Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Shahrooz51
Shahrooz51 Junior Member • Posts: 33
Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!
1

Hello,

I'm looking for a small compact camera for my landscape photography which has high megapixel sensor. For this reason I'm considering M6II that seems small and light and has 32 mp sensor. My previous experience with M50 was not great since I had the feeling that it's a toy! I was not happy about the viewfinder coverage too.

So, please kindly share your experience and thoughts about the topic. Thanks.

 Shahrooz51's gear list:Shahrooz51's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a7R Sony a7R III
Canon EOS M50 (EOS Kiss M) Canon EOS M6
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
RLight Senior Member • Posts: 1,624
Re: Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!
3

What lens were you shooting on the M50?

The 15-45 does a decent job, but, really the 11-22 is "the" landscape lens for the M mount.

M6 mark II obviously has more MP, but it also has a bit more DR in my playing with the files than the M50.

For compact? It's M6 II + 11-22. You can get more IQ from other solutions, but, you have to move up in system size (and price) substantially.

You're asking the right question and in the right place. The 11-22 is unbeatable for what it is. Likewise the M6 mark II is the highest MP crop sensor on the market at present.

 RLight's gear list:RLight's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Samyang 21mm F1.4 +3 more
Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!

I'm looking at the same camera for the largely same reason.

The 11-22 should be perfect for landscapes, but it's a little tight for architecture.  Even my 17 on FF is a little tight for architecture, but the shift partially makes up for it.

The Sigma 8-16 on an adapter would be interesting for architecture, but huge.

I saw a thread on here about a Laowa 9 mm which looks interesting.  I hear it has a vignetting problem, but it's worst wide open.  There is no information on how much better it does stopped down.  I wouldn't shoot it wide open.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
noisebeam Senior Member • Posts: 2,783
Laowa 9mm

Ed Rizk wrote:

I saw a thread on here about a Laowa 9 mm which looks interesting. I hear it has a vignetting problem, but it's worst wide open. There is no information on how much better it does stopped down. I wouldn't shoot it wide open.

This review claims:

There's also a serious vignette—darkened edges and corners—even when narrowing the f-stop. It's most prounced at f/2.8, with the corners of the frame falling behind the center by 4.9 stops (-4.9EV). The deficit closes as you stop down—we see -3.7EV at f/4, -3.2EV at f/5.6, -2.9EV at f/8, and about -2.7EV at smaller settings.

Seems to defeat the benefit of being fast if one doesn't desire vignetting for arts sake. I've seen references to this in other reviews and many of the samples I've seen show very obvious vignetting. I'd like to be proven otherwise as I want this lens

 noisebeam's gear list:noisebeam's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 30D Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM +8 more
Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Laowa 9mm

noisebeam wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

I saw a thread on here about a Laowa 9 mm which looks interesting. I hear it has a vignetting problem, but it's worst wide open. There is no information on how much better it does stopped down. I wouldn't shoot it wide open.

This review claims:

There's also a serious vignette—darkened edges and corners—even when narrowing the f-stop. It's most prounced at f/2.8, with the corners of the frame falling behind the center by 4.9 stops (-4.9EV). The deficit closes as you stop down—we see -3.7EV at f/4, -3.2EV at f/5.6, -2.9EV at f/8, and about -2.7EV at smaller settings.

Seems to defeat the benefit of being fast if one doesn't desire vignetting for arts sake. I've seen references to this in other reviews and many of the samples I've seen show very obvious vignetting. I'd like to be proven otherwise as I want this lens

Thanks for that info.

I don't care much about speed on wide lenses.  I guess I would if I started shooting astro.

I do care about the width, minimizing distortion, and minimizing vignetting and other edge problems.  Sometimes the edges of architectural pictures are important.  Many of mine are to promote real estate, and you never know what part of the picture is important to a prospective buyer.

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast.  Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.  Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,082
Re: Laowa 9mm

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually?  Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 II
R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 20,082
Re: Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!

Shahrooz51 wrote:

Hello,

I'm looking for a small compact camera for my landscape photography which has high megapixel sensor. For this reason I'm considering M6II that seems small and light and has 32 mp sensor.

