Who's still hanging in?

#21
Rocky said:
I am hanging in with the M system (M50, M and M2)and 4 EF-M lenses. They are good enough for me. It is a good compromise for performance, size, weight and cost. Also it hold up very well, even in rain and snow. The M and the M2 actually survived a few drop on the ground. Hope more good EF-M lenses will come with the M50 II. We do need more good lens for the 32.5M sensor.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you know that neither of your cameras has a 32.5MP sensor. But thanks for thinking of us M6ii owners!

I'm very much hanging in there with the EF-M mount. Loving my M6ii so much 3 months in, it's such a great camera in a super compact package. The portability and quality of the Canon lenses and even 3rd party glass have really provided me an experience that has exceeded all my expectations.

I'm even considering buying an original M6 as a b-cam. My girl has an M50, great camera, but the M6 has the same sensor (albeit with a Digic 7 and without eye AF/4K) while giving me all the dials i'm used to, and goes for sub-400 used. Since i mainly shoot stills, i want to be able to swap cameras in the wild with my two most used lenses on, rather than twisting lenses on/off all the time. Also, multi-cam setups for videos would be lovely. Can anyone speak on the M6 before i give eBay my money?

Anyhoo, i'm here for the long haul with EF-M. :cool:
 
Upvote 0
#22
I will move up from the M6 to the M6 Mark II. I have the Canon 22 f/2, 32 f1.4, 18-150 and will be picking up the Sigma 56 1.4 and maybe a Canon 85 1.8 adapted. I'm still looking for a wide angle that isn't giant.

This system will take care of my needs for years. *IF* Canon decides to make a small M6-like full frame then I MAY consider it. The lenses will still be large like EF lenses, the body will still be larger than EOS-M because the mount is etc...

If Canon doesn't make a small FF and my M6 Mark II dies I'll go to Fuji, their new X-S line looks like it has a good future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#23
grantmasterflash said:
This system will take care of my needs for years. *IF* Canon decides to make a small M6-like full frame then I MAY consider it. The lenses will still be large like EF lenses, the body will still be larger than EOS-M because the mount is etc...
Click to expand...

I can't see them doing that because every EF-M lens out there would instantly become a "crop mode only" lens on the new camera.

The EF 85mm f/1.8 (I'm assuming that's the one you're talking about adapting) is probably my favorite prime (after my 100mm non-L macro), and is certainly the one I've used most often (again with the exception of macro on my 100mm) but then I don't get into expensive primes so perhaps my standards are low.
 
Upvote 0
#24
SteveC said:
The EF 85mm f/1.8 (I'm assuming that's the one you're talking about adapting) is probably my favorite prime (after my 100mm non-L macro), and is certainly the one I've used most often (again with the exception of macro on my 100mm) but then I don't get into expensive primes so perhaps my standards are low.
Click to expand...

The 85mm f/1.8 is a pretty good deal. One of the youtube reviewers didn't like it on the m50 though and sent it back. That gives me pause. I'll buy it anyway and test it.
 
Upvote 0
#25
SteveC said:
I can't see them doing that because every EF-M lens out there would instantly become a "crop mode only" lens on the new camera.

The EF 85mm f/1.8 (I'm assuming that's the one you're talking about adapting) is probably my favorite prime (after my 100mm non-L macro), and is certainly the one I've used most often (again with the exception of macro on my 100mm) but then I don't get into expensive primes so perhaps my standards are low.
Click to expand...

I find it's too 'long' on my M, I like the Sigma 56mm better for portraits. With the 85mm on a crop camera I run out of space indoors a bit too often. When I do have enough room to manouver the results with the EF85 are great, especially with DLO enabled and stopped down to f/2.0 or f/2.5.
 
Upvote 0
#26
koenkooi said:
I find it's too 'long' on my M, I like the Sigma 56mm better for portraits. With the 85mm on a crop camera I run out of space indoors a bit too often. When I do have enough room to manouver the results with the EF85 are great, especially with DLO enabled and stopped down to f/2.0 or f/2.5.
Click to expand...

I worry about this too. Not good indoors and not long enough outdoors. It's cheap enough for me to play with it though. I have the 18-150 on it's way but it's a fairly dark lens so it would be nice to have something bright with more reach. Maybe I should be going for the 100mm.
 
Upvote 0
#28
koenkooi said:
It's hard to beat the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 and EF-M 22mm f/2 for low light family shots, the downside of the M50 is that it doesn't allow eye-AF in servo mode.
I have both the M6II and RP, M6II gets used the most for family pics, since its AF can track my 2yo and 4yo, the RP needs to have a good day to track them. I replaced my M50 with the M6II because I loathed the EVF and wanted eye-AF in servo. I do miss the tilty-flippy screen!
Click to expand...
For your M6II, you can get a tilty EVF.
 
Upvote 0
#29
koenkooi said:
It's hard to beat the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 and EF-M 22mm f/2 for low light family shots, the downside of the M50 is that it doesn't allow eye-AF in servo mode.
I have both the M6II and RP, M6II gets used the most for family pics, since its AF can track my 2yo and 4yo, the RP needs to have a good day to track them. I replaced my M50 with the M6II because I loathed the EVF and wanted eye-AF in servo. I do miss the tilty-flippy screen!
Click to expand...

That's the major shortcoming of the M6-II in my opinion. I just stuck a viewfinder on it and called it good. I'd feel differently if I ever used an external flash, though! Perhaps someone will come out with an attachable viewfinder with a shoe on top of it. Or better yet, an M5-II.

(The inborn smartass in me hastens to add, "and I don't mean the M5 Mark II from Olympus.")
 
Upvote 0
#30
SteveC said:
That's the major shortcoming of the M6-II in my opinion. I just stuck a viewfinder on it and called it good. I'd feel differently if I ever used an external flash, though! Perhaps someone will come out with an attachable viewfinder with a shoe on top of it. Or better yet, an M5-II.

(The inborn smartass in me hastens to add, "and I don't mean the M5 Mark II from Olympus.")
Click to expand...

phile said:
For your M6II, you can get a tilty EVF.
Click to expand...

I have the EVF-DC2 instead of the tilty DC1 for the M6II, it's useful in the field with long lenses, like the 180mm macro. For family snaps it gets in the way and it works as catnip on my 4yo, she will confiscate the camera and keep looking through the EVF :)
 
Upvote 0
#32
YuengLinger said:
I get a malware warning with this link...
Click to expand...
Danger! It might make you think.

The bottom line for me is that is no such thing as equivalence. A 50mm lens will remain a 50mm lens, unless you add a teleconverter or something. On a Rebel it will make a nice portrait lens because it puts you about the same distance from the subject that you would be with an 80mm lens on a FF camera. But the depth of field at f/1.8 is going to be very different with the two lenses and cameras.

But it is useful colloquially to refer to focal length equivalence when considering different sensor sizes. Some of the other considerations, while scientifically valid, don't seem to have much practical use for someone just wanting to take good pictures and have some control over the process. Pixel density can come into play when you plan to crop severely. So if you are shooting an eagle soaring overhead, you might want to use a dense crop sensor rather than cropping more a less dense full frame shot. If low-light noise is more of a consideration, then you might choose the opposite. It is a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.

The least useful equivalence arguments to me seem to be the ones where f/4 on one sensor is f/8.379 on another. Try to convince the light meter of that.
 
Upvote 0
#33
overniven said:
I've really enjoyed my EF 70-200 F4 L. It's relatively cheap, and works fine on both my RP and my M5.
It gets used a lot for softball games.
Click to expand...
I had it too, before I got the IS II version (only reason is that I needed IS).
The 70/200 F4 L certainly represents the best value for money in the entire Canon lens-program.
Light, sharp and well built, a really great lens, even with Extender 1,4X!
 
Upvote 0
#34
stevelee said:
The least useful equivalence arguments to me seem to be the ones where f/4 on one sensor is f/8.379 on another. Try to convince the light meter of that.
Click to expand...

I suspect in that case they're talking apparent depth of field after you frame the two shots "the same" (perspective will differ) on both lenses by using sneaker zoom. Your light meter is thinking of other things and rightly so.
 
Upvote 0
#35
SteveC said:
I suspect in that case they're talking apparent depth of field after you frame the two shots "the same" (perspective will differ) on both lenses by using sneaker zoom. Your light meter is thinking of other things and rightly so.
Click to expand...
It has something to do with the total light falling on the sensor. I think I understood it once upon a time, but haven’t bothered to remember since I saw no practical value to me in taking pictures. It comes in handy in some arcane arguments I am not interested in. But, yes, there is also as you say, an equivalent depth of field, so that f/1.8 on a 50mm lens is going to be the DOF equivalent of some smaller opening on an 85mm, but in terms of exposure, f/1.8 is more or less the same on both lenses (ignoring difference in transmission).
 
Upvote 0
#36
stevelee said:
The bottom line for me is that is no such thing as equivalence. A 50mm lens will remain a 50mm lens, unless you add a teleconverter
Click to expand...
Adding a 2X TC to a 50 mm lens will result in an identical image as shooting just the lens and cropping it in half vertically and horizontally, or shooting with a 2X crop factor body. To get the same framing (FoV) in each, all these must be taken at the same distance to the subject, which also ensures identical perspective. As the TC darkens the image, it has to be shot with a 2X higher ISO so that they all look the same.

