EOS KISS M2 (EOS M50 Mark II)

Alexis wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

Alexis wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

That's basically an M200 + viewfinder +flip all directions screen + hot shoe. Maybe Canon was able to sqeeze out a little more AF sensitivity by better software...... But it won't be as nice as the 32Mp sensor.....

deal or no deal = No Deal

+2 Dang. For me no 32 MP = No Deal.

It's going to be a fine camera for a lot of (other) people though. Note: I acknowledge that my own use case (macro) is very limited!

Nokishita just saved me $1000 for sure!

R2

What a "joke" of an upgrade. I think it's time to seriously think of my mirrorless future - the M6II is so nearly the perfect camera for me but being an EVF fan and a flash user means its' a non-starter so what do I do. Bulky expensive Fuji, competitive with the hideous user-interface or just keep the M50 and cheer myself up by buying a 100-400 for my sports photography!

Waited sooooo long for this - Canon you're losing us..

what exactly were you expecting? I mean you are currently using a sub-$700 camera, $800 with the kit lens.

M6II with built-in EVF is what I was hoping - is that such a ridiculous request? The price of my M50 is as relevant to your argument as the price of my 5DIII. Have you asked me what I am willing to pay for such a camera before you judged me? For the record €1000 is a reasonable price that I would be willing to pay for body-only maybe more for more improvements ...

M50 with 32Mp, no IBIS could easily cost 1300 euro. M5mkII + IBIS would set you back 1600 euro.

The reality is Canon wants you to switch to the RF mount. And the reality is you as a dpreview forummember are willing to pay for high level performing small cameras, but the majority of customers wants to have it, but doesn't want to pay that price. So Canon isn't going to make M more sexy, and you actually have to switch to RF if you want more. And if the new RF 50mm f/1.8 will give IQ as good as the RF 85mm f/2.0 it might be worth it. It's time to sell stuff.

I recently did "SELL STUFF" - most of my FF gear for something small and practical. Going back up in size is going against my aim. Why would M50/32mp plus built-in EVF cost 1300? This combo is what many of us wanted here - call it M5II, M7 or even M6III it's not a tall order and that would define the ultimate "M" in my opinion. IBIS is not a necessity for me.

In that case the time might have come to pick your compromize and just order the M6mkII + external EVF. I know you want the internal EVF, but i think Canon is not going to marry that one to a 32Mp sensor anytime soon. I don't have a crystal ball, and i hope I'm wrong, but the M5 came first and the M50 came later. The M50 gets replaced, the M5 is just discontinued. It seams to me you are waiting for the replacement of a discontinued model.

Even if Canon improve on the RP's features and performance (the largest camera I would consider size-wise) the price of RF glass makes it ridiculously expensive to (re)build a system with 3-4 lenses as I did on the M relatively cheaply.

In that case it might be time to accept the external evf. You could try to get a used M6mkII + evf. In case a more preferable model suddenly appears you can just sell it again without a big loss.

Or you just keep shooting what you have. Nothing wrong with that.

it's about the glass first

on sale, the RF 24 -105 f4 IS L is best ever 24-105. He knows this zoom range from wedding days

Go on I'm listening AND interested

the RP is good enough to deploy this great glass - and it is small enough for this great range. $1749 at xmas time. Combine it with the great $599 RF 85 F2 IS. Then the RF 14-35 F4 IS L someday. Landscape., Portrait and all -around. Not that heavy for powerful rig

The rig on the left is your suggestion, the rig on the right is what I sold and the middle is a "typical" EF-M configuration (here shown with M50 and EF-M 18-150). I think the difference is quite marked. Also, as a "Sports" camera (which is close to my requirements) I think both the M50, M50II and M6II

The M6mkII is better for sports than the RP, but i'm not so sure the M50's will be better.

M50 offers higher fps and some reviews claim more accurate focusing ..

I don't believe the more accurate focusing.....   If you're into the fps thing (I'm not) AND you already have all the ef-m (or ef-m adaptable) lenses you want, I think you should go M6mkII for now and accept that external viewfinder.

For the RF-mount high fps is R6 territory, and that's where things get expensive, and it will stay that way the next two years. So i think you have to pick your compromise here. The R6 is a lot of money to get your viewfinder intergrated.....  You can get both the RP and the M6mkII for almost the same price.

If you are REALLY missing a good standard zoom like the 24-105 f/4.0 you could go RP right now, but i would only do that if the wish for such a zoom is more important than the frames per second. Note: those zooms are never compact, even if we would ever get an equivalent lens for the M-mount.

are better performers in AF and shutter speed terms, so the RP advantages seem to diminish..

If size is an issue, you could also have a look at the 24-105mm non L. It's not als good as the L, but hey, so is that ef-m 18-150mm....... (and so is your former 24-105......) The non-L is only 400 euro in my market, and in a kit it could be even less.

My "former 24-105" was the very capable Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art but "camerasize" didn't have a picture of it... so I used the Canon as it's the closest I could find which I agree with you is NOT a great lens. I don't use the EF-M 18-150 either but selected as the closets "equivalent"

To my eyes it's even not redundant to get both the f/4.0 L and the non L. At least the RF mount gives you the option to get an f/4.0 standard zoom, but you could also be happy with a couple of primes and a slow small zoom, just like when shooting M?

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

Alexis wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

That's basically an M200 + viewfinder +flip all directions screen + hot shoe. Maybe Canon was able to sqeeze out a little more AF sensitivity by better software...... But it won't be as nice as the 32Mp sensor.....

deal or no deal = No Deal

+2 Dang. For me no 32 MP = No Deal.

It's going to be a fine camera for a lot of (other) people though. Note: I acknowledge that my own use case (macro) is very limited!

Nokishita just saved me $1000 for sure!

R2

What a "joke" of an upgrade. I think it's time to seriously think of my mirrorless future - the M6II is so nearly the perfect camera for me but being an EVF fan and a flash user means its' a non-starter so what do I do. Bulky expensive Fuji, competitive with the hideous user-interface or just keep the M50 and cheer myself up by buying a 100-400 for my sports photography!

Waited sooooo long for this - Canon you're losing us..

what exactly were you expecting? I mean you are currently using a sub-$700 camera, $800 with the kit lens.

M6II with built-in EVF is what I was hoping - is that such a ridiculous request? The price of my M50 is as relevant to your argument as the price of my 5DIII. Have you asked me what I am willing to pay for such a camera before you judged me? For the record €1000 is a reasonable price that I would be willing to pay for body-only maybe more for more improvements ...

M50 with 32Mp, no IBIS could easily cost 1300 euro. M5mkII + IBIS would set you back 1600 euro.

The reality is Canon wants you to switch to the RF mount. And the reality is you as a dpreview forummember are willing to pay for high level performing small cameras, but the majority of customers wants to have it, but doesn't want to pay that price. So Canon isn't going to make M more sexy, and you actually have to switch to RF if you want more. And if the new RF 50mm f/1.8 will give IQ as good as the RF 85mm f/2.0 it might be worth it. It's time to sell stuff.

I recently did "SELL STUFF" - most of my FF gear for something small and practical. Going back up in size is going against my aim. Why would M50/32mp plus built-in EVF cost 1300? This combo is what many of us wanted here - call it M5II, M7 or even M6III it's not a tall order and that would define the ultimate "M" in my opinion. IBIS is not a necessity for me.

In that case the time might have come to pick your compromize and just order the M6mkII + external EVF. I know you want the internal EVF, but i think Canon is not going to marry that one to a 32Mp sensor anytime soon. I don't have a crystal ball, and i hope I'm wrong, but the M5 came first and the M50 came later. The M50 gets replaced, the M5 is just discontinued. It seams to me you are waiting for the replacement of a discontinued model.

Even if Canon improve on the RP's features and performance (the largest camera I would consider size-wise) the price of RF glass makes it ridiculously expensive to (re)build a system with 3-4 lenses as I did on the M relatively cheaply.

In that case it might be time to accept the external evf. You could try to get a used M6mkII + evf. In case a more preferable model suddenly appears you can just sell it again without a big loss.

Or you just keep shooting what you have. Nothing wrong with that.

it's about the glass first

on sale, the RF 24 -105 f4 IS L is best ever 24-105. He knows this zoom range from wedding days

Go on I'm listening AND interested

the RP is good enough to deploy this great glass - and it is small enough for this great range. $1749 at xmas time. Combine it with the great $599 RF 85 F2 IS. Then the RF 14-35 F4 IS L someday. Landscape., Portrait and all -around. Not that heavy for powerful rig

The rig on the left is your suggestion, the rig on the right is what I sold and the middle is a "typical" EF-M configuration (here shown with M50 and EF-M 18-150). I think the difference is quite marked. Also, as a "Sports" camera (which is close to my requirements) I think both the M50, M50II and M6II

The M6mkII is better for sports than the RP, but i'm not so sure the M50's will be better.

M50 offers higher fps and some reviews claim more accurate focusing ..

I don't believe the more accurate focusing..... If you're into the fps thing (I'm not) AND you already have all the ef-m (or ef-m adaptable) lenses you want, I think you should go M6mkII for now and accept that external viewfinder.

For the RF-mount high fps is R6 territory, and that's where things get expensive, and it will stay that way the next two years. So i think you have to pick your compromise here. The R6 is a lot of money to get your viewfinder intergrated..... You can get both the RP and the M6mkII for almost the same price.

If you are REALLY missing a good standard zoom like the 24-105 f/4.0 you could go RP right now, but i would only do that if the wish for such a zoom is more important than the frames per second. Note: those zooms are never compact, even if we would ever get an equivalent lens for the M-mount.

You make a very good point. No, I'm not desperate for a top-quality 24-105 as I'm not shooting weddings any more (just the occasional in which case I'll rent), so that should not be the defining factor. Sports photography is the main objective so I need a decent long lens (like a Sigma EF 100-400 or similar) and a body that will give me the faster fps and accurate focusing when I'm following the action.

My next decision is whether I buy the 100-400 and see how I get on with it in the M50 or buy the M6II (say, once I'm happy with the external EVF and the non-pivoting screen) and then buy the 100-400. Firstly I need to play with an M6II.

are better performers in AF and shutter speed terms, so the RP advantages seem to diminish..

If size is an issue, you could also have a look at the 24-105mm non L. It's not als good as the L, but hey, so is that ef-m 18-150mm....... (and so is your former 24-105......) The non-L is only 400 euro in my market, and in a kit it could be even less.

My "former 24-105" was the very capable Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art but "camerasize" didn't have a picture of it... so I used the Canon as it's the closest I could find which I agree with you is NOT a great lens. I don't use the EF-M 18-150 either but selected as the closets "equivalent"

To my eyes it's even not redundant to get both the f/4.0 L and the non L. At least the RF mount gives you the option to get an f/4.0 standard zoom, but you could also be happy with a couple of primes and a slow small zoom, just like when shooting M?

Alexis wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alexis wrote:

M50 offers higher fps and some reviews claim more accurate focusing ..

I don't believe the more accurate focusing..... If you're into the fps thing (I'm not) AND you already have all the ef-m (or ef-m adaptable) lenses you want, I think you should go M6mkII for now and accept that external viewfinder.

For the RF-mount high fps is R6 territory, and that's where things get expensive, and it will stay that way the next two years. So i think you have to pick your compromise here. The R6 is a lot of money to get your viewfinder intergrated..... You can get both the RP and the M6mkII for almost the same price.

If you are REALLY missing a good standard zoom like the 24-105 f/4.0 you could go RP right now, but i would only do that if the wish for such a zoom is more important than the frames per second. Note: those zooms are never compact, even if we would ever get an equivalent lens for the M-mount.

You make a very good point. No, I'm not desperate for a top-quality 24-105 as I'm not shooting weddings any more (just the occasional in which case I'll rent), so that should not be the defining factor. Sports photography is the main objective so I need a decent long lens (like a Sigma EF 100-400 or similar) and a body that will give me the faster fps and accurate focusing when I'm following the action.

My next decision is whether I buy the 100-400 and see how I get on with it in the M50 or buy the M6II (say, once I'm happy with the external EVF and the non-pivoting screen) and then buy the 100-400. Firstly I need to play with an M6II.

Yes, that's the conclusion for now before you buy anything: Firstly you need to play with an M6II.

In my country you have at least 2 weeks to try a product, and often even 30 days to try it out, having the right to return it. Maybe that's an option for you too?

About M and a 100-400mm:  You might even need the M6mkII for a 100-400mm in action situations. 400mm gives a  shallow DOF.  I know from my 50-100mm f/1.8 the M50 capable of handling a shallow DOF for accuracy, but NOT for action. At 400mm there's even less light compared to the f/1.8 zoom.....  But every lens is difference of course, and so are light conditions etc etc