Those are indeed some of its strengths.

My previous experience with M50 was not great since I had the feeling that it's a toy! I was not happy about the viewfinder coverage too.

Those elements have not changed.  If you are looking for a different experience, it’s likely that it’s not the camera that would have to change.  

So, please kindly share your experience and thoughts about the topic. Thanks.

The viewfinder coverage is 100%, as is the LCD.

I do prefer using the LCD for almost all of my shooting though.  I love composing on it.  The little 11-22 is an excellent landscape lens.

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Sony RX100 II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 II
Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Laowa 9mm

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R.   It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV.   I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels.   That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II.   But that vignette is very noticeable.  The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion.  Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance.  If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Anthony Milton Regular Member • Posts: 207
Re: Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!
2

I have found my M50 perfectly acceptable for landscape, as well as other situations. I cannot see myself wasting money to 'upgrade' to a M6 II. Where would I put my flashgun when using the external EVF? AsI haven't tried the M6 II, I cannot say whether the extra pixels would make any  noticeable increase in performance.

I think we are to ready to extol the virtues of pixel numbers. I have just had some 18 inch x 12 inch prints made from photos taken in South Africa with a 8MP Canon 350D.The definition and colour rendition are excellent.

Montenegro

Montenegro

Montenegro

South Africa

 Anthony Milton's gear list:Anthony Milton's gear list
Canon EOS M50 Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,099
Re: Laowa 9mm

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Laowa 9mm

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

R2

The Sony is still a FF system, so I don’t know how much size and weight it would save. I have to find one to look at. Other lenses for it are similar in size to comparable Canon FF lenses, from comparisons here and at Best Buy.

Fuji definitely has a great set of lenses. Their 8-16 is supposed to be excellent.

That sensor, dual pixel AF, and the other lenses available for the M6ii are really impressive, though. And I am used to Canon. If I substitute the wider lens for the shift function, I would be cropping out half of the pixels, more if I change the aspect ratio.

The ultimate solution is probably two systems, and live with the AOV limitations when traveling. That 32 MP sensor is good enough for everything, though.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 7,209
Re: Laowa 9mm

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

What? Ed said that the Sigma 8-16 would be big and heavy. The Fuji 8-16 is about 50% heavier, longer, and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight, but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else, it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture. The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable. The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

-- hide signature --

As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) +26 more
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 7,209
Re: Laowa 9mm

Ed Rizk wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

R2

The Sony is still a FF system, so I don’t know how much size and weight it would save.

It would save negative size and weight. The A7III with 12-24 would be bigger and heavier (and a lot more expensive) than the M6II with Sigma 8-16.

I have to find one to look at. Other lenses for it are similar in size to comparable Canon FF lenses, from comparisons here and at Best Buy.

Fuji definitely has a great set of lenses. Their 8-16 is supposed to be excellent.

XT30 with 8-16 would be a similar size to M6II with Sigma 8-16, but heavier, and a lot more expensive. The extra expense is all due to the lens. The Fuji is $2000. The Sigma is $450. You're mostly paying for the F2.8 of the Fuji, but you've said that a fast aperture isn't important to you for architecture. If you're going to be shooting at F5.6 (and up) anyway, why pay an exorbitant price for apertures you don't use?

That sensor, dual pixel AF, and the other lenses available for the M6ii are really impressive, though. And I am used to Canon. If I substitute the wider lens for the shift function, I would be cropping out half of the pixels, more if I change the aspect ratio.

The ultimate solution is probably two systems, and live with the AOV limitations when traveling. That 32 MP sensor is good enough for everything, though.

-- hide signature --

As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) +26 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,099
Re: Laowa 9mm

Alastair Norcross wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

What? Ed said that the Sigma 8-16 would be big and heavy.

