M50 Mark II First Impressions

m100 wrote:

Every time I bought a Canon camera with more pixels my other cameras got left behind.

+1 That is so true of me too!

And putting that cropped sensor with all those pixels behind that 32MM lens is just crazy wow !

++

R2

RLight wrote:

Here's a couple recent captures... My MacBook Pro is back in business.

Overall I'm quite happy with the M50 Mark II and dual lens setup. Frankly, I use the 15-45 a lot more than the 55-20; the 15-45 alone would've done the job for my purposes as a quasi point and shoot but the 55-200 is "fun" and occasionally useful.

The M6 Mark II would be nice, but, for the price and form factor? I think the M50 Mark II stays. I'm not exactly wishing I had more of something, except maybe the 4K non-cropped video of the M6 Mark II, that's probably my biggest gripe. The 1080P of the M50 Mark II is acceptable though.

I know there's folks asking if the M50 Mark II is a good upgrade for folks with the M50 Mark I. My 2 cents is the M6 Mark II is the true upgrade. The M50 Mark II is a very small upgrade over the Mark I. I would've re-buy the M50 Mark II over it in my book if I already had one, which I did in the past, I'd get the M6 Mark II.

Do keep in mind the OP (myself) has an EOS R, which I'm commonly utilizing the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM when I want to go low profile with punch, or, RF 28-70 F/2L when I want more. If you're trying to do something more powerful for low light on a budget, I recommend adding the 22mm or 32mm lenses and possibly going M6 Mark II. The RF platform is still much larger and more expensive.

Although off-topic, I do foresee the RF system usurping the M system. This has been beaten to death but is painfully obvious in my book. I do see systems like the M being a good point and shoot alternative though.

Thanks for sharing those photos, they're very nice.

I am almost in disbelief at how good your copy of the 15-45 is. I've had 3 copies of the lens and thought they were all 'ok' but none of them comes anywhere close to yours. In particular the image of the girl on the merry-go-round -- 15mm at f3.5 --- absolutely sharp right to the corners - just amazing. All my copies frizz out the corners. I've tried DPP with and without all permutations of lens corrections, DxO --- and can't come close to that.

I've also examined many, many images with that lens in the 'post your photos' threads and also don't see another one producing results that are flawless as yours seems to be. Yours sets the gold standard.

Larry Rexley wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

I kid you not, on the R5 it feels like I can crop in to the pixel level and still be left with an amazing image. Especially with Deep Prime on tap!!!

R2

That's really impressive. I agree with you that Deep Prime really helps to bring out a 'razor' sharpness even in lenses like the EF-M 18-150 that I never saw with Canon DPP 4.

A sample.  Here's an R5 full size image straight out of DxO PL5 (no work in Photoshop yet).  ISO 1000, Deep Prime NR set at 25%.  Uncropped.

Barn Swallow sunning.  Canon R5 + RF 100-500 + RF 1.4x @ 700mm.  Full Size image (jpg).  Click on "original size"

If you go FF, I highly recommend this combo.  The Animal Eye AF is amazing!

Tree Swallow full tilt.  Canon R5 + RF 100-500 + RF 1.4x @ 700mm.  ISO 2000, Deep Prime set at 30%.  2160 jpg (cropped).  Click on "original size"

R2

R2D2 wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

I kid you not, on the R5 it feels like I can crop in to the pixel level and still be left with an amazing image. Especially with Deep Prime on tap!!!

R2

That's really impressive. I agree with you that Deep Prime really helps to bring out a 'razor' sharpness even in lenses like the EF-M 18-150 that I never saw with Canon DPP 4.

A sample. Here's an R5 full size image straight out of DxO PL5 (no work in Photoshop yet). ISO 1000, Deep Prime NR set at 25%. Uncropped.

Barn Swallow sunning. Canon R5 + RF 100-500 + RF 1.4x @ 700mm. Full Size image (jpg). Click on "original size"

If you go FF, I highly recommend this combo. The Animal Eye AF is amazing!

Tree Swallow full tilt. Canon R5 + RF 100-500 + RF 1.4x @ 700mm. ISO 2000, Deep Prime set at 30%. 2160 jpg (cropped). Click on "original size"

R2

very nice shots!

Larry Rexley wrote:

RLight wrote:

Here's a couple recent captures... My MacBook Pro is back in business.

Overall I'm quite happy with the M50 Mark II and dual lens setup. Frankly, I use the 15-45 a lot more than the 55-20; the 15-45 alone would've done the job for my purposes as a quasi point and shoot but the 55-200 is "fun" and occasionally useful.

The M6 Mark II would be nice, but, for the price and form factor? I think the M50 Mark II stays. I'm not exactly wishing I had more of something, except maybe the 4K non-cropped video of the M6 Mark II, that's probably my biggest gripe. The 1080P of the M50 Mark II is acceptable though.

I know there's folks asking if the M50 Mark II is a good upgrade for folks with the M50 Mark I. My 2 cents is the M6 Mark II is the true upgrade. The M50 Mark II is a very small upgrade over the Mark I. I would've re-buy the M50 Mark II over it in my book if I already had one, which I did in the past, I'd get the M6 Mark II.

Do keep in mind the OP (myself) has an EOS R, which I'm commonly utilizing the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM when I want to go low profile with punch, or, RF 28-70 F/2L when I want more. If you're trying to do something more powerful for low light on a budget, I recommend adding the 22mm or 32mm lenses and possibly going M6 Mark II. The RF platform is still much larger and more expensive.

Although off-topic, I do foresee the RF system usurping the M system. This has been beaten to death but is painfully obvious in my book. I do see systems like the M being a good point and shoot alternative though.

Thanks for sharing those photos, they're very nice.

I am almost in disbelief at how good your copy of the 15-45 is. I've had 3 copies of the lens and thought they were all 'ok' but none of them comes anywhere close to yours. In particular the image of the girl on the merry-go-round -- 15mm at f3.5 --- absolutely sharp right to the corners - just amazing. All my copies frizz out the corners. I've tried DPP with and without all permutations of lens corrections, DxO --- and can't come close to that.

I've also examined many, many images with that lens in the 'post your photos' threads and also don't see another one producing results that are flawless as yours seems to be. Yours sets the gold standard.

It is the sharpest copy I’ve owned, but keep in mind no shutter shock on the M50 married with DLO.

Its important to reduce or disable NR depending on ISO in DPP4 too. I wondered if I had a bad copy of the 55-200 at first until I adjusted the noise reduction. The M50 sensor doesn’t handle noise as cleanly as the M6 II and Canons NR is fairly aggressive.

So yes, sharp copy. But it’s also the M50 and DPP4 involved here.

B_Gardner wrote:

I bought a used Canon M50 as a backup for my M6ii and am learning to use it. Its a good camera and takes great photos under normal conditions. However, I was surprised to learn that, unlike the M6ii, the M50 has limited time-lapse video capabilities and does not accept an intervalometer. As an astrophotographer, the inability to shoot manual time lapse movies at a shutter speed slower than 1/30 sec, combined with the lack of a jack to plug in an intervalometer, is limiting. I am mentioning this because I read a lot of reviews of the M50 before buying it and nobody mentioned this shortcoming which admittedly, probably isn't very important to most photographers, but was a huge disappointment for me. I've since read that the M50 is considered by some to be a "entry level" camera, whereas the M6ii is considered to be "advanced".

I’d agree with that assessment. It doesn’t mean one can’t use it because it’s entry level, but you do need to be aware of its capabilities and limitations.

The M50s are good value, but not as advanced as the M6II. However the M50s have a hot shoe+EVF and fully articulated screen. The M6 II doesn’t. It has many other perks though including the better sensor.

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

very nice shots!

Thanks MAC. Just chosen to demonstrate IQ, and then AF.

Full disclosure: Those darn swallows in flight are TOUGH to follow at 700mm! You can't fill the frame very much, or they just whizzz right out of it!

R2

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

very nice shots!

Thanks MAC. Just chosen to demonstrate IQ, and then AF.

Full disclosure: Those darn swallows in flight are TOUGH to follow at 700mm! You can't fill the frame very much, or they just whizzz right out of it!

R2

yeah, I've thought about the RF 800 mm, but these would be really tough with the whizz

though my 55-250 stm is really good (except for high action), I have the new 100 -400 on my list.  That and the 16.  And maybe the new 18-45 when it comes out

I'm watching closely how Canon handles the next small FF release.  I want high FPS, I want IBIS, I want a great high mpxl sensor, all at a great price, will I have to wait forever?  If fuji gets the 4 sigma lenses on their roster, I might need to try it if Canon doesn't offer what I'm looking for at the pricing I'm looking for.  It just takes that sigma release of the 4 lenses for Fuji to put me into a questioning mode.  Canon did great by releasing R5/R6 and RF -- but are they resting on their wins and not giving me small with reach and high fps - we shall see