What makes the TC special to you, when they all ultimately result in the same image? How are the others not equivalent of the result is the only thing that is compared?

stevelee said:
But it is useful colloquially to refer to focal length equivalence when considering different sensor sizes. Some of the other considerations, while scientifically valid, don't seem to have much practical use for someone just wanting to take good pictures and have some control over the process.
Click to expand...
It is useful to understand that 35 mm 1.4 on MFT and 70 mm 2.8 on FF will produce identical images for example, so that you can focus on other relevant aspects of the comparison such as size, price and ergonomics.

Or when you want to compare using an EF 100-400mm 5.6 and cropping vs the RF 100-500 mm 7.1 without the crop. People could get the impression that a 7.1 aperture on the long end is a downgrade when in fact it is practically the same as 400 5.6 cropped to 500 mm (500/400*5.6 = 7).

I still have to finish the missing pieces, but I have put together a more visual comparison of this stuff in the past, if you have doubts in my reasoning: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/equivalency-now-with-pictures.39787/
 
Upvote 0
#37
Joules said:
What makes the TC special to you, when they all ultimately result in the same image? How are the others not equivalent of the result is the only thing that is compared?
Click to expand...
I don't own a TC, and I certainly wouldn't use one with a 50mm lens, since I have other lenses. I just threw that comment in as an example of when a 50mm lens no longer has a 50mm focal length, an exception to the point I was making, to save others from having to say, "But what about if you . . ."
 
Upvote 0
#38
stevelee said:
I don't own a TC, and I certainly wouldn't use one with a 50mm lens, since I have other lenses. I just threw that comment in as an example of when a 50mm lens no longer has a 50mm focal length, an exception to the point I was making, to save others from having to say, "But what about if you . . ."
Click to expand...
The point of equivalence isn't about what the actual physical focal length is, but what the images look like. So I don't get the point of calling using a TC as being equivalent to using a longer lens, but not acknowledging that cropping or using a cropped sensor for example produce the same result.

Not thinking about cropping, zooming, using a TC and so on as the same thing just makes life more difficult than it has to be.
 
Upvote 0
#39
I got my M50 in Nov of 2018. For the first six months I didn't know what to do with it, but I ended up discovering I enjoyed portrait, street and protest photography and I did a LOT of that. I had two zooms and three primes and was learning to use them all. By mid-2020 I wanted to do more than was easily doable on it, especially with a single dial. I was hoping for a M50 Mk II or M60 that would give me a more modern featureset and greater control. When the actual Mk II hit I realized the M system really didn't have much of an upgrade experience for people who had graduated from the entry level. I did not want to go with the RF mount, the cameras were just too big and the lenses too big and expensive to meet my primary requirement: it must be no big deal to carry it 95% of the time, if it's inconvenient I won't have it with me and I won't grow my skills.

Then Fuji announced the X-S10. I'd been following Fuji for months after a friend tipped me off that they were taking APS-C seriously, not just as a cheap option for beginners. After the first month of reviews came out I took the plunge and sold my M50 kit to a friend, using the money to reinvest in the X-S10 and equivalent lenses. The downsides were immediate: AF is not as reliable and more complicated to use. The apps are not great. But the advantages outweighed them (for me). Much, much larger lens selection. Modern features like IBIS. Many more options for direct control. Plus free access to Capture One.

I'm still getting used to it. I miss the simplicity of my M50, but in the end I have no regrets. I hope at some point Canon addresses that 'middle' market of users who started in the M cameras but outgrow them without forcing them into RF, at least as it stands today. I'm unlikely to ever find a system that large and expensive desirable, I'm not making money with my photos. It's a hobby for me, and I don't feel hobbyists are well served by Canon at the moment.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Chances of IBIS in next R>7?
Replies
6
Views
748
dr croubie
D
LSXPhotog
What is Your Most Wanted Canon RF Lens/Camera That Isn't Available?
Replies
140
Views
18K
DK_jake
D
axtstern
Thoughts on the folly of buying an exciting camera of the future but then being stuck in the past.
Replies
18
Views
5K
scyrene
S
speg
Help me pick my first lens.. do I stick with EF-M or adapt EF in anticipation of moving to R series
Replies
6
Views
3K
PeteH
P
P
First impressions of a mirrorless late adopter, 7D2 -> R6
Replies
7
Views
7K
chik0240
C
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu