The Sweet Spot

When I first gambled on the EOS M series many moons ago (selling off other gear), Canon had just released the EOS M2 for Japan/Select Countries-only which at the time I imported in addition to the EOS M and 22mm I grabbed on an eBay firesale. I had to do workarounds such as turret viewfinders, customized aftermarket grips, and had to shoot continuous drive and "spray and pray" to compensate for the lackluster AF of the EOS M's at the time and provided ergonomics. Things have come a long ways in 6 years. Fast forward to the EOS M6 Mark II, the successor to both the EOS M5 and EOS M6 both of which I've owned.

.

The EOS M6 Mark II is the 2nd EOS M camera to have autofocus capable of hitting highly demanding circumstances, the 1st being the EOS M50. However, the EOS M6 Mark II takes it another level with 14FPS, deeper buffer and UHS-II support for fast clearing of buffer (relatively speaking) and even better autofocus. The EOS M6 Mark II also is a return to the M3 form factor where you can add or remove the electronic viewfinder (if you have or get one) for ultra-compact outings where the famed EF-M 22mm f/2 STM can be solely mounted without the EVF for a pocket-able (coat or cargo) solution for the popular 35mm focal length (22mm on APS-C) which many other offerings out there ala Fuji X100 series offer.

.

The first thing that strikes you about the M6 Mark II is the ergonomics. It's very well built. A pleasure to handle and shoot with. Plenty of buttons, dials and even full time manual focus override with dedicated (and programable) back button focus, button. Having a camera that can take good images is half the battle, the other half is having one that's fun to use. The EOS M6 Mark II is fun. I would actually have to give the M50 the platinum award in fun with it's fully articulating screen and DSLR form factor, but the M6 Mark II is 2nd only to it.

.

The EOS M6 Mark II is also the first APS-C (crop sensor camera) I've shot with that approaches full frame offerings in terms of image quality between it's impressive handling of high ISOs, 32MP of resolution, and WYSIWYG colors and tones. The original EOS M with the 22mm pancake won me over as an alternative to carrying my 5D Mark III around with 24-105L all the time, and the M6 Mark II with it's more impressive EF-M catalogue does it further with my EOS R and 28-70 f/2L getting left home most days with the exception being special events or if I feel like it and the M6 Mark II and it's EF-M offerings supplanting it for day-to-day use to have something more powerful on me than a smartphone but is lightweight and low profile.

.

Video is excellent between Canon's class leading DPAF technology for smooth cinema-like focus, uncropped 4K with class leading rolling shutter (a big deal for 4K) and famed Canon colors. The two gripes with video I have is AWB-W, which is a WB setting that renders white as white under artificial lighting instead of an amber (default AWB) which is more pleasing but less true to life, AWB-W is not an option on the dial when programmed for fast switching to it (you still can, just not through the programmable dial). The 2nd is in order to get 4K, you have to turn the dial to Movie; pressing the record button in any other mode ends up with 1080P. Both of these can be fixed with firmware and I hope they will when Canon brings 24P support to the M6 Mark II later this year.

.

Speaking of AWB, the other gripe I have with the M6 Mark II is on less common circumstances the AWB can select something just off enough to skew skin tones, thankfully if you shoot RAW (you should with a camera this advanced to make the most of it) you can correct this with your favorite post-processor of choice.

.

Battery life is excellent with it going full days worth of demanding shooting (I've shot more than 1,000 shots, easy) on a full charge without needing to switch the battery.

.

I do recommend a Sony Tough UHS-II card of some kind to keep up with the sheer amount of data this can kick out as it's the fastest card on the market that I've tested for the camera. 14FPS RAWs fill your buffer, fast. C-RAW is another option I highly recommend you take advantage of as the only penalty it suffers from what I can tell, is the lack of ability to apply Canon's DLO corrections, that only work if using Canon's own, free, DPP4 post-processor. Most folks don't use the software so I'd skip RAW and do C-RAW. I'm picky and do RAW and in fact use DPP4 as I don't care to rent software ala Adobe Creative suite. Canon's DPP4 also preserves Canon's famed colors which the latest Adobe LR CC still doesn't support a color match for at the time of this writing, which is a big deal and a big fail on behalf of Adobe in my book.

.

The other obvious gotcha, the lack of built-in viewfinder precludes the ability to both mount a viewfinder, and external flash at the same time. It's a double edged sword. You have the option to go ultra-compact, sans EVF, but, you can't go ultra-powerful with an EVF and speedlite. I personally agree with Canon's approach, but, wish there was some third option like pop-up EVF so I could have it all. That didn't happen this round.

.

The one thing Canon lacks for the M system at this junction, a "party lens" that is a faster equivalence zoom. Granted the 32mm and 22mm primes can do that duty, and do it ultra-compact which is the point of the M system (to have something powerful, but small and light and doesn't break the bank), but lens swaps during special events is not desirable. That's where I still reach for my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L where I never swap lenses, period as it's 5 primes in a single zoom essentially. Be nice to see an f/2.8 zoom of some kind as I personally even though I enjoy the image quality of the EOS R, would like to see something although won't match my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L aka Goliath, I'd like David aka my EOS M setup, have a smooth stone to slay Goliath with, filling the single lens gap that presently exists.

.

Overall I think Canon has a sweet spot here. It doesn't have IBIS which would be immensely useful for video with the 22mm and 32mm (no OIS on those lenses), but, 32MP with fast 4K readout, is hard to beat as more resolution is more resolution and what's the point of 4K if you have rolling shutter? Even my 18-150 superzoom lens, looks better at 32MP than 24MP and even with it's class-leading rolling shutter, there's times you can still notice it under the right conditions. For most folks I recommend the EOS M50, it's cheaper, and has a built-in EVF and doesn't have occasional AWB hiccups and is a more refined beast in my book. But, the M6 Mark II has much more teeth with more advanced AF, better low light performance and uncropped 4K with class leading rolling shutter. For the discerning pro wanting a personal option, or an advanced amateur, it should be on your short list as the EOS M series is a truly compact APS-C offering where the competition is pushing towards bigger, heavier and more expensive offerings. In a market where Full Frame offerings like the EOS RP, A7III are offering compelling FF offerings and smartphone manufactures are offering compelling take everywhere and now decent low light performance, the EOS M6 mark II offers are much smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative to the FF heavyweights for the average Joe as lets face it, folks don't want to drag their DSLR (or even Mirrorless FF) everywhere, but, they want high quality stills and video to throw on Facebook, Instagram, print and send to relatives and want something they can throw in a pocket, or not get in the way of life. The EOS M6 Mark II and it's cheaper M50 brother tick those boxes as simple as those boxes may be, without breaking the bank, or the back.

.

Kids and pets gets 5/5 as the AF is really good, and this is very portable. Action sports gets 5/5 due to class leading crop sensor resolution married with 14FPS and crop duty to multiply the focal length on a FF adapted lens which this is arguably better than the 90D for that, ironically. Landscape gets 5/5 with 32MP resolution for a crop sensor. Portraits only gets 3/5 because Canon lacks native glass options particularly a fast zoom, granted Sigma is a good alternative with it's f/1.4 primes, but there should be a native fast zoom by now for the M so it falls short here where I might recommend a Fuji or Sony with their fast primes and fast zooms, natively, but, big but, those options are much larger and much more expensive which defeats the purpose of the EOS M's of their go-everywhere mantra and not break the bank so it goes with the turf perhaps. Low light scores 4/5 only because this isn't Full frame and I'm picky. It's REALLY good for crop and destroys a smartphone, don't hear what I'm not saying. Flash is unrated because you have to choose between a flash and an EVF on which to put in the hotshoe which I like my EVFs, but, it does have a bounce-able pop-up flash (bounce part is important, and built-in at that). Studio/still life gets 5/5 due to sheer resolution and availability of cheap light small 32mm and 28mm lenses for macro duty. Not fair to rate a camera on its lenses, I know, but it comes down to glass; pick a system for its glass, price, image quality and fun. The M6 Mark II scores top marks on most things, except, if it's lacking glass you want. Hopefully Canon will address this in the future even if that means it'll compete with their precious cash-cow EOS R and RF offerings... Or you can do what I do, have a system for take everywhere (EOS M system) and one for heavy duty (EOS R), but the latter is becoming a pro-only affair lately with it's price point and size which the EOS M series and the M6 Mark II is a very welcome respite for those who wield a FF pro offerings like myself, but want the same or near level of image quality, but much more portable.

Excellent post on the M6II and the often under-rated M50.

Now ,if only Canon produces an M50II (M6II + built-in EVF) and a "party-lens" (according to RLight) EF-M 15-65 f/2.8 or f/4 would that not be mirrorless perfection!

RLight wrote:

When I first gambled on the EOS M series many moons ago (selling off other gear), Canon had just released the EOS M2 for Japan/Select Countries-only which at the time I imported in addition to the EOS M and 22mm I grabbed on an eBay firesale. I had to do workarounds such as turret viewfinders, customized aftermarket grips, and had to shoot continuous drive and "spray and pray" to compensate for the lackluster AF of the EOS M's at the time and provided ergonomics. Things have come a long ways in 6 years. Fast forward to the EOS M6 Mark II, the successor to both the EOS M5 and EOS M6 both of which I've owned.

.

The EOS M6 Mark II is the 2nd EOS M camera to have autofocus capable of hitting highly demanding circumstances, the 1st being the EOS M50. However, the EOS M6 Mark II takes it another level with 14FPS, deeper buffer and UHS-II support for fast clearing of buffer (relatively speaking) and even better autofocus. The EOS M6 Mark II also is a return to the M3 form factor where you can add or remove the electronic viewfinder (if you have or get one) for ultra-compact outings where the famed EF-M 22mm f/2 STM can be solely mounted without the EVF for a pocket-able (coat or cargo) solution for the popular 35mm focal length (22mm on APS-C) which many other offerings out there ala Fuji X100 series offer.

.

The first thing that strikes you about the M6 Mark II is the ergonomics. It's very well built. A pleasure to handle and shoot with. Plenty of buttons, dials and even full time manual focus override with dedicated (and programable) back button focus, button. Having a camera that can take good images is half the battle, the other half is having one that's fun to use. The EOS M6 Mark II is fun. I would actually have to give the M50 the platinum award in fun with it's fully articulating screen and DSLR form factor, but the M6 Mark II is 2nd only to it.

.

The EOS M6 Mark II is also the first APS-C (crop sensor camera) I've shot with that approaches full frame offerings in terms of image quality between it's impressive handling of high ISOs, 32MP of resolution, and WYSIWYG colors and tones. The original EOS M with the 22mm pancake won me over as an alternative to carrying my 5D Mark III around with 24-105L all the time, and the M6 Mark II with it's more impressive EF-M catalogue does it further with my EOS R and 28-70 f/2L getting left home most days with the exception being special events or if I feel like it and the M6 Mark II and it's EF-M offerings supplanting it for day-to-day use to have something more powerful on me than a smartphone but is lightweight and low profile.

.

Video is excellent between Canon's class leading DPAF technology for smooth cinema-like focus, uncropped 4K with class leading rolling shutter (a big deal for 4K) and famed Canon colors. The two gripes with video I have is AWB-W, which is a WB setting that renders white as white under artificial lighting instead of an amber (default AWB) which is more pleasing but less true to life, AWB-W is not an option on the dial when programmed for fast switching to it (you still can, just not through the programmable dial). The 2nd is in order to get 4K, you have to turn the dial to Movie; pressing the record button in any other mode ends up with 1080P. Both of these can be fixed with firmware and I hope they will when Canon brings 24P support to the M6 Mark II later this year.

.

Speaking of AWB, the other gripe I have with the M6 Mark II is on less common circumstances the AWB can select something just off enough to skew skin tones, thankfully if you shoot RAW (you should with a camera this advanced to make the most of it) you can correct this with your favorite post-processor of choice.

.

Battery life is excellent with it going full days worth of demanding shooting (I've shot more than 1,000 shots, easy) on a full charge without needing to switch the battery.

.

I do recommend a Sony Tough UHS-II card of some kind to keep up with the sheer amount of data this can kick out as it's the fastest card on the market that I've tested for the camera. 14FPS RAWs fill your buffer, fast. C-RAW is another option I highly recommend you take advantage of as the only penalty it suffers from what I can tell, is the lack of ability to apply Canon's DLO corrections, that only work if using Canon's own, free, DPP4 post-processor. Most folks don't use the software so I'd skip RAW and do C-RAW. I'm picky and do RAW and in fact use DPP4 as I don't care to rent software ala Adobe Creative suite. Canon's DPP4 also preserves Canon's famed colors which the latest Adobe LR CC still doesn't support a color match for at the time of this writing, which is a big deal and a big fail on behalf of Adobe in my book.

.

The other obvious gotcha, the lack of built-in viewfinder precludes the ability to both mount a viewfinder, and external flash at the same time. It's a double edged sword. You have the option to go ultra-compact, sans EVF, but, you can't go ultra-powerful with an EVF and speedlite. I personally agree with Canon's approach, but, wish there was some third option like pop-up EVF so I could have it all. That didn't happen this round.

.

The one thing Canon lacks for the M system at this junction, a "party lens" that is a faster equivalence zoom. Granted the 32mm and 22mm primes can do that duty, and do it ultra-compact which is the point of the M system (to have something powerful, but small and light and doesn't break the bank), but lens swaps during special events is not desirable. That's where I still reach for my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L where I never swap lenses, period as it's 5 primes in a single zoom essentially. Be nice to see an f/2.8 zoom of some kind as I personally even though I enjoy the image quality of the EOS R, would like to see something although won't match my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L aka Goliath, I'd like David aka my EOS M setup, have a smooth stone to slay Goliath with, filling the single lens gap that presently exists.

.

Overall I think Canon has a sweet spot here. It doesn't have IBIS which would be immensely useful for video with the 22mm and 32mm (no OIS on those lenses), but, 32MP with fast 4K readout, is hard to beat as more resolution is more resolution and what's the point of 4K if you have rolling shutter? Even my 18-150 superzoom lens, looks better at 32MP than 24MP and even with it's class-leading rolling shutter, there's times you can still notice it under the right conditions. For most folks I recommend the EOS M50, it's cheaper, and has a built-in EVF and doesn't have occasional AWB hiccups and is a more refined beast in my book. But, the M6 Mark II has much more teeth with more advanced AF, better low light performance and uncropped 4K with class leading rolling shutter. For the discerning pro wanting a personal option, or an advanced amateur, it should be on your short list as the EOS M series is a truly compact APS-C offering where the competition is pushing towards bigger, heavier and more expensive offerings. In a market where Full Frame offerings like the EOS RP, A7III are offering compelling FF offerings and smartphone manufactures are offering compelling take everywhere and now decent low light performance, the EOS M6 mark II offers are much smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative to the FF heavyweights for the average Joe as lets face it, folks don't want to drag their DSLR (or even Mirrorless FF) everywhere, but, they want high quality stills and video to throw on Facebook, Instagram, print and send to relatives and want something they can throw in a pocket, or not get in the way of life. The EOS M6 Mark II and it's cheaper M50 brother tick those boxes as simple as those boxes may be, without breaking the bank, or the back.

.

Kids and pets gets 5/5 as the AF is really good, and this is very portable. Action sports gets 5/5 due to class leading crop sensor resolution married with 14FPS and crop duty to multiply the focal length on a FF adapted lens which this is arguably better than the 90D for that, ironically. Landscape gets 5/5 with 32MP resolution for a crop sensor. Portraits only gets 3/5 because Canon lacks native glass options particularly a fast zoom, granted Sigma is a good alternative with it's f/1.4 primes, but there should be a native fast zoom by now for the M so it falls short here where I might recommend a Fuji or Sony with their fast primes and fast zooms, natively, but, big but, those options are much larger and much more expensive which defeats the purpose of the EOS M's of their go-everywhere mantra and not break the bank so it goes with the turf perhaps. Low light scores 4/5 only because this isn't Full frame and I'm picky. It's REALLY good for crop and destroys a smartphone, don't hear what I'm not saying. Flash is unrated because you have to choose between a flash and an EVF on which to put in the hotshoe which I like my EVFs, but, it does have a bounce-able pop-up flash (bounce part is important, and built-in at that). Studio/still life gets 5/5 due to sheer resolution and availability of cheap light small 32mm and 28mm lenses for macro duty. Not fair to rate a camera on its lenses, I know, but it comes down to glass; pick a system for its glass, price, image quality and fun. The M6 Mark II scores top marks on most things, except, if it's lacking glass you want. Hopefully Canon will address this in the future even if that means it'll compete with their precious cash-cow EOS R and RF offerings... Or you can do what I do, have a system for take everywhere (EOS M system) and one for heavy duty (EOS R), but the latter is becoming a pro-only affair lately with it's price point and size which the EOS M series and the M6 Mark II is a very welcome respite for those who wield a FF pro offerings like myself, but want the same or near level of image quality, but much more portable.

Looks like a great little beast!

Is it better than your G1XII for everyday use?  And will it beat your Fuji X100 in low light (can't imagine)?

Alexis wrote:

Excellent post on the M6II and the often under-rated M50.

Now ,if only Canon produces an M50II (M6II + built-in EVF) and a "party-lens" (according to RLight) EF-M 15-65 f/2.8 or f/4 would that not be mirrorless perfection!

Well they've got two patented options... EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 or EF-M 15-75 f/2-5.6 which I presume both meet the 55mm filter option and relatively lightweight, compact criteria.

The question is one of them meant for a PowerShot G1X IV (APS-C sensor, so maybe).

Patents could be just that though, Canon passed on em...

telefunk wrote:

Looks like a great little beast!

Is it better than your G1XII for everyday use? And will it beat your Fuji X100 in low light (can't imagine)?

I sold the G1X III, the M6 II supplanted it, if that answers your question.

If a G1X IV, with a more aggressive built-in lens appeared that is self-collapsing and built-in ND-filter, APS-C sensor appeared, that would be a very hard choice indeed as it would potentially offer an even smaller form factor to my existing setup, but, no lens swaps. Hard choice if it were to appear. As with things like this, sometimes speculating will net you gains, but, the older I get it's just better to buy something that's available now, as you can't shoot with something that doesn't exist...

In theory it can, if you mount the 32mm (f/1.4). But at 22mm? It's probably very close.

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

I’ll agree to disagree here; my main complaint with the Sigma 56 is that it’s 90mm effective when cropped. Had Sigma done a EF-M specific offering, not adapt their existing homework and made a 52mm making an 85mm effective, I’d own one. Canon and or Sigma are free to fix that problem as they are to fix the lack of a native near f/2.8 zoom of some kind. Right now they’re both lacking. The Sigma 56 is like shooting the EF 35 f/2 is usm adapted: too tight to be a nominal focal length which drives me nuts. It’s a good option absolutely, both adapting the 35mm or using the Sigma 56, but for the 35mm you can do the native 32mm both reducing the bulk (no adapter) and having a happy true 50mm. Right now with the Siggy 56, it’s a compromise.

Contrast this to say the Sigma 56 on a Sony (1.5x crop making it 85mm) or the Fuji 56 also being 1.5x, either the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 or now Sony 16-55 f/2.8... That’s how I end up giving it 3 stars.

RLight wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

I’ll agree to disagree here; my main complaint with the Sigma 56 is that it’s 90mm effective when cropped. Had Sigma done a EF-M specific offering, not adapt their existing homework and made a 52mm making an 85mm effective, I’d own one. Canon and or Sigma are free to fix that problem as they are to fix the lack of a native near f/2.8 zoom of some kind. Right now they’re both lacking. The Sigma 56 is like shooting the EF 35 f/2 is usm adapted: too tight to be a nominal focal length which drives me nuts. It’s a good option absolutely, both adapting the 35mm or using the Sigma 56, but for the 35mm you can do the native 32mm both reducing the bulk (no adapter) and having a happy true 50mm. Right now with the Siggy 56, it’s a compromise.

Contrast this to say the Sigma 56 on a Sony (1.5x crop making it 85mm) or the Fuji 56 also being 1.5x, either the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 or now Sony 16-55 f/2.8... That’s how I end up giving it 3 stars.

So the difference between a FF equivalent FOV of 85 and 90 is why you give the M6II 3 instead of 5 stars for portrait? It seems to me that you are obsessing over numbers here. I suspect that, had the Sigma been branded 52mm, instead of 56mm, you would never have noticed. For many portraits, I find anything from 80-140 (FF equivalent) to be just fine. You do realize that, for most portraits, backing up less than half a step will give you the same framing on a 56 as on a 52?

Alastair Norcross wrote:

RLight wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

I’ll agree to disagree here; my main complaint with the Sigma 56 is that it’s 90mm effective when cropped. Had Sigma done a EF-M specific offering, not adapt their existing homework and made a 52mm making an 85mm effective, I’d own one. Canon and or Sigma are free to fix that problem as they are to fix the lack of a native near f/2.8 zoom of some kind. Right now they’re both lacking. The Sigma 56 is like shooting the EF 35 f/2 is usm adapted: too tight to be a nominal focal length which drives me nuts. It’s a good option absolutely, both adapting the 35mm or using the Sigma 56, but for the 35mm you can do the native 32mm both reducing the bulk (no adapter) and having a happy true 50mm. Right now with the Siggy 56, it’s a compromise.

Contrast this to say the Sigma 56 on a Sony (1.5x crop making it 85mm) or the Fuji 56 also being 1.5x, either the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 or now Sony 16-55 f/2.8... That’s how I end up giving it 3 stars.

So the difference between a FF equivalent FOV of 85 and 90 is why you give the M6II 3 instead of 5 stars for portrait? It seems to me that you are obsessing over numbers here. I suspect that, had the Sigma been branded 52mm, instead of 56mm, you would never have noticed. For many portraits, I find anything from 80-140 (FF equivalent) to be just fine. You do realize that, for most portraits, backing up less than half a step will give you the same framing on a 56 as on a 52?

I would agree with that especially as we are talking about an exceptionally capable lens that (currently) Canon has no equal...

Alastair Norcross wrote:

RLight wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

I’ll agree to disagree here; my main complaint with the Sigma 56 is that it’s 90mm effective when cropped. Had Sigma done a EF-M specific offering, not adapt their existing homework and made a 52mm making an 85mm effective, I’d own one. Canon and or Sigma are free to fix that problem as they are to fix the lack of a native near f/2.8 zoom of some kind. Right now they’re both lacking. The Sigma 56 is like shooting the EF 35 f/2 is usm adapted: too tight to be a nominal focal length which drives me nuts. It’s a good option absolutely, both adapting the 35mm or using the Sigma 56, but for the 35mm you can do the native 32mm both reducing the bulk (no adapter) and having a happy true 50mm. Right now with the Siggy 56, it’s a compromise.

Contrast this to say the Sigma 56 on a Sony (1.5x crop making it 85mm) or the Fuji 56 also being 1.5x, either the Fuji 16-55 f/2.8 or now Sony 16-55 f/2.8... That’s how I end up giving it 3 stars.

So the difference between a FF equivalent FOV of 85 and 90 is why you give the M6II 3 instead of 5 stars for portrait? It seems to me that you are obsessing over numbers here. I suspect that, had the Sigma been branded 52mm, instead of 56mm, you would never have noticed. For many portraits, I find anything from 80-140 (FF equivalent) to be just fine. You do realize that, for most portraits, backing up less than half a step will give you the same framing on a 56 as on a 52?

You can’t always back up in tight quarters. Yes, you can argue that’s why. 85mm is the traditional head and shoulders for a reason.

Shooting inside a classroom is very different than say a 3 or 4 bedroom house in terms of space to backup. If it works for you (it does) great. However there’s a reason Canon makes many focal lengths, to suit different situations and subjects. To your own point, in reverse, you can step in with say the 32mm (what I do now) but that’s a compromise too.

nnowak wrote:

Constantly repeating the phrase "class leading rolling shutter" does not make it true.

According to DPR...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m6-ii-review/2

17ms

Tops the list

nnowak wrote:

RLight wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Constantly repeating the phrase "class leading rolling shutter" does not make it true.

According to DPR...

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m6-ii-review/2

17ms

Tops the list

Do you think that the entire crop sensor camera market consists of only 4 models?

Which other crop model has faster rolling shutter? Without cropping, no pun intended.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

Yes, I’d have to give it at least 4.5/5 for portraits.  The Eye AF is simply beyond marvelous, and the Siggy 56 is a stellar lens for M.  So much so that I sold my 50 STM and 60 Macro, and hardly ever use my 40 or even my 85 any more!

The only reason I don’t give it a 5/5 is that you can still get slightly more background blur with FF.

R2

RLight wrote:

...

The one thing Canon lacks for the M system at this junction, a "party lens" that is a faster equivalence zoom. Granted the 32mm and 22mm primes can do that duty, and do it ultra-compact which is the point of the M system (to have something powerful, but small and light and doesn't break the bank), but lens swaps during special events is not desirable. That's where I still reach for my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L where I never swap lenses, period as it's 5 primes in a single zoom essentially. Be nice to see an f/2.8 zoom of some kind as I personally even though I enjoy the image quality of the EOS R, would like to see something although won't match my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L aka Goliath, I'd like David aka my EOS M setup, have a smooth stone to slay Goliath with, filling the single lens gap that presently exists.

Nice review!

Such a f/2.8 party lens would inevitably be pretty big and heavy, though, which would largely defeat the benefits of the EF-M system that you describe. It would not be materially different in that regard to carrying your R with the RF 24-105 or perhaps, further down the line, a smaller RF 24-70 f/4 or similar.

Where EF-M shines is with its small, portable and very high quality primes like the 22m and 32mm.

R2D2 wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

Yes, I’d have to give it at least 4.5/5 for portraits. The Eye AF is simply beyond marvelous, and the Siggy 56 is a stellar lens for M. So much so that I sold my 50 STM and 60 Macro, and hardly ever use my 40 or even my 85 any more!

The only reason I don’t give it a 5/5 is that you can still get slightly more background blur with FF.

R2

Understand, that the EOS M system does not exist in a vacuum, and both comparing it against it's peers (Fuji X and Sony E mounts) and even now FF offerings due to price (Eos RP with say a EF 85mm f/1.8 adapted) and these reviews go on Amazon, not just our little echo chamber of folks wanting confirmation bias.

Pictures say a thousand words.

EF 85mm f/1.8 adapted

The fabulous, but, manual focus Rokinon 50mm f/1.2 on the EOS M6 Mark II. A lens I don't recommend to most people as they simply can't or won't do manual focus, let alone at f/1.2 at a longer focal

28mm on a FF @ f/2. We still don't have a fast zoom. Environmental portraits, not just "85mm" exist I can assure you

The reality is a Fuji X-T3 or A6600 should get 4/5 and a EOS R and A7 III should get 5/5 for portraits in the grand context of general cameras, especially when you start looking at price and peers and what someone will logically shoot. Even a used 6D with 85mm f/1.8 is arguably better at portraits due to the sheer glass alone.

Now, is the M6 Mark II just "average" because I gave it 3/5? No, it's excellent. But then again so is your smartphone at that now (ouch). Canon at this junction, needs to step up their game if they want 4/5 or 5/5 for portraits in this category with the M. I fear they won't truth told and that's okay. A camera that does pretty darn good in portraits, and stellar in everything else, is nothing to poke an eye with a sharp stick with. I can't say the same about other cameras, especially for the bulk and price which is once again, why I own an M6 Mark II. But, I also own an R and RF 28-70 f/2L for "party duty" and special events, bokeh, and extreme low light still as a result.

sobrien wrote:

RLight wrote:

...

The one thing Canon lacks for the M system at this junction, a "party lens" that is a faster equivalence zoom. Granted the 32mm and 22mm primes can do that duty, and do it ultra-compact which is the point of the M system (to have something powerful, but small and light and doesn't break the bank), but lens swaps during special events is not desirable. That's where I still reach for my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L where I never swap lenses, period as it's 5 primes in a single zoom essentially. Be nice to see an f/2.8 zoom of some kind as I personally even though I enjoy the image quality of the EOS R, would like to see something although won't match my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L aka Goliath, I'd like David aka my EOS M setup, have a smooth stone to slay Goliath with, filling the single lens gap that presently exists.

Nice review!

Such a f/2.8 party lens would inevitably be pretty big and heavy, though, which would largely defeat the benefits of the EF-M system that you describe. It would not be materially different in that regard to carrying your R with the RF 24-105 or perhaps, further down the line, a smaller RF 24-70 f/4 or similar.

Where EF-M shines is with its small, portable and very high quality primes like the 22m and 32mm.

Not true, I believe both the patented EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 and EF-M 15-75 f/2-5.6 should fit in the confines of 55mm filter thread and sub 500g. However note in both patents it's not a constant zoom; a lot of the weight kicks in with longer and faster optics. By relaxing to f/3.5 by 45mm or f/5.6 by 75mm, keeps that filter thread and the amount of glass down and giving us an offering much faster than both the zooms we have now that start at f/3.5 and end at f/6.3. Canon can. The question is, will they dare jeopardize their precious RF mount with such an offering? Time will tell.

RLight wrote:

sobrien wrote:

RLight wrote:

...

The one thing Canon lacks for the M system at this junction, a "party lens" that is a faster equivalence zoom. Granted the 32mm and 22mm primes can do that duty, and do it ultra-compact which is the point of the M system (to have something powerful, but small and light and doesn't break the bank), but lens swaps during special events is not desirable. That's where I still reach for my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L where I never swap lenses, period as it's 5 primes in a single zoom essentially. Be nice to see an f/2.8 zoom of some kind as I personally even though I enjoy the image quality of the EOS R, would like to see something although won't match my EOS R and RF 28-70 f/2L aka Goliath, I'd like David aka my EOS M setup, have a smooth stone to slay Goliath with, filling the single lens gap that presently exists.

Nice review!

Such a f/2.8 party lens would inevitably be pretty big and heavy, though, which would largely defeat the benefits of the EF-M system that you describe. It would not be materially different in that regard to carrying your R with the RF 24-105 or perhaps, further down the line, a smaller RF 24-70 f/4 or similar.

Where EF-M shines is with its small, portable and very high quality primes like the 22m and 32mm.

Not true, I believe both the patented EF-M 15-45 f/1.8-3.5 and EF-M 15-75 f/2-5.6 should fit in the confines of 55mm filter thread and sub 500g.

Neither of those are a f/2.8 lens, to be fair.

However note in both patents it's not a constant zoom; a lot of the weight kicks in with longer and faster optics. By relaxing to f/3.5 by 45mm or f/5.6 by 75mm, keeps that filter thread and the amount of glass down and giving us an offering much faster than both the zooms we have now that start at f/3.5 and end at f/6.3. Canon can. The question is, will they dare jeopardize their precious RF mount with such an offering? Time will tell.

RLight wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

Excellent review. My only major disagreement is with the portrait score. I give it 5/5 for that. I much prefer primes over zooms for portraits, and the Sigma 56 is simply a stellar portrait prime for APS-C. The 32 and 22 are also good for portraits (depending on the style). The combination of the excellent eye AF of the M6II and the available fast primes (for longer working distance, the adapted 85 F1.8 works really well) makes the M6II an excellent portrait camera.

Yes, I’d have to give it at least 4.5/5 for portraits. The Eye AF is simply beyond marvelous, and the Siggy 56 is a stellar lens for M. So much so that I sold my 50 STM and 60 Macro, and hardly ever use my 40 or even my 85 any more!

The only reason I don’t give it a 5/5 is that you can still get slightly more background blur with FF.

R2

Understand, that the EOS M system does not exist in a vacuum, and both comparing it against it's peers (Fuji X and Sony E mounts) and even now FF offerings due to price (Eos RP with say a EF 85mm f/1.8 adapted) and these reviews go on Amazon, not just our little echo chamber of folks wanting confirmation bias.

Pictures say a thousand words.

EF 85mm f/1.8 adapted

The fabulous, but, manual focus Rokinon 50mm f/1.2 on the EOS M6 Mark II. A lens I don't recommend to most people as they simply can't or won't do manual focus, let alone at f/1.2 at a longer focal

28mm on a FF @ f/2. We still don't have a fast zoom. Environmental portraits, not just "85mm" exist I can assure you

The reality is a Fuji X-T3 or A6600 should get 4/5 and a EOS R and A7 III should get 5/5 for portraits in the grand context of general cameras, especially when you start looking at price and peers and what someone will logically shoot. Even a used 6D with 85mm f/1.8 is arguably better at portraits due to the sheer glass alone.

Now, is the M6 Mark II just "average" because I gave it 3/5? No, it's excellent. But then again so is your smartphone at that now (ouch). Canon at this junction, needs to step up their game if they want 4/5 or 5/5 for portraits in this category with the M. I fear they won't truth told and that's okay. A camera that does pretty darn good in portraits, and stellar in everything else, is nothing to poke an eye with a sharp stick with. I can't say the same about other cameras, especially for the bulk and price which is once again, why I own an M6 Mark II. But, I also own an R and RF 28-70 f/2L for "party duty" and special events, bokeh, and extreme low light still as a result.

I've been trying to understand what you think you're showing with these pictures. I hope I'm wrong, but all I can think of is that you're saying that the M6II, with currently available lenses, can't get as shallow DOF as can the R with currently available lenses, unless you use something as unwieldy as a manual focus 50 F1.2. That's not it, is it? A few years ago, photographers who moved from a compact point-and-shoot to a DSLR would be very impressed by their sudden ability to blur backgrounds. The same now goes for cellphone photographers (though some of them just do that with software on their phones now). They would notice that portraits, especially, would have more impact when the subject stood out from the background. Some would then think that, because subject separation was a good thing, more of it would be better, with no limit. I remember a photographer on one of these forums who spent a year or so in search of ever thinner depth of field. When he got the 85 F1.2L, he posted a bunch of head and shoulders portraits taken with that lens wide open. One eye was in focus, sometimes the eyeball, sometimes the eye lash, never both, and never both eyes. As portraits, they were truly horrendous. The point is that shallow depth of field is a photographic effect, like any other, that has to be used to the appropriate degree. I have never seen a head and shoulders portrait at 85 F1.2 that wouldn't have been better at F2 or even F2.8. Likewise, environmental portraits, as the name suggests, incorporate elements of the environment. The amount of appropriate subject separation therefore depends on how recognizable you want the environment to be. Your 28 F2 shot is very nice. That shot with the M6II using the Sigma 16 at F1.4 would have been equally nice, if not nicer. The depth of field would have been slightly more (not a whole lot), but that wouldn't have taken away from the shot. In fact, it would probably have improved it (the fountain itself would have been more in focus).

As I said, I hope I misinterpreted your point. You seem to have a fair bit of photographic experience, so I would have thought that you wouldn't still be taking the simple-minded view that less depth of field is necessarily better for portraits. As for what you say about Fuji and Sony APS-C, I have no idea why you think they should score 4/5 for portraits, but the M6II 3/5. Which lenses on the Fuji or Sony are better for portraits than the 56 F1.4, 32 F1.4, or 16 F1.4 on the Canon? And this is even granting the highly questionable assumption that the score for the camera is determined by the lenses.