# Upgrade to m6 ii or RP for family memories in low light



## KKCFamilyman (Nov 12, 2019)

Hello everyone,
I have the M50 with 15-45, 55-200, 22mm. I am wanting more in video, better low light iso performance and still stay relatively small in overall size.

I am considering the RP-24–105L or M6 ii and keep the lenses.

my ? Is has anyone have first hand experience with either to attest to the possible improvement I might gain with either. I like the m6 4k with full readout but like the RF lens system.I capture indoor band concerts of my kids and family events like Christmas morning which is low light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Personally, I would choose a full frame sensor for low light shooting.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 12, 2019)

I have both the M6II and the RP, but not the RF24-105. I like them both very much, but they feel like two very different cameras. The M6II feels more responsive than the RP, but the RP already felt more responsive than the M50 I traded it, so for you it will be a gain either way.

The autofocus tracking on the M6II seems to do a better job as well, on the RP it likes to jump to something next to where you point it at. My RP refused to focus on my daughter when she was lined up with a bunch of other toddlers at the edge of a swimming pool. The focus point kept moving to the child left or right of her. 

For low light performance the RP looks a lot better when viewed at 200%, but I haven't done a proper comparison with 2 similarly framed and exposed shots. 

For bigger lenses the RP is the clear winner, I used an EF100-400mm lens this weekend on both the M6 and RP, the ergonomics on the RP won out. But the M6II had more reach and 14fps, so for faraway, well-lit deer it performed quite well. 

You can't beat the RF50 and RF85 for sharpness and f/1.2, but the M6II with the 32mm and sigma 56mm is a decent enough substitute that is a lot smaller and lighter. Purse vs backpack. 

If you're into 4k, the M6II has actual working autofocus, the RP doesn't do DPAF in 4k and the contrast detect is slow, jittery and hunts a lot. 

The size difference is also substantial, the M6II is already bigger than the M50. See the picture below of RP+grip + adapter + 50mm f/1.8 vs M6II + sigma 56mm.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I would choose a full frame sensor for low light shooting.


Personally, I would avoid 15-45 and 55-200 for low light shooting. 22/2 on a crop sensor, though, is better for low light ISO performance than 24-105/4 on a FF, _if_ the angle of view of 22/2 is enough for the job.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 12, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Personally, I would avoid 15-45 and 55-200 for low light shooting. 22/2 on a crop sensor, though, is better for low light ISO performance than 24-105/4 on a FF, _if_ the angle of view of 22/2 is enough for the job.



If subject movement isn't an issue, the IS in the RF24-105 is very impressive. No complaints about the IS in the 55-200 either, but that thing gets dark at the long end.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I would choose a full frame sensor for low light shooting.


This.

I love my M6 Mk II and happily use it _well_ into 4 figure ISOs, but it's just a _fact_ that - other things being equal - a full frame sensor will out-perform a crop sensor in low light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Personally, I would avoid 15-45 and 55-200 for low light shooting. 22/2 on a crop sensor, though, is better for low light ISO performance than 24-105/4 on a FF, _if_ the angle of view of 22/2 is enough for the job.


If the 22/2 AoV works, I’d take RF 35/1.8 on the RP. Best of both worlds, cost notwithstanding.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Nov 13, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I have both the M6II and the RP, but not the RF24-105. I like them both very much, but they feel like two very different cameras. The M6II feels more responsive than the RP, but the RP already felt more responsive than the M50 I traded it, so for you it will be a gain either way.
> 
> The autofocus tracking on the M6II seems to do a better job as well, on the RP it likes to jump to something next to where you point it at. My RP refused to focus on my daughter when she was lined up with a bunch of other toddlers at the edge of a swimming pool. The focus point kept moving to the child left or right of her.
> 
> ...


Thanks. I care a lot about low light but the reason for considering the m6 ii is being able to record 4k. Shame I cannot get it all.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Nov 13, 2019)

New idea but not sure if this will not give me better low light until we see what Canon does in 2020. I can get a 17-55 2.8 so 
I can shoot indoors at lower iso’s and record 1080p video at lower iso’s even though the lens is huge I would only outlay $550 vs way more for the RP or m6 ii. I love the M series and the RP but neither have it all so I was thinking this might get me by till more gets released. Toughts?


----------



## padam (Nov 13, 2019)

If they release a better camera, it's going to cost way more anyway. Right now, the RP is much more discounted than the M6 II so I would either get that or wait for the other one to drop in price (and I would try each one to see which handles better for you).


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Nov 13, 2019)

padam said:


> If they release a better camera, it's going to cost way more anyway. Right now, the RP is much more discounted than the M6 II so I would either get that or wait for the other one to drop in price (and I would try each one to see which handles better for you).


Thanks, I think I need to try both to see if either suite the upgrade or wait. Really appreciate the advice.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 13, 2019)

To my mind, the M6 II has a much better feature set that the RP. Just about everything is better except ergonomics (you need real estate to fit in all the controls) and sensor size. The two are close to the same generation as far as technology goes, but the R gives you much larger pixels, and that means that in low light you capture a lot more photons per pixel.

as a general use camera, I would personally pick the M6 II, but if my main concern was low light then the RP would win hands down.


----------



## Joules (Nov 14, 2019)

[


Don Haines said:


> The two are close to the same generation as far as technology goes, but the R gives you much larger pixels, and that means that in low light you capture a lot more photons per pixel.


I don’t know, I'd say the R and M6 II are clearly different generations. The R is limited by its older sensor and electronics. At 30 MP it does only 5 FPS with AF, so it does not hold a candle to the M6 II at 32.5 MP and 14 FPS.

Also, the M6 II much more efficient, despite the 76% larger battery capacity the R only manages about 21% shots more per CIPA rating.

I see the M6 II as a good indicator of what the upcoming R models will be, as it is clearly already on the new tech generation I think.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> To my mind, the M6 II has a much better feature set that the RP. Just about everything is better except ergonomics (you need real estate to fit in all the controls) and sensor size. The two are close to the same generation as far as technology goes, but the R gives you much larger pixels, and that means that in low light you capture a lot more photons per pixel.




The M6 II is a generation ahead, esp the new sensor. Erganomics-wise even coming from bigger cameras like I have I find it's actually a step ahead in that area too - it's somewhat different of course. 

I'd honestly say the RP's only got an advantage in very low light and even then the M6 II isnt that far behind esp if you use EF L glass - I've been quite surprised just how much detail the sensor can produce when the light is garbage.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Nov 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> but the R gives you much larger pixels, and that means that in low light you capture a lot more photons per pixel.


Irrelevant to high ISO performance, Don. Sensor size, not pixel size, is what matters - other things being equal.

Question for you: Canon 30D or Canon 90D, in low light?

Obviously it's the 90D, by an order of magnitude - I'm getting perfectly usable 16,000 ISO images from my M6 Mk II, which has essentially the same sensor (and that's converting with the Capture One 20 Beta, rather than my usual Photo Ninja).

Yes, converters are much better these days (hence my "other things being equal") - but even if I converted a 30D file in today's converters, it would still completely fail to match up.

*Which one has the biggest pixels?*


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 14, 2019)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Irrelevant to high ISO performance, Don. Sensor size, not pixel size, is what matters - other things being equal.
> 
> Question for you: Canon 30D or Canon 90D, in low light?
> 
> ...


First off, comparing a 30D and a 90D is irrelevant. There are 6 generations between them. The Rp and the 6D II have about a half generation between them, and that is why I said "The two are close to the same generation as far as technology goes"

Second, at similar technology, it is the pixel size that determines the difference in a pixel's high ISO performance. A larger pixel captures more light, and that gives you more signal, and as a result the fixed noise becomes less significant. Yes, it is true that at the same (or similar) megapixel count, that a FF camera will outperform a crop camera at high ISO, but that is because the larger surface area allows you to make those pixels larger. 

Interestingly enough, if you are focal length limited, you may find that a crop camera with a greater sampling density produces a superior image. Sometimes having more pixels of lower quality works better than fewer pixels of higher quality. Like so many things in photography, there are no absolute rules and much depends on the combination of conditions, subject matter, gear, experience, and processing software.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Nov 14, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Hello everyone,
> I have the M50 with 15-45, 55-200, 22mm. I am wanting more in video, better low light iso performance and still stay relatively small in overall size.
> 
> I am considering the RP-24–105L or M6 ii and keep the lenses.
> ...


It depends on just how low the light is. The M6II with 32 F1.4 or Sigma 56 F1.4 can give great results in very low light. The RP with an F1.4 lens would be even better, but only by about one stop. Use an F1.8 lens on the RP and you've already given up most of the advantage. I would say that unless you're routinely shooting at very low light levels, needing higher ISO than 6400 at F1.4 for shutter speeds of 1/125 or higher (needed to shoot people--IS doesn't help with that), the M6II is an all-around better bet. The 22 F2 is certainly good for most indoor shooting. For really low light, you could get the Sigma 16mm F1.4 (though that's a fair bit bigger). The RP 24-105L won't be better in low light than the M6II with 22 F2, unless you're only shooting static subjects and can use very slow shutter speeds.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 14, 2019)

IMO the only reason to go with the M6/22 over the RP/35 would be size. Otherwise, in my experience the latter setup outputs superior IQ - plus you get stabilization.


----------



## Joules (Nov 15, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The Rp and the 6D II have about a half generation between them, and that is why I said "The two are close to the same generation as far as technology goes"


Nobody here is talking about the 6D II though. With those, you are right, they share a lot of technology. But we're talking about the M6 II, which is using a completly new generation of Canon technology, as far as I can tell.



Don Haines said:


> Second, at similar technology, it is the pixel size that determines the difference in a pixel's high ISO performance.


We are not comparing pixels though, but images. And for Image quality, smaller pixels don't mean worse low light performance. If you take an image at the same position and focal length on the RP and M6 II and the RP is cropped to the same FoV as the M6 II, images from both cameras will have similar IQ, because the cropped RP image is showing an equal physical area in terms of sensor size.

If you compare images by looking at them with a 1:1 correspondence of the image pixels with your screen pixels, on an full HD Monitor, it is like comparing a 21mm^2 sensor with a 90mm^2 sensor (For reference, FF is ~864mm^2). Both images have 1920 X 1080 pixels displayed, but the photons that make up the corresponding pixel values are sourced from a much larger area in the RP case.

That's just a flawed comparison. At the pixel level, a lower resolution sensor looks better in terms of NOISE, and just that. With the example I gave, it would now also show a different image content. But the image quality is dependent on other factors and therefore such a comparison is irrelevant in practical terms. In terms of DETAIL, the higher resolution sensor will show a far superior view at the pixel level. If you compare them so that the detail is the same (same magnification, in my example same image content), you are no longer at the pixel level and the noise difference will be largely gone.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 15, 2019)

Joules said:


> Nobody here is talking about the 6D II though. With those, you are right, they share a lot of technology. But we're talking about the M6 II, which is using a completly new generation of Canon technology, as far as I can tell.
> 
> 
> We are not comparing pixels though, but images. And for Image quality, smaller pixels don't mean worse low light performance. If you take an image at the same position and focal length on the RP and M6 II and the RP is cropped to the same FoV as the M6 II, images from both cameras will have similar IQ, because the cropped RP image is showing an equal physical area in terms of sensor size.
> ...


I meant to say M6 II, not 6D II...... my mistake! and the curse of reading on a tiny screen.....

I agree with what you have said.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 15, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Thanks. I care a lot about low light but the reason for considering the m6 ii is being able to record 4k. Shame I cannot get it all.



Which of these are you prioritizing over the other -- stills shooting at low ISO's or 4K video?

As others have stated, the RP wouldn't autofocus all that well in 4K since it doesn't use dual pixel autofocus in 4K. I believe it's also a 1.7x crop in 4K. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). So even the RF 35mm F1.8, you're at about 60mm full-frame equivalent. That is not wide at all, if wider than 60mm is what you'd need.

Personally, and this is just my opinion, I'm not a fan of 4K in this class of camera. For family videos, vacations, etc., I think the look of 1080p shot at 60fps with a shutter of 1/60th, and aperture set for desired DoF, with Auto ISO for exposure is the way to go. I have the original M6 and video shot with those settings is awesome. I rented an M6 II for a week to see what 4K was like. It's an excellent camera, but after comparing video on my M6 taken with the settings described above, compared to M6II 4K at less frame rate, I much preferred the 1080/60p. Again, all subjective. 

For stills, yeah you may want to see if you can get your hands on them to do your own high ISO comparison. I was *this* close to buying an RP the other day. It's currently $999 with the EF lens adapter included, which I would have paid $100 for, so basically $899 for a full-frame camera. That's just awesome. I read and watched a huge amount of reviews and while the camera was generally universally loved at that price point, the one thing that kept coming up in my research was the high ISO performance was not what you might expect from a full-frame sensor. Now this is just a bunch of random web reviewers, but it came up enough that it made me hesitate. If I'm going to upgrade for the purpose of high ISO performance, I want the ISO performance to be stellar in comparison to what I'm getting now with my M6, which I think is pretty excellent already. I didn't get the impression it was going to be a *huge* upgrade in high ISO IQ going from my M6 to the RP. I decided to wait for the next R camera, whenever that is.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 16, 2019)

Canon RP High ISO performance is very solid indeed. "a bunch of random web reviewers" is random  



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 16, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Which of these are you prioritizing over the other -- stills shooting at low ISO's or 4K video?
> 
> As others have stated, the RP wouldn't autofocus all that well in 4K since it doesn't use dual pixel autofocus in 4K. I believe it's also a 1.7x crop in 4K. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). [..]



You're correct. I would even go as far as saying AF doesn't work at all in 4k mode, I have no successful clips in 4k with AF. With the RF f/1.2 lenses it will keeping doing ear-nose-ear-nose-ear-nose-ear-nose-ear-nose-ear-nose-ear, while in 1080p it stays locked onto the pupil.

A quick test on the M6II shows that AF in 4k works, but I feel it's slower than 1080p. Needs more testing.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 16, 2019)

Thanks for the additional input on the 4K autofocus. 

Re: High ISO noise, I have no doubt the RP is a solid performer, probably excellent. The original post though was asking what camera to upgrade to from an M50 specifically for the purpose of High ISO noise performance and 4K video. I was just passing along the results of my own research. The question is... going from an M50 which has good noise performance already, would he see a *significant* improvement when going to an RP that would make it worth the cost of the upgrade. I'm not convinced, not because the RP is bad, but because the M50 is a great starting point.

When I read things like this from Imaging Resource, it gives me pause:

"That ISO performance is the only weak spot in the camera's overall capability for its audience, as even for a full frame sensor, it lags behind other cameras. ... ISO 6400 has what I perceive to be pretty obvious noise. From that point and higher, the RP just doesn't look great. ISO 6400 used to be the standard for "good" ISO performance, but technology has advanced considerably and I generally expect pretty clean images at least to that point now,... So while we can cut the RP a lot of slack for being made for a more entry-level audience, the fact still remains that it is a full frame sensor, and I expect high performance from a full frame sensor regardless of its target audience. Here, the RP just doesn't quite cut it."









Canon EOS RP Review


The entry-level full-frame mirrorless Canon EOS RP has landed. See our hands-on preview of the affordable Canon EOS RP for all the details!



www.imaging-resource.com





Also from another review:

"The biggest drawback of Canon re-using the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor is its relatively limited low-ISO dynamic range. This means that you can’t dig as much detail out of the shadows from raw files before being confronted by unsightly noise, compared to other full-frame sensors or even modern APS-C sensors."

Don't get me wrong. At $999 even I am still considering getting an RP! It would be a great smaller / lighter body for travel compared to my 5D II. I may rent an RP in the next week or two to kick the tires myself. Nothing beats personal experience and using the camera in your own environment.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 16, 2019)

*"The biggest drawback of Canon re-using the EOS 6D Mark II’s sensor is its relatively limited low-ISO dynamic range. This means that you can’t dig as much detail out of the shadows from raw files before being confronted by unsightly noise, compared to other full-frame sensors or even modern APS-C sensors." *

that's low ISO, not High ISO. e.g. ISO 100 DR - which is no longer an issue past ISO 400..

HIgh ISO is as good as with 6D / 6D II. very good.

HIgh ISO M50 vs RP:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS M50,Canon EOS RP

who are you kidding? 1.5 stop difference at ISO 6400.

and you are correct: Nothing beats personal experience and using the camera in your own environment.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 16, 2019)

I just rented an RP for next weekend. It's been on my mind and I'm curious to see how it stacks up against my (much) older 5D II. Looking forward to doing some real world side-by-side comparisons between the RP, 5D II, and M6.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 16, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> I just rented an RP for next weekend. It's been on my mind and I'm curious to see how it stacks up against my (much) older 5D II. Looking forward to doing some real world side-by-side comparisons between the RP, 5D II, and M6.



Did you also rent the EG-E1 grip? With relative large lenses like the RF f/1.2 ones, the RP rubs against the spot where my ringfinger joins my hand and creates a hot spot. With the EG-E1 attached I have no issues with large lenses. It's permanently attached to my RP. I rented the Canon 100-400 last week and it handled great with the RP+grip. In context: I have regular sized hands for my 182cm/6 feet of length.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 16, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Did you also rent the EG-E1 grip?



I just rented the RP and the standard EF adapter. If I wind up buying an RP, I'd definitely look into the grip at your recommendation. I have relatively small hands, so the RP should generally be a good fit for me.

This rental is really just to check out image quality with the glass I already own (I'm sure it's going to be great). I have a decent collection of EF lenses that should allow me to have some good fun with it. I actually can't wait! It'll be here Friday.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 16, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Did you also rent the EG-E1 grip? With relative large lenses like the RF f/1.2 ones, the RP rubs against the spot where my ringfinger joins my hand and creates a hot spot. With the EG-E1 attached I have no issues with large lenses. It's permanently attached to my RP. I rented the Canon 100-400 last week and it handled great with the RP+grip. In context: I have regular sized hands for my 182cm/6 feet of length.


I wonder if RRS EOS RP base plate is a good substitute for EG-E1.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 17, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I wonder if RRS EOS RP base plate is a good substitute for EG-E1.



Judging from the product page the bottom is less thick than the EG-E1, but probably thick enough to wrap your pinkie finger around.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 22, 2019)

So my rental RP came a day early so I've had a day to get some first impressions. I still have the entire weekend and through Tuesday to give it a good workout, but wanted to post some quick thoughts.

Firstly, the RP is spectacular. The image quality is way better than I expected, especially at this price point ($999 U.S. including the EF / RF adapter).

In daylight, portraits and general "people photography" like family, vacations, etc with a fast EF-prime are, quite honestly, unbelievable. I got photographs yesterday of the family that came out better than anything I've taken before. Now that is in huge part to the excellent autofocus system and especially eye-detect AF I like to shoot as wide open as I can. With an 85mm F1.8 on my 5D Mark II, I generally need to shoot around F3.2 to get enough DoF for a running toddler, and even then, with the 5D II, my hit rate of shots that are focused on the eye is not great. I've missed plenty of otherwise great photos due to narrow DoF and being focused elsewhere. The RP with eye-detect AF was virtually flawless. I was able to shoot at F2.0 and get pretty much 100% hit rate on the eye! Pretty amazing. For that reason alone, I'm considering buying an RP.

To directly answer the original poster's question, the RP's low light, high-ISO performance is excellent. I did several low-light side-by-side tests with my M6 (close enough to your M50) and also my 5D Mark II. As you would expect, both full-frame cameras did better in extreme low-light situations. That said, the M6 held its own even better than I thought it would. Up until ISO 1600, all three cameras produced generally similar results in very low light. At ISO 3200 and above, I started to see what I would call significant improvements with the full-frame cameras. Though the M6 still produced perfectly good images even at that high ISO range. It's just that the full-framers were even cleaner. If your primary goal was solely better high ISO performance, I think you'd like the RP and would be happy with the improvement in high ISO performance.

That said, and this is the only reason I haven't already bought a new RP based on my experience, is that size-wise, you still have to use RF glass or adapted EF glass, and those lenses are nowhere near as small as the equivalent M-series lenses. I guess I thought the smaller size of the RP body itself would make the entire package seem significantly smaller compared my 5D, but it didn't feel all that different. The trinity of EF L 2.8 glass (16-35, 24-70, 70-200) on the RP felt very well balanced but overall it's still a sizeable hefty package. Some RF glass is slightly smaller / lighter, but the high-end RF lenses are still large and heavy.

Also given how much older the 5D II is, I was pleasantly surprised to see how well it did at high ISOs compared to the RP. In my brief tests, the 5D II was pretty close to if not equal to the RP up to ISO 3200. I'll do much more testing this weekend. That was just in my initial couple of examples.

So hopefully that helps. If size is important, then "in general" I would recommend staying with the M-series. The high-ISO IQ of the M-series may not be quite up to full-frame standards, but is still excellent, and the small form factor makes a huge difference to general usability. The RP will require significantly larger and heavier lenses. I love my M6 and it will easily remain my most used camera. That said, you would likely see a fairly big improvement in high-ISO performance in extreme low-light situations if you got an RP.

For me, I'll have to play with it all weekend. If the high-ISO performance of the RP proves to be significantly better than my 5D II after a weekend's worth of testing, then I'll likely get it. If the RP is generally similar to the 5D II, it will be a tougher decision. The eye-detect AF may tilt the scales. I'll have to see after a few more days.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 22, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> So my rental RP came a day early so I've had a day to get some first impressions. [..] With an 85mm F1.8 [..]



The EF 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent candidate for DLO! I recommend doing the following:

Install the lens profiles for the EF lenses you are going to try. It's limited to 5 profiles, I recommend choosing 'bad' lenses first. You need EOS utility for that.
Enable all 3 corrections settings in the 'Lens abberations' menu.
If using JPG, no further steps needed.
If you're using RAW, install the latest DPP from Canon
Select a picture, View -> 'Edit Image Window'
On the right hand side, in 'Tool Palette', click the top left tab, the only with a lens icon
See if "Digital Lens Optimizer" is enabled and has data. If not, click the circle arrow to select and download the profiles
Check the before and after by toggling the checkbox
File -> 'Convert and Save' or 'Batch Process'
Import TIFF(s) into whichever editor you normally use

For me, the 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8 STM and 28 f/1.8 benefit the most from DLO. The purple fringing is usually completely gone and sharpness gets a nice, natural looking boost.
Since LR lacks a profile for the RP, I used the hack to use the 6D2 profile. That improved colours a bit, but I still prefer the DPP colours. I still hate the time spent converting them, about 40 seconds per photo. I use the batch option and go do something else.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 22, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> The EF 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent candidate for DLO! I recommend doing the following:
> 
> Install the lens profiles for the EF lenses you are going to try. It's limited to 5 profiles, I recommend choosing 'bad' lenses first. You need EOS utility for that.
> Enable all 3 corrections settings in the 'Lens abberations' menu.
> ...



Yep, I've been using DLO on my lenses through DPP. I'm not a super-high-volume shooter, so I don't mind doing images individually as I only process a few select photos from any given photoshoot.

I'm really impressed with the RP so far. I'm about to go out right now and and do some wildlife with my 400mm F5.6L. I've been successfully hand-holding that lens on my M6, so it should be even easier with the RP.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 23, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> So hopefully that helps. If size is important, then "in general" I would recommend staying with the M-series. The high-ISO IQ of the M-series may not be quite up to full-frame standards, but is still excellent, and the small form factor makes a huge difference to general usability. The RP will require significantly larger and heavier lenses.



This is true and I would co-sign. However, I've had success handholding the RP/35 1.8 as low as 0.3 sec. Coupled with the f1.8 aperture, you can all but shoot in the dark with this thing. ISO remains usable up to 12,800 (although for best IQ I would stick to 3200 or lower - and I've found that is doable even in dark rooms due to the stability of the IS!). And it is still a smaller package than a FF DSLR and L zoom lens. As good as the M6 is, FF will crush it (a crop sensor) every time when it comes to low light shooting...

Ultimately it's a size vs IQ decision for the OP - that said, the M6 will still deliver strong results, especially with the new 32mm 1.4 that came out. The RP's larger sensor will, however, set itself apart in low-light venues where flash is not desired/permitted.


----------



## OneSnark (Nov 24, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I have both the M6II and the RP, but not the RF24-105. I like them both very much, but they feel like two very different cameras. The M6II feels more responsive than the RP, but the RP already felt more responsive than the M50 I traded it, so for you it will be a gain either way.
> 
> The autofocus tracking on the M6II seems to do a better job as well, on the RP it likes to jump to something next to where you point it at. My RP refused to focus on my daughter when she was lined up with a bunch of other toddlers at the edge of a swimming pool. The focus point kept moving to the child left or right of her.
> 
> ...



This is an awesome and very informative thread. Thank you all for your viewpoints.

For me, (your mileage may vary); in my next body I would like "the latest" in mirrorless.
That sounds like the M6 - II. I am also a fan of a small form factor, as well as APS-C. I am not bothered by the EVF in the hotshoe; since if I need flash - - - > I probably will grab my DSLR anyway - - -> and it will be dark enough that I don't really need an EVF vs using the back screen.

BUT as others have indicated. . . lenses are a factor. EF lenses (I have a SACK of EF lenses) sound too big for the M6 for walkabout purposes. I hear everybody about the 22 and 35 "M" primes. To be brutally honest. . . I shot primes for a number of years, and they were a pain for travel photography. I have a bunch of primes (24, 35, 50, 85; multiple flavors); and now I find that unless I am doing a specific shoot. . . .the zooms (16-35/2.8 and 24-105/4) are all I am willing to carry. The "M" zooms are basically molasses; I don't see any fast zooms (or even F4 zooms) on the "M" horizon.

My eye then turns to the RP. Basically the same price as the M6-II once you accessorize. But the lenses. . . . aside from the 24-105 -> Canon is focusing on the 2.8 Trinity which is way, way, out of my price range. Considering I have an EF24-105 4L; the RF 24-105 sounds.. . .like a repeat. But EF's on a RP are not quite the same insane as on a M6-II

- - - - -
Ok. . .thanks for letting me rant. 
- - - - -

You know, marketing is fascinating thing. Everyone tells me that DSLR's are dead. Which means the EF line is . . . not worthy of investment. Shame. The 100/2.8L is at a nice no-brainer price. And the 90D is not that expensive either. So. . .thanks marketing. . . I am not buying either.

By contrast, the mirrorless options basically should be purchased with at least one native lens. . . . which in the "M" line is limited; and RF line is pricey (since I 
buy with the body)

Good. That's means I can spend my coin on other things.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Nov 24, 2019)

OneSnark said:


> BUT as others have indicated. . . lenses are a factor. EF lenses (I have a SACK of EF lenses) sound too big for the M6 for walkabout purposes.



I have to disagree. EF lenses come in sorts of sizes and shapes so you can just use the ones you feel suit it.

But as for me, I was forced due to camera failure to use the M6 II in a professional situation due to a camera failure and in absolutely no was it an issue even with something like a 400 2.8. It's just different and just needs a bit of time to get used to. It's pretty much to the point my 100-400 II is living on the camera.

What I will say negative is annoyingly, to get the absolute most out of any lens on the M6 II you need to download lens profiles and the M6 II only seems to allow for three at a time. Which doesnt seem right to me so I'll need to check if that's right or I'm missing something. Also it doesnt seem to like my 70-200 IS 2.8 L v1. It appears to work perfectly well with a v2 soo....... *shrug* dont know whats going on there.

In regards to the dead mirrorslapper, I'm not sure what I'll do. It's an old 1D mk IV so I could get it repired or get a second hand 1D X - I'd prefer to get another mirrorless but given that camera works for a living in harsh enviroments I cant. This is where I'm like FFS Canon get your damn pro line R's out already esp a real 7D II replacement.... we NEED this camera 6 months ago


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 24, 2019)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> [..]
> What I will say negative is annoyingly, to get the absolute most out of any lens on the M6 II you need to download lens profiles and the M6 II only seems to allow for three at a time. Which doesnt seem right to me so I'll need to check if that's right or I'm missing something.[..]



You're not missing something, Canon choose to limit the M series to 3 profiles. My RP takes 5. I'm slowly getting used to swapping out the profiles before I head out. It helps that I take most of my pictures with the 32mm f/1.4


----------



## OneSnark (Nov 24, 2019)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> I have to disagree. EF lenses come in sorts of sizes and shapes so you can just use the ones you feel suit it.
> 
> But as for me, I was forced due to camera failure to use the M6 II in a professional situation due to a camera failure and in absolutely no was it an issue even with something like a 400 2.8. It's just different and just needs a bit of time to get used to. It's pretty much to the point my 100-400 II is living on the camera.
> 
> {snip}



I would have no qualms about putting on a 100-400/4L on the M6 for an airshow. . .or an EF fast prime for some portraits shots. Heck - - - those lenses are not even IN my "go bag" for my dslr because of the size. But for day-to-day walkabout zoom; I would really want a (relatively fast) native zoom. If the walkabout lens is an EF24-105/4L - - -I suspect I should be looking at the RP and not the M6-II.

