RLight wrote:
TL;DR:
The M50 Mark II represents in my book, the most approachable and budget friendly interchangeable lens camera offering on the market. It builds upon the same success as the original M50: easy to use menus and interface, excellent straight out of camera colors, budget friendly price, small and light, very fun.
.
Who's it for:
Those wanting to expand their photography beyond the smartphone
Second camera for pros and want a DSLR form-factor with a EVF+hotshoe
Folks already shooting a Point and Shoot and want to upgrade to something "better"
Rebel or Canon XXD shooters looking for something smaller, lighter and more powerful
.
Where it stands apart from the original:
Improved autofocus, in particular eye-detection
Improved low-light sensitivity
YouTube livestream support (with account and minimum number of subscribers)
Improved automatic exposure and metering
Improved beginner menus and options
.
Suggestions:
Use High Speed, or Low Speed (tracking priority) continuous shooting modes to “get the shot”
Use C-RAW to get the most shots before buffer kicks in
Consider the SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-I card (64GB version or larger) or other comparable 95mb/sec UHS-I card to free the buffer quicker when shooting continuous bursts
Canon’s EF-M 11-22 and 32mm f/1.4 Lenses are top-notch offerings for those more advanced, or first time landscape (for the 11-22) or professional portrait (32mm f/1.4) shooters.
The Sigma f/1.4 lens trio (16mm, 30mm, 56mm) are also recommended for those wanting more f/1.4 options on a budget (compared to full frame offerings)
Avoid the 4K video. The rolling shutter and crop factor diminish the benefits of 4K on the M50 Mark II.
Consider the 15-45 and 55-200 bundle to save on the 55-200 which pairs well with both the M50 Mark II, and the use cases the M50 Mark II suits.
VS the original EOS M50
The original M50 is a great little camera, and even today is a formidable offering. Those who have it are rewarded with satisfying image quality, fun and reliable results. However, those with the M50 looking to the M50 Mark II as an upgrade, I will say that unless the price is right, the true upgrade to the M50 is the M6 Mark II presently. Uncropped 4K, 32MP with better ISO handling, 14FPS and faster readout leading to improved autofocus for critical applications, the M6 II sits above the M50 Mark II, even though it’s older. Both come recommended for different users and different price points, and form factors (as the M6 Mark II needs an added electronic viewfinder for DSLR-like experience).
.
VS the A6100
Spectacular autofocus, really good 1080P, but, it’s handling, colors and approachability are (still) lacking. In my book the M50 Mark II is the superior option for the folks considering it. Special considerations: The Sony Platform does have more native lens offerings, however comma, the price tag adds up quick and the base complaints I have with it still aren’t solved by higher end offerings if you “upgrade”. However comma, if you’ve got Sony glass in tow, sure. But said bunch with Sony glass already on hand, probably is gunning for a higher price point anyways. For entry-level, it’s not as competitive.
.
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.
.
VS the Fuji X series
Fuji’s 26MP sensor is a fierce foe. Faster readout, more detail, IBIS, uncropped 4K. But, you’ve gotta come up in price point for the X-T30 or X-S10 to get it. And in particular, the X-S10 which has the more modern interface/layout, has more weight, bulk, especially when you start adding lenses (which further raises the cost to entry or add). The benefits though of the Fuji ecosystem are stronger lens offerings like the 16-55 f/2.8, but, at that point, you’re entering full frame price and bulk where a f/4 lens on say a Z5, RP, might’ve been a wiser choice in the long run. Excellent colors for skin tones, but in terms of landscapes? Those saturated colors actually can hinder nature-shooting. Autofocus implementation is also iffy. Compared to it’s peers from Canon and Sony, it’s lagging, especially for the beginners. All to say depending what you want, this is where I may diverge a bit and say there are logical choices for both, that start to make more sense but most folks will be better served by the M50 with those wanting particular use cases benefitting from the Fuji (say that f/2.8 zoom lens, or IBIS with a prime lens, but the latter is Sony territory with it’s superior AF and lens offerings in that realm).
.
VS the PowerShot G1X Mark III
They both share Canon 80D sensor, Canon handling and SOOC colors, are both compact. But, the G1X Mark III has some edges: Hikers, will glean more detail out of the better lens on the G1X Mark III (vs the stock 15-45 on the M50 Mark II) for static subjects like landscape shooting it’s a win. Weather sealing, and super-compact form factor are also pluses. But non-hikers need to look at the more modern M50 Mark II, parents, and general shooters will appreciate the improved hit-rate in terms of autofocus, image stabilization efficiency, ability to swap a lens, and of course price point. The 1080P video is quite a bit better on the M50 Mark II. It boils down to if your subject moves, the M50 Mark II will do better. If your subject doesn’t? G1X Mark III can be a better choice.
.
VS the M6 Mark II
This a contentious. There is presently no M5 Mark II, just the M6 Mark II which you can add an EVF too (which will tie up the hotshoe). The short version is the M50 Mark II has better handling, and is cheaper, lighter and smaller if you’re using the EVF full time (I do). It also has a fully articulating screen which some love, some hate. That’s it. The M6 Mark II has more megapixels, more frames per second, uncropped 4K, better ISO and dynamic range. It’s the “better” camera so to speak. But depending what you want to do, each makes sense in different scenarios and price points. And for those wondering? The M6 II has the better autofocus. It comes down to the readout speed on the M6 II sensor makes the difference even though the M50 Mark II has newer software.
.
As an early critic of the software-only upgrade of the M50 Mark II, when you look at the landscape of other offerings out there, what Canon’s brought to the table, some extra polish to the wildly popular M50, makes sense. It fits the first-time interchangeable lens camera box / smartphone upgraders well for what you get and what you pay.
.
Additional Samples Here:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWU3fBg
Touch screen buttons are great but the little black ones are too small for me.
You sure must have small fingers to think the M50II has better handling than the M6II ?
