I have a Canon R5. However, for most of my on-the-go usage, I have a Canon M6II, which is a compact and very capable camera.
Since Canon isn't releasing any new M cameras, I have been eyeing APS-C options on the market. While Sony and Fuji have some tempting options, I was waiting for Canon. R50 is the first Canon R APS-C body that came close to being compact enough to replace the M6II, so I decided to get one.
I did sweat over the decision for a while, since Canon’s primary market for this camera does not seem to include someone like me: A “prosumer,” a non-professional who uses higher-end cameras and has some sophisticated expectations. So I decided to keep an open mind to see if this camera satisfied enough of my needs, and whether the design choices Canon made got in my way. Please do keep in mind that this review is not targeting the primary market Canon seems to have in mind for the R50.
Canon markets the R50 as an entry level camera: “A great camera for those who are looking to lean into interchangeable lenses.” This comes across in the low price, and in many of the hardware specs:
Lack of sensor cleaning is a longer term concern. I do not know whether dirt on the sensor will be a problem over time. I used early DSLRs for many years without any sort of sensor cleaning, and no perceived problems, but R50 has smaller pixels.
These limitations aside, I find the R50 to be a capable enough camera:
The R50 is a small and light camera. It fits well in my hand and I find it comfortable to use. It is and feels lighter than the M6II. Even though it is slightly bulkier, I was happy to find that when equipped with a lens it fits well into the same camera bags my M6II fit into with a similar lens.
For me one use case where the M6II shines is events where “pro cameras” are not allowed. I usually have no problems bringing the M6II + 55-200mm into rock concerts. (Except for one ZZTop concert where a sharp-eyed security guard identified it as an ILC rather than just a point and shoot.) The R50, with its “classic DSLR” styling, is less likely to get past security in such cases. I haven’t had the chance to test this use case yet.
One thing I really enjoy about the R50 that I couldn’t do with the M6II is the ability to use my RF lenses - the 800mm f/11 for instance. The 28-70mm f/2 also works on the R50, but given its size and weight, is a rather awkward experience.
It was also a joy to find that my old EF lenses, including a pretty old Sigma EF-S 18-125mm lens, just work. I was delighted that even with this lens the R50 is able to show the focal length live in the viewfinder - which, by the way, is a feature I do not have on the R5 or M6II.
One downside with lenses for the R50 is the serious gaps in the RF-S lens range. At this point there are no direct equivalents of the EF-M 32mm, 22mm, or 11-22mm. You can approximate them with RF or EF lenses, or third party manual focus RF-S lenses, but you can’t for instance recreate the magic of M6II + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 just yet. I hope it’s just a matter of time.
Do I recommend the R50?
I wish that as Canon introduces more APS-C R cameras, they disassociate “compact” and “beginner / low-priced.” They should look to produce an R camera that is small as possible while not sacrificing advanced features. Small doesn’t need to mean inexpensive or "entry level."
A related wish of course is for capable RF-S lenses.
Some Sample Shots
I haven’t taken as many shots with the R50 as I would have liked to before posting a review, but with DPReview’s upcoming closure I decided to go ahead and post this. First some random shots with a variety of lenses:
Among my first shots, taken with the RF 24-240mm
With the Canon EF-S 10-22mm
With the RF-S 55-210mm, which, while not a bright lens, can still provide nice bokeh
RF-S 18-45, at f/22 and 1/3 second exposure, handheld
RF-S 55-210mm at 201mm, f7.1
Same scene with the RF 24-240 at 240mm, f/6.3
RF-S 18-150mm, which I am finding to be a versatile choice for the R50
This wide angle shot with the RF-S 18-150mm would have been a good one to shoot with the Advanced A+ mode, to see if it did a better job with the sky
Also RF-S 18-150mm
Cat who pushes the dynamic range capabilities
And Some "Studio" Shots
I was also going to take a bunch of comparison shots of a fixed scene, but then my cat got curious. So I ended taking a few of the cat. You can’t compare the results directly, but I hope they’re useful anyway. The black fur adds to the challenge. The shots are at 35mm, except for the two M6II shots at 32mm; they are also all 1600 ISO except for the one with RF-S 18-45mm.
Included among these are shots with the TTArtisan RF-S 35mm f/1.4, an inexpensive manual focus lens. Sadly the nifty "focus guide" feature does not work with this lens, but focus peaking does. I used magnified view, which proved a challenge with a moving target.
The following shots are as-is, from Lightroom's default RAW conversion. No other processing, so you can evaluate the results for yourself.
TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 at f/2.8, manual focus (the EXIF data will be lacking)
TTArtisan 35mm at f/2, manual focus
This one is with the RF 28-70mm f/2, thankfully with auto-focus!
The far less capable but much smaller RF-S 18-45 at 35mm. I bumped the ISO up to 6400 for this shot.
For comparison purposes, I also included two with the M6II + EF-M 32mm, this one at f/2
And this one with M6II + EF-M 32mm at f/1.4. Note that f/1.4 isn't a great choice for cat photos since eyes in focus normally means much of the rest of the face isn't.
And finally back to the TTArtisan at f/1.4 to compare with the EF-M 32mm. While manual focus makes this lens harder to use, even with good focus image quality from this lens at f/1.4 is nowhere near what you get with the EF-M 32mm at f/1.4.
At this point the cat got bored and left, so the session was over.
Since Canon isn't releasing any new M cameras, I have been eyeing APS-C options on the market. While Sony and Fuji have some tempting options, I was waiting for Canon. R50 is the first Canon R APS-C body that came close to being compact enough to replace the M6II, so I decided to get one.
I did sweat over the decision for a while, since Canon’s primary market for this camera does not seem to include someone like me: A “prosumer,” a non-professional who uses higher-end cameras and has some sophisticated expectations. So I decided to keep an open mind to see if this camera satisfied enough of my needs, and whether the design choices Canon made got in my way. Please do keep in mind that this review is not targeting the primary market Canon seems to have in mind for the R50.
Canon markets the R50 as an entry level camera: “A great camera for those who are looking to lean into interchangeable lenses.” This comes across in the low price, and in many of the hardware specs:
- small battery
- small viewfinder
- small buffer
- no mechanical shutter
- no sensor cleaning
- no in-body image stabilization
- few physical buttons
- 24 MP sensor
- You cannot change the ISO increment value, it's fixed at ⅓ stop. So it takes three clicks to go from 100 to 200 ISO. I prefer 1 stop increments. (And frankly I am surprised in absence of a control for this, Canon set the value to ⅓ rather than a more user-friendly 1.)
- Another setting you can’t change is what the magnify button does when viewing an image; I usually change that to zoom to 100% directly so I can check focus. On the R50 the magnify button just incrementally zooms in. I'm not sure how many clicks it takes to get to actual pixels.
- When taking 3-shot HDR photos, R50 does not save the individual RAW images. While a beginner user would be content with the single combined JPEG, a more advanced user who has gone out of their way to set their default format to RAW would probably enjoy and expect the RAWs in addition to the JPEG.
Lack of sensor cleaning is a longer term concern. I do not know whether dirt on the sensor will be a problem over time. I used early DSLRs for many years without any sort of sensor cleaning, and no perceived problems, but R50 has smaller pixels.
These limitations aside, I find the R50 to be a capable enough camera:
- Auto focus feels as solid as that on the R5, and better than the M6II.
- Photos look fantastic. Although I was concerned about going from M6II’s 32MP down to 24MP, in practice I haven’t seen this to be an issue. I think only cases requiring heavy cropping will suffer from this deficiency.
- Camera is very responsive.
- Burst shot capabilities - fast but limited to a relatively small buffer - are more than good enough for my casual use cases, and I imagine many others.
- Fully articulating rear touch screen works well.
- Video specs are very good, and the few videos I shot look great. However, I am not a video person.
- Creative assist and Advanced A+ modes look interesting, but also not features I reach for since I usually just shoot RAW.
The R50 is a small and light camera. It fits well in my hand and I find it comfortable to use. It is and feels lighter than the M6II. Even though it is slightly bulkier, I was happy to find that when equipped with a lens it fits well into the same camera bags my M6II fit into with a similar lens.
For me one use case where the M6II shines is events where “pro cameras” are not allowed. I usually have no problems bringing the M6II + 55-200mm into rock concerts. (Except for one ZZTop concert where a sharp-eyed security guard identified it as an ILC rather than just a point and shoot.) The R50, with its “classic DSLR” styling, is less likely to get past security in such cases. I haven’t had the chance to test this use case yet.
One thing I really enjoy about the R50 that I couldn’t do with the M6II is the ability to use my RF lenses - the 800mm f/11 for instance. The 28-70mm f/2 also works on the R50, but given its size and weight, is a rather awkward experience.
It was also a joy to find that my old EF lenses, including a pretty old Sigma EF-S 18-125mm lens, just work. I was delighted that even with this lens the R50 is able to show the focal length live in the viewfinder - which, by the way, is a feature I do not have on the R5 or M6II.
One downside with lenses for the R50 is the serious gaps in the RF-S lens range. At this point there are no direct equivalents of the EF-M 32mm, 22mm, or 11-22mm. You can approximate them with RF or EF lenses, or third party manual focus RF-S lenses, but you can’t for instance recreate the magic of M6II + EF-M 32mm f/1.4 just yet. I hope it’s just a matter of time.
Do I recommend the R50?
- It’s the obvious option for anyone looking for the cheapest possible, or the smallest/lightest R camera.
- It’s a great choice for anyone looking for an capable but inexpensive ILC, and doesn’t require a full line-up of small lenses yet.
- It’s a good replacement for the M50II, and a good (but slightly less so) one for the M6II. However the question here is more complicated because changing from the M to the R system means you give up the existing lenses, and need to evaluate whether the RF or RF-S lenses can satisfy your needs. And additionally, if size is your most important consideration, the M series cameras have an advantage.
- Lack of some advanced features - things like the small burst buffer or the 24MP sensor - may be showstoppers for some use cases. They are not for me.
I wish that as Canon introduces more APS-C R cameras, they disassociate “compact” and “beginner / low-priced.” They should look to produce an R camera that is small as possible while not sacrificing advanced features. Small doesn’t need to mean inexpensive or "entry level."
A related wish of course is for capable RF-S lenses.
Some Sample Shots
I haven’t taken as many shots with the R50 as I would have liked to before posting a review, but with DPReview’s upcoming closure I decided to go ahead and post this. First some random shots with a variety of lenses:
Among my first shots, taken with the RF 24-240mm
With the Canon EF-S 10-22mm
With the RF-S 55-210mm, which, while not a bright lens, can still provide nice bokeh
RF-S 18-45, at f/22 and 1/3 second exposure, handheld
RF-S 55-210mm at 201mm, f7.1
Same scene with the RF 24-240 at 240mm, f/6.3
RF-S 18-150mm, which I am finding to be a versatile choice for the R50
This wide angle shot with the RF-S 18-150mm would have been a good one to shoot with the Advanced A+ mode, to see if it did a better job with the sky
Also RF-S 18-150mm
Cat who pushes the dynamic range capabilities
And Some "Studio" Shots
I was also going to take a bunch of comparison shots of a fixed scene, but then my cat got curious. So I ended taking a few of the cat. You can’t compare the results directly, but I hope they’re useful anyway. The black fur adds to the challenge. The shots are at 35mm, except for the two M6II shots at 32mm; they are also all 1600 ISO except for the one with RF-S 18-45mm.
Included among these are shots with the TTArtisan RF-S 35mm f/1.4, an inexpensive manual focus lens. Sadly the nifty "focus guide" feature does not work with this lens, but focus peaking does. I used magnified view, which proved a challenge with a moving target.
The following shots are as-is, from Lightroom's default RAW conversion. No other processing, so you can evaluate the results for yourself.
TTArtisan 35mm f/1.4 at f/2.8, manual focus (the EXIF data will be lacking)
TTArtisan 35mm at f/2, manual focus
This one is with the RF 28-70mm f/2, thankfully with auto-focus!
The far less capable but much smaller RF-S 18-45 at 35mm. I bumped the ISO up to 6400 for this shot.
For comparison purposes, I also included two with the M6II + EF-M 32mm, this one at f/2
And this one with M6II + EF-M 32mm at f/1.4. Note that f/1.4 isn't a great choice for cat photos since eyes in focus normally means much of the rest of the face isn't.
And finally back to the TTArtisan at f/1.4 to compare with the EF-M 32mm. While manual focus makes this lens harder to use, even with good focus image quality from this lens at f/1.4 is nowhere near what you get with the EF-M 32mm at f/1.4.
At this point the cat got bored and left, so the session was over.
Last edited:
