dpreviewTV: EF-M 22mm F2 not "ideal" for the M6 Mk II?

I was surprised that in the dpreviewTV review of the M6 Mk II they exposed that only the 32mm and 28mm may be good enough for the new sensor and that they feared the 22mm would not be "ideal".
There were no tests, just some rambling thoughts on lenses for the new camera. The context of the discussion is shooting wide open in a dark brewery but in that specific section he's discussing resolving power of the lenses so I'd interpret his remark to mean not sharp enough for the new 32MP sensor wide open.

I was considering rebuying the 22mm for my M100. My first copy broke, is the lens a delicate flower like my thrice broken 50mm F1.4? I don't even remember tapping the front but a small dent tells me I or my kids did. Maybe spending "the big bucks" for the 28mm or 32mm would be better if a M6 Mk II is in my future?

"even the 22mm prime I don't think is going to give ideal results"

https://youtu.be/9Qb7ONDW7nc?t=230

Thoughts on the 22mm with the new M6 MK II???? Is it good enough to maximize results from the 32mp sensor in low-light?

Thanks!

I’m also surprised. The difference between 32MP and 24MP is only about 17% more pixels each direction. (17% uplift to 6000 x 4000 gives 7020 x 4680 or 32.8 million). I’d have thought that the 22 would cope ok with that. Pity that DPR didn’t actually try the lens.

The EF-M 22 outresolves the 20mm Sony, even at a MP deficiency on DXO Mark where the original EOS M (18MP) vs the 24MP A6000 per DXOMark...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-22mm-F2-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-20mm-F28-on-Sony-A6000__989_819_1093_942

.

This whole lens not sharp enough for sensor business applies to everyone. But arguably least to Canon.

For a example, the EF-M 11-22 outrsolves the Sony 10-18 by 20%, once again being tested on an inferior 18MP body.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-11-22mm-F4-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-10-18mm-F4-on-Sony-A6000__1170_819_1084_942

And lastly, the Sony 16-50, again, is outresolved with the MP advantage...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-18-55mm-F35-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56-on-Sony-A6000__990_819_1082_942

keeponkeepingon wrote:

I was surprised that in the dpreviewTV review of the M6 Mk II they exposed that only the 32mm and 28mm may be good enough for the new sensor and that they feared the 22mm would not be "ideal".
There were no tests, just some rambling thoughts on lenses for the new camera. The context of the discussion is shooting wide open in a dark brewery but in that specific section he's discussing resolving power of the lenses so I'd interpret his remark to mean not sharp enough for the new 32MP sensor wide open.

I was considering rebuying the 22mm for my M100. My first copy broke, is the lens a delicate flower like my thrice broken 50mm F1.4? I don't even remember tapping the front but a small dent tells me I or my kids did. Maybe spending "the big bucks" for the 28mm or 32mm would be better if a M6 Mk II is in my future?

"even the 22mm prime I don't think is going to give ideal results"

https://youtu.be/9Qb7ONDW7nc?t=230

Thoughts on the 22mm with the new M6 MK II???? Is it good enough to maximize results from the 32mp sensor in low-light?

Thanks!

For the LOVE OF GOD! Somebody better tell all those DSLR users that are using pre-2008 lenses that their lenses aren't "ideal" for their 2016 cameras. (EDIT: or thatn their Post 2004 lenses are no good on their 2015+ cameras)
.
PHYSICS dictates the relationship between lenses and sensor resolution. PHYSICISTS have stated in recent years that if we want to continue to get higher resolution from our sensors, then we HAVE to increase lens-size with LARGER optics. We've reached the limitations of our technology so now everything is a compromise.
.
As I said a few weeks ago, there's no DPAF applied to the video. Not just in 4K but (according to this video) in the 1080p mode as well.
.
The 22mm f/2 prime is a very sharp lens. It's also a very bright lens. But pixel peepers are challenging this with the M6 II. The video is full of assumptions. They don't make a straight forward statement either but surmise that the resolution of the higher density sensor will exceed the resolution of the lens. If people want to take this to heart, they'll never be able to move forward with their photography.
.
Again, for those who missed in the last time: The M6 II is not a fully rounded new camera. It's just a "tweaked" version of the M6. Buy it if you need it. Don't buy it if you don't . But those EF-M lenses will work on it just fine. Feel free to try and prove me wrong if you disagree.

keeponkeepingon wrote:

I was considering rebuying the 22mm for my M100. My first copy broke, is the lens a delicate flower like my thrice broken 50mm F1.4? I don't even remember tapping the front but a small dent tells me I or my kids did. Maybe spending "the big bucks" for the 28mm or 32mm would be better if a M6 Mk II is in my future?

