Should I buy the M50 MKII?

UNCMo96 wrote:

I'm had entry level canon DSLRs for about 15 years now. Started with the XSI and then upgraded to the SL1. I have the 50mm prime EF lens for portraits, and the 18-400 Tamron EF-S lens as my walk around lens. (I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses that I don't really use after getting the Tamron).

My SL1 is getting long in the tooth and I'm noticing that while I have better range with the Tamron lens the picture quality is lacking especially compared to my smartphone.

I'm an amateur and mostly take pictures of my kids and vacation pics.

I'm thinking about upgrading. My gut reaction was to get the T8i since it seems like the step up to what I have now. I've been reading that Canon may get out of the DSLR game. Also it seems like it's hard to get the T8i

If I go mirrorless it seems like the price is right with the m50mkII although I'm reading that the M series may get discontinued and I should look to the R10 which is coming out in a month or so. It looks like the R10 would be pricier and there are only 2 lenses out right now.

My questions:

1 is there any reason to still use a DSLR vs mirrorless?

Battery life, cost. In some cases DSLRs are cheaper. Battery life is almost always better on a DSLR. Now DSLRs can't do things like eye-AF, and are bigger, heavier, too.

2 If I get the M50 MKII am I losing out by using my 50mm prime and Tamron vs the EF-M lenses (other than the size issue). Since I need the adapter anyway can I just continue to buy efs lenses if I want to get more glass?

No.

2 is there a danger in buying into a "dying" format (M series)

Less danger than buying a T8i. M should still be produced for a few more years. That's a long time in many industries.

3 what am I losing out on by getting the M50 mkii vs the Canon R10? Is it worth the upgrade?

Uncropped 4K, access to crop + RF mount. The RF 100-400 + R10 or R7 are a fierce sports / birding combo.

.

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest you look at the SL2 and SL3. Nowhere have you said you want smaller, lighter or more powerful, just better image quality. The SL1 uses the ancient 60D sensor and DIGIC5 processor. The SL2 by contrast uses the less ancient 80D sensor and DIGIC7 processor. Huge steps up. SL3 uses the DIGIC8. I would do an SL2 or T7i. The T8i isn't a huge step up over the T7i, nor is the SL3 a huge step up over the SL2. VERY incremental. Like almost what's the point, no offense to the T8i/SL3.

.

Where I'll say the M50 II makes sense, is with EF-M glass. EF-M glass makes the M50 package tiny, lightweight, and powerful. Some of the M glass is not available in the EF-S format, or is as good. The 11-22 for example is silly sharp for an inexpensive ultra wide zoom lens. The 22 and 32mm primes are f/2 and f/1.4 respectively; Canon never did a crop prime that fast for the EF-S mount. DIGIC8 although a powerful processor, it's largely wasted on the T8i; most of the benefits of improved processing are on mirrorless platforms, like the M50 II, M6 II or even original M50.

Adapting glass is fine and dandy, but if that's your intent, consider the SL2/SL3 and T7i, or T8i, if you can find one to your point. Once you add an adapter, permanently, to the M50 II, it's got more bulk than an SL2 or SL3...