Daily life with some old EF glass and a new M6 Mark II

davecheng wrote:

Fast_Larry wrote:

I am really curious --- can you be more specific, what do you think makes the M6 Mark II stand out so much? Image quality, and/or what other things?

As a relatively new M6 Mark II owner I'm happy to hear your comments, from someone with a lot of experience. I'm only an "enthusiast' but have been shooting with Canon gear since the 80s with the F-1, EF, T-70 and a full set of FD lenses. I went digital in 2007 with a rebel T1i, and this year upgraded successively through a 70D, M6 mirrorless, and then finally 'arrived' with the M6 Mark II which I am extremely pleased with in almost every way.

interestingly the step up from the M6 to the M6 Mark II was quite noticeable, the low-light images, camera's extra resolution, ability to focus in low light, faster shooting modes, and electronic shutter and intervalometer make it great for astrophotography and low light photography, which I do a lot.

Thanks for your post, I'm really enjoying your images.

Thank you! It's a pleasure to contribute to such a supportive and resourceful community.

Keep in mind, I have a huge gap in my experience with digital cameras, likely exaggerating my impression of the M6 Mark II. I started shooting on the Nikon D1 and D1H. Around 2002 was my wholesale switch to Canon with the EOS 1D, Mark II, IIn, and Mark III as the bodies with which I last had professional working experience. I've since "retired" to a career in education and stopped buying cameras. lol

The first thing I noticed about the M6 Mark II was its ability to focus on, and track virtually any point on the screen. I know this is nothing special, but it is my first taste of live view and modern DPAF. Most of my work was shooting professional sports with tele primes like the 400 and 600. I used the centre AF point 99 percent of the time, and relied on cropping in post to get the final composition. I kept the 1D's AF sensitivity settings at their quickest, and I was well-practiced at releasing back-button AF when something — mostly, the buttocks of referees — would temporarily cross my subject's path.

The M6 Mark II, by comparison, seems to be able to track anything, anywhere. I feel it offers a freedom in composition that is new and exciting. I can now shoot a 50/1.2 from the hip and actually expect some of the images to be in focus! Eye-detection AF is just wild.

The next big difference is image quality and noise. I think we can all agree that a lot has changed in 12 years since my last camera's 10MP sensor. I often feel like the grumpy old man in the room when I read discussions about what is considered "noisy" these days. The use of f/4 teles for indoor sports, for example, was unheard of 10 years ago. Most pro sports venues were lit to somewhere around 1/500 f/2.8 ISO 800. You almost *had* to shoot a 400/2.8 wide-open all the time just to manage noise. It would have been a dream come true to work with a lens like the 200-400/4+TC at a clean ISO 3200.

There are a lot of other small things, too. Wireless connectivity would've eliminated the need for card runners at big events. Flicker detection would've helped a lot in venues with sodium-vapour lamps. And I still can't believe that this little "pocket" camera manages a 14 fps mechanical shutter.

I think the modern tech is pretty amazing. It's re-awakened a passion I haven't felt in 20 years — a passion for carrying a camera around everywhere I go and just making pictures of my everyday life.

+1 Agree with your assessment.  Even though I have a pretty good R5 setup, I still consider  the M6ii to be my go-to everyday shooter.  It’s so incredibly capable, and simply a joy to shoot with.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,

R2