Canon M50 mark II eye-AF better than M6 mark II?

Having checked the M50 mark II review and comparing it to the M6 mark II there were some suggestions that the M50's AF is somehow improved.

Additionally, looking at some M50 mark II eye-AF tests on Youtube, the "updated" implementation seems to me to be able to start tracking the eyes from much further away.

Any thoughts or maybe first-hand experiences with both of these mark II cameras?

Risto456 wrote:

Having checked the M50 mark II review and comparing it to the M6 mark II there were some suggestions that the M50's AF is somehow improved.

Additionally, looking at some M50 mark II eye-AF tests on Youtube, the "updated" implementation seems to me to be able to start tracking the eyes from much further away.

I was also wondering if the M50II would be better in recognizing eyes at a distance. Could you please provide some links to those youtube sources?

Any thoughts or maybe first-hand experiences with both of these mark II cameras?

Can't help you, as I only have the M6mkII, not the M50II.  I'm afraid there won't be a lot members owning both camera's......

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

It sure does look like the eye focus works better than the on my M6II in the youtube video.

Maybe better than my RP.

Maybe they have one at Best Buy I can try. Last time I checked they still had a M50 on display.

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

thunder storm wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

It sure does look like she is using the kit lens in the video too.

I am wondering how good it will work with the 32mm lens.

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

It sure does look like she is using the kit lens in the video too.

I am wondering how good it will work with the 32mm lens.

yes, would like someone to test with the 32 and 56

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

It sure does look like she is using the kit lens in the video too.

I am wondering how good it will work with the 32mm lens.

yes, would like someone to test with the 32 and 56

If it recognizes the eye with a kitlens it will recognize it with those primes too. So for eye recognition I don't need extra tests.  If you want to know if it actually nails focus you need the actual pictures anyway, for nailing focus the given sources aren't proving anything for the kitlens too anyway.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

It sure does look like she is using the kit lens in the video too.

I am wondering how good it will work with the 32mm lens.

yes, would like someone to test with the 32 and 56

If it recognizes the eye with a kitlens it will recognize it with those primes too. So for eye recognition I don't need extra tests. If you want to know if it actually nails focus you need the actual pictures anyway, for nailing focus the given sources aren't proving anything for the kitlens too anyway.

I am thinking the M5II would do eye recognition better with the 32mm than the kit lens.

I checked eye recognition with my M6II with the kit lens and no way no how will it do eye recognition like the M5II in the video.

My RP with the 35mm STM will not either.

That is one impressive firmware update they did to the M5II ?

My testing was with a redhead girl. Could the lighter color of the eyelashes and eyebrows make a difference ?

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

It sure does look like she is using the kit lens in the video too.

I am wondering how good it will work with the 32mm lens.

yes, would like someone to test with the 32 and 56

If it recognizes the eye with a kitlens it will recognize it with those primes too. So for eye recognition I don't need extra tests. If you want to know if it actually nails focus you need the actual pictures anyway, for nailing focus the given sources aren't proving anything for the kitlens too anyway.

I am thinking the M50II would do eye recognition better with the 32mm than the kit lens.

Why? As long there's enough light the kitlens should be fine.

I checked eye recognition with my M6II with the kit lens and no way no how will it do eye recognition like the M50II in the video.

We share the same conclusion. M50mkII is better for recognizing eyes at larger distances than the M6II.

My RP with the 35mm STM will not either.

That is one impressive firmware update they did to the M50II?

Firmware is exactly as important as hardware. Good firmware isn't for free. It takes R&D costs to get good performing firmware. The M50II isn't a minor update over the M50I. It's a HUGE update. Don't forget the price isn't substantially higher!  If it even has the AF speed of the M6II  I might prefer the M50II over the M6II. In that case I'm ready to go back to 24Mp, the only thing I don't want to sacrifice is it's better dynamic range of the M6II...

My testing was with a redhead girl. Could the lighter color of the eyelashes and eyebrows make a difference ?

As long as there's a good of amount of light I don't think so. For low light I think it could make a difference.

I noticed for eye recognition Asian faces can be more challenging, especially when smiling or laughing. If the camera can't fall back on the shape of the total face it can loose the eye. I think the round/oval shape of the eyes is more important than the eye brows.

thunder storm wrote:

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

It sure does look like she is using the kit lens in the video too.

I am wondering how good it will work with the 32mm lens.

yes, would like someone to test with the 32 and 56

If it recognizes the eye with a kitlens it will recognize it with those primes too. So for eye recognition I don't need extra tests. If you want to know if it actually nails focus you need the actual pictures anyway, for nailing focus the given sources aren't proving anything for the kitlens too anyway.

I am thinking the M50II would do eye recognition better with the 32mm than the kit lens.

Why? As long there's enough light the kitlens should be fine.

I checked eye recognition with my M6II with the kit lens and no way no how will it do eye recognition like the M50II in the video.

We share the same conclusion. M50mkII is better for recognizing eyes at larger distances than the M6II.

My RP with the 35mm STM will not either.

That is one impressive firmware update they did to the M50II?

Firmware is exactly as important as hardware. Good firmware isn't for free. It takes R&D costs to get good performing firmware. The M50II isn't a minor update over the M50I. It's a HUGE update. Don't forget the price isn't substantially higher! If it even has the AF speed of the M6II I might prefer the M50II over the M6II. In that case I'm ready to go back to 24Mp, the only thing I don't want to sacrifice is it's better dynamic range of the M6II...

in addition the m50II has internal EVF

I'd prefer the M50II over the M6II

My testing was with a redhead girl. Could the lighter color of the eyelashes and eyebrows make a difference ?

As long as there's a good of amount of light I don't think so. For low light I think it could make a difference.

I noticed for eye recognition Asian faces can be more challenging, especially when smiling or laughing. If the camera can't fall back on the shape of the total face it can loose the eye. I think the round/oval shape of the eyes is more important than the eye brows.

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Firmware is exactly as important as hardware. Good firmware isn't for free. It takes R&D costs to get good performing firmware. The M50II isn't a minor update over the M50I. It's a HUGE update. Don't forget the price isn't substantially higher! If it even has the AF speed of the M6II I might prefer the M50II over the M6II. In that case I'm ready to go back to 24Mp, the only thing I don't want to sacrifice is it's better dynamic range of the M6II...

in addition the m50II has internal EVF

I'd prefer the M50II over the M6II

For mounting speedlites it's not that important anymore to me as I will use full frame in low light conditions anyway.

Still the internal EVF is better, as I hate to mount and dismount that evf all the time, and with the evf permanently attached to the M6mkII the combo is simply bigger in the bag. Using the backscreen is not as good as you're spilling distance that could have been used to use more a more telephoto focal length....  Using the back screen you can have to switch to the 32mm while with the viewfinder the 56mm would have been fine. Using the back screen also makes the 11-22mm less suitable to cram as much as possible in the frame.  Using the 50-100 f/1.8 or 100-400mm the viewfinder is absolutely needed

That said, when I have enough working space and with small lenses I do use the back screen, and that flip up design is nice for getting your lower angles very quick.

Sittatunga wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

...

Still the internal EVF is better, as I hate to mount and dismount that evf all the time, and with the evf permanently attached to the M6mkII the combo is simply bigger in the bag. Using the backscreen is not as good as you're spilling distance that could have been used to use more a more telephoto focal length....

I disagree here. If space is really tight, particularly using an UWA like my 12-24mm on my EOS R or my EF-M 11-22mm (when a couple of extra inches can make all the difference), I will put the screen into selfie position and hold the camera against the back wall. The gridded screen and electronic level are vital here and it can be quite difficult to stay out of the picture myself. Cropping to a different aspect ratio afterwards can help for this. That gives me an extra 200mm compared with using the EVF, or nearly an extra 300mm compared with using the screen at waist level.

You're the smarter photographer.

Great advice, thanks.  I will try that next time. For landscape orientation the articulating screen might be a bit easier with wide angle focal lengths.... so that might be another advantage for the M50(II).

Using the back screen you can have to switch to the 32mm while with the viewfinder the 56mm would have been fine. Using the back screen also makes the 11-22mm less suitable to cram as much as possible in the frame. Using the 50-100 f/1.8 or 100-400mm the viewfinder is absolutely needed

I'm not convinced about an EVF for the M series, but that could be my inexperience. I had a couple of minutes in a shop once with an EOS M50 and thought the viewfinder was too pokey and yet made the camera too big for what it was. The EVF on the EOS R is acceptable to me and the camera's a bigger beast anyway.

That's a huge difference idd.

Maybe I'd be happier with an M series EVF if I'd used one for a week or so, but Canon's versions add too much bulk to a camera I would buy for its size.

When I bought the M50 I came from a 70D.  Using it for a while convinced me the actual pictures will look better compared to what I saw in the viewfinder.    The viewfinder is just for composition AND exposure.  The beauty is only when watching the results.

Don't forget the R also benefits from more dynamic range from the sensor. This also translates to the quality you're seeing in the viewfinder. My M6II has the same viewfinder as the M50, but it looks better with the M6II. A DSLR is still the winner here.

I'm happy enough with my M100 hand-held with a 300mm lens and I prefer the screen to a viewfinder when using a camera on a tripod. YMMV.

That said, when I have enough working space and with small lenses I do use the back screen, and that flip up design is nice for getting your lower angles very quick.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Firmware is exactly as important as hardware. Good firmware isn't for free. It takes R&D costs to get good performing firmware. The M50II isn't a minor update over the M50I. It's a HUGE update. Don't forget the price isn't substantially higher! If it even has the AF speed of the M6II I might prefer the M50II over the M6II. In that case I'm ready to go back to 24Mp, the only thing I don't want to sacrifice is it's better dynamic range of the M6II...

in addition the m50II has internal EVF

I'd prefer the M50II over the M6II

For mounting speedlites it's not that important anymore to me as I will use full frame in low light conditions anyway.

an open hot shoe for odin triggers is important to me

Still the internal EVF is better, as I hate to mount and dismount that evf all the time, and with the evf permanently attached to the M6mkII the combo is simply bigger in the bag. Using the backscreen is not as good as you're spilling distance that could have been used to use more a more telephoto focal length.... Using the back screen you can have to switch to the 32mm while with the viewfinder the 56mm would have been fine.

that is my impression also

Using the back screen also makes the 11-22mm less suitable to cram as much as possible in the frame. Using the 50-100 f/1.8 or 100-400mm the viewfinder is absolutely needed

That said, when I have enough working space and with small lenses I do use the back screen, and that flip up design is nice for getting your lower angles very quick.

M50II + 56 + 32  may be for me -- we'll see at Christmas

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Firmware is exactly as important as hardware. Good firmware isn't for free. It takes R&D costs to get good performing firmware. The M50II isn't a minor update over the M50I. It's a HUGE update. Don't forget the price isn't substantially higher! If it even has the AF speed of the M6II I might prefer the M50II over the M6II. In that case I'm ready to go back to 24Mp, the only thing I don't want to sacrifice is it's better dynamic range of the M6II...

in addition the m50II has internal EVF

I'd prefer the M50II over the M6II

For mounting speedlites it's not that important anymore to me as I will use full frame in low light conditions anyway.

an open hot shoe for odin triggers is important to me

Still the internal EVF is better, as I hate to mount and dismount that evf all the time, and with the evf permanently attached to the M6mkII the combo is simply bigger in the bag. Using the backscreen is not as good as you're spilling distance that could have been used to use more a more telephoto focal length.... Using the back screen you can have to switch to the 32mm while with the viewfinder the 56mm would have been fine.

that is my impression also

Using the back screen also makes the 11-22mm less suitable to cram as much as possible in the frame. Using the 50-100 f/1.8 or 100-400mm the viewfinder is absolutely needed

That said, when I have enough working space and with small lenses I do use the back screen, and that flip up design is nice for getting your lower angles very quick.

M50II + 56 + 32 may be for me -- we'll see at Christmas

M50II + 56 + 32, that's what I'm thinking too.

thunder storm wrote:

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

m100 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

Certainly. Indeed, so far I haven't found a good side-by-side comparison or even a site where both mk2 cameras were tested in a similar way, but hopefully links below would be of some use.

While not very scientific tests, when comparing to my experience with M6 mkII (also represented well on other Youtube AF-test videos), to me the new M50's eye-AF algorithms look improved.

Link 1 - M50mk2 Eye-AF Test around 3:40 mark

and

Link 2 - M50mk2 review around 4:15

My conclusion: The M50II recognizes eyes at a larger distance (or, more precise, with persons being smaller in the frame) compared to the M6mkII.

I'm interested in this topic as often recommended here spot-AF had not delivered on a few occasions (especially with environmental portraits, despite the AF point covering person's face, the camera focused on the surrounding foliage slightly behind - and actually very similar phenomenon was being discussed on the Canon R forum).

A better eye recognition won't help for focusing on brighter backgrounds in stead of the subject. If that's your problem, the best thing you could do is mount a large aperture lens (even if you're shooting stopped down) AND use the smallest single AF point.

The larger aperture will provide more light to the AF-system to get enough contrast to grab focus. This will help you more than better eye recognition, as recognizing the eye is one thing, but focusing on that eye is another thing. If the camera succeeds in recognizing it, that's isn't guaranteeing you it will be able to focus on it.

Of course I'm tempted to, at some point (Black Friday maybe?), just buy the M50mk2 and compare it side-by-side, but hopefully someone else in this forum has gone that (questionable) path already.

Sigma ef-m 16mm f/1.4

Canon ef-m 32mm f/1.4

Sigma ef-m 56mm f/1.4

adapted Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8

adapted Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8

Those lenses are helpful to get good focus in back lit situations. A used 18-35mm can be pretty affordable.

It sure does look like she is using the kit lens in the video too.

I am wondering how good it will work with the 32mm lens.

yes, would like someone to test with the 32 and 56

If it recognizes the eye with a kitlens it will recognize it with those primes too. So for eye recognition I don't need extra tests. If you want to know if it actually nails focus you need the actual pictures anyway, for nailing focus the given sources aren't proving anything for the kitlens too anyway.

I am thinking the M50II would do eye recognition better with the 32mm than the kit lens.

Why? As long there's enough light the kitlens should be fine.

I checked eye recognition with my M6II with the kit lens and no way no how will it do eye recognition like the M50II in the video.

We share the same conclusion. M50mkII is better for recognizing eyes at larger distances than the M6II.

My RP with the 35mm STM will not either.

That is one impressive firmware update they did to the M50II?

Firmware is exactly as important as hardware. Good firmware isn't for free. It takes R&D costs to get good performing firmware. The M50II isn't a minor update over the M50I. It's a HUGE update. Don't forget the price isn't substantially higher! If it even has the AF speed of the M6II I might prefer the M50II over the M6II. In that case I'm ready to go back to 24Mp, the only thing I don't want to sacrifice is it's better dynamic range of the M6II...

My testing was with a redhead girl. Could the lighter color of the eyelashes and eyebrows make a difference ?

As long as there's a good of amount of light I don't think so. For low light I think it could make a difference.

I noticed for eye recognition Asian faces can be more challenging, especially when smiling or laughing. If the camera can't fall back on the shape of the total face it can loose the eye. I think the round/oval shape of the eyes is more important than the eye brows.

Yes I want one !  Love the eye focus !

The M6II is my favorite car and bike show camera so I am not going to get rid of my M6II anytime soon.

The M6II raw files are fun to work with and my favorite feature of the M6II.

Risto456 wrote:

Just a quick update concerning the query sent to Canon Technical Support, about plans or schedule of M6mk2 firmware update (specifically quoting eye-AF improvement in the M50mk2):

[...]In regards to your query there are no such plans yet, however we have recorded your comments in our system and have passed them on to the correct department so that they can be reviewed and actioned upon. [...]

Well, I guess we can always hope. Of course it could be that the firmware update will materialize as an M6 mk3

Right after I buy a M50II they come out with a M6III ?