Canon R50 or M50 Mark II

thunder storm wrote:

Miamistars wrote:

Your advice would be greatly appreciated. So I’m in the market for a new Canon APSC camera.

I would get a used RP is budget is tight. Skip aps-c. It's a sensor size from the past.

Only if shallow depth of field at wide to normal angle in zooms is a priority - or very expensive f/1.2 primes float your boat.  Or static landscapes / portraits and pixel peeping combined with refusal to use DxO or Topaz for noise control.

RP is slow slow slow and poor dynamic range with it as well.  And not even considering AF…..

Only the R5 comes close in terms of reach -pixels per duck in telephoto work with all but resorting to the most expensive great whites.

OM1 shows even smaller sensors can excel with professional users.

I almost pulled the trigger on the M50 Mark Ii and then the R50 was announced which is apparently a substantial upgrade from the M. I’m interested in street, travel, macro and family stills photography and on occasion do some video. I’m not a content creator or blogger. If the M50 takes good photos, has enough lenses for me to pick from and is cheaper, why would I even consider the R50? Thank you for your consideration.

Think about the lenses you need first, and when you've figured that out see what body you need to shoot with those lenses.

With the R50 there's no ef-m 32mm f/1.4 and no Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4. There's no compact 22mm. I doubt we will ever see an RF-s 22mm, and I'm sure we will never see RF-s versions of that 32mm and 56mm.

Likely true.  Don’t buy based on hope and rumour only.  Sony and OM Systems might be better way to go than RFS if needing lenses Canon don’t yet sell or are overpriced like the 24mm f/1.8:?