I have no doubt the GM is amazing, but how could you even tell it's sharper? All three Sigma 135s I've used, including the copy I own have just been razor sharp across the frame from f/1.8 and about the sharpest lenses I've ever used. Hard to get much sharper, at least from a visual inspection.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
I had tested many 135mm including two copies of the L the Sigma 135mm and the Sony135mm GM. While the Sony is sharper I liked the slightly smoother bokeh of the Sigma better. But the 105mm was the one that blew me away and I ended up selling the 85mm and 135mm and moving to the 105mm 1.4 alone.
For me I wouldn’t mind higher MP but it wouldn’t be a purchasing decision for me. For what I shoot I try to avoid cropping as much as possible so having the extra MP isn’t of any real benefit in my use case.
Jman13 wrote:
I have no doubt the GM is amazing, but how could you even tell it's sharper? All three Sigma 135s I've used, including the copy I own have just been razor sharp across the frame from f/1.8 and about the sharpest lenses I've ever used. Hard to get much sharper, at least from a visual inspection.
Well that is an odd question...how can I tell? By LOOKING at my photos...Becuase as I said, I tested them and the GM was always sharper and that was a vs a great copy of the Sigma. With the A7R IV the difference was clear so I find it interesting that you question my findings when I actually TRIED them side by side and you have not. Plus Lens Rentals findings clearly favor the GM as well so it was not just me...
Oh, and btw, I did prefer the Sigma because I liked its slightly smoother bokeh and price vs the sharper GM but that does not change the fact that if someone wants max detail, the GM is simply the sharper lens across the frame.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Well that is an odd question...how can I tell? By LOOKING at my photos...Becuase as I said, I tested them and the GM was always sharper and that was a vs a great copy of the Sigma. With the A7R IV the difference was clear so I find it interesting that you question my findings when I actually TRIED them side by side and you have not. Plus Lens Rentals findings clearly favor the GM as well so it was not just me...
Oh, and btw, I did prefer the Sigma because I liked its slightly smoother bokeh and price vs the sharper GM but that does not change the fact that if someone wants max detail, the GM is simply the sharper lens across the frame.
Jman13 wrote:
I think you misunderstood my tone. I wasn't questioning your testing. More incredulous that there is any more sharpness to be had.
Sorry I should had known it was you not one of the forum trolls
Yeah, that is the reason I was fine with the Sigma..sure the GM was sharper but the Sigma was so sharp already and with the big price difference and smoother bokeh, it was too good of a deal.Now if I were doing sports then the GM was better with an A9 for sure.
Sorry about that mistake
You are right to say that sharpness isn’t everything. Micro contrast, color and bokeh rendering, etc are actually more important qualities than sharpness for a very pleasing image. And this is where some of the German-designed lenses shine.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Sorry I should had known it was you not one of the forum trolls
Yeah, that is the reason I was fine with the Sigma..sure the GM was sharper but the Sigma was so sharp already and with the big price difference and smoother bokeh, it was too good of a deal.Now if I were doing sports then the GM was better with an A9 for sure.
Sorry about that mistake
Yeah, I've heard the AF on the GM is quite fast. Never had a chance to test the GM when I was still shooting Sony, unfortunately. I will say that I was surprised at how much faster the Sigma focuses on my R5/R6 than the E-mount version did on my Sony bodies (though I'm sure the GM is still faster). Not sure if Sigma had to slow things down when they ported the lens over or what.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Sorry I should had known it was you not one of the forum trolls
Yeah, that is the reason I was fine with the Sigma..sure the GM was sharper but the Sigma was so sharp already and with the big price difference and smoother bokeh, it was too good of a deal.Now if I were doing sports then the GM was better with an A9 for sure.
Sorry about that mistake
JMO, but this thread has too much blah, blah talk, and 90% of the images look like they could be taken with about any camera made in the last ten years.
No great shots of BIF's, and compared to the R5 thread nothing much close to the many better shots on that thread.
Again, just my opinion. Just check out page 130 of 136 pages on the R5 thread for example.
Imagemaster wrote:
JMO, but this thread has too much blah, blah talk, and 90% of the images look like they could be taken with about any camera made in the last ten years.
No great shots of BIF's, and compared to the R5 thread nothing much close to the many better shots on that thread.
Again, just my opinion. Just check out page 130 of 136 pages on the R5 thread for example.
Of course this thread only has 11 pages, whatever that suggests.
Wow such insightful comments!!! I’m not sure about the others but I really feel insecure about my skills as a photographer now, I might just have to sell my R6 too so I can get an R5 and only take BIF photos.
I feel so foolish thinking a camera could be used for anything but BIF photos 😅
Maybe if it’s a quiet day at the retirement home you could give us some tips on how to get some SOOC JPEG’s like what you take?
