M50, improved

RLight wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

RLight wrote:

mtt1 wrote:

Thanks for the review. I'm particularly interested in your autofocus comparisons to the other cameras. You seem to rank it second behind the Sony AF system, but still firmly ahead of Fuji and Nikon, right?

The Sony A6xxx series is "better" in terms of AF vs the M50 Mark II.

The Nikon Z50 falls underneath the M50 in my book, not by a lot though. It's very usable. Once your subject is more than 10 ft though, eye-AF isn't functional though.

Fuji, dead last. Video AF in particular is a gripe.

None of them are poor btw. AF systems have gotten significantly better in recent years.

_________

I've had my fair share of struggles with tracking AF trying to follow kids on the move, especially with Fuji cameras. I currently don't own a camera, but some of demonstrations of Sony's tracking algorithm (which you can see for instance in DPReview's own Youtube video on the a6400) lead to me consider buying a Sony camera. But I think I would actually prefer a Fuji (for the jpgs) or the Canon M50 (not least because of affordability).

_________

I wasn't sure whether the Mark II actually improved the AF performance of the M50 or just added new modes and I haven't found a lot of demonstrations similar to what you can find on Sony's AF system. Would you say the M50's (face) tracking is comparable to Sony, albeit a bit slower? Or is Sony just in a league of it's own and Canon's hangs more with Fuji and the rest, just being a bit more reliable?

The M6 Mark II hangs with Sony. The M50 Mark II, is leagues ahead of Fuji, but Nikon isn't far behind the M50 Mark II.

Fuji's weakest link is the AF, which you know.

Sony's weak link is "fun", colors, and price.

If you're kid hunting? Which is all I do btw, M50 Mark I will do the job. Mark II is better for eye-AF, but face AF and general AF is just as good. M6 Mark II just slaughters AF. It's a sport/action camera in my book. I've found in my testing, when shooting the M6 Mark II, the trouble is more what lens you shoot with it. Lenses like the 32mm f/1.4 STM and 22mm f/2 STM, have a slower gear-type STM motor. Lenses like the 18-150 and 55-200 have fast screw-type STM motors. Lenses like the 70-300 IS II (not L) adapted which have a Nano-USM motor, are just stupid fast on the M6 Mark II. It is to date, the only combination of lens and camera to "beat" the swing test. Even my R can't do that with "Goliath" aka the RF 28-70 f/2L and a traditional USM motor.

To answer your question about what Canon actually did with the Mark II over the Mark I in AF:

Continuous eye-AF support (not a new mode, just permits continuous drive + eye-AF)

-5EV low light support

It delivers in both in my testing. The latter, can be more problematic as although it does deliver -5EV, it takes a while to lock the AF in those conditions.

My 2 cents? If AF is a concern, you should have a hard look at the M6 Mark II and A6400. The M50 II although competent, for a little more, you get what you pay for. Besides uncropped 4K is REALLY nice, especially with Canon's DPAF video implementation and colors. If the M6 Mark II was really an M5 Mark II, this would be an M5 Mark II review I really prefer the DSLR-like form factor of the M50 and Mark II.

I still don't understand. You are speaking like you have firsthand experience with these other cameras, yet you said earlier that you haven't owned any of them. Have you personally tested them all? If not, you shouldn't be making statements that sound like you have. It's very misleading.

I've shot all the above (A6100, M50 Mark II, Z50, and X-T3, which I'll say stands in for most of the Fuji's considered).

BTW, nothing I've said contradicts DPR's own reviews, just DPR is nicer about how they put things. They don't outright say Fuji's performance is poor, they say they can't wholeheartedly recommend it for sports and action. It's an understatement. Likewise, DPR says the Z50 can't do eye-AF unless the face is large in the screen. True, but that's being nice, when your subject is on the other side of the room the Z50 can't pick up and eye-ball. But within 6-10 feet? Sure.

Now I'm not going to sit here and say I'm an expert on the Z50, or A6100 or Fuji X-T3. I am not. Have I put in the time to learn their AF systems? Yes, I actually have. Believe it or not, I've sincerely considered all the above. Now if you wish to dismiss my input because it's not experienced enough? Sure, go ahead, free world. However I'm not the only one saying this, I have not in fact contradicted DPR themselves... Think about it.

BTW, the A6100, is really nice when it comes to AF. Really nice. Anyhow, going to bed. Hope that helps.

you are right on AF

no worries, have the naysayers contradict your review with some other review that contradicts what you said