M50 vs M6 mark ii vs 90D vs eos RP photography mainly

AdamT wrote:

Just don't get the 90D. For shooting family you want mirrorless autofocus, and for trips you want a relatively small setup.

The 90D is an M6-II in a DSLR body with an OVF + Mirror box AND EFCS ! . it has the same Live view AF

Been there, done that. Holding my 70D in front of me just to get the best AF for shooting persons wasn't a great handling experience for me.

as the M6-II but with EFCS so no shutter shock , it uses his existing lenses without an adapter,

OP can use the existing EF(-s)lenses with adapter on M, while you can't use excellent ef-m lenses on the 90D.

handles far better because of its size

That's definitely not true when using Live View mode to get the AF you want. So with the 90D you get either bad handling and good AF, or good handling and bad AF (bad = no sufficient face and eye tracking across the frame).

and if he`s happy with the size of the 50D the 90D would be fine

"is happy" and "was happy" isn't the same

Yeah - the LV AF is a lot better than the OVF AF in the 90D , its a shame they didn`t cut out the mirror and build in an EVF instead as it`d be the perfect crossover camera for those with Canon EF glass

That's only an advantage if you're allergic to adapters. For the rest it's a disadvantage, as pretty much all ef-m primes are better options compared to their ef-s counter parts.

who want proper handling, rugged APS_C camera with the best APS_C sensor .

If the body should be big, heavy, rugged, build like a tank, etc., the 90D offers that, however, it only comes with significant trade offs.

- no compatibility with the stellar ef-m mount primes. Note: the best crop portrait lenses are amongst these ef-m primes.

- no mirrorless AF across the frame (at least not without awkward handling, where weight and size aren't a benefit at all)

- no face and eye tracking for shooting persons (family in the case of the OP) (at least not without awkward handling, where weight and size aren't a benefit at all)

- no mirrorless AF accuracy without it's need for AF calibration. (at least not without awkward handling, where weight and size aren't a benefit at all)

I would only get a 90D for shooting sports or wildlife with lots of light. The high pixel density is a benefit here, however, I find the low light capabilities of my M6mkII compared to my R..... weak. That's not a problem, as it's not a fair comparison, however, all the stuff where the "fake reach" and fast AF of the 90D are beneficial, are cases generally benefiting too from a better high ISO performance. OTOH: bodies like the R6 and R5 + glass giving the same reach are way more expensive, and the OVF will always be better for some cases, so the 90D has it's place. But I think it's not the best camera for the OP here, as sports or wildlife wasn't mentioned as OPs photography.