That is not what Ed said.  He said that "on the adapter" it would be "huge".  And it would be.  With the adapter, the Sigma 8-16mm is bigger than the Sony and Fuji lenses I suggested and in between the weight of the two.  His bigger complaint appears to be distortion issues with the Sigma

The Fuji 8-16 is about 50% heavier, longer,

Not once you add the adapter.

and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight,

The Sony is quite a bit smaller and lighter once you add the adapter to the Sigma.

but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else,

Ed is currently using a full frame camera with the 17mm TS-E.  At this point it appears that he does not own the M6 II, but is considering it as an alternative to his full frame camera.  The Sony and Fuji options I suggested could provide a total package that is smaller and lighter that his current full fame setup.  The full frame Sony setup would only be 102 grams heavier than the M6 II + adapter + Sigma 8-16mm.

it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture. The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable. The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

-- hide signature --

As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Laowa 9mm

nnowak wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

What? Ed said that the Sigma 8-16 would be big and heavy.

That is not what Ed said. He said that "on the adapter" it would be "huge". And it would be. With the adapter, the Sigma 8-16mm is bigger than the Sony and Fuji lenses I suggested and in between the weight of the two. His bigger complaint appears to be distortion issues with the Sigma

Correct.  Of course, software is better today, so that might be less of a problem.

The Fuji 8-16 is about 50% heavier, longer,

Bigger and heavier than which one?

Not once you add the adapter.

and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight,

The Sony is quite a bit smaller and lighter once you add the adapter to the Sigma.

Maybe so, but the rest of the lenses for the Sony would be close enough to what I have that I would not move for one lens.

but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else,

Ed is currently using a full frame camera with the 17mm TS-E. At this point it appears that he does not own the M6 II, but is considering it as an alternative to his full frame camera. The Sony and Fuji options I suggested could provide a total package that is smaller and lighter that his current full fame setup. The full frame Sony setup would only be 102 grams heavier than the M6 II + adapter + Sigma 8-16mm.

I have to take a harder look at the Fuji system.  I hear nothing but good things about their lenses, nothing but bad things about their focusing system, and mixed reviews on IQ and high ISO capability.  I believe the hype about the M6ii's low light focusing, because the same hype on the R was understated, if anything.

it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture.

Oh, if I have to have two systems, I'm keeping the one I have now.  I'm very happy with it except for it's size, particularly when traveling by plane or on foot.  The M lenses have a big pound for pound advantage.

The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable.

That's what I am curious about.  I looked into the lens years ago and read that it was difficult to correct.  But software has advanced since then, so I might be able to use a profile that figures it out, like Canon or Adobe software handle Canon lenses.

The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

I think so.  My whole theory is based on an article that said that the 17, fully shifted both ways and stitched, will create an 11 mm AOV.  Therefore (my extrapolation) an 11 mm lens, held level and shot vertically, could be cropped to the exact same framing as the 17 fully shifted, albeit with half the pixels.  I rarely shift it all the way, so I could probably do fine with something in the 13 or 14 mm AOV range.  15 MP will work fine except for the largest prints.  Even the 12 from changing the aspect ratio to 8X10 is still going to be above my self imposed limit of 10 MP for the final crop.

I guess there is software to correct the vignetting of the Laowa 9, but that's three stops of exposure lifting, before I even get started.  Maybe the new sensors and software do better enough that I shouldn't be afraid of either.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 7,209
Re: Laowa 9mm

nnowak wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

What? Ed said that the Sigma 8-16 would be big and heavy.

That is not what Ed said. He said that "on the adapter" it would be "huge". And it would be. With the adapter, the Sigma 8-16mm is bigger than the Sony and Fuji lenses I suggested and in between the weight of the two.

Even with the adapter, the Sigma is lighter than the Fuji, and barely any longer, and narrower. So the Fuji is still overall heavier and bigger (size has three dimensions).

His bigger complaint appears to be distortion issues with the Sigma

The Fuji 8-16 is about 50% heavier, longer,

Not once you add the adapter.

and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight,

The Sony is quite a bit smaller and lighter once you add the adapter to the Sigma.

But the adapted Sigma added to the M6II is smaller and lighter than the Sony on the A7III. You need a camera to take a picture, not just a lens. That's the point. And that's just the architecture setup. As I said, you'd have to be crazy to get a whole different system just for one application, where you actually don't get any size or weight advantage at all for that application, and then get a considerable size and weight penalty for every other application. And you pay a massive, and I mean massive, price penalty. I understand your enthusiasm for the Fuji system (not so much for the Sony system), but your recommendations have to make at least a little sense in the context of the discussion, and this one doesn't.

but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else,

Ed is currently using a full frame camera with the 17mm TS-E. At this point it appears that he does not own the M6 II, but is considering it as an alternative to his full frame camera. The Sony and Fuji options I suggested could provide a total package that is smaller and lighter that his current full fame setup. The full frame Sony setup would only be 102 grams heavier than the M6 II + adapter + Sigma 8-16mm.

it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture. The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable. The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

-- hide signature --

As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) +26 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,099
Re: Laowa 9mm

Alastair Norcross wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

What? Ed said that the Sigma 8-16 would be big and heavy.

That is not what Ed said. He said that "on the adapter" it would be "huge". And it would be. With the adapter, the Sigma 8-16mm is bigger than the Sony and Fuji lenses I suggested and in between the weight of the two.

Even with the adapter, the Sigma is lighter than the Fuji, and barely any longer, and narrower. So the Fuji is still overall heavier and bigger (size has three dimensions).

His bigger complaint appears to be distortion issues with the Sigma

The Fuji 8-16 is about 50% heavier, longer,

Not once you add the adapter.

and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight,

The Sony is quite a bit smaller and lighter once you add the adapter to the Sigma.

But the adapted Sigma added to the M6II is smaller and lighter than the Sony on the A7III. You need a camera to take a picture, not just a lens. That's the point. And that's just the architecture setup. As I said, you'd have to be crazy to get a whole different system just for one application, where you actually don't get any size or weight advantage at all for that application, and then get a considerable size and weight penalty for every other application. And you pay a massive, and I mean massive, price penalty. I understand your enthusiasm for the Fuji system (not so much for the Sony system), but your recommendations have to make at least a little sense in the context of the discussion, and this one doesn't.

Ed is currently shooting with a 6D and EOS R.  the Sony, Fuji, and M options are all smaller and lighter for every application.

but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else,

Ed is currently using a full frame camera with the 17mm TS-E. At this point it appears that he does not own the M6 II, but is considering it as an alternative to his full frame camera. The Sony and Fuji options I suggested could provide a total package that is smaller and lighter that his current full fame setup. The full frame Sony setup would only be 102 grams heavier than the M6 II + adapter + Sigma 8-16mm.

it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture. The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable. The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 6,099
Re: Laowa 9mm

Ed Rizk wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

This is how I got stuck with the giant FF beast. Maybe I should keep it for architecture and use an M for everything else.

Bingo. Otherwise you’d lose all of the benefits of T/S.

But with a wide enough lens and enough pixels, I could accomplish the same thing.

Looking at the performance of the M6ii, I see little reason for the big sensor, but the wide lenses are another matter.

Well for those of us who use it for F/L limited types of shooting (for myself that includes birding and macros), a lot of MP on a crop sensor makes a LOT of sense. What performance deficiencies are you referring to actually? Maybe we can find some work-arounds.

I don’t have any performance deficiencies with my R. It’s just too much of a beast to carry everything everywhere, unlike my old 60D system.

If you stitch the TSE 17 fully shifted both ways, you get an 11 mm FOV. I don’t do that, but I could have just as easily gone with an 11-24, mounted it level, and cropped for the same images, with a few less pixels. That wouldn’t save me any size or weight, though.

I don’t shift the 17 all the way, most of the time, so I could do a lot with the 14mm AOV of the Laowa on the M6II. But that vignette is very noticeable. The Sigma 8-16 has that mustache distortion. Maybe it’s easier to correct than it used to be.

I can easily live with a stop less in low light performance. If I could find a wide enough rectilinear lens for the M with good IQ, I’d think seriously about ditching FF altogether.

Obviously these are not Canon systems, but would the Sony 12-24mm f/4 on the A7 III or Fuji 8-16mm f/2.8 on the X-T30 get you a smaller and lighter architecture package?

What? Ed said that the Sigma 8-16 would be big and heavy.

That is not what Ed said. He said that "on the adapter" it would be "huge". And it would be. With the adapter, the Sigma 8-16mm is bigger than the Sony and Fuji lenses I suggested and in between the weight of the two. His bigger complaint appears to be distortion issues with the Sigma

Correct. Of course, software is better today, so that might be less of a problem.

The Fuji 8-16 is about 50% heavier, longer,

Bigger and heavier than which one?

Not once you add the adapter.

and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight,

The Sony is quite a bit smaller and lighter once you add the adapter to the Sigma.

Maybe so, but the rest of the lenses for the Sony would be close enough to what I have that I would not move for one lens.

Maybe not. See below.

but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else,

Ed is currently using a full frame camera with the 17mm TS-E. At this point it appears that he does not own the M6 II, but is considering it as an alternative to his full frame camera. The Sony and Fuji options I suggested could provide a total package that is smaller and lighter that his current full fame setup. The full frame Sony setup would only be 102 grams heavier than the M6 II + adapter + Sigma 8-16mm.

I have to take a harder look at the Fuji system. I hear nothing but good things about their lenses, nothing but bad things about their focusing system,

The Fuji AF was really bad on the gen 1 cameras like the X-T1. It was comparable to the original EOS M and M3. The gen 2 cameras like the X-T2 made massive improvements that brought them to parity with the then current state of the art. The current gen 3 cameras like the X-T3 took another significant jump and are at parity with the current state of the art. Whether you are looking at Canon, Fuji, or Sony, all of the current cameras have very capable AF systems.

and mixed reviews on IQ and high ISO capability.

Fuji uses tweaked Sony sensors. All of the good things you might hear about Sony sensors also applies to Fuji sensors. The biggest image quality issue with Fuji was at the beginning with the 16mp sensors as the RAW converters originally had a hard time with the Fuji files. That is no longer the case and you can now process Fuji files just as easily as Canon or Sony files

I believe the hype about the M6ii's low light focusing, because the same hype on the R was understated, if anything.

it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture.

Oh, if I have to have two systems, I'm keeping the one I have now. I'm very happy with it except for it's size, particularly when traveling by plane or on foot. The M lenses have a big pound for pound advantage.

The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable.

That's what I am curious about. I looked into the lens years ago and read that it was difficult to correct. But software has advanced since then, so I might be able to use a profile that figures it out, like Canon or Adobe software handle Canon lenses.

The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

I think so. My whole theory is based on an article that said that the 17, fully shifted both ways and stitched, will create an 11 mm AOV. Therefore (my extrapolation) an 11 mm lens, held level and shot vertically, could be cropped to the exact same framing as the 17 fully shifted, albeit with half the pixels. I rarely shift it all the way, so I could probably do fine with something in the 13 or 14 mm AOV range. 15 MP will work fine except for the largest prints. Even the 12 from changing the aspect ratio to 8X10 is still going to be above my self imposed limit of 10 MP for the final crop.

I guess there is software to correct the vignetting of the Laowa 9, but that's three stops of exposure lifting, before I even get started. Maybe the new sensors and software do better enough that I shouldn't be afraid of either.

I am going to make a few assumptions about your kit. First, an ultra wide angle zoom could replace both your TS-E 17mm and EF 17-40mm f/4.0. Second, you bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 primarily for the small size and focal length, and not for the macro capabilities.

Your 6D kit:

  • 6D - 770g
  • EF 17-40mm f/4.0 - 500g
  • TS-E 17mm f/4.0 - 820g
  • EF 24-70mm f/4.0 - 600g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g

4260g total

Your EOS R kit:

  • EOS R - 660g
  • EF to RF adapter - 130g
  • EF 17-40mm f/4.0 - 500g
  • TS-E 17mm f/4.0 - 820g
  • RF 24-105mm f/4.0 - 700g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g
  • RF 35mm f/1.8 - 305g

4685g total

A7 III kit:

  • A7 III - 650g
  • FE 12-24mm f/4.0 - 565g
  • FE 24-70mm f/4.0 - 430g
  • FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1395g
  • FE 35mm f/1.8 - 280g

3320g total

X-T30 kit:

  • X-T30 - 383g
  • XF 8-16mm f/2.8 - 805g
  • XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 - 310g
  • XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1375g
  • XF 23mm f/2.0 - 180g

3053g total

M6 II kit:

  • M6 II - 408g
  • EF to EF-M adapter - 150g
  • Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - 555g
  • EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 130g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g
  • EF-M 22mm f/2.0 - 105g

2918g total

A few comments about these kits... You could swap out your TS-E 17mm and EF 17-40mm for the 1180g EF 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and save 140g in total weight.  A RF mount version of the EF 11-24mm should be coming this year and it will likely be smaller than the EF mount version, but for sure not cheaper.  A potentially lighter RF version of the EF 100-400mm should be coming soon too.

The Sony kit has a ton of options if you want to go smaller/slower or bigger/faster.  For example, you could replace the Sony 24-70mm f/4.0 and 35mm f/1.8 above with the Sony E mount Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that weighs 550g.

Fuji has several heavier alternatives for a standard zoom such as the 16-55mm f/2.8 (655g) or 16-80mm f/4.0 (440g) that are both weather sealed.  There is also a 23mm f/1.4 that is 300g if you wanted a brighter prime.  The X-T2 and X-T3 bodies are both weather sealed as are most of the lenses in the above list.  The only Fuji lenses I mentioned that are not weather sealed are the 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 and the 23mm f/1.4.  The replacement for the X-T3 is rumored to be announced in February and it is supposed to include IBIS

The M6 II kit has some of the smallest lenses, but that comes at the expense of slower apertures.  A replacement for your 24-70/105mm f/4.0 zooms would need to come in the form of adapting the 645g EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8.  If you want a brighter prime, you have the 16mm, 30mm, anf 56mm f/1.4 options from Sigma, or the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4.  Viltrox will be releasing 23mm, 33mm, and 56mm f/1.4 lenses in March for Canon, Fuji, and Sony mounts.

If you want to run dual systems, the Canon M system will get you the smallest possible "small" system.  If you want to stick with a single system to do everything, Fuji and Sony have best options right now.  Your R will get there too, but it will take quite a few more RF lens announcements.  RF versions of the EF 11-24mm and EF 100-400mm should be coming relatively soon, but neither will be remotely inexpensive.

Shahrooz51
OP Shahrooz51 Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: Canon EOS M6 II for Landscape photography!

More megapixels gives the opportunity to crab the photos. I agree with you that viewfinder is needed. To me, cameras with no viewfinder are the same as cell phones with worse monitor quality!

 Shahrooz51's gear list:Shahrooz51's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a7R Sony a7R III
Ed Rizk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,898
Re: Laowa 9mm

nnowak wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

and about 4 times the price. The Sony 12-24 is about the same size and weight,

The Sony is quite a bit smaller and lighter once you add the adapter to the Sigma.

Maybe so, but the rest of the lenses for the Sony would be close enough to what I have that I would not move for one lens.

Maybe not. See below.

Thanks a lot for all of that.

but more than three times the price, and would be on a much bigger body. If Ed is happy with the M6II for everything else,

Ed is currently using a full frame camera with the 17mm TS-E. At this point it appears that he does not own the M6 II, but is considering it as an alternative to his full frame camera. The Sony and Fuji options I suggested could provide a total package that is smaller and lighter that his current full fame setup. The full frame Sony setup would only be 102 grams heavier than the M6 II + adapter + Sigma 8-16mm.

I have to take a harder look at the Fuji system. I hear nothing but good things about their lenses, nothing but bad things about their focusing system,

The Fuji AF was really bad on the gen 1 cameras like the X-T1. It was comparable to the original EOS M and M3. The gen 2 cameras like the X-T2 made massive improvements that brought them to parity with the then current state of the art. The current gen 3 cameras like the X-T3 took another significant jump and are at parity with the current state of the art. Whether you are looking at Canon, Fuji, or Sony, all of the current cameras have very capable AF systems.

and mixed reviews on IQ and high ISO capability.

Fuji uses tweaked Sony sensors. All of the good things you might hear about Sony sensors also applies to Fuji sensors. The biggest image quality issue with Fuji was at the beginning with the 16mp sensors as the RAW converters originally had a hard time with the Fuji files. That is no longer the case and you can now process Fuji files just as easily as Canon or Sony files

So you can process them in the usual software programs, including Lightroom, Photoshop, and maybe some of the specialty programs/plugins?

I believe the hype about the M6ii's low light focusing, because the same hype on the R was understated, if anything.

it would be beyond silly to get a Fuji or Sony setup at considerable expense and no size or weight saving (in fact, the opposite), just for architecture.

Oh, if I have to have two systems, I'm keeping the one I have now. I'm very happy with it except for it's size, particularly when traveling by plane or on foot. The M lenses have a big pound for pound advantage.

The best solution is pretty clearly the Sigma 8-16. The distortion is easily correctable.

That's what I am curious about. I looked into the lens years ago and read that it was difficult to correct. But software has advanced since then, so I might be able to use a profile that figures it out, like Canon or Adobe software handle Canon lenses.

The angle of view on the M6II is 13mm (FF equivalent), which seems plenty wide enough. 32.5MP gives you plenty to spare for distortion correction.

I think so. My whole theory is based on an article that said that the 17, fully shifted both ways and stitched, will create an 11 mm AOV. Therefore (my extrapolation) an 11 mm lens, held level and shot vertically, could be cropped to the exact same framing as the 17 fully shifted, albeit with half the pixels. I rarely shift it all the way, so I could probably do fine with something in the 13 or 14 mm AOV range. 15 MP will work fine except for the largest prints. Even the 12 from changing the aspect ratio to 8X10 is still going to be above my self imposed limit of 10 MP for the final crop.

I guess there is software to correct the vignetting of the Laowa 9, but that's three stops of exposure lifting, before I even get started. Maybe the new sensors and software do better enough that I shouldn't be afraid of either.

I am going to make a few assumptions about your kit. First, an ultra wide angle zoom could replace both your TS-E 17mm and EF 17-40mm f/4.0. Second, you bought the RF 35mm f/1.8 primarily for the small size and focal length, and not for the macro capabilities.

I do like the macro capabilities.   I reach for the EF 24-70 F4 half the time on my R, because of the 0.7-1 macro mode on it, particularly if I have no idea what I'm going to shoot.  I like being able to pick off macros of opportunity when shooting landscapes or whatever.  You really only need 1-1 magnification for bugs.   The bugs aren't that pretty.  I prefer florals and food.   A lot of the M lenses have pretty good close focus, though.

Your 6D kit:

  • 6D - 770g
  • EF 17-40mm f/4.0 - 500g
  • TS-E 17mm f/4.0 - 820g
  • EF 24-70mm f/4.0 - 600g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g

4260g total

Your EOS R kit:

  • EOS R - 660g
  • EF to RF adapter - 130g
  • EF 17-40mm f/4.0 - 500g
  • TS-E 17mm f/4.0 - 820g
  • RF 24-105mm f/4.0 - 700g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g
  • RF 35mm f/1.8 - 305g

4685g total

A7 III kit:

  • A7 III - 650g
  • FE 12-24mm f/4.0 - 565g
  • FE 24-70mm f/4.0 - 430g
  • FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1395g
  • FE 35mm f/1.8 - 280g

3320g total

That's surprising, particularly if there is a corresponding reduction in volume.  They look big.

X-T30 kit:

  • X-T30 - 383g
  • XF 8-16mm f/2.8 - 805g
  • XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 - 310g
  • XF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1375g
  • XF 23mm f/2.0 - 180g

3053g total

M6 II kit:

  • M6 II - 408g
  • EF to EF-M adapter - 150g
  • Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - 555g
  • EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 - 130g
  • EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - 1570g
  • EF-M 22mm f/2.0 - 105g

2918g total

A few comments about these kits... You could swap out your TS-E 17mm and EF 17-40mm for the 1180g EF 11-24mm f/4.0 lens and save 140g in total weight. A RF mount version of the EF 11-24mm should be coming this year and it will likely be smaller than the EF mount version, but for sure not cheaper.

That's one of the lenses that I lust after.  It couldn't replace the 17-40 for me, because it has the protruding bulbous element, like the TSE 17.

I use the TSE mostly on a tripod.  I'm very careful with it because of that element.  I put the cap on it if I'm going to walk more than 100 feet.

I use the 17-40 for hand held shots when I'm looking at property with other real estate brokers or clients.  A tripod or a strange looking lens like the TSE 17 or the 11-24 would distract too much from the conversation.  Even quickly previewing property by myself, it's just faster to use.

I guess the Sigma would have a similar issue with the front element, as well as the Fuji.  That's what was so exciting about the extra wide Laowa prime combined with the 11-22.

A potentially lighter RF version of the EF 100-400mm should be coming soon too.

I'm pretty happy with the EF versions of lenses.  I got the RF 24-100 for the extra reach and to check out an RF zoom.  It's a really nice lens, but not a game changer over my EF 24-70 F4.

The Sony kit has a ton of options if you want to go smaller/slower or bigger/faster. For example, you could replace the Sony 24-70mm f/4.0 and 35mm f/1.8 above with the Sony E mount Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that weighs 550g.

Fuji has several heavier alternatives for a standard zoom such as the 16-55mm f/2.8 (655g) or 16-80mm f/4.0 (440g) that are both weather sealed. There is also a 23mm f/1.4 that is 300g if you wanted a brighter prime. The X-T2 and X-T3 bodies are both weather sealed as are most of the lenses in the above list. The only Fuji lenses I mentioned that are not weather sealed are the 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 and the 23mm f/1.4. The replacement for the X-T3 is rumored to be announced in February and it is supposed to include IBIS

It's a huge plus that Fuji's are the only weather sealed APSc lenses.  Rain has yet to destroy any of my non sealed lenses, but the weather sealing just makes me feel better.  Every one of them has been rained on, except for the TSE.

I am definitely going to read up on Fuji before making any decision.

The M6 II kit has some of the smallest lenses, but that comes at the expense of slower apertures. A replacement for your 24-70/105mm f/4.0 zooms would need to come in the form of adapting the 645g EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. If you want a brighter prime, you have the 16mm, 30mm, anf 56mm f/1.4 options from Sigma, or the Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Viltrox will be releasing 23mm, 33mm, and 56mm f/1.4 lenses in March for Canon, Fuji, and Sony mounts.

If you want to run dual systems, the Canon M system will get you the smallest possible "small" system.

That's probably the smartest thing for me to do.  The M6ii with the 11-22 and the 18-150 for daylight and the 22 for night and indoors.  Done.  The whole thing fits in a couple of big jacket pockets.  The 56 and the 9 are tempting, but that's GAS talking, and the 9 might or might not be a disappointment.

If you want to stick with a single system to do everything, Fuji and Sony have best options right now.

Your R will get there too, but it will take quite a few more RF lens announcements. RF versions of the EF 11-24mm and EF 100-400mm should be coming relatively soon, but neither will be remotely inexpensive.

The R is there.  Every EF lens works perfectly on it.  I have no problem whatsoever with adapting EF glass to the R.

I love the 100-400, but it doesn't get as much use as any other lens.  It's the greatest walk in the woods lens, but I don't get out to the woods as much as I'd hoped.  I hate having expensive things I don't use often.

If I went with the above two system setup, and sold the 100-400, the 17-70, the RF 24-105, and the 6D, my total 2 camera kit is smaller and lighter, and not such a big bite.  Everything stays Canon, so there's not much to relearn.

-- hide signature --

Ed Rizk

 Ed Rizk's gear list:Ed Rizk's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS R Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads