"Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated" - Misquote of Mark Twain
.
The M6 II like Clements, isn't quite over yet, but perhaps close to it. Once the supply chain is dry of the existing inventory produced, that's it. No-more.
.
This will be my third round so to speak with the M6 Mark II. The original stent of about a year-ish ended when the M and R systems drove me nuts having overlapping systems and I dumped the M system in favor of the R. After trying to make non-L RF lenses work like EF-M lenses (RF 24-240, RF 35 and EF 70-300 IS USM II adapted), after, I turned the G5X II, which in turn I found to be quite capable if one shot RAW and used a non-Canon Post Processor to resolve the noise reduction issues. Then after I had two bad rounds or bad lenses; the 15-45 I had was poor with a bundled M6 II, and then the 18-150 I had after it was faulty with another. I found the M50 II in the middle to be quite refreshing, however having been spoiled on a good M6 II and good lenses from the first round, like anything in life, you will miss what you don't have anymore. Take something away? Yup. Thankfully I held unto that perfect copy of the 15-45, and also thankfully, appear to have good copies of everything this round, except the 22 pancake I have, I can't tell yet. Not a biggie. I'll get around to putting it through it's paces soon enough.
.
So, couple thing to address, no order:
.
First up, my decision to go M6 II itself and not R10 or R7. Why? Simple. Canon's new RF-S platform, even though I personally am very excited about it's future, is not ready for my purposes yet. There are no native non-stock lenses at this time. The R10 itself looks really good from a form factor and handling perspective (SL-like, which I'm a big fan of), but, the components used (sensor)? Reviewing the output of it's images and the R7, the M6 II which shares the 32MP APS-C sensor of the R7 (but they're slightly different), does leave the R10 in the dust. Canon had made a more expensive product (R10) inferior in terms of output to the M6 II, and is bigger too. Canon went a bit too conservative here, I understand why (so as to differ from the R7), but it's not singing the song for me. Likewise, even though I do think Canon will grow the RF-S platform, it's going to take time both to develop it and it's glass, and launch it. As I speak, the R3 is still out of stock everywhere, a year after its launch. The RF 28-70 f/2L remains illusive. These are hard to make and high demand, but it goes to show in a post-pandemic world the days of being in stock, are gone. Should Canon get around to making glass I want, and bodies I want in R format, they'll be popular and in say 2-3 years when produced, may be another year-ish before they're available. That's how you end up here. You can't shoot what doesn't exist or you can't have. The M system as it is, is highly capable, and I still recommend it for a good number of uses.
.
Some changes from last time: I've opted for the EVF-DC1 over the EVF-DC2. Why? Handling. The EVF-DC2 is a "better" EVF in terms of contrast and refresh rate, but, the ability to tilt? It wins for my usage thus far as I'm a "slinger" so I can tilt it up when I sling my M6 II + lens of choice behind my back where the EVF doesn't "dig" into my back. Also as much as I'm a huge fan of the EF-M 18-150, am I not going to play the lens lottery again. Stock lenses are risky business. I'm sticking to that 15-45 I held unto. I'll just have to switch to the 55-200 more often. That's not a bad thing, it's a fabulous lens and renders subjects more powerfully on the long end than the 18-150 anyways. The EVF-DC1 is "sharper" btw. It's more crispy in terms of resolving detail, even though it's less contrasty. I'll say having more contrast "wins" in my book, but the extra resolving power (even though they are the same resolution on paper) is appreciated.
.
After my bout with the G5X II I've noted the M6 II noise reduction is aggressive; you need to reduce NR defaults in DPP4 for best results. Needs to be hand-reviewed for best results in DPP4. You can reduce low ISO (100-200) shots NR to 0 in DPP4 in batch, but from ISO400 onwards, you need to eye-ball it for best results. Right now I’m doing 100-400 at 0 for NR and reducing NR by 33-50% in DPP4 above that, but again, sometimes it needs NR. In some cases I leave it alone (from defaults). Very context sensitive. Also, it's worth a mention, some lenses peripheral correction "eats" into this. Think EF-M 22mm f/2 STM. That lens has a lot of light falloff that gets corrected and in turn that shows up in noise correction. This is a lens that default noise correction smears detail and either reducing or remove NR, or using a third party processor really helps.
.
Speaking of, another change... Lightroom finally has the Canon color match right for the M6 II (and most of the CR3 format touting Canon for that matter). I've found that in challenging light or very high ISOs utilizing a DPP4 > TIFF > LR workflow is still superior, however those instances are very rare now. My workflow thus far is now C-RAW straight to LR, adjust for Canon color match, apply lens corrections and adjust lighting to taste and enjoy. More efficient due to not having to compensate for overly aggressive noise reduction in DPP4 all the time too. I know others around here are fans of DXO, I'll say using a third party post processor is recommended for the M6 II and produces best results in any case and leave it alone and not get into a LR vs DXO battle. I've tried both, I personally favor LR not just because of familiarity, but results obtained vs effort. Maybe if I had more experience with DXO I'd sing a different tune, but that's not the case. LR is giving me what I want now. They can take my money perpetually every year again for all I care.
.
Fine tuning autofocus and shooting technique is hot on my radar. No, it’s not my R, nor is it my G5X II when it comes to no-tracking results. It’s very capable though. Still trying to iron out the issue. I think there is more going on than shutter shock which is the commonly attributed fault around here for less than sharp shots. Based off the conditions, shutters speeds and lenses, there is some kind of AF or IS phenomena, or in-transit issue where the motor may be driving while the shutter is firing… Going to dive deeper on this one and try different setups and modify my handling and observe results. I’ll say when you get a crispy shot on the M6 II, it’s crispy. When you don’t? Yeah. I will say coming from the G5X II and R, where every shot is crispy (if it’s in focus for the G5X II), despite the hit-and-miss sharp-shots, you still come away with better keepers than the G5X II, and, the expanded fun, and more accessible lenses for the cost (the M vs the R format lenses that is). Thus far, it appears to be either an issue with AI-servo lock/re-lock to verify context / SnR, as it does appear to be an AF issue. I'll be playing with single shot (no AF tracking) to confirm. The downside with this approach is if my subject moves obviously. Use the right mode for the right subject may be the order of the day. Testing here to come.
.
C-RAW and a fast UHS-II card are a must. This has been covered before, but it’s worth repeating. 32MP at say 14FPS will tap your buffer otherwise. Use C-RAW and a fast UHS-II card folks.
.
The much ignored 28mm macro lens is REALLY sharp. The hybrid IS on it, I never noticed how good it is. It appears that the 28 macro really was underpowered in terms of former bodies I had it on (M3, M5, M50). It really needs some powerful AF ala M6 II to get the most from. The more powerful sensor gives it even more oomph. I'm really having fun with this lens for both general use as it gives some unique "pop" in terms of color rendering, and, creative usage obviously for macro. Double fun.
.
The 100S bag I got is thus far really good bang for buck compared to the former think tank turnstyle for M usage. I prefer the turnstyle for lack of dead space, but the 100S for it's price, is awesome, and the side strap for clipping is very useful. This one I haven't decided which is "better" yet.
.
I'll really be paying attention on the AF hiccups and post processing this round as the M6 II offers a lot, but, to get the most from it, like anything in life, nothing is perfect and careful attention is needed to things like your setup and handling on any camera body.
.
Lastly I should add, I feel the M6II although discontinued, serves a valuable purpose during these next few years as being the most capable M, until Canon builds out the RF-S platform and they produce offerings for everyone. I’ll use mine till it wears down or Canon makes a logical replacement offering with logical lenses. That may never happen too. In that event, I will say I’ll be shooting my M alongside the R for a very long time I gather…
Edit:
After critical review of my shots yesterday I noted the errors are after the IS kicks in (and before, but that rules out the IS element) and, are subtle AF misses. In fact I’m surprised I didn’t catch this sooner; the phenomenon is very closely related to the same behavior as continuous AF on my former G1X III where it would produce AFMA-like misses when engaged. Disabling continuous AF on the G1X III resolves (engaged by default).
.
I noted the phenomenon of the AF misses did not occur on my R, or rather my setup on the R which regularly employs either the RF 28-70 f/2L or RF 35mm f/1.8, lenses that will give a strong SnR for eye-AF lock. In fact many folks on the R platform complain regarding low light AF; I can confirm using a n RF 24-105 f/4L is vastly different from the RF28-70 f/2L in low light AF. The former struggles, the latter? Never. Anyhow, I wonder if I too would have similar issues on the R if employing less “fast” glass? Maybe.
I also noted the phenomenon does not occur on my former M50, original, but does on the M50 II. That’s when I had a lightbulb moment. The M50 lacks eye-AF in AI-servo. The G5x II when it does it’s version of AI-Servo “wobbles” back and forth to reverify lock continuously and doesn’t support AI-servo and continuous burst except for single point.
Getting to the point… Eye-AF isn’t “magic”. It’s an override of strongest SnR, which will be the closest object in a specified AF zone/point, to instead find and lock into an eye, or what the camera thinks is an eye. But the camera has to “scan” for this. That’s what I think I’m seeing; a recertification of the lock periodically that skews the focus. Ironically enabling an disabling eye-af, something I haven’t done since the original M50 may be the answer. I still have facial detection without eye-af, in AI-Servo. Thus far disabling eye-AF has completely, and I mean completely resolved the issue. More testing needed to confirm but this makes sense.
So, I’ve fallen back on my M50 ways, assigned the AF button the eye-AF, something I never asked myself why it wouldn’t be on by default (maybe this is why) and am only enabling eye-af for situations that warrant it. That’s been largely when the 32 f/1.4 is on the camera, or, 22 pancake. I can live with that. So far zero AF errors. In fact it’s very much like my R so far today. No misses with 7fps (tracking priority). I’ll need to critically review today’s shots later, but I think this might be “it”.
More on this later…
Oh, at least on the M6II and M50 II, you can safely leave AI-Servo on if this proves true. Whereas the original M50 I had to toggle single shot.
