Canon M6 II with kits lens or Body only + buy a lens? Locked

dan the man p wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

JustUs7 wrote:

I disagree. M6II won't make a noticeable improvement over the M50II for anything he shoots. You don't need 32MP and 14 FPS for family and travel photography. More and better lenses will.

You're not wrong. But 14 fps is a lot of fun playing at the pool with the kids. And the 30 fps raw burst? The kids love the action frozen with their toe just touching the water on a cannonball!

Also, the 32 megapixels handle just a bit more cropping when you’re limited to the 18-150. Not as much as some would believe, but there’s a difference.

I have kids and get plenty of excellent action shots with my M50. We have to be careful about recommending our own personal favorite instead of what's best for his use cases.

And your personal favorite is the M50. You just did the same thing here.

That's simply not true. I would rather have the M6II than the M50. Just don't have enough reason to upgrade.

My opinion is that it's a waste of potential to get the M6II with only the 15-45 lens. Yes, he can buy more lenses later, but how many good shots would he missing in the mean time? Also, even "good" copies of the 15-45 have poor IQ on the long end, where he'll want to be for portraits of his kids. They'll be soft with bland colors and low contrast.

Agree that the OP should add more lenses (which is in fact what he proposed!). My take is that once he gets the camera in-hand, he'll see that the M6ii is so good, that he'll want to add more capabilities right away. Heck I now own a dozen of them for the M6ii!

And darn near every post I write espouses the use of various EF-M lenses, and demonstrates their capabilities and usefulness.

Then you should make it clear that he'll need to spend money for more lenses right away rather than saying the 15-45 will be enough. Let's also not forget that most copies of that lens are poor. You say you have a good copy, but most are not. The average copy is passable at the wide end when stopped down but much worse at the long end, and soft everywhere wide open.

This gets to your bigger point, which is a good one   People ask for recommendations and occasionally are helpful enough to provide a budget   Yet when they do, we often ignore it and spend a lot more of their money than they want too.  This isn’t the most egregious as I’ve seen.  $1,500 budgets with responses of, “You need an R5!”… or some other very expensive full frame body.

“Do I get the R or RP?”  Answer:  “Get the R6.  Those are  outdated.”   Only a grand more.  My kids don’t need food.

Probably worse than what he gets out of his G7X II.

That's not the case. Ignore what nnowak writes (for obvious reasons).

This has nothing to do with your discussion on equivalence with nnowak, and frankly I'm a bit insulted that you would imply I am just parroting someone else's opinion. I have taken plenty of portraits at the long end with my 15-45. Well, I tried anyway, and decided not to bother anymore after a few months of having it. Have you?

My statement was based on comparing what I get out of my 15-45 at the long end with sample images from the G7X II that can be found online. If the 15-45 is better than that, it's not by much.

He'd be much better served to get that M50II kit with 15-45, 55-200, and add the Sigma 30mm like MAC suggested.

And he'd be even better served with the M6ii (My "personal favorite" ).

R2