according to that site, 4 clicks in aperture stop down (ie, 1 and 1/3 of a stop from wide open) leads to:
1.85; 2.08; 2.33; 2.62; f=2.94
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
M6 II - A camera before it's time?
- Thread starter noggin2k1
- Start date
1.85; 2.08; 2.33; 2.62; f=2.94
M4Mobility
Veteran Member
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,312
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
There again, we're talking about the difference between a theoretical f/2.94 and a theoretical f/2.83 (<4%) if you're calculating that precisely. If you stop down ⅓ stop at a time from f/2, the sequence goes (approximately) 2, 2.245, 2.520, 2.828, 3.175, 3.564, 4. No matter how precise your calculations, the results of most practical calculations shouldn't be needed to even two significant figures, given the precision of the variables.Exactly !
Last edited:
M4Mobility
Veteran Member
The numbers that MAC is quoting is measured (according to that site), not theoretical.There again, we're talking about the difference between a theoretical f/2.94 and a theoretical f/2.83 (<4%) if you're calculating that precisely. If you stop down ⅓ stop at a time from f/2, the sequence goes (approximately) 2, 2.245, 2.520, 2.828, 3.175, 3.564, 4. No matter how precise your calculations, the results of most practical calculations shouldn't be needed to even two significant figures, given the precision of the variables.Exactly !
As I said in a previous post, I don't really care about this.
But I think the question between you and MAC now is: How many stops between f/2.33 and f/2.94 ?
And that is my final contribution to this discussion. I don't need any numbers to see which of the two lenses is the best..
--
- M4M
Last edited:
likely my last post on this also - I'll probably be like both of you and get the $200 RF 50 f1.8 at some point for my R8, but stop it down by a stop or so like the photos I linked to and the review site recommended to stop the lens down by a stop to improve rendering issues. In the interim, I'll enjoy my m32 f1.4 a while longer since my m6II is still operational.The numbers that MAC is quoting is measured (according to that site), not theoretical.There again, we're talking about the difference between a theoretical f/2.94 and a theoretical f/2.83 (<4%) if you're calculating that precisely. If you stop down ⅓ stop at a time from f/2, the sequence goes (approximately) 2, 2.245, 2.520, 2.828, 3.175, 3.564, 4. No matter how precise your calculations, the results of most practical calculations shouldn't be needed to even two significant figures, given the precision of the variables.Exactly !
As I said in a previous post, I don't really care about this.
But I think the question between you and MAC now is: How many stops between f/2.33 and f/2.94 ?
And that is my final contribution to this discussion. I don't need any numbers to see which of the two lenses is the best..
Something is out of whack with those numbers. Pull up the EF-M 32mm and stop it down to f/4. It says specified aperture of f/4.10 and measured aperture of f/2.56
M4Mobility
Veteran Member
Hm. I get specified 4.10 and measured 4.06.
M4Mobility
Veteran Member
Checked again and also got 4.06, but then looked on a different device and it was showing f/1.38 at f/4.10. Clearly some glitches in the implementation. If I use one of the links posted for the RF 50, then switch to the EF-M 32mm and refresh the page, it goes back to the 50mm.
AbuMahendra
Leading Member
- Messages
- 569
- Reaction score
- 705
When looking up the colloquial phrase "splitting hairs", dictionaries can now reference this thread as a prime example. Let's keep it real, guys.
AbuMahendra
Leading Member
- Messages
- 569
- Reaction score
- 705
I am just still waiting for the images of "sharp eyes" in the extreme, far corners. You know, images where the photographer - one with claims of two million images under his belt - places the subject eyes there. I shoot a lot of portraits so I am genuinely intrigued by this unusual composition.
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,312
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
I'm quite prepared to let that one pass. The unusual can be very effective though it's much more likely not to work at all. What amazes me is the proposition that to port that 50mm f/2.3 full-frame equivalent lens to RF-S would threaten Canon's sales of either their full-frame system or at least their 50mm f/1.8, f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses.
AbuMahendra
Leading Member
- Messages
- 569
- Reaction score
- 705
I am not. Because it is a tedious continuation over months, years where the person repeats the same tired inaccuracies or absurd scenarios without...wait for it...without...by his own admission ever having owned the lens or posted even a single image to support his claims. It serves to eviscerate, degrade discussion and debate.
He is spreading lies
He can't point to where I said - "sharp eyes in the extreme, far corners" because I would never say that
I shoot other subjects besides people. One can increase the wafer thin dof, even wide open, if one increases the distance from the subject. Many of the photographers I know want as sharp as possible across the frame performance for their primes. Photographers pay a lot of money for wide open performance.
He doesn't want to talk about the RF 50 f1.8's poor optical performance (Optical Limits which he quotes for sharpness says it is not a fan of the 50's rendering) and bokeh wide open).
you keep saying f2.3 without legit verified source. Other sources say f2.2
this lens allows clutter removal in the backdrop that an f2.8 lens has more clutter
it is not just one lens, it is a part of the bigger picture
Canon hasn't produced a 32.5 MP camera the size and style of an m6II in the R mount.
Canon hasn't produced a RF-s lens that I'd buy: no Rf-s 32 f1.4, no Rf-s 22 f2. no R-M6III
you never got your m100/200 in R mount
Canon hasn't shown it intends to build as small and powerful as possible with apsc
well - 48 mp iphone 16 pro got my businesss and I skip some of Canon's ultra-wide offerings.
small and powerful for me reduces my need to buy bigger FF and carrying bigger stuff - but all Canon can offer is cheap RF-s that I don't want on long in the tooth 24 mpxl apsc.
I love small and powerful
Right now, Canon doesn't get my memo on building an R-M6III with the flip screen with some great RF-s lenses. They don't get your memo on building a m100 with the R
so the outcome may be those wanting small and powerful go other places
they'll try to get $ from larger more expensive FF while they can, but I think ignoring small powerful apsc is a mistake
Last edited:
ThrillaMozilla
Veteran Member
Dick Dastardly
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 1,361
Sony's mirorless cameras were two generations ahead of everyone else, that's the reason they sold and continue to sell so well. Panasonic comes second, for video.
Remember, back in 2010-2012 Sony and Panasonic were the new kids on the block and and serious photographers paid them no mind. People bought Canon and Nikon mirorless not because they were better, they bought them because of the branding.
Even Olympus had more going for them back then, with IBIS and tiny bodies.
By the time Canon and Nikon caught up with Sony, it was already too late. As proof, the e-mount is alive and well in 2025, while nobody except Canon fans has ever heard of the M cameras, including the M3, M6, M50 etc.
PS. Compare the video recording between a entry level 2013 Sony Nex 3n and anything made by Canon or Nikon up to 2015, Sony video is much smoother, also better AF. Back in those days, a 2 year advantage was still huge, it's just an example showing how far behind Canikon were in the mirorless race.
Canon M6 II was released at the end of 2019, at that point in time it wouldn't even matter anymore how good that camera or others were, Sony had already won the race and the market shrank in the meantime.
Remember, back in 2010-2012 Sony and Panasonic were the new kids on the block and and serious photographers paid them no mind. People bought Canon and Nikon mirorless not because they were better, they bought them because of the branding.
Even Olympus had more going for them back then, with IBIS and tiny bodies.
By the time Canon and Nikon caught up with Sony, it was already too late. As proof, the e-mount is alive and well in 2025, while nobody except Canon fans has ever heard of the M cameras, including the M3, M6, M50 etc.
PS. Compare the video recording between a entry level 2013 Sony Nex 3n and anything made by Canon or Nikon up to 2015, Sony video is much smoother, also better AF. Back in those days, a 2 year advantage was still huge, it's just an example showing how far behind Canikon were in the mirorless race.
Canon M6 II was released at the end of 2019, at that point in time it wouldn't even matter anymore how good that camera or others were, Sony had already won the race and the market shrank in the meantime.
KEG
Veteran Member
That is the one of the funniest spellings of Fujifilm I have seen in years.
besides 3 out 4 cameras sold these days is a Canon R-something.
Canon probably sold more copies of M50 than the entire combined 43rds and M43rd production run since 2005.
besides 3 out 4 cameras sold these days is a Canon R-something.
Canon probably sold more copies of M50 than the entire combined 43rds and M43rd production run since 2005.
Dick Dastardly
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 1,361
Who said anything about Fujifilm? Are you confusing me with someone else??
Canon is a market leader yes, but I think you're on the wrong forum, here we're talking about EOS M cameras !
Yup, people bought millions of cameras using an obsolete mount. Why? If you ask them, they wouldn't know what to say. Two years later, they spent the same amount for a similar camera using the RF mount.
Again, why? Who has all that money to spend on cameras they will never use? There are millions of these M cameras still being sold, many brand new, like OP's.
A used M6 II is still around $600, why would anyone ever pay that for a camera that's only compatible with 4-5 lenses in total? I've been using Canon for almost 20 years, but I'm not buying them just for the sake of throwing money out the window.
KEG
Veteran Member
Sony APS-C cameras are a joke and have been for years.
Without the likes of Fujifilm the production of the aps-c sensor would probably have stopped.
so it was Fujifilm and frantic following that saved aps-c.
So read your post as Sony being a mispelling of Fujifilm.
A M6 mk II with 22 mm and 32 mm is a killer camera.
I don't know where you got the 4-5 lens figure from but I got all the Canon EF-M lenses except 18-55 and I have 3 primes and 4 zooms plus sigma 16 mm.
my most used lenses are 11-22, 18-150 and 22 mm prime.
also the comeback of the compact shows that people only need a one good lens.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum