Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by NorBro View Post

    The 35 and 85 were the lenses I used the most on the R6 the 10x or so I used that camera.

    Using the 85mm wide-open brings out what a full-frame sensor is supposed to look like, and it's gorgeous.

    Because as far as I'm concerned, if you're using mostly that slow 24-240mm (which I know it has its purpose even though it's considered to be one of the worst lenses in the RF lineup), you might as well stick with MFT (and it sounds like your camera/lens lineup is a little messy right now, haha).
    I think the 24-240 really gets a bad reputation from snobbery. Super zooms are rarely spectacular but they do have their purpose. I mainly use it for family stuff and yes it is lightyears better than the 14-140 on the GH4 or P4k. No competition at all. I also find for video many of the flaws of the 24-240 go away. Its the corners that are horrible on the 24-240 and once you crop to 16x9 video the corners are mostly gone. Crop even more for APS-C and its a pretty solid lens which now has even more reach. The almost f8 concerned me but its much better wit hthe R6 sensor then I could have ever imagined. Better than ISO 6400 with Dual Native ISO on the P4k or GH5S.Its really just my family lens however and mostly used in good lighting. I also bought a flash that can adapt from 24mm to 200mm which covers most of that lens so when shooting stills its a very solid setup really. Its only really around 24mm where the corners are really bad anyway. Once you get to 35mm it cleans up very well.

    I'm likely going to get the 85mm f2 RF next year. Like I said I think the Tamron G2 24-70 will likely be my last EF lens. On the P4k I prefer cinema lenses or the zooms anyway so I don't really need any other EF primes. Same for the GH6 if I get one. I will mostly likely use the typical pair of f2.8 zooms as f2.0 zooms and not use anything else. Unless I get a Sigma 18-35 which I'm not so sure I want anymore with a FF R6. Really nice lens but I don't really feel like I need it anymore with a FF sensor. Low light really isn't a cancer nat all anymore. The 50mm f1.8 I have is an insane beast and since the Leica 25mm f1.4 was my main goto lens for professional work on the m43 cameras the 50mm will likely become my main lens on the R6.

    Comment


      I don't think it's snobbery; I think it's more "ignorance is bliss".

      I used to think the same way and actually would say in my head, "I don't know what all of the fuss is about with these kit lenses...they look great!"

      And they did look great but it's because I didn't know any better.

      ___

      Years later I used better lenses, usually 2x-3x the price, and I saw the difference. The results weren't as dull and I saw the pixels come alive on screen, and the micro contrast, or whatever you want to call it, bring the images/video to life. Everything felt "fuller"...whatever that means.

      If I didn't see that difference, I would have continued to think the kit lenses looked great because they did look great in my mind...but that's only because [as mentioned] I didn't know any better, any better in terms of image quality from other sources.

      Comment


        I frequently use the lens comparison tool below to see what kind of lenses I may be interested in. It's of course not the only way I'd make up my mind, but it helps to quickly assess some lenses provided the integrity of the people's work is high (it is).

        This is the cheap RF 50mm (mid-frame)...

        Followed by the expensive RF 50mm (mid-frame)...

        I know they are just charts, but the difference shows up in real life, too.

        The expensive one is $2100 more, lol - so these results are a given...but it's just fun to see. (And you could probably stop down the cheap lens to f/4 to get similar results, but that's nothing new and the high price tag has always been about optimal performance as close to wide-open and as fast as possible.)

        50mm_Cheap.jpg

        50mm_Expensive.jpg

        Comment


          Originally posted by NorBro View Post
          I don't think it's snobbery; I think it's more "ignorance is bliss".

          I used to think the same way and actually would say in my head, "I don't know what all of the fuss is about with these kit lenses...they look great!"

          And they did look great but it's because I didn't know any better.

          ___

          Years later I used better lenses, usually 2x-3x the price, and I saw the difference. The results weren't as dull and I saw the pixels come alive on screen, and the micro contrast, or whatever you want to call it, bring the images/video to life. Everything felt "fuller"...whatever that means.

          If I didn't see that difference, I would have continued to think the kit lenses looked great because they did look great in my mind...but that's only because [as mentioned] I didn't know any better, any better in terms of image quality from other sources.
          You saying I don't know good lenses? I own a lot of good lenses. The Tamron 70-200 G2 is one of the best of its type. Yes I know very well some glass looks better than others. Apparently you missed the part where I said I use it for family stuff. Must be due to you thinking I'm writing too many words or something.

          I would never use this lens for professional work. Its essentially what the Panasonic 14-140 was for me on m43. A nice to have lens for vacations where I didn't have to swap lenses constantly. Even then I do sometimes switch to my primes and the Tamron when I want to. My last vacation I did mostly use the Tamron 70-200 because it is a stunning lens and occasionally switched to the Tamron 17-50 when I couldn't get back far enough. A lot of the time was at a zoo where the Tamron really shined.

          I also think the 24-240 is way beyond normal kit lens territory like we are used to on DSLR cameras of the past. The AF with DPAF is amazing. The OIS combined with the IBIS is amazing. Optically its good in the middle. Its just those corners that really suck at 24mm. I want to eventually get a good 24mm prime when Canon gets one for RF assuming its priced right. I would be ok with a 28mm as well. 35mm to me is too close to the 50mm I have. Might get it someday but I would rather have a 24mm and 85mm next and use the Tamron 70-200 for everything beyond that. The 24mm I may have to get EF for now.

          Comment


            I would use the best lenses possible for family stuff...work isn't as important.

            And, yeah, too many words, always.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Thomas Smet View Post
              Don't forget the RP and R which are more affordable and were out first...
              I brought this up a few posts earlier. On B&H, 5D MK IV still outsells EOS R despite being priced at a grand higher. But $1,600-$1,800 is still the upper mid-range as far as the overall market goes.

              Comment


                Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                I frequently use the lens comparison tool below to see what kind of lenses I may be interested in. It's of course not the only way I'd make up my mind, but it helps to quickly assess some lenses provided the integrity of the people's work is high (it is).

                This is the cheap RF 50mm (mid-frame)...

                Followed by the expensive RF 50mm (mid-frame)...

                I know they are just charts, but the difference shows up in real life, too.

                The expensive one is $2100 more, lol - so these results are a given...but it's just fun to see. (And you could probably stop down the cheap lens to f/4 to get similar results, but that's nothing new and the high price tag has always been about optimal performance as close to wide-open and as fast as possible.)

                50mm_Cheap.jpg

                50mm_Expensive.jpg
                Stopped down a stop and they both match up much better. I watch a lot of Christopher Frost lens reviews. I tend to be rather picky. I bought the cheap 50mm RF because int was cheap and I wasn't even sure if I was going to keep the R6. Wanted to see if native RF was really worth it. Its also part of why I still think a $2,500 GH6 has a lot of value to some users. I'm not about to pay $2,500 for a 50mm lens just because its a tad sharper wide open. Starting over with lenses sucks. If I waited for the GH6 I would have been in a much better position. Now I'm kind of starting over except for the good EF lenses I already have.

                I think I'm going to keep the R6. Not 100% sure yet. To be completely honest I much preferred shooting stills with the Canon M6 mk2. The video was fun to shoot but I hated the low detail scaling tricks the camera did to manage 4k video. I wish Canon would have given Ef-M a better chance. It had so much potential.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Thomas Smet View Post

                  Stopped down a stop and they both match up much better.
                  No, they don't. And I don't know why you say things like this.

                  That's the biggest issue I have with most of your posts; a lot of what you say is baseless and only expressed with emotion.

                  Use a comparison tool online and show what you're saying to be true.

                  f/2.8...versus still wide-open on the f/1.2.

                  They don't match up better at all. The cheap 50mm looks like crap and will affect the true potential of a high-end resolution camera.

                  https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=0

                  1.jpg

                  2.jpg

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                    I would use the best lenses possible for family stuff...work isn't as important..
                    You think your family members notice sharpness and would be upset if you used a kit lens? Photos are so numerous today they're practically disposable. Snap a picture, share, and those involved will glance at them then most likely never look at them again. Even the idea that sharpness is undoubtedly a desirable attribute isn't true either. Frost filters are very popular to make the image less sharp.

                    Comment


                      It's because I would want the best for them if I'm using a camera like that and not an iPhone, not what they would or would not notice.

                      Frost filters are a gimmick...or your 1970s high school yearbook picture (not necessarily yours, someones).

                      People use diffusion on some cameras, but it won't be on the R6, lol.

                      Comment


                        And sharpness in terms of contrast and resolving fine details is a very desirable attribute because it builds the foundation of the entire image while being able to be dialed down as well.

                        But if you start with garbage in then it's garbage out.

                        Although I will say some photographers are on another level in terms of analyzing and dissecting their images...high-standards, but maybe unrealistic as well.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                          .

                          I know it's important to them and they would rather not have a camera do that in front of their client, but it takes 5 seconds to pop the battery in and out, and I think most people can find that opportunity a few times in their day.
                          Is that all you do? Remove power while it's on? Because it writes down the timer reading during an orderly shut-off?

                          Sounds a little stressful. You have to make sure you're done writing the last clip first. I can see myself under time pressure sweating those few seconds. Ultimately it's not worth the stress for me, and definitely not a good look in front of a client, though maybe you could pretend you're just changing the battery

                          Uncropped 4k60 is a big advantage for the R6 over the a7iv, however

                          I'm trying to reduce workarounds. If canon didn't want to sell me a fully functional product in that price tier at that time, then so be it
                          www.AbeFilms.com

                          It's wrong to starve children

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by DLD View Post
                            The performance range on (officially licensed) third party glass is from crap to G-master and, off the focus breathing affair, it seems obvious that Sony can play hardball with even its most esteemed suppliers in Sigma and Zeiss.
                            What's the focus breathing affair?
                            www.AbeFilms.com

                            It's wrong to starve children

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by NorBro View Post
                              If anyone has no lenses and just would like one do-it-all for most situations, get this beauty even if you have to cry a bunch of times.

                              https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...f_2_8l_is.html
                              Or get this even bigger beauty and cry a few times more! The 28-70 f/2

                              https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._f_2l_usm.html
                              www.AbeFilms.com

                              It's wrong to starve children

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by ahalpert View Post

                                Or get this even bigger beauty and cry a few times more! The 28-70 f/2

                                https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._f_2l_usm.html
                                Look at the size comparison between those two...28-70mm is huge and heavier.

                                I'm sure it's a little better (although breathing is beyond terrible), but I actually think its size is a negative.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X