M50, improved

traben wrote:

VS the Z50

This actually popped up on my radar, and I looked HARD at it. Solid image quality, excellent handling and SOOC colors. But, it’s bigger (not by a lot though). More expensive. The autofocus isn’t as good, and as a traditional Canon shooter, having the zoom in reverse is annoying. Also the ecosystem for the Z50 isn’t as good at this point (lacks ultra wide native zoom, native macro lens, doesn’t have access to the Sigma trio). It’s a good alternative to the M50 if you’re a Nikon shooter with Nikon glass you want to adapt and want something smaller and more powerful than your standard full frame rig. But for beginners? Again, M50 is the better option, still.

Hello,

can you tell me according to what do you think the M50 Mark II has better autofocus than Z50?

Best regards

Marcel

Ease of deployment; silly yellow dots vs blue. Biggest gripe? How far away eye AF works. The yellow dots tie it. Sounds silly, it’s not as you wonder if your shot was correctly evaluated for focus.

The tracking itself is actually very impressive lately from the Z50 otherwise. General AF is responsive. In my opinion, these things can be solved with software. But ironically, the Z9 updates were NOT passed down to the Z50. Apparently you can be close, but not count which is baffling to me as the Z50 has so much potential.
Reviewing the Z50, now, vs the M50 II, now, the Canon has the edge. That could change should Nikon choose, but as of this review, the Canon does eye-AF in particular significantly better. If you don’t care about eye-AF? The Z50 performs nicely in my testing.