Tamron Still Believes in APS-C

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Microprism Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly, a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct? I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

 Microprism's gear list:Microprism's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +22 more
NotAPhotog Regular Member • Posts: 443
Re: Tamron Still Believes in APS-C
1

This lens will never come to EF-M...don't get your hopes up. Buy a cheap used A6000 if you just want to use this lens.

 NotAPhotog's gear list:NotAPhotog's gear list
Sony a6000 Canon EOS M100 Sony a7 III Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III
R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 23,569
Re: even @$999 Canon RP isn't as impressive as Fuji X-S10, Sony A6400, or Canon M6ii
1

dwfrommonterey wrote:

When it comes right down to it I actually enjoy shooting with the M6ii much more than with the R5. The whole system is so much smaller, lighter, and more portable.

What many pine for is an APS-C R5. Small, light, portable, thus, enjoyable. And $1000 rather than $4000. Known colloquially as the M5II.

Yeah, the M5ii is still not fulfilled.  I’d buy one in a heartbeat.

I do not exaggerate when I say that the M6ii is darn close to the R5 in capability (IBIS notwithstanding).  An M5ii (M6ii sibling) would certainly be considered a threat to the R Series, and that’s why we aren’t seeing one.  Unfortunately.

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
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS M6
dwfrommonterey Regular Member • Posts: 359
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens

If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly.

I think what they are saying is that while f7.1 is f7.1, the sensor's ability to collect photons isn't the same, and that f7.1 on ff collects the same as f4,5 on crop, and thus is underexposed at the same ambient light intensity, meaning that shutter speeds equate at a different aperture, advantage ff.

Logically, I think that might be true in theory, but is not a proof in practice, because sensors are real rather than theoretical.

 dwfrommonterey's gear list:dwfrommonterey's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P900 Nikon D7200 Canon EOS M5 Canon EOS RP
Microprism Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: even @$999 Canon RP isn't as impressive as Fuji X-S10, Sony A6400, or Canon M6ii

R2D2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

When it comes right down to it I actually enjoy shooting with the M6ii much more than with the R5. The whole system is so much smaller, lighter, and more portable.

What many pine for is an APS-C R5. Small, light, portable, thus, enjoyable. And $1000 rather than $4000. Known colloquially as the M5II.

Yeah, the M5ii is still not fulfilled. I’d buy one in a heartbeat.

I do not exaggerate when I say that the M6ii is darn close to the R5 in capability (IBIS notwithstanding). An M5ii (M6ii sibling) would certainly be considered a threat to the R Series, and that’s why we aren’t seeing one. Unfortunately.

R2

I planned to wait to see if a M5ii appeared, or whatever else Canon has up its sleeve, but the AKM supply disruption pushed me to buy the M6ii now. Because Canon does not announce models far in advance we may never know what this disaster will do to Canon's planning, but I think it is really bad news for everyone who hopes for a new camera model.

Received the M6ii today, by the way, and it is a lovely machine.

 Microprism's gear list:Microprism's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +22 more
OP dpeete Contributing Member • Posts: 746
Re: Tamron Still Believes in APS-C

NotAPhotog wrote:

This lens will never come to EF-M...don't get your hopes up. Buy a cheap used A6000 if you just want to use this lens.

The ergonomics aren’t to my liking... and I am bummed they used them on the A7c. I want a front dial and a fully implemented touch screen, like on my M6.

 dpeete's gear list:dpeete's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a7R III Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +17 more
NotAPhotog Regular Member • Posts: 443
Re: Tamron Still Believes in APS-C

dpeete wrote:

NotAPhotog wrote:

This lens will never come to EF-M...don't get your hopes up. Buy a cheap used A6000 if you just want to use this lens.

The ergonomics aren’t to my liking... and I am bummed they used them on the A7c. I want a front dial and a fully implemented touch screen, like on my M6.

You wouldn't be the only one to complain about Sony's ergonomics, especially in their APS-C line. I too, am surprised they used it on the A7C. I tried it in person and it actually had a worse grip than the A6000,

Canon overall is just better to use. I like my little M100 more than my A6000.

However if the point is to be able to use the Tamron 17-70, then unfortunately there is no other choice than to buy Sony.

