rates, etc.) of the camera that keep making it easier and easier to capture the best image quality. Lens options are also evolving and may allow you to do things you couldn't do before. For example, the new Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace 4 or 5 of your 7 EF-M lenses.This point applies both to my EF-M-lenses and to my Sigma lenses: 11-22, 15-45, 16, 22, 32, 56, 55-200. A perfect system for me, and there is no comparable camera in the R-line.
On the other hand, replacing all my gear with "modern" apsc-gear and finding out, that there is no change in IQ? Why? Just for the sake of Canon's profit?
I'd rather use my R8 with an RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS - it's smaller and 100g lighter than the unstabilised Sigma 28-65mm f/2.9 full-frame equivalent on the stabilised R7 body.As for size and weight, the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 could potentially replace rz64's 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3, 16mm f/1.4, 22mm f/2.0 and 32mm f/1.4.
Compared to carrying all 4 smaller EF-M lenses, the single Sigma Zoom weighs about 40% less and takes up about 35% less volume. For those lamenting the slow RF 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom and lack of 22mm or 32mm in RF mount, this single Sigma zoom could potentially solve all of those problems.
- Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8 - 73x116mm, 535g
- Canon 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 61x45mm, 130g
- Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - 72x92mm, 405g
- Canon 22mm f/2.0 - 61x24mm, 105g
- Canon 32mm f/1.4 - 61x57mm, 235g
You could compare it to full frame, or in rz64's case, the Sigma could replace at least three different prime lenses and save a total of 210g. Maybe it is not a lens for you, but from the beginning of the M system, a lot of people have been asking for a better standard zoom.The Sigma lens is for doing the job of a full-frame camera. That's why it's four times the size and weight. The Canon lens is for when you want a good, but small, cheap, inconspicuous camera.
As I keep saying, In terms of size, usefulness and ergonomics, that lens is more comparable with a full-frame outfit them with EOS M, not that it's ever likely to be usable on EOS M cameras anyway. The lens alone weighs as much as the M6 II with the EF-M 15-45mm mounted and has neither the reach nor the wideangle of the 15-45mm. When it's mounted on the smallest APS-C R series camera it's within 10% of the weight of the R8 with the stabilised RF 28-70mm. It just completely misses what, for me, is the point of EOS M.The only place where the IS of 15-45mm would have an advantage would be for video use.
For my shooting I have found that I mostly prefer using primes, at the expense of less flexibility (in terms of FL).
APS-C remains a good compromise with regard to size, weight and IQ. I don't think that I will ever change to FF.
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,312
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
I'm sure Canon didn't worry about a fast APS-C standard zoom being too successful. That would be the least of their worries. They've only just stopped listing their EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS that was in the range for 18 years or so.I agree, the Sigma could replace two of my favourite primes (16+32), but at the expense of more weight and more size. And I also agree, a better standard zoom would have been a good supplement for the M. But Canon excluded it, otherwise the M would have become "too succesful".You could compare it to full frame, or in rz64's case, the Sigma could replace at least three different prime lenses and save a total of 210g. Maybe it is not a lens for you, but from the beginning of the M system, a lot of people have been asking for a better standard zoom.Sittatunga wrote: ...
For my shooting I have found that I mostly prefer using primes, at the expense of less flexibility (in terms of FL).
APS-C remains a good compromise with regard to size, weight and IQ. I don't think that I will ever change to FF.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 12
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 65
- Question
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 30
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.