If I am being honest - - considering the current RP discount makes the "base kit" cheaper than the M6 - - I probably should buy a RP just to find out what all the fuss about full frame is about.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 24, 2019)

OneSnark said:


> You know, marketing is fascinating thing. Everyone tells me that DSLR's are dead. Which means the EF line is . . . not worthy of investment. Shame. The 100/2.8L is at a nice no-brainer price.



DSLRs are NOT dead by any means. That said, its days may now be numbered (as much as it pains me to say it - but the market appears to be heading in that direction).

I feel for those looking at the EF series though and questioning whether it's worth the long-term investment. The prices of the RF lenses are sky-high for the moment but eventually they will begin to fall as more bodies are released. This may end up further depressing the secondhand market for EF lenses (even if they still can be used via adapter on the R cameras - the native versions will always be better).


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 25, 2019)

Update: Today was my 4th day with my rental RP and I'm happy to report that after evaluating it all weekend... I bought one! This camera is awesome and really exceeded my expectations. It has to be one of the best values in cameras today, a mirrorless full-frame for under $1,000 with EF adapter included. That's just amazing. It may not be the camera for everyone, but for me it's got everything I need. Depending on my "portability" and IQ needs, I can happily bounce back and forth between the RP and the M6 to fit what I'm doing for the day. The new RP should be here Tuesday, right when my rental goes back, and I look forward to getting the new one all set up.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 25, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Update: Today was my 4th day with my rental RP and I'm happy to report that after evaluating it all weekend... I bought one! This camera is awesome and really exceeded my expectations. It has to be one of the best values in cameras today, a mirrorless full-frame for under $1,000 with EF adapter included. That's just amazing. It may not be the camera for everyone, but for me it's got everything I need. Depending on my "portability" and IQ needs, I can happily bounce back and forth between the RP and the M6 to fit what I'm doing for the day. The new RP should be here Tuesday, right when my rental goes back, and I look forward to getting the new one all set up.



I'm probably going to solve this particular conundrum by buying both.

I DID just buy an M6 mk II.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 25, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I'm probably going to solve this particular conundrum by buying both.
> 
> I DID just buy an M6 mk II.



Great! That M6 II is a great camera. I follow your posts in the other threads (regarding some bigger / higher IQ lenses for the M line) and I rented the Sigma 16mm F1.4 for a week in December. I'm curious to see how it feels. Looking forward to it.

I really like having options. I've always had three sizes of Canon cameras so I could choose the size according to the needs of the day: Small, Medium, and Large. Up until recently, that was Canon 5D II (large), a Rebel (medium), and an S90 (small). All have been recently upgraded so now it's RP, M6, and G7 X II. (Funny though how the RP, which I'm counting as my "large" is pretty much the size of a Rebel.  ) This new set should last me a while.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Nov 28, 2019)

I did give the m6 ii a test drive and compared the video quality to my m50 with the 22m f2 and 15-45 kit lens. The video was cleaner and more detailed. I did notice and extra details gained were lost with increased noise at iso 2000 and above. The option to bounce the flash was nice. I just got the RP kit and will test that to decide and report back.


----------



## Act444 (Nov 28, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Update: Today was my 4th day with my rental RP and I'm happy to report that after evaluating it all weekend... I bought one! This camera is awesome and really exceeded my expectations. It has to be one of the best values in cameras today, a mirrorless full-frame for under $1,000 with EF adapter included. That's just amazing. It may not be the camera for everyone, but for me it's got everything I need. Depending on my "portability" and IQ needs, I can happily bounce back and forth between the RP and the M6 to fit what I'm doing for the day. The new RP should be here Tuesday, right when my rental goes back, and I look forward to getting the new one all set up.



I know - as soon as the price settled down to the $1K mark, I immediately saw the value and had to go for it. While it doesn't (and can't) replace my 5D4, I find it remarkable that it can output 95% of the quality in a package 50% smaller/lighter. To me, this is what MILC is all about. 

It's now my first compact choice (over the M6)...


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Nov 28, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Which of these are you prioritizing over the other -- stills shooting at low ISO's or 4K video?
> 
> As others have stated, the RP wouldn't autofocus all that well in 4K since it doesn't use dual pixel autofocus in 4K. I believe it's also a 1.7x crop in 4K. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong). So even the RF 35mm F1.8, you're at about 60mm full-frame equivalent. That is not wide at all, if wider than 60mm is what you'd need.
> 
> ...


I am prioritizing both video and high Iso. I know I cannot get them both for my budget. I did like the m6 ii video over the m50 as it seemed cleaner. The high Iso was worse guessing either lower quality M mount lenses or higher pixel density. I am now going to test the RP and will report what I decide. Thanks again for all the feedback.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 28, 2019)

Act444 said:


> To me, this is what MILC is all about.



Agreed. The size and capability of the RP is amazing. I was relatively late to the MILC game, but now that I've been using them for about a year, I love all the advantages that mirrorless brings. There's of course still a place for D-SLRs for times when an optical viewfinder may be necessary, but for me, 99% of the time the advantages of mirrorless make it my go-to choice.



KKCFamilyman said:


> I am prioritizing both video and high Iso. I know I cannot get them both for my budget. I did like the m6 ii video over the m50 as it seemed cleaner. The high Iso was worse guessing either lower quality M mount lenses or higher pixel density. I am now going to test the RP and will report what I decide. Thanks again for all the feedback.



Sounds good. Enjoy your test of the RP. If the size works for you, I think you'll probably love it. The IQ is incredible. If the 4K on the RP doesn't work great for you because of the crop and / or autofocus, definitely try it in manual video mode at 1080p, 60fps, shutter 1/60th second, aperture as wide as you can go for the scene, and auto ISO. Those settings have produced the best results for me and the quality is awesome.


----------



## OneSnark (Nov 28, 2019)

Travel_Photographer said:


> Agreed. The size and capability of the RP is amazing. I was relatively late to the MILC game, but now that I've been using them for about a year, I love all the advantages that mirrorless brings. There's of course still a place for D-SLRs for times when an optical viewfinder may be necessary, but for me, 99% of the time the advantages of mirrorless make it my go-to choice.
> 
> Sounds good. Enjoy your test of the RP. If the size works for you, I think you'll probably love it. The IQ is incredible. If the 4K on the RP doesn't work great for you because of the crop and / or autofocus, definitely try it in manual video mode at 1080p, 60fps, shutter 1/60th second, aperture as wide as you can go for the scene, and auto ISO. Those settings have produced the best results for me and the quality is awesome.



So - - in this thread I am seeing a number people are comparing the M6-II to the RP. With the black Friday specials (including a good special on a RAW program I have an eye on. .). . . my CC is once again itchy. (its good for the economy)

I am getting a bit muddled in all the back-and-forth. 

So - - -STRAIGHT UP IMAGE QUALITY. . .what is the thought between the RP and the new M6-II? What I value most is High Iso noise performance (I often shoot moving subjects in low light, often at a 125 shutter, ISO 3200) and dynamic range (travel landscapes where I have dark shadows and bright skies; and don't have the choice to return when lighting is perfect). I understand the RP sensor is the 6D-II. . which has it's own history; and the MK6 sensor is much improved . . .but is still an APS-C.

The cost is not a factor (after buying accessories)
Video is not a factor.
Burst mode is not a factor. (if I want 14 FPS, then I shoot video. . .)

All I care about is the captured image.

* I will shoot RAW, primarily with EF glass on both. . .although I will likely get the 15-45M for the MK6, or the 24-105/4L for the RP. So. . .I imagine the glass on the "RP option" will generally be better. I don't really envision walking about with a 16-35/2.8 on the Mk6? 
* AF performance will be of interest (afterall. . .I don't care about dynamic range is the shot is blurry)

Yes. . . .I know one is full frame; one is APS-C. That is a factor for the lenses, which I understand (and I am much more accustomed to APS-C)


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Nov 28, 2019)

OneSnark said:


> So - - -STRAIGHT UP IMAGE QUALITY. . .what is the thought between the RP and the new M6-II? What I value most is High Iso noise performance (I often shoot moving subjects in low light, often at a 125 shutter, ISO 3200) and dynamic range (travel landscapes where I have dark shadows and bright skies; and don't have the choice to return when lighting is perfect).



Short Answer: The Canon RP has better image quality across the board. It's going to be tough to beat a full-frame sensor with an APS-C. That's not to say the M6 II is not excellent. It is. It's just that the RP is better, especially at high ISOs. As mentioned in my previous posts, I also think the autofocus in the RP is incredible, especially eye-detect AF. If size of the body and lenses is not a major factor, I'd go with the RP for the type of photography you describe.

The M6 II's advantage of course is it's size. For a tiny form factor, when *size* is the primary consideration but you still want excellent overall IQ at lower ISOs up to 1600, that camera is awesome.


----------



## OneSnark (Nov 29, 2019)

Thanks for feedback. I do appreciate it. . . I have stuff to noodle (in between all the end-of-November-family-stuff)

. . .


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 1, 2019)

I did compare the RP with my M50 and definetly at least 1 to 1 1/2 stops cleaner still’s and 1080p video. I just need to decide if the gains are worth the cost and size as there is current not an 24-70 f4 option to make it more portable. Also not having 4k will leave me wanting a new body when one is released. I am thinking of swinging for the $999 m6 ii kit and hoping for more M mount lens options. Really just need an 16-55 2.8 m mount lens and I would be happy. Like a transformer can shrink it down or add a larger lens when needed. I feel the RP is not as versatile yet since there are only larger L lenses.


----------



## victorshikhman (Dec 1, 2019)

From my perspective, money should always be a consideration. The cost of the body is only one part of that cost. To replicate the focal range of your M-mount 15-45, 55-200, 22mm lenses on the RP, plus the cost of the body itself, would easily take you into $3-4k territory. Yes, the images and video would be better with the RP and RF lenses, but marginally so. You're not doing commercial work here. If you're just trying to satisfy GAS, the M6II will get you there at a fraction of the cost, and you'll already have a nice, very compact lens selection.

However, I'll make another proposal. Instead of trying to get RED camera quality in low light from a sub $1000 body (you will be disappointed), get yourself a $50-100 on-camera light attachment, like from FalconEyes, or a Godox flash with on-camera trigger and think ways of diffusing that light to bring it on target more softly. Watch some youtube videos on controlling the light. Or... have you considered a tripod? The M50 is a very capable camera, and accessories like this will do more to improve your image quality at a small fraction of the cost that forking over >$1k for a new body. At the very least, if you decide to upgrade the body later, you'll already have a light source, tripod, etc., which can be used to improve image quality with any body.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 1, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> From my perspective, money should always be a consideration. The cost of the body is only one part of that cost. To replicate the focal range of your M-mount 15-45, 55-200, 22mm lenses on the RP, plus the cost of the body itself, would easily take you into $3-4k territory. Yes, the images and video would be better with the RP and RF lenses, but marginally so. You're not doing commercial work here. If you're just trying to satisfy GAS, the M6II will get you there at a fraction of the cost, and you'll already have a nice, very compact lens selection.
> 
> However, I'll make another proposal. Instead of trying to get RED camera quality in low light from a sub $1000 body (you will be disappointed), get yourself a $50-100 on-camera light attachment, like from FalconEyes, or a Godox flash with on-camera trigger and think ways of diffusing that light to bring it on target more softly. Watch some youtube videos on controlling the light. Or... have you considered a tripod? The M50 is a very capable camera, and accessories like this will do more to improve your image quality at a small fraction of the cost that forking over >$1k for a new body. At the very least, if you decide to upgrade the body later, you'll already have a light source, tripod, etc., which can be used to improve image quality with any body.



A Canon EL-100 or Godox V350C pointed at the ceiling also make a big difference. The EL-100 is quite small and feels quite nice on an M camera. I keep it on the camera all the time in these dark winter times, it only comes off when going outside.
The V350C is half the price of an EL-100 and lasts a lot longer due to its battery, but it's bulkier and doesn't automatically wake up from sleep, which all the Canon flashes do, as do the bigger Godox flashes.


----------



## OneSnark (Dec 1, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> From my perspective, money should always be a consideration. The cost of the body is only one part of that cost. To replicate the focal range of your M-mount 15-45, 55-200, 22mm lenses on the RP, plus the cost of the body itself, would easily take you into $3-4k territory. Yes, the images and video would be better with the RP and RF lenses, but marginally so. You're not doing commercial work here. If you're just trying to satisfy GAS, the M6II will get you there at a fraction of the cost, and you'll already have a nice, very compact lens selection.
> 
> However, I'll make another proposal. Instead of trying to get RED camera quality in low light from a sub $1000 body (you will be disappointed), get yourself a $50-100 on-camera light attachment, like from FalconEyes, or a Godox flash with on-camera trigger and think ways of diffusing that light to bring it on target more softly. Watch some youtube videos on controlling the light. Or... have you considered a tripod? The M50 is a very capable camera, and accessories like this will do more to improve your image quality at a small fraction of the cost that forking over >$1k for a new body. At the very least, if you decide to upgrade the body later, you'll already have a light source, tripod, etc., which can be used to improve image quality with any body.



This is a healthy perspective. 

Money is always a factor; but not the only factor.

In my case, I have had GAS for 15+ years. I have a nice collection of EF glass to show for it. This glass (I think) is much more suited for a RP, rather than a EOS M. The appeal of the "M" is the small size. . .which I think kinda defeated if your favorite lenses are a 10-22 and 24-105. Vacations with a sack of Canon (X0D with three lenses ; plus a rebel and two EF-S for the better half) gets old. . .when you get old. 

The appeal of the RP is simply superior image quality. . .which is nothing to sneeze at; and a quite compelling argument.

As for lighting. . . I am a huge fan of flash units. I used to go to parties with three flash units. I stopped doing that because setting up the flashes was interfering with the main objective. . .which was to party. Now, I generally use a single flash - and get 90% of the benefit with 20% of the work. Of course, for lots of situations, I can't use flash. . ..(interference with the event; subjects too far away (which often also means faster shutter times to stop subject motion). . .which accounts for my obsession with fast glass and high iso performance.


----------



## larusejunior (Dec 3, 2019)

I was in the same situation "rp or m6 mark ii?, I just bought a eos rp + RF 35 f1.8 STM for 1094€ (this is a crazy price, thanks german black friday ). I was originally interested in M6 mkII, so i will have had a compact system when i don't want take the 5D mark IV. But in France / EU the price of m6 mark ii is too high in my opinion (~850/900€).


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 3, 2019)

larusejunior said:


> I was in the same situation "rp or m6 mark ii?, I just bought a eos rp + RF 35 f1.8 STM ....



Interesting as I don't see them as competitors because of the size difference, but then as I posted earlier, size is the main reason I own an M5.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 4, 2019)

larusejunior said:


> I was in the same situation "rp or m6 mark ii?, I just bought a eos rp + RF 35 f1.8 STM for 1094€ (this is a crazy price, thanks german black friday ). I was originally interested in M6 mkII, so i will have had a compact system when i don't want take the 5D mark IV. But in France / EU the price of m6 mark ii is too high in my opinion (~850/900€).


Yeah that is a option but I would most likely use the 24-105L and that tends to be much bigger and heavier than the m6 ii.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 4, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Yeah that is a option but I would most likely use the 24-105L and that tends to be much bigger and heavier than the m6 ii.


Yes, that lens does not make for a good range on the M6 II, as well as being too big.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 4, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Yeah that is a option but I would most likely use the 24-105L and that tends to be much bigger and heavier than the m6 ii.



Looking at the discussion as whole and your original needs, I'm thinking your best bet may just be to hold off a little while more and wait for either of these two things:

* The introduction of some smaller lenses for the RP that meet your size requirements
(or)
* The introduction of a new M-series camera that meets your high ISO performance requirements

Your M50 has excellent image quality, has the same Digic 8 processor as the M6 II, and I don't think you'd see any *very significant* high-ISO improvements going from your M50 to an M6 II that would warrant the $800+.

You'd do better with an RP if they introduce some smaller lenses to match the form factor you're looking for. If they introduce another M-series in 2020, maybe it would have high-ISO significantly better than your M50. Who knows. But right now, it doesn't look like either of the two existing options is a perfect match for what you're seeking. 

If you're looking for something sooner to get an immediate bump in high ISO IQ, then I'd stick with my original recommendation of going for the RP, and just hoping that some smaller lenses get introduced shortly in 2020 that will bring the size / weight back toward more what you're looking for.


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Dec 4, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Yes, that lens does not make for a good range on the M6 II, as well as being too big.



I use the 24-105 L as a walkaround on a M6 II. It is def NOT too big. And the range? Quite nice actually.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 4, 2019)

OP was referring to using the 24-105 on an RP, not an M6 II (it was in response to the suggestion of using an RP with the RF 35mm 1.8 for a relatively lightweight setup).

For the record though, I agree, no lens is too big for an M6-size body with a little getting used to it. I frequently use my 400mm F5.6L on my M6 for a 640mm FF equivalent for wildlife and it's awesome. That's handheld too, no tripod needed. I actually prefer the 400mm on the M6 compared to heavier bodies as it's much easier to carry around.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 4, 2019)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> I use the 24-105 L as a walkaround on a M6 II. It is def NOT too big. And the range? Quite nice actually.


We all differ in preferences and usage. I really like the 24-105mm (non-L) on my 6D2, and use it the most of any lens. On an M it is more like a normal to small telephoto, so if that is your preferred range, great. I travel now with the G5X II, which is 24-120 equivalent, and find I am more limited on the wide end than on the long end. When I get home, I'm always stitching together panoramas for both interiors and landscape vistas. I have handled an M50 just briefly and it had an M lens on, so I don't really know what it would be like with an EF zoom, but would expect it to be rather front-heavy. I realize you can adapt your hold to fit. After all, I do handheld shots with my 100-400mm on the 6D2.

I tried stitching together six shots of the Pantheon dome, and still didn't get it all.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 4, 2019)

+1 for the Pantheon dome...it's not one of the Seven Wonders of the World (only one of which survives today), but honestly, it probably should be. A technological marvel for its age (2nd century CE), over 1800 years old today.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 26, 2019)

Ok so I upgraded to the m6 ii
Ef 17-55 2.8 and 32mm 1.4.
I felt confident until I saw shots from Christmas. They are not as sharp and detailed as I was hoping with better glass vs the kit zoom. I am wondering if I should bite the bullet and get the RP while still on sale or even the R if that is the best camera when upgrading from the M50. It just does not feel that great in terms of IQ indoors even with a speedlite. The RP with 24-105 seemed significantly more detailed in every shot. Is that a Full Frame sensor thing or something I am doing wrong?


----------



## stevelee (Dec 26, 2019)

I get sharp pictures with my G series cameras with 1” sensors and tiny lenses, so I would expect M series cameras to do even better. Can you tell if you have focus issues and/or motion blur? Christmas pictures can involve active kids and slow shutter speed from low light and situations where autofocus could be tricky.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 26, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I get sharp pictures with my G series cameras with 1” sensors and tiny lenses, so I would expect M series cameras to do even better. Can you tell if you have focus issues and/or motion blur? Christmas pictures can involve active kids and slow shutter speed from low light and situations where autofocus could be tricky.



They are relatively in focus but seems that that the detail is either lost in noise reduction in post or just not there. I will post an example in the am


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 26, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Ok so I upgraded to the m6 ii
> Ef 17-55 2.8 and 32mm 1.4.
> I felt confident until I saw shots from Christmas. They are not as sharp and detailed as I was hoping with better glass vs the kit zoom. I am wondering if I should bite the bullet and get the RP while still on sale or even the R if that is the best camera when upgrading from the M50. It just does not feel that great in terms of IQ indoors even with a speedlite. The RP with 24-105 seemed significantly more detailed in every shot. Is that a Full Frame sensor thing or something I am doing wrong?



For fairly static scenes the RP picture look better at the same ISO, but as soon as something moves the AF and FPS on the M6II are superior. For this xmas I rented the RF24-70 and RF50, so I have native RF glass to try on the RP. The combination of M6II+22mm+EL100 and RP+RF50+V860IIC worked out well yesterday. 
Compared to the RF50 everything is soft and boring  But the main thing that impacted the image quality is Canon locking auto ISO to 400 and 1600 when using flash. Things improve a lot when manually moving it to 800 or 400.
If you don't use eye AF + servo or need high FPS, the RP seems better for indoors. I also miss the 'dial func' button on the RP, it makes changing things like FPS so much faster, especially outside with gloves on.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 26, 2019)

Yes, I think seeing a photo or two will help determine why your photos are softer than you would like. There are so many variables that go into getting a sharp photo.

Regarding the cameras, all other things being equal (approx focal length, aperture, shutter, ISO), a full frame camera will give better low light results. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I rented an M6 II and RP specifically to compare low-light IQ, and the RP gave better results. I bought an RP and use it primarily with an RF 35mm F1.8 and EF 85mm F1.8 and the results both indoors and outdoors are spectacular. I do not use flash at all. My Christmas photos which included my running 3-year old were taken in very low light by the Christmas tree.

It did take a while and a lot of experimenting to figure out the best way to set up the camera. On the RP, I almost always use Eye-Detect AF, servo, and continuous shooting. The eye detect on my rental M6 II was good, but it only tracked the eye when the subject's face was fairly large in the frame. My RP tracks the eye with the subject much smaller in the frame, which is helpful. There are also several parameters in the RP's Custom Functions menu that allow you to adjust how Eye-Detect operates and tracks.

Are you shooting RAW and processing in Canon DPP software? That will give the best results and allow a lot of fine tuning of sharpness and noise reduction. My latest set of cameras and DPP default the Sharpening Method to "Unsharp Mask". I've found that Unsharp Mask shows more noise in general than the "Sharpness" setting. I now set all photos to the Sharpness method "Sharpness" with a starting level of 5 and I like the results much better. (See screenshot below):




I can't remember if the M6 II has Digital Lens Optimizer (I'm not referring to the aberration correction, distortion correction, etc., I'm referring to DLO for sharpness which the RP has). DLO works well outdoors, but I actually like the results with it off when I'm indoors.

My general test for indoor low-light shooting is how well I can see individual eyelashes when the photo is viewed at 100%. I'd have to know what you consider acceptably sharp. I'm sure seeing some example photos will be very helpful, along with exposure settings, and autofocus settings.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 26, 2019)

This is my son on EFM 32mm F3.2 ISO 1000 1/160 EL 100 1/64 flash output manual. This is a good example of what I see with the APSC camera's indoors. Just a ton less detail so when you add some NR in post it is frustrating when I know what a FF sensor can bring. I was reviewing some pictures and I think the Eye AF which is what this was on in one shot is not always accurate. I found others where it was and there was more detail but for a almost $1000 body/evf I expect better as I own the M50 and this does not feel like as much of an upgrade as I was hoping. The second pic was F2 ISO 250 1/160 but he was more isolated so I wonder if the AF is getting confused when there are other people in the frame?


----------



## Joules (Dec 26, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> View attachment 187925
> 
> 
> This is my son on EFM 32mm F3.2 ISO 1000 1/160 EL 100 1/64 flash output manual. This is a good example of what I see with the APSC camera's indoors. Just a ton less detail so when you add some NR in post it is frustrating when I know what a FF sensor can bring.


A FF Sensor gives you a bit more than a stop of an advantage, but I doubt that would be a night and day difference in the picture you showed.

At that distance I think you could have opened the aperture a good deal further, and since he's sitting a lower shutter should be fine as well. But I'm most surprised at how little flash you used. Are you bouncing it? If so, why not go a bit higher and actually brighten up the room with it? It's just my personal preference of course, but I use my flash as the main light source on these dim family events, because otherwise the lighting often ends up looking rather dark and moody, even though the atmosphere is usually a good deal more cheerful.


----------



## Travel_Photographer (Dec 26, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> This is my son on EFM 32mm F3.2 ISO 1000 1/160 EL 100 1/64 flash output manual. This is a good example of what I see with the APSC camera's indoors. Just a ton less detail so when you add some NR in post it is frustrating when I know what a FF sensor can bring. I was reviewing some pictures and I think the Eye AF which is what this was on in one shot is not always accurate. I found others where it was and there was more detail but for a almost $1000 body/evf I expect better as I own the M50 and this does not feel like as much of an upgrade as I was hoping. The second pic was F2 ISO 250 1/160 but he was more isolated so I wonder if the AF is getting confused when there are other people in the frame?



Both photos look pretty well focused to me. I don't think focus is your issue.

The second photo looks pretty good overall. I noticed the ISO on that photo is 250. The first photo is much noisier, and I see that it is set at ISO 1000. I think the higher ISO made a difference here, and that as joules said it could be a bit underexposed. Those two factors contributed to the noise on the first photo. I agree that a wider aperture and / or slower shutter speed with a lower ISO could have helped a lot with the noise on that one. It looks like the light source is a little brighter in photo two, considering the exposure settings are more than half a stop darker, yet the photo itself appears brighter. 

Regarding camera choice though, I think a full-frame camera would have handled that shot a bit better even with the exact same exposure settings. On my RP, ISO 100 through 1600 produces results with minimal noise. That's the advantage, you get a bit more leeway in ISO. Before I went that route though, I'd see if you can lower the ISO in similar shots going forward, with wider aperture or slower shutter.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 26, 2019)

Joules said:


> A FF Sensor gives you a bit more than a stop of an advantage, but I doubt that would be a night and day difference in the picture you showed.
> 
> At that distance I think you could have opened the aperture a good deal further, and since he's sitting a lower shutter should be fine as well. But I'm most surprised at how little flash you used. Are you bouncing it? If so, why not go a bit higher and actually brighten up the room with it? It's just my personal preference of course, but I use my flash as the main light source on these dim family events, because otherwise the lighting often ends up looking rather dark and moody, even though the atmosphere is usually a good deal more cheerful.


Yeah I agree but since I did not have much time to experiment with the camera and speedlite. It was just my initial settings and I realized I needed to make adjustments too late but I enjoyed the time vs click, click, click. Having owned the 1dx and 5d4. I just think my GAS took over and I should have jumped to the RP if the m50 was not cutting it or have been happy with it till more lenses surfaced on either systems. I love the 24-105 F4 and just wish it existed for the M mount in smaller size like the Sony 16-70 f4.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 27, 2019)

Joules said:


> A FF Sensor gives you a bit more than a stop of an advantage, but I doubt that would be a night and day difference in the picture you showed.
> 
> At that distance I think you could have opened the aperture a good deal further, and since he's sitting a lower shutter should be fine as well. But I'm most surprised at how little flash you used. Are you bouncing it? If so, why not go a bit higher and actually brighten up the room with it? It's just my personal preference of course, but I use my flash as the main light source on these dim family events, because otherwise the lighting often ends up looking rather dark and moody, even though the atmosphere is usually a good deal more cheerful.


I went out again with the 17-55 2.8 lens and shot this at 2.8 1/80 40mm iso3200. Could not use speedlite as I did not want to startle him. Again the noise is fine just surprised at that lack of details. I have shots of the RP at ISO 10000 that have more details. I want to make sure before I lunge into the FF world again that I am not just missing technique vs an expectation that this camera will end up something it is not. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 27, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I went out again with the 17-55 2.8 lens and shot this at 2.8 1/80 40mm iso3200. Could not use speedlite as I did not want to startle him. Again the noise is fine just surprised at that lack of details. I have shots of the RP at ISO 10000 that have more details. I want to make sure before I lunge into the FF world again that I am not just missing technique vs an expectation that this camera will end up something it is not. I hope that makes sense.


ISO 3200 is not going to be great for details, but a couple of things you could check if you haven’t already. 

Was the IS on or off on the lens? If on, did you give it time to settle after it activated before you too the shot?

What sharpness settings are you using for your processing?


----------



## stevelee (Dec 27, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I went out again with the 17-55 2.8 lens and shot this at 2.8 1/80 40mm iso3200. Could not use speedlite as I did not want to startle him. Again the noise is fine just surprised at that lack of details. I have shots of the RP at ISO 10000 that have more details. I want to make sure before I lunge into the FF world again that I am not just missing technique vs an expectation that this camera will end up something it is not. I hope that makes sense.



Every hair looks clear to me. What details are you missing?


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Dec 28, 2019)

jd7 said:


> ISO 3200 is not going to be great for details, but a couple of things you could check if you haven’t already.
> 
> Was the IS on or off on the lens? If on, did you give it time to settle after it activated before you too the shot?
> 
> What sharpness settings are you using for your processing?


The lens was on for a few shots prior. Yea it was on and settled. As for sharpness. It is 6 on unsharp mask in LR. I do realize that iso 3200 will not be as sharp but the pic still seems soft.


----------



## Joules (Dec 29, 2019)

KKCFamilyman said:


> The lens was on for a few shots prior. Yea it was on and settled. As for sharpness. It is 6 on unsharp mask in LR. I do realize that iso 3200 will not be as sharp but the pic still seems soft.


LR isn't the greatest tool for sharpening and denoising. I use mostly smart sharpen from Photoshop, as it provides a simple to use deconvolution sharpening method and can surpress some noise. But there are many other tools people prefer over LR for noise, like Noise Ninja or Denoise Ai. Maybe you could see if some software improvements help you deal with these situations.


----------