 NotAPhotog's gear list:NotAPhotog's gear list
Sony a6000 Canon EOS M100 Sony a7 III Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 III
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 7,585
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly, a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct? I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range

That's the weakness of the RP compared to other full frame cameras:  Full frame cameras generally have better DR to compensate for this too, as DR performance is related to sensor size just as signal to noise ratio.  The RP is lacking here, but that's rather a flaw of the RP than full frame cameras in general.  Fortunately not every picture requires a lot of DR, and in all the other cases the RP will outperform the M6mkII as it comes to IQ because of it's sensor size.

in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art +18 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 7,770
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
2

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation.  No original 5D vs M6 II.  Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range. 
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor.  An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end.  Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera.  At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure.  ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200.  Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Microprism Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
1

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation. No original 5D vs M6 II. Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range.
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor. An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end. Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera. At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure. ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200. Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Yes, all things being equal, there is no question that a full frame sensor has better performance than an APS-C at the same ISO. In actually shooting photos, though, there's more to it than that.

First off, the M shooter has options. By design, the M system is not limited to EF-M zoom lenses. You can put an EF zoom on the camera that is more than a stop faster than f/7.1 at 105mm – and has better IQ, too. Or, you can shoot with native or adapted prime lenses that are both faster and sharper than the EF-M zooms. Arbitrarily limiting a discussion of the M system to EF-M zoom lenses is, imo, stacking the deck against it.

I'm going to add that although dimensions and weight do not directly affect IQ, they might affect whether a camera gets used, at all.

A R5 body weighs 738 g, while a M6 Mark II weighs 408 g. A M50 weighs in at 387 g. That's an 80% (or greater) disadvantage to the full frame. The RP (with an older, but still competitive generation of sensor) weighs 485 g, 19% more than the M6 Mark II, or 25% more than a M50.

Camera cost: The M6 Mark II body is now selling for $799. The M50 Mark II is $699. The R5 costs $3,899, the R6 goes for $2,499. So the R5 is 488% dearer than the M6 and the R6 is 312% more expensive. The RP at $899 (or $999 with that "slower" zoom lens) is the only full frame that's competitive on price and weight, although it is still somewhat heavier and more expensive.

I don't think there is a clear winner, or loser here. All these cameras can produce outstanding images. The M cameras blend quality with portability. They have low size, low weight and low cost advantages that, depending on the photographer, may outweigh the better sensor response of their full frame cousins. "f/8 and be there," means you have to have a camera with you!

 Microprism's gear list:Microprism's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +22 more
OP dpeete Contributing Member • Posts: 746
Re: Tamron Still Believes in APS-C
1

NotAPhotog wrote:

dpeete wrote:

NotAPhotog wrote:

This lens will never come to EF-M...don't get your hopes up. Buy a cheap used A6000 if you just want to use this lens.

The ergonomics aren’t to my liking... and I am bummed they used them on the A7c. I want a front dial and a fully implemented touch screen, like on my M6.

You wouldn't be the only one to complain about Sony's ergonomics, especially in their APS-C line. I too, am surprised they used it on the A7C. I tried it in person and it actually had a worse grip than the A6000,

Canon overall is just better to use. I like my little M100 more than my A6000.

However if the point is to be able to use the Tamron 17-70, then unfortunately there is no other choice than to buy Sony.

I already have. I bought a launch day A7r3 back when Canon couldn't spell "full frame mirrorless." Obviously a lot has changed since then with the R5 and R6.

But I am not counting out Tamron products for Canon. Samyang/Rokinon was pretty quick to bring out an RF lens, and clearly Sigma and Viltrox don't think EF-M is dead yet. So I hope that Tamron will follow.

 dpeete's gear list:dpeete's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a7R III Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +17 more
OP dpeete Contributing Member • Posts: 746
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
1

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation. No original 5D vs M6 II. Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range.
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor. An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end. Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera. At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure. ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200. Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Yes, all things being equal, there is no question that a full frame sensor has better performance than an APS-C at the same ISO. In actually shooting photos, though, there's more to it than that.

First off, the M shooter has options. By design, the M system is not limited to EF-M zoom lenses. You can put an EF zoom on the camera that is more than a stop faster than f/7.1 at 105mm – and has better IQ, too. Or, you can shoot with native or adapted prime lenses that are both faster and sharper than the EF-M zooms. Arbitrarily limiting a discussion of the M system to EF-M zoom lenses is, imo, stacking the deck against it.

I'm going to add that although dimensions and weight do not directly affect IQ, they might affect whether a camera gets used, at all.

A R5 body weighs 738 g, while a M6 Mark II weighs 408 g. A M50 weighs in at 387 g. That's an 80% (or greater) disadvantage to the full frame. The RP (with an older, but still competitive generation of sensor) weighs 485 g, 19% more than the M6 Mark II, or 25% more than a M50.

Camera cost: The M6 Mark II body is now selling for $799. The M50 Mark II is $699. The R5 costs $3,899, the R6 goes for $2,499. So the R5 is 488% dearer than the M6 and the R6 is 312% more expensive. The RP at $899 (or $999 with that "slower" zoom lens) is the only full frame that's competitive on price and weight, although it is still somewhat heavier and more expensive.

I don't think there is a clear winner, or loser here. All these cameras can produce outstanding images. The M cameras blend quality with portability. They have low size, low weight and low cost advantages that, depending on the photographer, may outweigh the better sensor response of their full frame cousins. "f/8 and be there," means you have to have a camera with you!

There are three items listed above dealing purely with Newtonian physics... but aren't we missing out on quantum mechanics here? Not all sensor tech is equal, and Canon gives us a great example with the RP and the M6ii. Their performance up to ISO 1000 is pretty much the same, and doesn't even hit a full stop at 6400: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20M6%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%20R5,Canon%20EOS%20RP

I also put the R5 in there to contrast the RP with the R5, which demonstrates a more conventional full frame DR to ISO curve. You can easily add other cameras like the M6 to see what we are guessing is Canon's old sensor fab (the M6 and the RP) vs new sensor fab (M6ii and R5).

 dpeete's gear list:dpeete's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a7R III Canon EOS M6 Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM +17 more
nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 7,770
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
3

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation. No original 5D vs M6 II. Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range.
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor. An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end. Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera. At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure. ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200. Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Yes, all things being equal, there is no question that a full frame sensor has better performance than an APS-C at the same ISO. In actually shooting photos, though, there's more to it than that.

First off, the M shooter has options. By design, the M system is not limited to EF-M zoom lenses. You can put an EF zoom on the camera that is more than a stop faster than f/7.1 at 105mm – and has better IQ, too. Or, you can shoot with native or adapted prime lenses that are both faster and sharper than the EF-M zooms.

Pretty sure RF mount also supports alternate lenses too.

Arbitrarily limiting a discussion of the M system to EF-M zoom lenses is, imo, stacking the deck against it.

You missed the point.  For years, people in this forum have been longing for a faster standard normal zoom.  Even though f/7.1 sounds slow, this lens is equivalent to an EF-M 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5.  A lot of people would be absolutely thrilled to see an EF-M lens with those spec's, yet the equivalent is sitting right there in the form of a "lowly" full frame kit lens.

nnowak Veteran Member • Posts: 7,770
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens

dpeete wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation. No original 5D vs M6 II. Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range.
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor. An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end. Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera. At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure. ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200. Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Yes, all things being equal, there is no question that a full frame sensor has better performance than an APS-C at the same ISO. In actually shooting photos, though, there's more to it than that.

First off, the M shooter has options. By design, the M system is not limited to EF-M zoom lenses. You can put an EF zoom on the camera that is more than a stop faster than f/7.1 at 105mm – and has better IQ, too. Or, you can shoot with native or adapted prime lenses that are both faster and sharper than the EF-M zooms. Arbitrarily limiting a discussion of the M system to EF-M zoom lenses is, imo, stacking the deck against it.

I'm going to add that although dimensions and weight do not directly affect IQ, they might affect whether a camera gets used, at all.

A R5 body weighs 738 g, while a M6 Mark II weighs 408 g. A M50 weighs in at 387 g. That's an 80% (or greater) disadvantage to the full frame. The RP (with an older, but still competitive generation of sensor) weighs 485 g, 19% more than the M6 Mark II, or 25% more than a M50.

Camera cost: The M6 Mark II body is now selling for $799. The M50 Mark II is $699. The R5 costs $3,899, the R6 goes for $2,499. So the R5 is 488% dearer than the M6 and the R6 is 312% more expensive. The RP at $899 (or $999 with that "slower" zoom lens) is the only full frame that's competitive on price and weight, although it is still somewhat heavier and more expensive.

I don't think there is a clear winner, or loser here. All these cameras can produce outstanding images. The M cameras blend quality with portability. They have low size, low weight and low cost advantages that, depending on the photographer, may outweigh the better sensor response of their full frame cousins. "f/8 and be there," means you have to have a camera with you!

There are three items listed above dealing purely with Newtonian physics... but aren't we missing out on quantum mechanics here? Not all sensor tech is equal, and Canon gives us a great example with the RP and the M6ii.

That is why I specifically stated  "we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation".  The M6 II sensor is roughly two years newer than the RP sensor.  If you compare sensors from similar generations, the results will be quite close to the theoretical 1 and 1/3 stop difference.

Their performance up to ISO 1000 is pretty much the same, and doesn't even hit a full stop at 6400: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20M6%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%20R5,Canon%20EOS%20RP

I also put the R5 in there to contrast the RP with the R5, which demonstrates a more conventional full frame DR to ISO curve. You can easily add other cameras like the M6 to see what we are guessing is Canon's old sensor fab (the M6 and the RP) vs new sensor fab (M6ii and R5).

Microprism Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
1

nnowak wrote:

You missed the point. For years, people in this forum have been longing for a faster standard normal zoom. Even though f/7.1 sounds slow, this lens is equivalent to an EF-M 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5. A lot of people would be absolutely thrilled to see an EF-M lens with those spec's, yet the equivalent is sitting right there in the form of a "lowly" full frame kit lens.

If that was your point, I agree with it.

 Microprism's gear list:Microprism's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +22 more
m100 Contributing Member • Posts: 822
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
1

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

You missed the point. For years, people in this forum have been longing for a faster standard normal zoom. Even though f/7.1 sounds slow, this lens is equivalent to an EF-M 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5. A lot of people would be absolutely thrilled to see an EF-M lens with those spec's, yet the equivalent is sitting right there in the form of a "lowly" full frame kit lens.

If that was your point, I agree with it.

Not so equivalent even to the 15-45MM.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1114&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1504&CameraComp=1221&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 7,585
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation. No original 5D vs M6 II. Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range.
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor. An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end. Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera. At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure. ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200. Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Yes, all things being equal, there is no question that a full frame sensor has better performance than an APS-C at the same ISO. In actually shooting photos, though, there's more to it than that.

First off, the M shooter has options. By design, the M system is not limited to EF-M zoom lenses. You can put an EF zoom on the camera that is more than a stop faster than f/7.1 at 105mm – and has better IQ, too. Or, you can shoot with native or adapted prime lenses that are both faster and sharper than the EF-M zooms. Arbitrarily limiting a discussion of the M system to EF-M zoom lenses is, imo, stacking the deck against it.

I'm going to add that although dimensions and weight do not directly affect IQ, they might affect whether a camera gets used, at all.

A R5 body weighs 738 g, while a M6 Mark II weighs 408 g. A M50 weighs in at 387 g. That's an 80% (or greater) disadvantage to the full frame. The RP (with an older, but still competitive generation of sensor) weighs 485 g, 19% more than the M6 Mark II, or 25% more than a M50.

Camera cost: The M6 Mark II body is now selling for $799. The M50 Mark II is $699. The R5 costs $3,899, the R6 goes for $2,499. So the R5 is 488% dearer than the M6 and the R6 is 312% more expensive. The RP at $899 (or $999 with that "slower" zoom lens) is the only full frame that's competitive on price and weight, although it is still somewhat heavier and more expensive.

I don't think there is a clear winner, or loser here. All these cameras can produce outstanding images. The M cameras blend quality with portability. They have low size, low weight and low cost advantages that, depending on the photographer, may outweigh the better sensor response of their full frame cousins. "f/8 and be there," means you have to have a camera with you!

.......regardless, for low light,  f/7.1 is better than any of the ef-m zooms.

-- hide signature --

victory

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art +18 more
Microprism Contributing Member • Posts: 865
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
1

Tthunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation. No original 5D vs M6 II. Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range.
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor. An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end. Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera. At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure. ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200. Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Yes, all things being equal, there is no question that a full frame sensor has better performance than an APS-C at the same ISO. In actually shooting photos, though, there's more to it than that.

First off, the M shooter has options. By design, the M system is not limited to EF-M zoom lenses. You can put an EF zoom on the camera that is more than a stop faster than f/7.1 at 105mm – and has better IQ, too. Or, you can shoot with native or adapted prime lenses that are both faster and sharper than the EF-M zooms. Arbitrarily limiting a discussion of the M system to EF-M zoom lenses is, imo, stacking the deck against it.

I'm going to add that although dimensions and weight do not directly affect IQ, they might affect whether a camera gets used, at all.

A R5 body weighs 738 g, while a M6 Mark II weighs 408 g. A M50 weighs in at 387 g. That's an 80% (or greater) disadvantage to the full frame. The RP (with an older, but still competitive generation of sensor) weighs 485 g, 19% more than the M6 Mark II, or 25% more than a M50.

Camera cost: The M6 Mark II body is now selling for $799. The M50 Mark II is $699. The R5 costs $3,899, the R6 goes for $2,499. So the R5 is 488% dearer than the M6 and the R6 is 312% more expensive. The RP at $899 (or $999 with that "slower" zoom lens) is the only full frame that's competitive on price and weight, although it is still somewhat heavier and more expensive.

I don't think there is a clear winner, or loser here. All these cameras can produce outstanding images. The M cameras blend quality with portability. They have low size, low weight and low cost advantages that, depending on the photographer, may outweigh the better sensor response of their full frame cousins. "f/8 and be there," means you have to have a camera with you!

.......regardless, for low light, f/7.1 is better than any of the ef-m zooms.

Great, I hope you take a lot of fabulous low light photos with it, really. For everyone else I don’t consider it very helpful to focus on just one single, narrow parameter. For instance, do you often shoot in dim light and how well does the camera-lens combination focus in low light? I have an EF f/4 zoom lens that is slightly better for low light than the aforementioned f/7.1 zoom when used on a M camera. I also have an EF mount 2.8 zoom that betters that by another stop, too. The biggest criticism, usually, of the M system is the limited range of lenses. Fine, but the cameras themselves are pretty wonderful imo, especially the M6ii. Not to mention that every model of M can accommodate lenses that can handle pretty much any photographic situation. Just use whatever is best for your overall needs and you can always feel victorious.

 Microprism's gear list:Microprism's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +22 more
azed9 New Member • Posts: 21
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

Athunder storm wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Microprism wrote:

nnowak wrote:

ihgold2 wrote:

dwfrommonterey wrote:

Not everyone care to upgrade to Fullframe, majority of "consumer" don't want to spend $2000 when an $500~$1000 APS-C DSLR or Mirrorless will do.

Canon RP with decent kit lens $999. Right now.

That's a really tempting offer. Do you think f/7.1 is limiting though, in that kit lens? IQ notwithstanding, seems like f/7.1 being the largest possible aperture would be frustrating. What does everyone think?

f/7.1 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on Canon APS-C crop. Yes, f/7.1 sounds slow, but when you consider that an equivalent EF-M lens would need to be 15-66mm f/2.5-4.5, f/7.1 suddenly looks pretty good. Going the other way, the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 is equivalent to a full frame 24-72mm f/5.6-10. After converting for equivalence, the EF-M 15-45mm ends up a full stop slower than the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1.

No, f/7.1 is not ideal for low light use, but it is still better than any of the existing EF-M zooms.

It is really slow in low light when your subject is moving and you need a faster shutter speed.

For the same noise levels, you will still get a faster shutter speed with the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 than any EF-M zoom.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Fake response.

How about a real response then? I don't remember

You should remember someone posting this:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4535021/64597977

anyone ever posting, "Hey, that's great shot. Look at that low noise. Too bad the bird is a blur." If your subject is in motion you need a faster shutter speed to stop the motion unless you like blur. A faster lens allows that.

It's simply nonsense to state a faster lens is the only factor allowing for that. It can also be a higher ISO with a sensor with a better signal to noise ratio.

You either get the shot, or you don't.

You either understand how to adjust your ISO or you don't. You either understand the sensor signal to noise ratio performance is a factor just as important or you don't.

I don't think noise and exposure level are interchangeable for most photographers, but suit yourself.

Suit yourself.

I know quite well that no matter how good a sensor is there is some light level at which either you use a faster lens or you get distractingly visible noise. The better the sensor the lower the light level in which it performs acceptably, but that threshold always exists. For myself, I know exactly what ISO level on my own cameras is acceptable to me. That suits me fine.

That is exactly the point. The 24-105mm f/4-7.1 on full frame will give you a higher threshold than any EF-M zoom on crop.

If I follow you correctly

nope

a full frame camera with a 105mm f/7.1 FF lens will produce an image with equivalent noise level to 66mm f/4.5 lens on a APS-C camera, correct?

not exactly

I think I got it, but here's the rub. If the correct exposure is f/4.5 and the actual exposure is f/7.1, the result is an underexposed image. So, next you take the full frame photo and go into your image editing program to brighten it accordingly. However, because the image was underexposed originally you have sacrificed an f/stop or more of dynamic range in order to compensate for the underexposure. So, yes, the 100mm FF f/7/1 setup has yielded an image with the noise level of a APS-C f/4.5 camera and lens combination. But it is one with less dynamic range. There is no free lunch in my experience. Of course, if f/7.1 is the correct exposure you are in great shape.

Let's back up. First, we need to clarify that we are talking about sensors from the same technological generation. No original 5D vs M6 II. Based on the differences in sensor size/area between full frame and Canon APS-C, we have the following....

  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops lower noise
  • At the same ISO setting, a full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops more dynamic range.
  • At the same aperture setting, the full frame sensor will have 1 and 1/3 stops shallower depth of field.

ISO 2500 on a Canon crop camera will have the same noise levels and same dynamic range as ISO 6400 on the full frame sensor. An aperture of f/4.5 on crop yields the same depth of field as f/7.1 on full frame.

An exposure of f/7.1, ISO 6400, and 1/100 on full frame versus f/4.5, ISO 2500, and 1/100 on crop will produce images with the same noise levels, the same dynamic range, the same depth of field, and the same subject motion blur.

The fastest zooms for the M system are f/5.6 at the long end. Lets say you are at f/5.6, ISO 3200 and 1/100 with a crop camera. At f/7.1 and 1/100 on the full frame camera, you would need to be at ISO 5000 for the correct exposure. ISO 5000 is 2/3 of a stop above ISO 3200. Given the 1 and 1/3 stop noise advantage for full frame, you are still left with a net advantage of 2/3 of a stop at ISO 5000.

Here's the short version.... even though f/7.1 is slower than f/5.6 or f/6.3, the full frame camera can boost the ISO to compensate and still produce an image with lower noise and more dynamic range.

Yes, all things being equal, there is no question that a full frame sensor has better performance than an APS-C at the same ISO. In actually shooting photos, though, there's more to it than that.

First off, the M shooter has options. By design, the M system is not limited to EF-M zoom lenses. You can put an EF zoom on the camera that is more than a stop faster than f/7.1 at 105mm – and has better IQ, too. Or, you can shoot with native or adapted prime lenses that are both faster and sharper than the EF-M zooms. Arbitrarily limiting a discussion of the M system to EF-M zoom lenses is, imo, stacking the deck against it.

I'm going to add that although dimensions and weight do not directly affect IQ, they might affect whether a camera gets used, at all.

A R5 body weighs 738 g, while a M6 Mark II weighs 408 g. A M50 weighs in at 387 g. That's an 80% (or greater) disadvantage to the full frame. The RP (with an older, but still competitive generation of sensor) weighs 485 g, 19% more than the M6 Mark II, or 25% more than a M50.

Camera cost: The M6 Mark II body is now selling for $799. The M50 Mark II is $699. The R5 costs $3,899, the R6 goes for $2,499. So the R5 is 488% dearer than the M6 and the R6 is 312% more expensive. The RP at $899 (or $999 with that "slower" zoom lens) is the only full frame that's competitive on price and weight, although it is still somewhat heavier and more expensive.

I don't think there is a clear winner, or loser here. All these cameras can produce outstanding images. The M cameras blend quality with portability. They have low size, low weight and low cost advantages that, depending on the photographer, may outweigh the better sensor response of their full frame cousins. "f/8 and be there," means you have to have a camera with you!

.......regardless, for low light, f/7.1 is better than any of the ef-m zooms.t

there's better options still..

a cheap M43 body and the 12-40mm f2.8.

or a cheap fuji body and the 17-55mm f2.8-4.0 or the 16-50mm f2.8.

Or you sell up your gear and get a Fuji X-S10.

All equally irrelevant options on an M system thread.

m100 Contributing Member • Posts: 822
Re: Tamron is leaving $ MONEY $ on the table not making EF-M, Fuji-X lens
1

Now we are seeing prime lenses that are sharp in the middle at F1.4 and don't cost  an arm and a leg !

That I lived to see the day.

-- hide signature --

" It's a virus that hitches a ride on our love and our trust for other people. "
Dr. Celine Gounder

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads