M6 Mark 2 vs R7

RLight wrote:

CamerEyes wrote:

Taking my chance to shoot out this question. Rejoining the forum after almost a decade of being away from photography websites.

Now on the hunt for cropped body, coming from an 80D. I know the R7 has all the bells and whistles of the new Canon tech and hardware. Does not mean it's worth that much money compared to the really cute and capable M6 Mark 2 which I tried in the store over the weekend and found impressive for its size. Mostly I do take photos on foot, while doing a bit of hiking and occasionally from hillside locations, with a small tripod in a small backpack.

Or maybe I should invest in new tech like the R7 so I don't have to change it for the next 3-5 years?

I think Nnowak hit the nail on the head on most points. Where I'll say the R7 makes sense is if size and cost aren't as high of a priority, but additional performance, particularly for sports or birding (top autofocus) is. The R7's primary target is sports/birding (7D folks). The R10's primary target is vloggers (80D folks). Both offerings aim to "convert" existing DSLR holdouts.

The M6 II will always be cheaper, smaller and more compact and has a "full" lens lineup now. But as said, it's the end of the line, expect nothing more. Where the M6 II could be a hangup is if you need a fast zoom, example EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. You'll never see it on the M. I think the RF-S will though.

I'll say coming from an 80D, the R7 will feel more like home. But, what you've described about hiking? M is more compact and light especially with the lenses involved presently.

The RF-S should "fill out" it's lenses, over time. Takes time, years. However, EF-S glass adapts on the R7, too.

Thunder has a good point btw, I wouldn't expect any Sigma glass on the RF mount, anytime soon, maybe even never.

My point wasn't Sigma only, it was also about Canon RF-s primes in general, which means no RF-s 32mm f/1.4 too, as the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS stm is an upgrade path to a full frame body potentially generating more substantial lens sales, whereas a 32mm would keep customers on crop, as it's the best walk around 50mm field of view lens being capable of doing both landscapes AND portraits. The Sony 50mm f/1.2 G-master will beat it, but that's 778g. The Zeiss f/1.4 is the same. The Sigma Art is even worse as it's 800ish + adaper. The Canon f/1.2 L is 945g......

Look, if Canon ports over that 32mm with a bit faster AF, that's a clear sign Canon is serious about it's crop lenses as a lens line up on it's own, giving you the best on your crop sensor RF body. At the same time we all know it will stay demoted as an upgrade path.

If that is of interest, that could be a concern and you should consider the M. Again to my point, if IBIS or a fast crop zoom are a concern, then it's RF.

I should add I've shot the R with "compact" lenses before, it's not as "fun". The R7 is the same footprint as my R. I went against the grain myself and rebought the M6 II and all the M glass 2 weeks ago? Haven't regretted it a second I might add.