dpreviewTV: EF-M 22mm F2 not "ideal" for the M6 Mk II?

thunder storm wrote:

Ideally i would save up for the successor of the A7III + lenses without spilling money on incremental upgrades. However, i need that A6400 AF right now. My daughters won't pause their lives because daddy is saving up for a new camera. You can't do this 3 years over again.

M50 is better than M100 for AF, but still it chooses the wrong eye or the borders of the subject in stead of the eye or front of the subject too often. Actually, the M50 sets the bar higher for my AF-wishes. It was good. Great improvement. But now i want better.

please keep us apprised

I will wait for the good and detailed reviews of the A6600. And i need to take a look at how these C-modes actually work to evaluate how important it is to have 3 in stead of 1.

The A6600 is an interesting beast; improved AF "smartness", JPEG engine tweaks, and now some interesting APS-C glass to top it off. If, you don't need true low-light, it's promising. It should be a real contender coming out of Sony, not just one DPR is touting. It may truly perform.

But the price? And furthermore the images that I've seen thus far although pretty good (much improved ala A6400), still don't match Canon's desirability. I feel this is more a Fuji-Sony, that is improved Sony but with a Fuji price-tag.

It's obvious to me Sony should have another beast soon (well in the future, maybe not soon), probably without IBIS, but probably with that 26MP Sony sensor, say a A6450, that might be of interest as in theory it'll be cheaper, but better in 4k rolling shutter.

If, the EOS M6 Mark II hadn't come around, I'd be considering both myself as a lightweight companion. But, it did. Just in time it would seem too. Improved subject tracking (if it has the EOS R firmware, I gather it has the existing, but perhaps not the one coming out), low light AF, plus 4K worth something.

I'm all for investigating other platforms, I've been looking hard at that new Sony, but I've found it wanting. I've found APS-C can't match FF for some things over the years so I have to look at it as merely a APS-C option. Sony needed an A7000, not this guy now that the M6 Mark II is out. They needed (even) better UI, (even) better colors, better sensor metrics over the A6400/A6500. They delivered none of those. Instead in a very Canon-like fashion they repackaged the upgrades of the A6400 into the A6500 and called it the A6600 and charged alot more. These are welcome upgrades, but, perhaps the A6400 is the "smarter" choice as the IBIS of the A6500/A6600 in my viewing is not that impressive. I gather the IBIS of the A7III is more impressive. The A6450 may bake in some of the complaints I have above, with, that 26MP sensor I gather...

I do think you're right though, the A7RIV's colors are on the other hand quite good. Good enough now for my liking. I have the R though already. And the RF glass is better... But, I suspect you won't do poorly with the A7 IV when it comes out; it was a matter of time before Sony caught (well got close enough / acceptable) Canon in SOOC rendition. Glass though? That's another story. If you're fine with Sigma's offerings, you should be happy though. But, by the time the A7 IV comes out, the 5D-like R should be out. Just like the EOS M6 Mark II, it sounds like it'll come "just in time". I predicated this last year that this day will come where the two meet (Canon and Sony) in most regards with glass and sensor tech (DPAF vs Pixel stripes) being the differentiators. I know Nnowak will challenge this, but, it would appear DPAF has a low-light advantage and AF speed advantage all things equal. Likewise, pixel stripped sensors will ultimately have a sensor metric advantage. Depends what you want. Likewise, Canon will always make better glass. Sigma is the wild card here though on both sides...