Photosbydlee wrote:
Wow such insightful comments!!! I’m not sure about the others but I really feel insecure about my skills as a photographer now, I might just have to sell my R6 too so I can get an R5 and only take BIF photos.
I feel so foolish thinking a camera could be used for anything but BIF photos 😅
Maybe if it’s a quiet day at the retirement home you could give us some tips on how to get some SOOC JPEG’s like what you take?
My, aren't you the touchy little one. This happens to be a forum for the discussion of gear, and therefore this particular thread is for the discussion about the images taken with the R6.
Don't like my opinion? Tough. Did you start this thread to show and discuss images taken with the R6, or just to post your own images?
You are the one harping about BIF photos, not me. It is just one example I was pointing out. If you bothered to look at the one page that I showed the link for the R5, there are about 38 images, of which only 4 are of BIF.
Sorry if my pointing out that this thread does not show enough images of any type that appear up to those on the R5 thread.
Can't take my comments, use the HIDE ME button instead of making your snotty little personal comment. I am pretty sure that I never claimed to take as good or better images taken with the R6 or any other camera.
Imagemaster wrote:
JMO, but this thread has too much blah, blah talk, and 90% of the images look like they could be taken with about any camera made in the last ten years.
No great shots of BIF's, and compared to the R5 thread nothing much close to the many better shots on that thread.
Again, just my opinion. Just check out page 130 of 136 pages on the R5 thread for example.
Of course this thread only has 11 pages, whatever that suggests.
Interesting observation. There is no doubt the R5 thread here and on another forum I am on has a lot more volume of great work posted. I've not contributed as much here as elsewhere. Speaking for myself, I see the heavy focus on wildlife or living things that move. My interest is often that, and I really enjoy what is shared and use to try and learn to better my own skills in whatever time I am able to make to get out and shoot. I often hesitate to post here as I'm not always sure what resonates with me, is meaningful to others, or get's to a level of being seen as something beyond just a snapshot. I also don't want to turn it into my own personal thread and would love to see more traffic here.
The tracking ability overall, how efficient it handles extenders, and how malleable the files have what has set apart the R6 for me so far vs. my former bodies over the last few years. There have been some captures that I'm not convinced I could always have as good a result getting the same finished product.
With all that said, a few recent items where I felt the R6 in some way helped me get what I hoped to accomplish. Hope folks enjoy them.
The R6 hitting focus with the Sigma 150-600C + Canon 1.4XIII
Dynamic range assist to not have the sky blown out
These officers were approaching at approx 40mph ensuring traffic was cleared prior to a procession
Shooting almost right into the early morning sun presented challenges in post. Either side of the road would have presented the same challenge.
Imagemaster wrote:
My, aren't you the touchy little one. This happens to be a forum for the discussion of gear, and therefore this particular thread is for the discussion about the images taken with the R6.
Don't like my opinion? Tough. Did you start this thread to show and discuss images taken with the R6, or just to post your own images?
You are the one harping about BIF photos, not me. It is just one example I was pointing out. If you bothered to look at the one page that I showed the link for the R5, there are about 38 images, of which only 4 are of BIF.
Sorry if my pointing out that this thread does not show enough images of any type that appear up to those on the R5 thread.
Can't take my comments, use the HIDE ME button instead of making your snotty little personal comment. I am pretty sure that I never claimed to take as good or better images taken with the R6 or any other camera....Show more →
I think you raise some points here that are largely irrelevant.
First, this is an enthusiast forum, and as such, the proportion of people who purchased the R5 compared to the R6 is significantly higher...which is why you see a lot more photos posted there. I also don't see any reliably different level of quality of images between the two threads. Owning both, I post in both threads, though I do tend to bring my R5 for most serious outings, because of the higher resolution.
Having extensive experience with both cameras, they are so similar in usability and operation that it's barely worth discussing. Autofocus is identical between them. IBIS performance is identical. Image quality is extremely similar...with the R5 being higher resolution, and the R6 being a little cleaner at high ISO. Supposedly there's a small dynamic range difference between the two, but I'll be darned if I can actually see that in my images.
The R5 has a higher resolution EVF and a slightly larger rear screen, and the mode dials are different (I actually prefer the R6's mode dial, for what it's worth).
It's honestly amazing to me that for stills shooting, pretty much the only real difference is the resolution....otherwise they are essentially identical cameras. Any difference in quality you may surmise from two threads is almost entirely down to the fact that you're looking at a larger selection of photographers in the R5 thread because as enthusiasts, there are more that gravitated to the 'higher end' body.
Plus Lens Rentals findings clearly favor the GM as well so it was not just me...
