Canon M50 Mark II - an underrated camera?

RLight wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

If the mkII is better, does it matter whether if it comes from firmware or hardware?

From an engineering standpoint, yes, they could’ve done a 90D sensor.

I'm with you!

From a pragmatic standpoint, no. We get what we get. We’re stuck with the hardware for 2 years though as that was the time to change it out (product refresh). But, that hardware enables the price point which matters more pragmatically speaking, engineering be darned. I think they made the right choice btw.

That 90D sensor is sold in my market in an M6mkII for only 740 euro right now. That's without viewfinder admittedly, however, this might not be very encouraging for Canon to put that same sensor in the M50mkII.

All what matters to me is how much better the mkII performs, and i don't give a **** if it's from software or hardware.

Furthermore: The most important spec of the M50 is the low price. When I was selling mine, almost all the reactions where only interested in the M50 + 15-45mm kitlens. Most customers just want something with a nice articulating touch screen, good handling, a viewfinder, optical zoom, and a compact package. Almost nobody is going to notice any improvements over the mkI, and almost nobody does want to pay for the glass needed to make that M50 shine. With that kitlens AF isn't that critical anyway. It doesn't matter if the AF grabs the eye or the ear. It's all fine. It's actually very kind Canon did the effort to do that recompiling, as for most customers the MkII badge alone is all what matters.