Canon M50 Mark II - an underrated camera?

prospects wrote:

RLight wrote:

prospects wrote:

RLight wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

RLight wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

m100 wrote:

RLight wrote:

Disclaimer, I haven't read all the responses to this thread...

The reason why there isn't much, and won't be much coverage on the M50 Mark II is due to the fact that Canon decided to do a firmware only upgrade to the EOS M50 (mark I) and brand it an M50 Mark II. The M50 Mark II is nothing more than an M50, original, but with newer firmware on it. This was a source of contention amongst the community here, and even DPR themselves gave a nod to the blatant marketing maneuver Canon did here.

As a former M50 owner, let me say the camera, the M50 original, is fantastic: cheap, powerful, fun. The M50 Mark II builds upon the M50 with refining it's AF capabilities a bit, and adding direct to Youtube support.

The sensor and CPU in the M50 Mark II, is the same as the mark I. It produces identical images as the Mark I, identical. It only differs in being slightly better in autofocus, and how much better nobody really knows because nobody has bothered to test the two, again, not alot of interest / spite from folks. Now throw in that it's actually somewhat hard to get your hands on anything due to COVID, new cameras included, and the few folks that are interested, might struggle a bit to get one.

I'll say have a hard look at M50 reviews, and then think, a little bit better in autofocus, and you're there.

I don't think you're nuts; even though it's 2 year old recycled DIGIC8, and 5 year old recycled sensor, the M50 Mark I is a champ even today; any improvement is just icing on the cake via the firmware upgrade on the Mark II. I would say you should strongly consider it. The only catch, is the M system as a whole lacks a truly fast zoom lens. If you're fine with juggling prime lenses for indoor/low light activity, it will serve you well.

I agree with you btw, the M50, original, and thus Mark II, may be one of the best cameras of all time for non-professionals, or even professionals to a degree. It's more than capable...

The original, M50 and 32mm f/1.4 STM

https://flic.kr/s/aHskUqR8hQ

How do you know it is the same inside and only the firmware has been changed ? I have not seen a review or a tear down.

+1. I bet there are other el. components inside a camera, other than sensor and processor. But I think the most important is the total of hardware and firmware. The end product.

I’m going to take another sip of Earl Grey, and say, it’s alright Canon did what they done. But, we stuck with it for 2 years. I might agree considering the circumstances.

Price is a spec too after all. Arguably the most important spec for a lot of folks. The decision to use older stuff enables, or justifies that price point.

I don't intend replacing my almost 3 year old M50 for another two years so I guess I'm good until the next firmware update 😉

They’ll (probably) get around to dropping that 90D/M6 II sensor in an M50, eventually. With IBIS is the real question.

Between COVID and the R5, the firmware only M50 update was smart in hindsight. Gives them time to finish the RF mount before circling back. Besides, is there true competition for the M50 as it is? Nope. Fuji is too expensive and Sony still can’t figure out how to make something usable. Nikon is trying to stay alive so their Z50 is it for a while. Canon has no real competition, for the moment.

The Nikon Z50, Fuji X-E4 and Sony a6100 are all viable alternatives to the m50ii. Comes with usable 4K and 1.5x crop sensors. M50ii is the cheapest but you’re get what you pay for.

Each of these offerings lacks a key:

Z50, not as cheap, lenses are larger, more expensive, poor AF and AF selection

X-E4: more expensive, more expensive lenses, Fuji glass is larger, heavier than M glass

A6100: poorer colors, handling, and really poor stock lens when comparing similarly priced options

Price alone these are all DOA, except the A6100, which for the price, you get a (much) lesser offering.

The M50 mark II is quite safe, in fact so is the original M50, still, vs the competition. Canon has an advantage with building their own sensors and cost controls as a result. Nobody can touch em. Things go sideways in various corner cases though, but the M50 isn’t for corner cases, it’s for the masses. Last I checked, it’s selling to the masses, well at that.

The dynamic range and low light capability of the Z50, XE4 and a6100 sensors are better than the M50. They are all using Sony sensors, which has proven itself over Canon sensors of the last generation (of which the m50ii is still using). Only the 32mp sensor manages to catch up but it’s only available in the m6ii or 90D.

The a6100 doesn’t have poor colours, the age of “bad” Sony colours is kind of over.

All other lenses eg Fuji may seem more expensive but they cover a 1.5x crop sensor instead of a 1.6x crop sensor, making it closer to FF than the EFM mount. Does not sound significant but if you do the math, it’s substantial.

Actually I agree with all these points.

The cons of Sony: stopped down focusing and poor handling.

If you’re using Sigma lenses, you also get a 1.5x crop with Sony vs EFM.

Again, an important advantage.  It will get you more blur when the subject has the same size in the frame. It will also give a nicer angle of view with the 56mm f/1.4., something Rlight might find important    The sigma 30mm might get a tad too wide though, which can be slightly annoying especially given the fact there's no 32mm for the Sony mount.

—-

I still like my original M50 but we are lying to ourselves by saying that other offerings are DOA vs the m50ii.