Re: Canon M50 Mark II - an underrated camera?
2
Risto456 wrote:
On the AF subject (hopefully I'm not hijacking the thread):
recently upgraded from the M6 to the M6.II, based on my experience with EyeAF on the RP.
Everything is fine with M6.II, but one thing I found a little disappointing, when tested side by side (the key test being done with 50mm on the RP vs 30mm on the M6.II): the RP's EyeAF was able to pick the eyes from over 10ft (3m) away, while the M6.II only from about 3ft (1m).
I've noticed this too, comparing the R with the M6II. I would say the R will pick up an eye from as far as 20 feet away with a 50mm mounted, and the M6II will get an eye from about 10 feet away with the 32 mounted. But the M6II tracks just as well as the R, if not better. All things considered, I would put the AF of the M6II and the R (and RP) as pretty much the same. I've never failed to get a perfectly sharp eye with the M6II, even when face detect only selects the face and not the eye. It could be that eye detect is working even when the square on the screen (or in the EVF) is only showing the face. As for the AF in the M50II, I would be very surprised if it were better than the M6II.
Probably most would say that at such distances the face detection would suffice, but I found the RP's behavior much more reassuring.
I'm wondering whether to go for the M50.II instead of M6.II if the AF behaves more like the RP (when the stock availability improves).
Would you know, especially the lucky few who managed to put their hands on the M50.II so far, if that behavior is similar there?
-- hide signature --
As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile