Since you like gold, you should buy yourself an M100 too.
I really enjoy using the M100, too. I find I use it in a totally different way to the 5D IV or M6 II, and it's liberating. Not how I want to shoot all the time, but huge fun when I do.Since you like gold, you should buy yourself an M100 too.
How so? You've peaked my curiosity. What lenses do you shoot on the M100 vs the M6 Mark II?I really enjoy using the M100, too. I find I use it in a totally different way to the 5D IV or M6 II, and it's liberating. Not how I want to shoot all the time, but huge fun when I do.Since you like gold, you should buy yourself an M100 too.
My favourite on the M100 is the 28mm macro; otherwise, the 22. I have the camera on a wrist strap and just get up close and personal with, well, all sorts of things. The M6 II I generally use with the finder, as I have done with the M6 and M3 before it; it tends to lead to more formal shooting, more the way I've always worked. And yes, I could use the M6 II the same way, but the controls somehow make me work differently across the two cameras.How so? You've peaked my curiosity. What lenses do you shoot on the M100 vs the M6 Mark II?I really enjoy using the M100, too. I find I use it in a totally different way to the 5D IV or M6 II, and it's liberating. Not how I want to shoot all the time, but huge fun when I do.Since you like gold, you should buy yourself an M100 too.
agree, it was a fair shakeI read the updates to the review. I don't think they're unfair on the nitpicks on the AF not being sticky at times, the video crop washing away 4K detail or JPEG defaults washing away detail in the RAWs. Had a shot completely blown out shot from my recent fun with the Rokinon 50mm, which, Adobe LR (with the M50 profile) saved. Operator error on my behalf, but you'd be hard pressed to know it was a highlight save. Likewise, there's a bunch of detail in those RAWs otherwise that do not make it to the JPEGs in terms of Dynamic range which I also had some fun with in LR.
The only point I might disagree with is it not being for sports shooters due to AF. I think DPR didn't spend a lot of time with adapted lenses on this camera that sport either the fabulous nano-USM of the 70-300 IS II USM that Canon covertly recommends for this camera, or any of the great whites with standard USM motors just based off the samples gallery. The AF is killer with a USM motor mounted. But, where I'll agree with the general point about sports being less than ideal is even with fast UHS-II, in 7FPS tracking priority mode, and C-RAW, the buffer still fills pretty quick making it less suitable than say the A6400-A6600 which they're comparing for AF use alone. I'll say based off buffer, they're right.
However some context is necessary as the M6 Mark II is leaps and bounds superior in the Canon realm here though... If you're say comparing it against say a 7D or XXD series like the 80D where the RAW buffer tops out at 24-26 frames, the 42 frames of CRAW of the M6 Mark II is huge. As is the Fuji X-T3 which tops out at 36 frames of RAW. The 1DX Mark II tops it at unlimited RAW (till card fill) and A6500 tops out at 110 frames or RAW buffer. Now, one could counterargue that CRAW is cheating (it's 26 frames of standard RAW otherwise), but, then again the X-T3 doesn't offer CRAW, only full RAW or less resolution RAW so that point is debatable which I'll say the M6 Mark II "wins" because CRAW is a better option as you loose a not measurable amount of post processing ability vs loosing any resolution of the Fuji for example.
Overall I have to agree with their review, not because it's positive, but because it's not misrepresenting the product.
Canon needs more glass though, which is something I suspect Sigma will have to do for us as Canon doesn't want the EF-M eating the RF mounts lunch. Sigma on the other hand will though
Both Olympus and Panasonic have had similar, if not more capable, modes for several years.
these are the two lenses I'm most curious about with the M6 II;
Are you talking about MFT? Not a direct alternative.
I've shot the Tamron 100-400 on the EOS R + Adapter. It's a bit slow in terms of initial AF acquisition, but once it's got it, it's got it and AI-Servo does an excellent job (on the R) of holding the lock. Light for what it is, but it was unwieldy on the R. It'll be unbalanced on the M6 Mark II too then. No question. It's just so long it's not a comfortable proportion even though it's light in the bag if that makes sense. Contrast that to the RF 28-70 f/2L. Heavy in the bag, but, handles well mounted on the EOS R (not RP).these are the two lenses I'm most curious about with the M6 II;
Tamron 100-400, Canon 70-300
Also Panasonic full frame. Pre-buffering frames is not new.
I know some people would like them to do those things (I'd like the second and third), but I'm not sure that they need to do them. The M6II is a great camera, easily the best camera I've ever owned, and I'm pretty happy with my four fast EF-M primes (Sigma 16 and 56, Canon 22 and 32), superb UW zoom, and decent superzoom. Plus, it plays very nicely with my main sports lens, the 70-200 F2.8L IS II. More is often better, but "need" is an awfully strong word.
You don't have the Sigma 16 by chance? I'm stewing on giving it a whirl. I hesitate a bit though; larger lens and less than favorite focal length equivalence...
