Canon M50 Mark II - an underrated camera?

prospects wrote:

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.

+1 to that. Canon will likely never fully catch up to Sony. Canon's able to produce products cheaper by sourcing their own silicon, but, as Sony does virtually everyone else's, is decades ahead of Canon in fabrication and design even.

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

Call me dumb, those silly colors actually drove me to give up my former Sony sensor, but Canon JPEG engine G5X Mark II. It's a bigger deal than you think when it creates output you're not happy with. I'm very, very, happy with the Canon colors of my old G1X III, again. Silly old Canon sensor, slow readout, no BSI, no 4K, but its colors? Not silly. Even the handling between two Canon bodies! Not silly. I triple home the R, M and PowerShot forums, we have several defectors from Sony big boys, guess why? Handling and colors. Most of these folks never swapped glass out due to metabones adapters though, but we're talking 5-6k in costs to swap back, no chump change for poor colors and handling. The age of DPR saying it's bad is over. The age of folks switching to Canon because of it? Ongoing. Which matters more, what DPR says, or what buyers think? Sony is getting better for what it's worth; they've come a long ways. But, like Canon's decades disadvantage in silicon, Sony lacks in color theory (and handling; they're getting better there too though)

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.

I'm going to stop for a moment and say, normally when we get this into the weeds, I'll cease the conversation because it's fruitless. Arguing over a silly forum is pointless, other than giving my coffee time to cool down in the morning. I'm going to say, look, person to person, if you want to try Fuji, do. If it makes you happy, you should do it. Also, Fujis biggest downfalls is cost and size, in that order. If both of those are agreeable to you, it's arguably the biggest competitor to the M system, and it has a faster standard zoom, IBIS, and decent colors. I never could get over the handling and cost. I haven't had a chance to play with the new S10 though in all fairness. It may have "cured" my former complaint. But, when you compare size and costs, you could've gone R, or Z in many cases, for the same "costs".

https://j.mp/3q5uzEN

My coffee is drinkable now. And, this forum has gone way into the weeds at this point. Serious though, if you're not happy with your M50, you're not happy. Why though? I can tell you why I wasn't, and I am happy, with FF output and a RF 28-70 f/2L if I may be blunt. But I don't carry it everywhere, that's where my PowerShot comes in. I'm overkill by most folks standards, but it's my fun-hobby. Most folks gripes with the M system are lack of fast zoom, and lack of a true M5 sucessor. This represents the sort of folks that should, in my opinion, consider an R with f/4 lens (or maybe faster, you might enjoy it, but it's not cheap, small), or Fuji with f/2.8 lens, in that order of consideration.

BTW, several folks on this forum, have an R. Just saying.