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

KKCFamilyman

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 17, 2012
495
2
40
Chicago
www.allophotography.com
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.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
518
305
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.
m6II-rp.jpg
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,414
792
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
518
305
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.
 

KKCFamilyman

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 17, 2012
495
2
40
Chicago
www.allophotography.com
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.
View attachment 187472
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

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 17, 2012
495
2
40
Chicago
www.allophotography.com
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

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
605
219
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

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 17, 2012
495
2
40
Chicago
www.allophotography.com
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

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,184
1,746
Canada
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
372
295
Hamburg, Germany
[
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

Cat_Interceptor

M6 II fanboy
Oct 20, 2019
14
13
alliancemotorsport.org
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith_Reeder

Keith_Reeder

No apologies for not suffering fools gladly...
Feb 8, 2014
823
273
59
Blyth, NE England
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?
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,184
1,746
Canada
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?
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.
 
Nov 29, 2015
26
13
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.
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

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
1,029
120
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

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
372
295
Hamburg, Germany
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.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,184
1,746
Canada
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.

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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules