M50 Mark II First Impressions

Background:

For some time I've been seeking the ultimate point and shoot to go along with my larger rigs (full frame), and I've had some good success with the M platform for such a purpose. This started perhaps around when the Sony RX100 III came out (which coincidently is when I also bought my first FF setup the 5D Mark III with L's), a camera when it was released I knew was a game changer with it's large sensor, fast lens and pop-up EVF. However at that time, Sony was notorious for bad handling, bad colors, and lack of "fun". At the same time, Canon had a newly announced EOS M + 22mm on fire sale for $249 state-side at various Fleebay outlets. Its problem was speed, it was slow with autofocus and FPS capability in RAW shooting in particular. However, its image quality was full frame-level with that 22 attached and the fun factor, straight out of color quality, was high. Over time Canon has evolved with mirrorless full frame, more advanced M options and G Powershot options that don't lack the speed of initial offerings at the time in this class.

.

I've skipped around with cameras owning virtually every EOS M and many Powershots and even non-Canon options along the way (shame the Nikon 1 and DL series btw). Recently I've ditched the M6 Mark II for the G5X mark II and then going back to the G1X Mark III (image quality of the 1" wasn't satisfactory), I re-attempted the M6 Mark II as a point and shoot only with the 15-45 stock lens as a replacement for the G1X Mark III but found it too heavy, and the lens I had with that particular kit was a bit soft (which is a common complaint for the 15-45). On a hunch, I thought I'd try the M50 Mark II, which frankly I should've months ago but that's another story. What pushed me to? The G1X Mark III is a bit sluggish when it comes to autofocus for my needs of tracking my kids, and likewise, being familiar with what DIGIC8 has to offer, the improvements in auto-exposure and video quality in 1080P are significant (which I do quite a bit of amateur video. Also, the 22mm f/2 pairing indoors on the M, is a big draw, as is the desire to have access to reach again. Okay, enough fluff, unto the camera...

.

First impressions:

.

The M50 Mark II is notably lighter and smaller vs the M6 Mark II + EVF-DC2 attached (I kept the EVF on about 90% of the time on the M6 Mark II). The EVF-DC2 can "dig" into you when slung, and the weight of the M6 II although not much more, adds up fast. The M50 Mark II is more "fun" with it's traditional DSLR layout and more M-like in price, weight and the fully articulating screen.

.

The auto-exposure of the M50 Mark II is quite a bit smarter than the M50 Mark I, or, the M6 Mark II. Gone are the huge jumps to 1/250 (or higher) for detected movement (which bleed your ISO in low light), or, the shutter dragging of 1/60 resulting in motion blur of animate subjects. This is a camera that can help you take better shots in AUTO if you're new to photography, or, even if you're experienced like myself, sometimes it's nice to just shoot without thought of the technical side of things. The guided menus and creative assist options are nice touches for novices to dedicated cameras making taking control of exposure simple as at times you do still need to take control despite the advancements of scene detection of the M50 Mark II for creativity (super-fast or slow shutters to liquify or freeze movement, or blur or sharpen your subjects in isolation via aperture control).

.

Small sidetones: the shutter noise is nice compared to the M6 Mark II's "machine gun", but, that nice fully articulating screen is hard to pull out even though it's VERY handy.

.

Regarding autofocus, there's been a lot of speculation on this forum as to which is better (the M50 Mark II or M6 Mark II). I'll see if I can shed some light on this subject for those curious as one who's actually shot both.

The M50 Mark II is smarter with the latest firmware/algorithms, and it shows. It picks up faces/eyes farther away, holds them more reliably, finds them faster. It's also quicker to "discard" false AF locks (detected subjects the camera thinks are desired, but aren't what you desired) which is a huge plus vs the M6 Mark II and former M's as it's annoying to manually override "bad" AF locks semi-frequently resulting in missed shots. This is another welcome improvement of better software/programming I hope gets passed up/down to other M's over time. I've found however, sports-like shooting and in low-light things change in favor of the M6 Mark II. In low-light, the M50 Mark II is notably improved vs the M50 Mark I in terms of aquition, but, said advantage is akin to what I would do with the EOS M3: I'd drop to single shot, small AF zone to improve the low-light sensitivity, the M50 Mark II does this automatically except it appears to use the acquired AF spot from L+Tracking modes except with automatically tracking eyes, etc. Like the M3, in continuous shooting (AI-Servo), the M50 Mark II with it's slower scan rate and lesser ISO performance, gets "beaten" by the M6 Mark II if you're shooting in AI-servo (tracking) in low light. It'll grab the subject, but it takes time to lock, a lot of time in lower light vs the M6 Mark II. Likewise, I've found the M50 Mark II doesn't fair so well with the swing test on high FPS tracking, but, dialing back to focus priority FPS (slower frames per second though) does help the hit-rate substantially. It's no match for the M6 Mark II here where the M6 Mark II passes the swing test with flying colors, in high speed or tracking priority modes at that. It's also notable that the tracking priority FPS mode makes a difference on hit rate on the M50 Mark II, but it doesn't on other M models. While I'm on the topic of the swing test and sports shooting, C-RAW is recommended for RAW shooters as the buffer on the M50 Mark II fills very quickly, even with my top-notch Sandisk UHS-I 256GB Extreme Pro card (cream of the UHS-I crop). As such, on the old M50 Mark I I recommended C-RAW with high speed FPS, AI-Servo full time. Now, I recommend C-RAW, tracking priority continuous FPS, AI-Servo on the M50 Mark II for best results in general shooting. If you're a DPP4 post-processor (I am), I do stick to normal RAW for all but FPS intensive scenes as you loose DLO when you shoot C-RAW, and DLO makes a substantial difference with the EF-M 15-45, 22mm f/2, 55-200, in fact pretty much all the EF-M glass except maybe the stellar 32mm f/1.4 for that matter, and even the latter could use some DLO in my book.

Overall I'd say the two (M50 Mark II and M6 Mark II) are in fact tied with regard to autofocus capability. Really it depends what you're shooting and what conditions. Yes, the M50 Mark II is a step forward vs the original M50, but, software alone although impressive, can't completely mitigate the slower scan rate of the older 80D sensor tech vs the newer 90D sensor of the M6 Mark II. If you're shooting candid photos of people? M50 Mark II. General shooting? Yes, the M50 Mark II eliminates false positives quicker than the M6 Mark II, but, at times it won't comply on an AF lock that the M6 II would, and, in low light or speed shooting? The M6 II wins too. It's a shame Canon hasn't released newer firmware for the M6 II to pass down these software advancement to marry both the newer sensor with newer software. Alas I feel this will happen in a newer body, should Canon decide to make another M for that matter which is another subject for discussion as I don't assume anything.

.

Of note, the ISO default max speed is now 12800, which is good as that's the first thing I override.

.

Likewise, I find the noise reduction on the M50 Mark II aggressive even on "low". When DPP4 registers 4-4 (luminance and chroma noise reduction) for both ISO400 and 1000, I find 4-4 appropriate for the latter, but certainly not the former. Like always, you'd be best to either hand-jam in DPP4 and tune to taste your noise reduction as at times I was concerned I had a "soft" copy of the 55-200, well maybe I do, but at ISOs over 800, or frankly any ISO on this camera, you need to fine tune the noise reduction for best results.

.

Overall I like the new M50 Mark II, and sincerely hope Canon hands down the new firmware improvements in metering/exposure and autofocus to higher and lower end models in the future. Likewise, the DSLR-like form factor is refreshing as is the lighter footprint (vs M6 II + EVF). I likewise hope Canon does an M5-like refresh with integrated viewfinder someday.

Couple samples for the moment till I have more time to shoot... And more time to post...

RLight wrote:

Background:

For some time I've been seeking the ultimate point and shoot to go along with my larger rigs (full frame), and I've had some good success with the M platform for such a purpose. This started perhaps around when the Sony RX100 III came out (which coincidently is when I also bought my first FF setup the 5D Mark III with L's), a camera when it was released I knew was a game changer with it's large sensor, fast lens and pop-up EVF. However at that time, Sony was notorious for bad handling, bad colors, and lack of "fun". At the same time, Canon had a newly announced EOS M + 22mm on fire sale for $249 state-side at various Fleebay outlets. Its problem was speed, it was slow with autofocus and FPS capability in RAW shooting in particular. However, its image quality was full frame-level with that 22 attached and the fun factor, straight out of color quality, was high. Over time Canon has evolved with mirrorless full frame, more advanced M options and G Powershot options that don't lack the speed of initial offerings at the time in this class.

.

I've skipped around with cameras owning virtually every EOS M and many Powershots and even non-Canon options along the way (shame the Nikon 1 and DL series btw). Recently I've ditched the M6 Mark II for the G5X mark II and then going back to the G1X Mark III (image quality of the 1" wasn't satisfactory), I re-attempted the M6 Mark II as a point and shoot only with the 15-45 stock lens as a replacement for the G1X Mark III but found it too heavy, and the lens I had with that particular kit was a bit soft (which is a common complaint for the 15-45). On a hunch, I thought I'd try the M50 Mark II, which frankly I should've months ago but that's another story. What pushed me to? The G1X Mark III is a bit sluggish when it comes to autofocus for my needs of tracking my kids, and likewise, being familiar with what DIGIC8 has to offer, the improvements in auto-exposure and video quality in 1080P are significant (which I do quite a bit of amateur video. Also, the 22mm f/2 pairing indoors on the M, is a big draw, as is the desire to have access to reach again. Okay, enough fluff, unto the camera...

.

First impressions:

.

The M50 Mark II is notably lighter and smaller vs the M6 Mark II + EVF-DC2 attached (I kept the EVF on about 90% of the time on the M6 Mark II). The EVF-DC2 can "dig" into you when slung, and the weight of the M6 II although not much more, adds up fast. The M50 Mark II is more "fun" with it's traditional DSLR layout and more M-like in price, weight and the fully articulating screen.

.

The auto-exposure of the M50 Mark II is quite a bit smarter than the M50 Mark I, or, the M6 Mark II. Gone are the huge jumps to 1/250 (or higher) for detected movement (which bleed your ISO in low light), or, the shutter dragging of 1/60 resulting in motion blur of animate subjects. This is a camera that can help you take better shots in AUTO if you're new to photography, or, even if you're experienced like myself, sometimes it's nice to just shoot without thought of the technical side of things. The guided menus and creative assist options are nice touches for novices to dedicated cameras making taking control of exposure simple as at times you do still need to take control despite the advancements of scene detection of the M50 Mark II for creativity (super-fast or slow shutters to liquify or freeze movement, or blur or sharpen your subjects in isolation via aperture control).

.

Small sidetones: the shutter noise is nice compared to the M6 Mark II's "machine gun", but, that nice fully articulating screen is hard to pull out even though it's VERY handy.

.

Regarding autofocus, there's been a lot of speculation on this forum as to which is better (the M50 Mark II or M6 Mark II). I'll see if I can shed some light on this subject for those curious as one who's actually shot both.

The M50 Mark II is smarter with the latest firmware/algorithms, and it shows. It picks up faces/eyes farther away, holds them more reliably, finds them faster. It's also quicker to "discard" false AF locks (detected subjects the camera thinks are desired, but aren't what you desired) which is a huge plus vs the M6 Mark II and former M's as it's annoying to manually override "bad" AF locks semi-frequently resulting in missed shots. This is another welcome improvement of better software/programming I hope gets passed up/down to other M's over time. I've found however, sports-like shooting and in low-light things change in favor of the M6 Mark II. In low-light, the M50 Mark II is notably improved vs the M50 Mark I in terms of aquition, but, said advantage is akin to what I would do with the EOS M3: I'd drop to single shot, small AF zone to improve the low-light sensitivity, the M50 Mark II does this automatically except it appears to use the acquired AF spot from L+Tracking modes except with automatically tracking eyes, etc. Like the M3, in continuous shooting (AI-Servo), the M50 Mark II with it's slower scan rate and lesser ISO performance, gets "beaten" by the M6 Mark II if you're shooting in AI-servo (tracking) in low light. It'll grab the subject, but it takes time to lock, a lot of time in lower light vs the M6 Mark II. Likewise, I've found the M50 Mark II doesn't fair so well with the swing test on high FPS tracking, but, dialing back to focus priority FPS (slower frames per second though) does help the hit-rate substantially. It's no match for the M6 Mark II here where the M6 Mark II passes the swing test with flying colors, in high speed or tracking priority modes at that. It's also notable that the tracking priority FPS mode makes a difference on hit rate on the M50 Mark II, but it doesn't on other M models. While I'm on the topic of the swing test and sports shooting, C-RAW is recommended for RAW shooters as the buffer on the M50 Mark II fills very quickly, even with my top-notch Sandisk UHS-I 256GB Extreme Pro card (cream of the UHS-I crop). As such, on the old M50 Mark I I recommended C-RAW with high speed FPS, AI-Servo full time. Now, I recommend C-RAW, tracking priority continuous FPS, AI-Servo on the M50 Mark II for best results in general shooting. If you're a DPP4 post-processor (I am), I do stick to normal RAW for all but FPS intensive scenes as you loose DLO when you shoot C-RAW, and DLO makes a substantial difference with the EF-M 15-45, 22mm f/2, 55-200, in fact pretty much all the EF-M glass except maybe the stellar 32mm f/1.4 for that matter, and even the latter could use some DLO in my book.

Overall I'd say the two (M50 Mark II and M6 Mark II) are in fact tied with regard to autofocus capability. Really it depends what you're shooting and what conditions. Yes, the M50 Mark II is a step forward vs the original M50, but, software alone although impressive, can't completely mitigate the slower scan rate of the older 80D sensor tech vs the newer 90D sensor of the M6 Mark II. If you're shooting candid photos of people? M50 Mark II. General shooting? Yes, the M50 Mark II eliminates false positives quicker than the M6 Mark II, but, at times it won't comply on an AF lock that the M6 II would, and, in low light or speed shooting? The M6 II wins too. It's a shame Canon hasn't released newer firmware for the M6 II to pass down these software advancement to marry both the newer sensor with newer software. Alas I feel this will happen in a newer body, should Canon decide to make another M for that matter which is another subject for discussion as I don't assume anything.

.

Of note, the ISO default max speed is now 12800, which is good as that's the first thing I override.

.

Likewise, I find the noise reduction on the M50 Mark II aggressive even on "low". When DPP4 registers 4-4 (luminance and chroma noise reduction) for both ISO400 and 1000, I find 4-4 appropriate for the latter, but certainly not the former. Like always, you'd be best to either hand-jam in DPP4 and tune to taste your noise reduction as at times I was concerned I had a "soft" copy of the 55-200, well maybe I do, but at ISOs over 800, or frankly any ISO on this camera, you need to fine tune the noise reduction for best results.

.

Overall I like the new M50 Mark II, and sincerely hope Canon hands down the new firmware improvements in metering/exposure and autofocus to higher and lower end models in the future. Likewise, the DSLR-like form factor is refreshing as is the lighter footprint (vs M6 II + EVF). I likewise hope Canon does an M5-like refresh with integrated viewfinder someday.

Couple samples for the moment till I have more time to shoot... And more time to post...

cute photo of your crew and her emulating camera at her eyes

Wouldn't you say this setup beats G1XIII hands down?  Isn't your 15-45 better than your last one  -but I think having EFCS on the M50II helps avoid the shutter shock of the m6II shutter.

I strongly suggest adding the following that will make this setup incredible:

M32 F1.4

M22 F2

DXO Pl4 Elite

Radio trigger -- Radio off camera flash

then rarely will you use that heavy FF stuff

I

MAC wrote:

RLight wrote:

Background:

For some time I've been seeking the ultimate point and shoot to go along with my larger rigs (full frame), and I've had some good success with the M platform for such a purpose. This started perhaps around when the Sony RX100 III came out (which coincidently is when I also bought my first FF setup the 5D Mark III with L's), a camera when it was released I knew was a game changer with it's large sensor, fast lens and pop-up EVF. However at that time, Sony was notorious for bad handling, bad colors, and lack of "fun". At the same time, Canon had a newly announced EOS M + 22mm on fire sale for $249 state-side at various Fleebay outlets. Its problem was speed, it was slow with autofocus and FPS capability in RAW shooting in particular. However, its image quality was full frame-level with that 22 attached and the fun factor, straight out of color quality, was high. Over time Canon has evolved with mirrorless full frame, more advanced M options and G Powershot options that don't lack the speed of initial offerings at the time in this class.

.

I've skipped around with cameras owning virtually every EOS M and many Powershots and even non-Canon options along the way (shame the Nikon 1 and DL series btw). Recently I've ditched the M6 Mark II for the G5X mark II and then going back to the G1X Mark III (image quality of the 1" wasn't satisfactory), I re-attempted the M6 Mark II as a point and shoot only with the 15-45 stock lens as a replacement for the G1X Mark III but found it too heavy, and the lens I had with that particular kit was a bit soft (which is a common complaint for the 15-45). On a hunch, I thought I'd try the M50 Mark II, which frankly I should've months ago but that's another story. What pushed me to? The G1X Mark III is a bit sluggish when it comes to autofocus for my needs of tracking my kids, and likewise, being familiar with what DIGIC8 has to offer, the improvements in auto-exposure and video quality in 1080P are significant (which I do quite a bit of amateur video. Also, the 22mm f/2 pairing indoors on the M, is a big draw, as is the desire to have access to reach again. Okay, enough fluff, unto the camera...

.

First impressions:

.

The M50 Mark II is notably lighter and smaller vs the M6 Mark II + EVF-DC2 attached (I kept the EVF on about 90% of the time on the M6 Mark II). The EVF-DC2 can "dig" into you when slung, and the weight of the M6 II although not much more, adds up fast. The M50 Mark II is more "fun" with it's traditional DSLR layout and more M-like in price, weight and the fully articulating screen.

.

The auto-exposure of the M50 Mark II is quite a bit smarter than the M50 Mark I, or, the M6 Mark II. Gone are the huge jumps to 1/250 (or higher) for detected movement (which bleed your ISO in low light), or, the shutter dragging of 1/60 resulting in motion blur of animate subjects. This is a camera that can help you take better shots in AUTO if you're new to photography, or, even if you're experienced like myself, sometimes it's nice to just shoot without thought of the technical side of things. The guided menus and creative assist options are nice touches for novices to dedicated cameras making taking control of exposure simple as at times you do still need to take control despite the advancements of scene detection of the M50 Mark II for creativity (super-fast or slow shutters to liquify or freeze movement, or blur or sharpen your subjects in isolation via aperture control).

.

Small sidetones: the shutter noise is nice compared to the M6 Mark II's "machine gun", but, that nice fully articulating screen is hard to pull out even though it's VERY handy.

.

Regarding autofocus, there's been a lot of speculation on this forum as to which is better (the M50 Mark II or M6 Mark II). I'll see if I can shed some light on this subject for those curious as one who's actually shot both.

The M50 Mark II is smarter with the latest firmware/algorithms, and it shows. It picks up faces/eyes farther away, holds them more reliably, finds them faster. It's also quicker to "discard" false AF locks (detected subjects the camera thinks are desired, but aren't what you desired) which is a huge plus vs the M6 Mark II and former M's as it's annoying to manually override "bad" AF locks semi-frequently resulting in missed shots. This is another welcome improvement of better software/programming I hope gets passed up/down to other M's over time. I've found however, sports-like shooting and in low-light things change in favor of the M6 Mark II. In low-light, the M50 Mark II is notably improved vs the M50 Mark I in terms of aquition, but, said advantage is akin to what I would do with the EOS M3: I'd drop to single shot, small AF zone to improve the low-light sensitivity, the M50 Mark II does this automatically except it appears to use the acquired AF spot from L+Tracking modes except with automatically tracking eyes, etc. Like the M3, in continuous shooting (AI-Servo), the M50 Mark II with it's slower scan rate and lesser ISO performance, gets "beaten" by the M6 Mark II if you're shooting in AI-servo (tracking) in low light. It'll grab the subject, but it takes time to lock, a lot of time in lower light vs the M6 Mark II. Likewise, I've found the M50 Mark II doesn't fair so well with the swing test on high FPS tracking, but, dialing back to focus priority FPS (slower frames per second though) does help the hit-rate substantially. It's no match for the M6 Mark II here where the M6 Mark II passes the swing test with flying colors, in high speed or tracking priority modes at that. It's also notable that the tracking priority FPS mode makes a difference on hit rate on the M50 Mark II, but it doesn't on other M models. While I'm on the topic of the swing test and sports shooting, C-RAW is recommended for RAW shooters as the buffer on the M50 Mark II fills very quickly, even with my top-notch Sandisk UHS-I 256GB Extreme Pro card (cream of the UHS-I crop). As such, on the old M50 Mark I I recommended C-RAW with high speed FPS, AI-Servo full time. Now, I recommend C-RAW, tracking priority continuous FPS, AI-Servo on the M50 Mark II for best results in general shooting. If you're a DPP4 post-processor (I am), I do stick to normal RAW for all but FPS intensive scenes as you loose DLO when you shoot C-RAW, and DLO makes a substantial difference with the EF-M 15-45, 22mm f/2, 55-200, in fact pretty much all the EF-M glass except maybe the stellar 32mm f/1.4 for that matter, and even the latter could use some DLO in my book.

Overall I'd say the two (M50 Mark II and M6 Mark II) are in fact tied with regard to autofocus capability. Really it depends what you're shooting and what conditions. Yes, the M50 Mark II is a step forward vs the original M50, but, software alone although impressive, can't completely mitigate the slower scan rate of the older 80D sensor tech vs the newer 90D sensor of the M6 Mark II. If you're shooting candid photos of people? M50 Mark II. General shooting? Yes, the M50 Mark II eliminates false positives quicker than the M6 Mark II, but, at times it won't comply on an AF lock that the M6 II would, and, in low light or speed shooting? The M6 II wins too. It's a shame Canon hasn't released newer firmware for the M6 II to pass down these software advancement to marry both the newer sensor with newer software. Alas I feel this will happen in a newer body, should Canon decide to make another M for that matter which is another subject for discussion as I don't assume anything.

.

Of note, the ISO default max speed is now 12800, which is good as that's the first thing I override.

.

Likewise, I find the noise reduction on the M50 Mark II aggressive even on "low". When DPP4 registers 4-4 (luminance and chroma noise reduction) for both ISO400 and 1000, I find 4-4 appropriate for the latter, but certainly not the former. Like always, you'd be best to either hand-jam in DPP4 and tune to taste your noise reduction as at times I was concerned I had a "soft" copy of the 55-200, well maybe I do, but at ISOs over 800, or frankly any ISO on this camera, you need to fine tune the noise reduction for best results.

.

Overall I like the new M50 Mark II, and sincerely hope Canon hands down the new firmware improvements in metering/exposure and autofocus to higher and lower end models in the future. Likewise, the DSLR-like form factor is refreshing as is the lighter footprint (vs M6 II + EVF). I likewise hope Canon does an M5-like refresh with integrated viewfinder someday.

Couple samples for the moment till I have more time to shoot... And more time to post...

cute photo of your crew and her emulating camera at her eyes

Wouldn't you say this setup beats G1XIII hands down? Isn't your 15-45 better than your last one -but I think having EFCS on the M50II helps avoid the shutter shock of the m6II shutter.

I strongly suggest adding the following that will make this setup incredible:

M32 F1.4

M22 F2

DXO Pl4 Elite

Radio trigger -- Radio off camera flash

then rarely will you use that heavy FF stuff

I

It appears to be (the 15-45 copy I have now I get the impression is "better" than the last)

The 11-22 and 22 are tracking on the radar, but, I have "Goliath" so the 32 isn't so needed.

I might dip my toes back into macro work since the 28 macro is so cheap for what it is and the kiddos love bugs and stuff.

G1X III? Probably toast. Excellent offering for it's time, still is, but, I don't like juggling cameras as you know.

One more before I go...

Thought I'd post one more before I run...

Also I've got an album on Flickr going since it's easier to update as DPR's servers frequently timeout on uploads...

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWU3fBg

Thanks for the review. The M50 Mark II sounds like a winner, even if it's "just" a software upgrade. About the 15-45, I find it can produce great images if you use it to its strengths. Mine is soft at the long end if not stopped down but otherwise is pretty good. I still think the fast, cheap primes are what really make the M system shine, though.

If you're a DPP4 post-processor (I am), I do stick to normal RAW for all but FPS intensive scenes as you loose DLO when you shoot C-RAW,

I just noticed this comment. I'm surprised to hear that. I shoot C-RAW on my M50 Mark I and still can use DLO.

Dareshooter wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

If you're a DPP4 post-processor (I am), I do stick to normal RAW for all but FPS intensive scenes as you loose DLO when you shoot C-RAW,

I just noticed this comment. I'm surprised to hear that. I shoot C-RAW on my M50 Mark I and still can use DLO.

That surprised me too for the same reason

Canon indicates this feature is diminished when applied.

Yes, you can, but per Canon, that’s what ultimately gets impacted by C-RAW use in terms of real world. I haven’t personally tested the two, I’d have to break out the charts, but I gather this is true as it’s coming from Canon documentation not someone’s opinion.

Excellent review of what sounds like an excellent camera.

I am a massive fan of the M50 form-factor so I agree with all your comments regarding the M6ii form-factor et al. Like you, I long for a M5ii or equivalent.

I wrote elsewhere that if Canon announce the end of the M-format I would probably buy an M6ii body but based on your review I think I am now inclined to look at the M50ii either as part of a "pair" (M50 and M50ii) or to trade-in my M50 for an M50ii.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and experiences

RLight wrote:

For some time I've been seeking the ultimate point and shoot to go along with my larger rigs

Excellent write-up.  Thank you!

This would certainly bode well for any future M5 Mark II.  Which I'd certainly buy if it kept the same (super fast and convenient) tilting LCD screen.  The articulating LCD is just too slow and ponderous for me (I hate it on my R5).

And this definitely bodes well for a future M6 Mark III, even if it's only a "firmware upgrade."  Pair the firmware of the M50ii with the speed of the M6ii and a person (like me) would be in heaven! 

I like the firmware's full Auto improvements too.  Sony has always had simply outstanding Intelligent Auto modes, and it's good to see Canon making some headway here.

I might even pull my old (ahem) Sony RX100ii out and see what DxO Deep Prime NR can do with that 1" output (the RX series has a great iAuto Mode).  Note: Sony cooked that generation of RAW files in-camera (actually on-sensor), so I don't have a lot of hope for the Noise Reduction.  We'll see.  BTW, you have to add the tiny front grip to the RX100 Series, as it absolutely transforms handling.  Otherwise it is one slippery little fish!

I highly recommend DxO PL4 (Elite) for any Canon camera though!!!  hint hint.

Thanks again for the write-up.  It looks like I'll have to continue using my M6ii with Spot AF for now! 

Enjoy your new cam!

R2

Alexis wrote:

Excellent review of what sounds like an excellent camera.

I am a massive fan of the M50 form-factor so I agree with all your comments regarding the M6ii form-factor et al. Like you, I long for a M5ii or equivalent.

I wrote elsewhere that if Canon announce the end of the M-format I would probably buy an M6ii body but based on your review I think I am now inclined to look at the M50ii either as part of a "pair" (M50 and M50ii) or to trade-in my M50 for an M50ii.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and experiences

Dang.  Too bad you didn't "tweak" your M50 (Mark I) on that spill you took. 

R2

Dareshooter wrote:

RLight wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

If you're a DPP4 post-processor (I am), I do stick to normal RAW for all but FPS intensive scenes as you loose DLO when you shoot C-RAW,

I just noticed this comment. I'm surprised to hear that. I shoot C-RAW on my M50 Mark I and still can use DLO.

That surprised me too for the same reason

Canon indicates this feature is diminished when applied.

Yes, you can, but per Canon, that’s what ultimately gets impacted by C-RAW use in terms of real world. I haven’t personally tested the two, I’d have to break out the charts, but I gather this is true as it’s coming from Canon documentation not someone’s opinion.

Where does Canon indicate this ? I've been using DLO for three years and have never heard of diminished effectiveness let alone witnessed it myself. If this really was the case we'd have had Canon is crippling DLO threads all over the net .

I'd like to know too. If it's true that DLO doesn't work well with C-RAW, I'll go back to uncompressed RAW.

Dareshooter wrote:

Works fine Dan,I've never had any issues with C-RAW . If anyone can show me evidence to the contrary I'll reconsider C-RAW if there's any significant visible differences.

I can't find anything about it on the internet either. The only thing related is this from the DPP4 user manual:

"You can correct these optical phenomena in RAW images which have been shot with compatible lenses. JPEG, TIFF, S-RAW, and M-RAW images cannot be corrected."

I'm not sure what S-RAW or M-RAW are, but they're definitely not the same as C-RAW. Maybe that's what the OP saw and misread it?

dan the man p wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

Works fine Dan,I've never had any issues with C-RAW . If anyone can show me evidence to the contrary I'll reconsider C-RAW if there's any significant visible differences.

I can't find anything about it on the internet either. The only thing related is this from the DPP4 user manual:

"You can correct these optical phenomena in RAW images which have been shot with compatible lenses. JPEG, TIFF, S-RAW, and M-RAW images cannot be corrected."

I'm not sure what S-RAW or M-RAW are, but they're definitely not the same as C-RAW. Maybe that's what the OP saw and misread it?

I’ll hunt it down and post.

nnowak wrote:

23speaker23 wrote:

Thanks for a very thorough write-up.

One thing I certainly find odd is your opinion on the fully articulating screen. I personally find the tilting screen of the m6 is the way to go for my use cases. That being child/people photography.

for situational awareness - yes the tilt screen

That is exactly the use case where I hate a standard tilt screen. They are utterly worthless when shooting in portrait orientation.

I find it way faster and easier to adjust the tilting screen than the fully articulating screen.

for speed, yes the tilt screen

While the fully articulating screen is slow to deploy, I would usually just leave it flipped out and then could easily switch between landscape and portrait orientation. However, my favorite, and the fastest option, is the dual axis tilt used on some Fuji, Panasonic, and Nikon bodies.

For movies on a tripod - yes the articulating screen