M6 mk ii vs. R7 for the video

Tomsop wrote:

I understand this being a forum for the M line people want to justify staying with the M. I have M lenses too. However considering the switch and most people don't talk about video. I want to use the camera for multiple things including video. I don't know much about the specs other than they say the 30P and 24P is oversampled on the r7 and the only 4K mode on the M6 mk. ii is 30P. I also notice almost no one posts examples of videos and it is hard to find any representations of quality video of M6 mk. ii on YouTube.

Are people staying with M6 and are happy with the quality of their 4k video? Are others relying on video as the reason to leave the m6 mk. II?

I also want to know if the video on the R7 is really that good - I was not impressed with the ice rink examples they posted in the reviews. I may have to wait to see people posting video with the R7 - is anyone vary familiar with video specs between different cameras able to weigh in on this?

The R7 oversamples 4K, the M6 II does not, it bins pixels.

The R7 has multiple format and codec support, the M6 II does not.

The R7 has C-LOG, the M6 II does not.

The R7 has IBIS, which gives aided IS and corrects for tilt and rotation, the M6 II does not...

.

Not to mention the R7 has much longer video recording limits...

Now is the M6 II capable with video? Absolutely. It's got Canon's DPAF, Canon's colors and really good 1080P output not to mention the 4K even though binned, has fast readout which for 4K, is a big deal as rolling shutter can ruin that lovely 4K.

Put it this way, compared to Sony and Fuji the M6 II leaves em in the dust. Sony has poor SOOC colors and readout speeds. Fuji hunts in video AF, even the new X-H2 the early firmware still hunts, bad, per the Fuji forum, just as the X-T4 and others do. But as much as the M6 II leaves competition in the dust, the M6 II gets left in the dust by the R7. Much of your poor first impression is likely due to sample footage being compressed for web viewing. I have no doubt the R7 is a video powerhouse. Also, keep in mind that pre-release cameras like the R7, may have limited post-processing options until major vendors produce support. Any footage coming out of pre-prod cameras, may have limited or no grading performed. SOOC essentially which in the video world for best results, well, best results are graded ones.

Now the M6 II is no slouch, I'm very happy with it's output as a general consumer, it just "does it" vs other solutions like say the Sony you need to grade (and color match) your footage and be careful of rolling shutter or the Fuji you need to watch your AF / shoot MF. But yes, the R7 resolves the arguably intentional cripples Canon put in the M6 II as a consumer grade product. The R7 is more geared towards video pros, absolutely.

I'm staying with the M as the R7/10 are much larger, and their lenses footprint in native crop format is, ho hum. And given Canon's track record towards crop glass (EF-S anyone?), I wouldn't count on Canon giving the R7 or R10 the glass consumers want.

Now video and birding are huge reasons to go R7/R10. But as a general shooter? The M system is smaller, cheaper, and has access to more compact, powerful glass. So long as you don't want a fast zoom. Those do better on FF R's though in all honesty. I've adapted and also looked at similar offerings like the Sony 16-55 f/2.8G, there's only so much you can "cheat" physics. A faster zoom will be a larger one, there's just no way around it. Well, except for Canon's PowerShots where the optical formula is even more optimized for virtually zero flange distance and is self-collapsing. But that's not a MILC anymore, that's a point and shoot. And Canon will probably never make that aggressive of a point and shoot ever again.