My first outing with the 22mm, I dropped it on a rock. My quick handed son caught it on the first bounce before it went over a cliff. I've had no problems with it since.

Marco Nero wrote:

For the LOVE OF GOD! Somebody better tell all those DSLR users that are using pre-2008 lenses that their lenses aren't "ideal" for their 2016 cameras. (EDIT: or thatn their Post 2004 lenses are no good on their 2015+ cameras)

It may not be ideal, but I think my mom's 1980s era Canon FD 50mm macro is the sharpest lens I own.  LOL.

.
PHYSICS dictates the relationship between lenses and sensor resolution. PHYSICISTS have stated in recent years that if we want to continue to get higher resolution from our sensors, then we HAVE to increase lens-size with LARGER optics. We've reached the limitations of our technology so now everything is a compromise.
.
As I said a few weeks ago, there's no DPAF applied to the video. Not just in 4K but (according to this video) in the 1080p mode as well.
.
The 22mm f/2 prime is a very sharp lens. It's also a very bright lens. But pixel peepers are challenging this with the M6 II. The video is full of assumptions. They don't make a straight forward statement either but surmise that the resolution of the higher density sensor will exceed the resolution of the lens. If people want to take this to heart, they'll never be able to move forward with their photography.
.
Again, for those who missed in the last time: The M6 II is not a fully rounded new camera. It's just a "tweaked" version of the M6. Buy it if you need it. Don't buy it if you don't . But those EF-M lenses will work on it just fine. Feel free to try and prove me wrong if you disagree.

I'd like to see some actual tests that compare the 11-22, 18-150, and the 22mm on the old sensor and the new to see the differences in detail. It seems like the m6ii has advantages (and disadvantages, like price) over older m models besides higher resolution. I'd just like to see what the higher resolution looks like with lens I use.

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

The EF-M 22 outresolves the 20mm Sony, even at a MP deficiency on DXO Mark where the original EOS M (18MP) vs the 24MP A6000 per DXOMark...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-22mm-F2-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-20mm-F28-on-Sony-A6000__989_819_1093_942

.

This whole lens not sharp enough for sensor business applies to everyone. But arguably least to Canon.

For a example, the EF-M 11-22 outrsolves the Sony 10-18 by 20%, once again being tested on an inferior 18MP body.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-11-22mm-F4-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-10-18mm-F4-on-Sony-A6000__1170_819_1084_942

And lastly, the Sony 16-50, again, is outresolved with the MP advantage...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-18-55mm-F35-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56-on-Sony-A6000__990_819_1082_942

First, what do Sony lenses have to do with the ability of EF-M lenses to resolve 32mp?

Simple. If you're going to grade a compact lens on performance, grade it against others in class. Otherwise, what you're really saying is you need bigger glass, at which point I vote buy a FF, but that defeats the point of an M. The point I'm drawing is to draw the readers attention to EF-M glass quality, for it's size/weight is quite high which the implication by DPR TV is that it's not good enough. Now to the point of being able to resolve 32MP, as others have stated, any of these lenses can resolve it. The real question becomes one of how much gain can one expect? Someone would have to do some benchmarks as EF-M glass doesn't get much love in that regard with metrics. DXO has some, but, they stopped testing after the 11-22, and never tested on the M3 or newer either so it's a stretch here of well this guy is better than that guy, which I just did, but doesn't directly answer the question to your point. It just gives you an idea what to expect if you're considering it vs another system, which the OP is coming from Sony I might add. If, you're gaining more lens resolution, and more sensor resolution, you can expect more resolution. Now can you expect FF resolution? As I said, EF-M glass needs more love in benchmarks

.

Optical limits has a couple more lenses tested, and with the M3, but, they lack the Sony 20mm. This is a hard question to answer with out some assumptions or fill in the blanks for the 22 in particular.

Second, a higher resolution sensor makes a lens look worse, not better. Switch your comparison to the 20mp a3000 and the Sony lenses get much closer to the EF-M lenses.

Sounds like DXO has anomalies (what a surprise) as 20MP should resolve less detail and score more poorly in sharpness, yet to your point when I switch it, ditto. That should be flipped. Good catch. The EF-M is still sharper, btw.

Third, you absolutely positively can not compare lens tests that were shot with different cameras. Different cameras means different image sensors, different micro lenses, different resolutions, different AA filters, different RAW conversions, etc. You can only compare lenses shot with the same camera. Here is the same lens tested on two different 20mp cameras with different results

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Nikon-on-Nikon-D500-versus-Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II__872_1061_871_977

Fourth, DXO scores are utter nonsense and virtually meaningless.

Lots of people say that, yet, I need a common benchmark to prove the point with numbers. DXO gives numbers and has the 20mm to compare it against. Too bad they don't have Fuji... We've had this discussion before.

I feel optical benchmarks are lacking out there. It's quite frustrating when trying to gather what one can expect. A best answer, is the best I can give. It's not "the" answer though to your point by any means. Far from it.

keeponkeepingon wrote:

I was surprised that in the dpreviewTV review of the M6 Mk II they exposed that only the 32mm and 28mm may be good enough for the new sensor and that they feared the 22mm would not be "ideal".

The 22mm is a good lens. I have sharper lenses, but the 22mm is fine.

There were no tests, just some rambling thoughts on lenses for the new camera. The context of the discussion is shooting wide open in a dark brewery but in that specific section he's discussing resolving power of the lenses so I'd interpret his remark to mean not sharp enough for the new 32MP sensor wide open.

Even wide open it isn't that bad. The vignetting is a problem wide open, but at f/2.8 the performance is really good. And hey: when fighting high ISO noise, lens sharpness at 32Mp is the least of your worries. In low light you will have shutterspeeds at the slow side, and shutterspeeds at the slow side won't help you to benefit from those 32Mp either, but in low light you will have to accept a little softness sometimes due to a slow-side shutterspeed and less optimal wide open lens performance because the high ISO noise is your biggest enemy. In other words: if you want maximum sharpness from your lens, make sure you have enough light, and don't go testing in a dark brewery because it is raining outside. Pick another day with nice ambient light, stop down a little, and THAN you can comment on the 22mm prime performance at the 32Mp sensor.

I was considering rebuying the 22mm for my M100. My first copy broke, is the lens a delicate flower like my thrice broken 50mm F1.4? I don't even remember tapping the front but a small dent tells me I or my kids did. Maybe spending "the big bucks" for the 28mm or 32mm would be better if a M6 Mk II is in my future?

"even the 22mm prime I don't think is going to give ideal results"

https://youtu.be/9Qb7ONDW7nc?t=230

I am not exactly known as the Canon fan boy here, but in all fairness: this is just BS.  As for the zooms he has a point, but the 22mm is a good lens.

Thoughts on the 22mm with the new M6 MK II???? Is it good enough to maximize results from the 32mp sensor in low-light?

Thanks!

Buy the focal length you need the most. A 32mm can be better performing than a 22mm, but that doesn't make it a 22mm lens. If 32mm is wide enough for you i would go with that one. But if 22mm makes more sense for narrow spaces when using indoors, buy the 22mm. It is definitely better than any M zoom, and as such it is a big upgrade for your M system.

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

The EF-M 22 outresolves the 20mm Sony, even at a MP deficiency on DXO Mark where the original EOS M (18MP) vs the 24MP A6000 per DXOMark...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-22mm-F2-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-20mm-F28-on-Sony-A6000__989_819_1093_942

.

This whole lens not sharp enough for sensor business applies to everyone. But arguably least to Canon.

For a example, the EF-M 11-22 outrsolves the Sony 10-18 by 20%, once again being tested on an inferior 18MP body.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-11-22mm-F4-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-10-18mm-F4-on-Sony-A6000__1170_819_1084_942

And lastly, the Sony 16-50, again, is outresolved with the MP advantage...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-18-55mm-F35-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56-on-Sony-A6000__990_819_1082_942

First, what do Sony lenses have to do with the ability of EF-M lenses to resolve 32mp?

Simple. If you're going to grade a compact lens on performance, grade it against others in class.

DPReviews comments had nothing to do with Sony or any other mirrorless system. Their comments on lens resolution were in regards to the difference between an M6 and an M6 II.

True. But, this is another what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. DPR and DPR TV have a way of being inconsistent with reviews and this although a logical segue they’re doing on questioning the 22 resolving power in the wake of a super resolution sensor, should’ve been asked of those less powerful Sony lenses against the less resolution 24MP sensors. It’s not. Because the Canon is fodder here in getting the treatment first it’s pertinent to give context of other options that you have (the OP) as that context is lacking in the discussion. Other non-Canon options are more lens-limited. I’m going to go out on and limb and say Nikon, Sony and Fuji, the other APS-C players will not have the same question asked. And, that’s dirty brand politics being played by DPR. It’s a peeve of mine when that sort of thing happens, as it does around here.

Otherwise, what you're really saying is you need bigger glass, at which point I vote buy a FF, but that defeats the point of an M. The point I'm drawing is to draw the readers attention to EF-M glass quality, for it's size/weight is quite high which the implication by DPR TV is that it's not good enough.

Not good enough for 32mp. Nothing in the comment had anything to do with "not good enough compared to Sony".

Now to the point of being able to resolve 32MP, as others have stated, any of these lenses can resolve it.

Plenty have stated it, but it is incorrect. Every lens has a physical limit to the finest detail that can be sharply projected onto the image sensor.

The real question becomes one of how much gain can one expect?

This is the real point. A lens that is soft will just have that softness better recorded with a higher resolution sensor. A final print will display no more detail than the same image with a lower resolution sensor.

Someone would have to do some benchmarks as EF-M glass doesn't get much love in that regard with metrics. DXO has some, but, they stopped testing after the 11-22, and never tested on the M3 or newer either so it's a stretch here of well this guy is better than that guy, which I just did, but doesn't directly answer the question to your point. It just gives you an idea what to expect if you're considering it vs another system, which the OP is coming from Sony I might add. If, you're gaining more lens resolution, and more sensor resolution, you can expect more resolution. Now can you expect FF resolution? As I said, EF-M glass needs more love in benchmarks

You are arguing something completely different from DPReview. Your suggestion is that Canon is better than Sony because the EF-M 22mm f/2.0 is a better lens than the Sony 20mm f/2.8. This is a completely different discussion from DPReview's contention that the 22mm can not properly resolve 32mp.

.

Optical limits has a couple more lenses tested, and with the M3, but, they lack the Sony 20mm. This is a hard question to answer with out some assumptions or fill in the blanks for the 22 in particular.

Second, a higher resolution sensor makes a lens look worse, not better. Switch your comparison to the 20mp a3000 and the Sony lenses get much closer to the EF-M lenses.

Sounds like DXO has anomalies (what a surprise) as 20MP should resolve less detail and score more poorly in sharpness, yet to your point when I switch it, ditto. That should be flipped. Good catch. The EF-M is still sharper, btw.

No, it should not be flipped. You are misunderstanding the impacts of sensor resolution on lens testing. The simplest example is CA testing which is reported in pixel widths. On a low resolution sensor, a lens may only score 1 pixel width of CA. Put that same lens on a high resolution sensor and it scores 3 pixel widths of CA. The lens looks worse on the high resolution sensor because the high resolution sensor is better able to record the defect.

Here is another way to look at the issue.... If I measure myself in one meter increments, I am 2 meters tall. If I measure myself in one centimeter increments, I am 170 centimeters tall. I did not get shorter between measurements, but the higher resolution scale more accurately captured my height.

Third, you absolutely positively can not compare lens tests that were shot with different cameras. Different cameras means different image sensors, different micro lenses, different resolutions, different AA filters, different RAW conversions, etc. You can only compare lenses shot with the same camera. Here is the same lens tested on two different 20mp cameras with different results

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Nikon-on-Nikon-D500-versus-Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II__872_1061_871_977

Fourth, DXO scores are utter nonsense and virtually meaningless.

Lots of people say that, yet, I need a common benchmark to prove the point with numbers. DXO gives numbers and has the 20mm to compare it against.

Every system, including the M system, has great lenses and bad lenses. No system is comprised entirely of great lenses or entirely of bad lenses. The optical tests on various websites help you determine which lenses are the good ones and which are the bad within a specific system. The tests absolutely positively are not meant for comparing different systems and each website usually has a disclaimer specifically stating this.

Too bad they don't have Fuji... We've had this discussion before.

It is because DXO Photolab does not support Fuji X-Trans files. All of the data on DXOmark is just a repackaging of the testing that DXO does when profiling its RAW conversion software.

I feel optical benchmarks are lacking out there.

Yes, they are lacking, but I am not sure what use it would provide beyond silly brand bashing arguments. The real questions are "what focal lengths do you need?" and "which system covers those focal length with suitable quality?" Whether the Sony 16-50mm kit lens is better or worse than the Canon 15-45mm kit lens is irrelevant. If your primary need is a really, really good standard zoom, it should be obvious that neither of these options will meet your needs.

It's quite frustrating when trying to gather what one can expect. A best answer, is the best I can give. It's not "the" answer though to your point by any means. Far from it.

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

The EF-M 22 outresolves the 20mm Sony, even at a MP deficiency on DXO Mark where the original EOS M (18MP) vs the 24MP A6000 per DXOMark...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-22mm-F2-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-20mm-F28-on-Sony-A6000__989_819_1093_942

.

This whole lens not sharp enough for sensor business applies to everyone. But arguably least to Canon.

For a example, the EF-M 11-22 outrsolves the Sony 10-18 by 20%, once again being tested on an inferior 18MP body.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-11-22mm-F4-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E-10-18mm-F4-on-Sony-A6000__1170_819_1084_942

And lastly, the Sony 16-50, again, is outresolved with the MP advantage...

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-M-18-55mm-F35-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-M-versus-Sony-E16-50mm-F35-56-on-Sony-A6000__990_819_1082_942

First, what do Sony lenses have to do with the ability of EF-M lenses to resolve 32mp?

Simple. If you're going to grade a compact lens on performance, grade it against others in class.

DPReviews comments had nothing to do with Sony or any other mirrorless system. Their comments on lens resolution were in regards to the difference between an M6 and an M6 II.

True. But, this is another what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. DPR and DPR TV have a way of being inconsistent with reviews and this although a logical segue they’re doing on questioning the 22 resolving power in the wake of a super resolution sensor, should’ve been asked of those less powerful Sony lenses against the less resolution 24MP sensors. It’s not. Because the Canon is fodder here in getting the treatment first it’s pertinent to give context of other options that you have (the OP) as that context is lacking in the discussion. Other non-Canon options are more lens-limited. I’m going to go out on and limb and say Nikon, Sony and Fuji, the other APS-C players will not have the same question asked. And, that’s dirty brand politics being played by DPR. It’s a peeve of mine when that sort of thing happens, as it does around here.

very true

Otherwise, what you're really saying is you need bigger glass, at which point I vote buy a FF, but that defeats the point of an M. The point I'm drawing is to draw the readers attention to EF-M glass quality, for it's size/weight is quite high which the implication by DPR TV is that it's not good enough.

Not good enough for 32mp. Nothing in the comment had anything to do with "not good enough compared to Sony".

Now to the point of being able to resolve 32MP, as others have stated, any of these lenses can resolve it.

Plenty have stated it, but it is incorrect. Every lens has a physical limit to the finest detail that can be sharply projected onto the image sensor.

The real question becomes one of how much gain can one expect?

This is the real point. A lens that is soft will just have that softness better recorded with a higher resolution sensor. A final print will display no more detail than the same image with a lower resolution sensor.

Someone would have to do some benchmarks as EF-M glass doesn't get much love in that regard with metrics. DXO has some, but, they stopped testing after the 11-22, and never tested on the M3 or newer either so it's a stretch here of well this guy is better than that guy, which I just did, but doesn't directly answer the question to your point. It just gives you an idea what to expect if you're considering it vs another system, which the OP is coming from Sony I might add. If, you're gaining more lens resolution, and more sensor resolution, you can expect more resolution. Now can you expect FF resolution? As I said, EF-M glass needs more love in benchmarks

You are arguing something completely different from DPReview. Your suggestion is that Canon is better than Sony because the EF-M 22mm f/2.0 is a better lens than the Sony 20mm f/2.8. This is a completely different discussion from DPReview's contention that the 22mm can not properly resolve 32mp.

.

Optical limits has a couple more lenses tested, and with the M3, but, they lack the Sony 20mm. This is a hard question to answer with out some assumptions or fill in the blanks for the 22 in particular.

Second, a higher resolution sensor makes a lens look worse, not better. Switch your comparison to the 20mp a3000 and the Sony lenses get much closer to the EF-M lenses.

Sounds like DXO has anomalies (what a surprise) as 20MP should resolve less detail and score more poorly in sharpness, yet to your point when I switch it, ditto. That should be flipped. Good catch. The EF-M is still sharper, btw.

No, it should not be flipped. You are misunderstanding the impacts of sensor resolution on lens testing. The simplest example is CA testing which is reported in pixel widths. On a low resolution sensor, a lens may only score 1 pixel width of CA. Put that same lens on a high resolution sensor and it scores 3 pixel widths of CA. The lens looks worse on the high resolution sensor because the high resolution sensor is better able to record the defect.

Here is another way to look at the issue.... If I measure myself in one meter increments, I am 2 meters tall. If I measure myself in one centimeter increments, I am 170 centimeters tall. I did not get shorter between measurements, but the higher resolution scale more accurately captured my height.

Third, you absolutely positively can not compare lens tests that were shot with different cameras. Different cameras means different image sensors, different micro lenses, different resolutions, different AA filters, different RAW conversions, etc. You can only compare lenses shot with the same camera. Here is the same lens tested on two different 20mp cameras with different results

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Nikon-on-Nikon-D500-versus-Tokina-AT-X-Pro-SD-11-16-F28-IF-DX-II-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II__872_1061_871_977

Fourth, DXO scores are utter nonsense and virtually meaningless.

Lots of people say that, yet, I need a common benchmark to prove the point with numbers. DXO gives numbers and has the 20mm to compare it against.

Every system, including the M system, has great lenses and bad lenses. No system is comprised entirely of great lenses or entirely of bad lenses. The optical tests on various websites help you determine which lenses are the good ones and which are the bad within a specific system. The tests absolutely positively are not meant for comparing different systems and each website usually has a disclaimer specifically stating this.

Too bad they don't have Fuji... We've had this discussion before.

It is because DXO Photolab does not support Fuji X-Trans files. All of the data on DXOmark is just a repackaging of the testing that DXO does when profiling its RAW conversion software.

I feel optical benchmarks are lacking out there.

Yes, they are lacking, but I am not sure what use it would provide beyond silly brand bashing arguments. The real questions are "what focal lengths do you need?" and "which system covers those focal length with suitable quality?" Whether the Sony 16-50mm kit lens is better or worse than the Canon 15-45mm kit lens is irrelevant. If your primary need is a really, really good standard zoom, it should be obvious that neither of these options will meet your needs.

It's quite frustrating when trying to gather what one can expect. A best answer, is the best I can give. It's not "the" answer though to your point by any means. Far from it.

nnowak wrote:

By only shooting with Canon, you are not fully aware of the capabilities of other systems. RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

First, what do Sony lenses have to do with the ability of EF-M lenses to resolve 32mp?

Simple. If you're going to grade a compact lens on performance, grade it against others in class.

DPReviews comments had nothing to do with Sony or any other mirrorless system. Their comments on lens resolution were in regards to the difference between an M6 and an M6 II.

True. But, this is another what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. DPR and DPR TV have a way of being inconsistent with reviews

That is your opinion, and as was recently shown, it is an opinion based on inaccurate information. How many posts did you make railing against DPReview claiming an anti-Canon bias because you believed Canon had a zero blackout EVF and Canon had it long before Sony?

True, I'm not perfect. I also acknowledged that point as I wasn't aware of the differences, which I was made aware.

and this although a logical segue they’re doing on questioning the 22 resolving power in the wake of a super resolution sensor,

The M6 II is currently the highest pixel density interchangeable lens camera available. Scaled up to full frame, this would be an 84mp sensor. The M6 II is even more dense than the 20mp m4/3 sensors. Questioning the resolving power of the EF-M lenses seems like a perfectly legitimate exercise, and is something reviewers have done whenever any system has made a significant jump in resolution.

should’ve been asked of those less powerful Sony lenses against the less resolution 24MP sensors.

Here is a direct quote from DPReview taken from this page

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0072788087/should-i-buy-the-sony-a6400-here-s-how-it-compares?slide=2

"It's also worth considering that Sony will be selling a kit that bundles the a6400 with its recent 18-135mm zoom. It costs more and is larger than the 16-50mm power zoom but covers a wider range (albeit without such wide-angle capability), and has the advantage of not being the weakest kit lens on the market."

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty critical of a Sony lens.

It’s not. Because the Canon is fodder here in getting the treatment first it’s pertinent to give context of other options that you have (the OP) as that context is lacking in the discussion.

The context is lenses that will make the most of a 32mp sensor. The OP said nothing about Sony or any of the Sony lenses you dug up on DXO.

Other non-Canon options are more lens-limited.

How so? All other current systems have far more than 7 native lenses available.

I’m going to go out on and limb and say Nikon, Sony and Fuji, the other APS-C players will not have the same question asked.

None of those systems are near the pixel density of the M6 II and all of those systems are using slightly larger sensors. Scaled up to a 1.5X crop format, this would be a 35.8mp sensor. If any of those systems suddenly make the jump to 36mp, I am sure the reviewers will be questioning the lens lineups.

And, that’s dirty brand politics being played by DPR. It’s a peeve of mine when that sort of thing happens, as it does around here.

The "dirty brand politics" sounds a bit slanderous and is just your opinion. I realize that you are loyal to Canon, but I believe that years of loyalty have clouded your judgement. Because you only shoot with Canon, you do not examine the reviews of other brands products as closely as you would a Canon review, or you don't read the other reviews at all. Sony and all of the other brands get plenty of criticism in the reviews here on DPReview, you're just not seeing it. Also, by only shooting with Canon, you are not fully aware of the capabilities of other systems. Every system has pluses and minuses. Without owning other systems, it is very difficult to appreciate the pluses of other systems. It seems that every person making the claim that DPReview has an anti-Canon bias is someone who has been using Canon gear exclusively for years and years.

Not true:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63107712

I truly apologize if my response comes off as too harsh as that is not my intent.

Quite. But, I've known you for some time. I personally won't be letting off the gas of giving correct context, to DPR narrative I disagree with, which others share the sentiment of. And, I'll continue stubbing my toes as any person would along the way.

Let me flip this on you:

Why are you still on the M forum? Honestly. You're here, critiquing my responses, on a forum that is not your primary platform (it's Fuji). Not being mean, just a curiosity I've had since you sold off most of your Canon goods. Are you considering coming back, just being helpful, or you like to debate? Any are fine answers.

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

By only shooting with Canon, you are not fully aware of the capabilities of other systems. RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

First, what do Sony lenses have to do with the ability of EF-M lenses to resolve 32mp?

Simple. If you're going to grade a compact lens on performance, grade it against others in class.

DPReviews comments had nothing to do with Sony or any other mirrorless system. Their comments on lens resolution were in regards to the difference between an M6 and an M6 II.

True. But, this is another what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. DPR and DPR TV have a way of being inconsistent with reviews

That is your opinion, and as was recently shown, it is an opinion based on inaccurate information. How many posts did you make railing against DPReview claiming an anti-Canon bias because you believed Canon had a zero blackout EVF and Canon had it long before Sony?

True, I'm not perfect. I also acknowledged that point as I wasn't aware of the differences, which I was made aware.

and this although a logical segue they’re doing on questioning the 22 resolving power in the wake of a super resolution sensor,

The M6 II is currently the highest pixel density interchangeable lens camera available. Scaled up to full frame, this would be an 84mp sensor. The M6 II is even more dense than the 20mp m4/3 sensors. Questioning the resolving power of the EF-M lenses seems like a perfectly legitimate exercise, and is something reviewers have done whenever any system has made a significant jump in resolution.

should’ve been asked of those less powerful Sony lenses against the less resolution 24MP sensors.

Here is a direct quote from DPReview taken from this page

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0072788087/should-i-buy-the-sony-a6400-here-s-how-it-compares?slide=2

"It's also worth considering that Sony will be selling a kit that bundles the a6400 with its recent 18-135mm zoom. It costs more and is larger than the 16-50mm power zoom but covers a wider range (albeit without such wide-angle capability), and has the advantage of not being the weakest kit lens on the market."

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty critical of a Sony lens.

It’s not. Because the Canon is fodder here in getting the treatment first it’s pertinent to give context of other options that you have (the OP) as that context is lacking in the discussion.

The context is lenses that will make the most of a 32mp sensor. The OP said nothing about Sony or any of the Sony lenses you dug up on DXO.

Other non-Canon options are more lens-limited.

How so? All other current systems have far more than 7 native lenses available.

I’m going to go out on and limb and say Nikon, Sony and Fuji, the other APS-C players will not have the same question asked.

None of those systems are near the pixel density of the M6 II and all of those systems are using slightly larger sensors. Scaled up to a 1.5X crop format, this would be a 35.8mp sensor. If any of those systems suddenly make the jump to 36mp, I am sure the reviewers will be questioning the lens lineups.

And, that’s dirty brand politics being played by DPR. It’s a peeve of mine when that sort of thing happens, as it does around here.

The "dirty brand politics" sounds a bit slanderous and is just your opinion. I realize that you are loyal to Canon, but I believe that years of loyalty have clouded your judgement. Because you only shoot with Canon, you do not examine the reviews of other brands products as closely as you would a Canon review, or you don't read the other reviews at all. Sony and all of the other brands get plenty of criticism in the reviews here on DPReview, you're just not seeing it. Also, by only shooting with Canon, you are not fully aware of the capabilities of other systems. Every system has pluses and minuses. Without owning other systems, it is very difficult to appreciate the pluses of other systems. It seems that every person making the claim that DPReview has an anti-Canon bias is someone who has been using Canon gear exclusively for years and years.

Not true:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63107712

I truly apologize if my response comes off as too harsh as that is not my intent.

Quite. But, I've known you for some time. I personally won't be letting off the gas of giving correct context, to DPR narrative I disagree with, which others share the sentiment of. And, I'll continue stubbing my toes as any person would along the way.

Let me flip this on you:

Why are you still on the M forum?

yes, a true mystery

Honestly. You're here, critiquing my responses, on a forum that is not your primary platform (it's Fuji).

they wouldn't allow this behavior on the Fuji forum

this forum is not being moderated

Not being mean, just a curiosity I've had since you sold off most of your Canon goods.

a Fuji shill?

Are you considering coming back, just being helpful, or you like to debate? Any are fine answers.

not being helpful

MAC wrote:

Every system has pluses and minuses. Without owning other systems, it is very difficult to appreciate the pluses of other systems. It seems that every person making the claim that DPReview has an anti-Canon bias is someone who has been using Canon gear exclusively for years and years.

Not true:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63107712

I truly apologize if my response comes off as too harsh as that is not my intent.

Quite. But, I've known you for some time. I personally won't be letting off the gas of giving correct context, to DPR narrative I disagree with, which others share the sentiment of. And, I'll continue stubbing my toes as any person would along the way.

Let me flip this on you:

Why are you still on the M forum?

yes, a true mystery

Honestly. You're here, critiquing my responses, on a forum that is not your primary platform (it's Fuji).

they wouldn't allow this behavior on the Fuji forum

this forum is not being moderated

Not being mean, just a curiosity I've had since you sold off most of your Canon goods.

a Fuji shill?

I don't think so.

Are you considering coming back, just being helpful, or you like to debate? Any are fine answers.

not being helpful

He is, and sometimes he pokes at the M system at the same time. This makes sense when given some historical context...

A wayback moment, besides I like telling stories (feel free to correct me Nnowak)

Once upon a time I had a 5DIII and some L's. They got too heavy and stopped going places. I tried the G1X II, it didn't cut it. Then, I tried the M + 22, the OG, and it delivered, but it was slowww.

I went against my better judgement and went all in on the M and picked up an M2 and all the EF-M glass at the time with one of them turret viewfinders as I could see the writing on the wall Canon was going to grow the system in short order. They did ala the M3, I was right. I ended up being one of them weirdo American's that imported it from Japan via Tenso because Canon in their infinite wisdom didn't make it available to USA for a while. But, I didn't know exactly what I was getting myself into with GAS, not being happy with what I had, yada yada yada. Insert DPR and the forums (used to be on the CR forum too).

Nnowak at around the same time had a 5DII and some L's and dipped into the M2, and then tried the M3, and hated the colors. Truth told, I did too, but I couldn't put my finger on it was the colors till later. That's a complicated subject btw as it's a mix of the AWB of the M3, and the CFA and metering system combined IMO.

He didn't go the M route. Like many got fed up, tried the G85 (wonderful camera I'm told) and then X-T2. And then, ended up going Fuji X as primary system over the 4/3, FF and M systems as time went on. I will say this, I might agree with his reasons. If, you're going to do one system, the Fuji X is a logical choice for the well financed discerning enthusiast due to it's mature lens lineup. However, this is where we have a tale of two cities here and our paths diverged. I stayed M and "toughed it out" while he consolidated on Fuji. I felt Canon should and would do a FF mirrorless, it was the holy grail. They eventually did, after going through the M5, G1X III and having lots of fun with them but for low light it didn't cut it. Insert the R. I swung the other side of the pendulum and went all in on the R and tried to make it a sorta M-like R-like system with cheaper, EF lighter glass. That's not the way to treat the R system. I figured out you need RF glass to make the most of the system. R + RF 35 may be the M5 II most folks have been waiting for, I'll give that anecdote as Dave Seeley when he reads this will probably give a thumbs up or nod to.

Anyhow, he's thinking I'm, less than wise, jumping back and forth this whole time and we debate over the years on the M forum as I kinda just stuck around because that's where the action is, lots of folks are joining it and looking for advice and I have spare time to kill in my endeavors. Some of my endeavors I have more time than others I might add.

Now I've come full circle and I've embraced what I should've 5 years ago... I have a FF system, (R) and, an M system. I use each for what it's supposed to be used. FF for bokeh/low light and M for portability. Nnowak uses his Fuji for both. The difference is one of what you pay, what you get and features. I argue (regularly) the M system makes the most sense for most people (I feel it does, and it's the spiritual successor to the Rebel series, and even the Advanced Powershots to a degree on the higher end of things), he argues against the Canon often because it (Fuji) gives what was lacking in the past. He's right, the X-T2 and T3 have better rendering than the M3. However, the M50 and M6 Mark II are game changers. They're real M cameras and he hasn't dipped his toes in them and is happy with his X-T2, at least I think he is (but he's still on the M forum, so maybe, maybe not?)

So to double back, I asked him earlier tonight, why he's still here. Makes a little more sense as he's still hanging around either due to the action on the M forum, or other reasons. Perhaps to convince folks to Fuji to your point MAC, or, perhaps to my point I think he has somewhat of a spot for the M. I'll let him respond if he's inclined (he doesn't have to).

We have a history and hence we're old dogs around here that bicker regularly.

This is all to say no, not a shill, and, I'm quite curious where he stands given Canon's recent moves in FF mirrorless and M, even if I may not agree with him.