M50, improved

TL;DR:

The M50 Mark II represents in my book, the most approachable and budget friendly interchangeable lens camera offering on the market. It builds upon the same success as the original M50: easy to use menus and interface, excellent straight out of camera colors, budget friendly price, small and light, very fun.

.

Who's it for:

Those wanting to expand their photography beyond the smartphone

Second camera for pros and want a DSLR form-factor with a EVF+hotshoe

Folks already shooting a Point and Shoot and want to upgrade to something "better"

Rebel or Canon XXD shooters looking for something smaller, lighter and more powerful

.

Where it stands apart from the original:

Improved autofocus, in particular eye-detection

Improved low-light sensitivity

YouTube livestream support (with account and minimum number of subscribers)

Improved automatic exposure and metering

Improved beginner menus and options

.

Suggestions:

Use High Speed, or Low Speed (tracking priority) continuous shooting modes to “get the shot”

Use C-RAW to get the most shots before buffer kicks in

Consider the SanDisk Extreme Pro UHS-I card (64GB version or larger) or other comparable 95mb/sec UHS-I card to free the buffer quicker when shooting continuous bursts

Canon’s EF-M 11-22 and 32mm f/1.4 Lenses are top-notch offerings for those more advanced, or first time landscape (for the 11-22) or professional portrait (32mm f/1.4) shooters.

The Sigma f/1.4 lens trio (16mm, 30mm, 56mm) are also recommended for those wanting more f/1.4 options on a budget (compared to full frame offerings)

Avoid the 4K video. The rolling shutter and crop factor diminish the benefits of 4K on the M50 Mark II.

Consider the 15-45 and 55-200 bundle to save on the 55-200 which pairs well with both the M50 Mark II, and the use cases the M50 Mark II suits.

VS the original EOS M50

The original M50 is a great little camera, and even today is a formidable offering. Those who have it are rewarded with satisfying image quality, fun and reliable results. However, those with the M50 looking to the M50 Mark II as an upgrade, I will say that unless the price is right, the true upgrade to the M50 is the M6 Mark II presently. Uncropped 4K, 32MP with better ISO handling, 14FPS and faster readout leading to improved autofocus for critical applications, the M6 II sits above the M50 Mark II, even though it’s older. Both come recommended for different users and different price points, and form factors (as the M6 Mark II needs an added electronic viewfinder for DSLR-like experience).

.

VS the A6100

Spectacular autofocus, really good 1080P, but, it’s handling, colors and approachability are (still) lacking. In my book the M50 Mark II is the superior option for the folks considering it. Special considerations: The Sony Platform does have more native lens offerings, however comma, the price tag adds up quick and the base complaints I have with it still aren’t solved by higher end offerings if you “upgrade”. However comma, if you’ve got Sony glass in tow, sure. But said bunch with Sony glass already on hand, probably is gunning for a higher price point anyways. For entry-level, it’s not as competitive.

.

VS the Z50

This actually popped up on my radar, and I looked HARD at it. Solid image quality, excellent handling and SOOC colors. But, it’s bigger (not by a lot though). More expensive. The autofocus isn’t as good, and as a traditional Canon shooter, having the zoom in reverse is annoying. Also the ecosystem for the Z50 isn’t as good at this point (lacks ultra wide native zoom, native macro lens, doesn’t have access to the Sigma trio). It’s a good alternative to the M50 if you’re a Nikon shooter with Nikon glass you want to adapt and want something smaller and more powerful than your standard full frame rig. But for beginners? Again, M50 is the better option, still.

.

VS the Fuji X series

Fuji’s 26MP sensor is a fierce foe. Faster readout, more detail, IBIS, uncropped 4K. But, you’ve gotta come up in price point for the X-T30 or X-S10 to get it. And in particular, the X-S10 which has the more modern interface/layout, has more weight, bulk, especially when you start adding lenses (which further raises the cost to entry or add). The benefits though of the Fuji ecosystem are stronger lens offerings like the 16-55 f/2.8, but, at that point, you’re entering full frame price and bulk where a f/4 lens on say a Z5, RP, might’ve been a wiser choice in the long run. Excellent colors for skin tones, but in terms of landscapes? Those saturated colors actually can hinder nature-shooting. Autofocus implementation is also iffy. Compared to it’s peers from Canon and Sony, it’s lagging, especially for the beginners. All to say depending what you want, this is where I may diverge a bit and say there are logical choices for both, that start to make more sense but most folks will be better served by the M50 with those wanting particular use cases benefitting from the Fuji (say that f/2.8 zoom lens, or IBIS with a prime lens, but the latter is Sony territory with it’s superior AF and lens offerings in that realm).

.

VS the PowerShot G1X Mark III

They both share Canon 80D sensor, Canon handling and SOOC colors, are both compact. But, the G1X Mark III has some edges: Hikers, will glean more detail out of the better lens on the G1X Mark III (vs the stock 15-45 on the M50 Mark II) for static subjects like landscape shooting it’s a win. Weather sealing, and super-compact form factor are also pluses. But non-hikers need to look at the more modern M50 Mark II, parents, and general shooters will appreciate the improved hit-rate in terms of autofocus, image stabilization efficiency, ability to swap a lens, and of course price point. The 1080P video is quite a bit better on the M50 Mark II. It boils down to if your subject moves, the M50 Mark II will do better. If your subject doesn’t? G1X Mark III can be a better choice.

.

VS the M6 Mark II

This a contentious. There is presently no M5 Mark II, just the M6 Mark II which you can add an EVF too (which will tie up the hotshoe). The short version is the M50 Mark II has better handling, and is cheaper, lighter and smaller if you’re using the EVF full time (I do). It also has a fully articulating screen which some love, some hate. That’s it. The M6 Mark II has more megapixels, more frames per second, uncropped 4K, better ISO and dynamic range. It’s the “better” camera so to speak. But depending what you want to do, each makes sense in different scenarios and price points. And for those wondering? The M6 II has the better autofocus. It comes down to the readout speed on the M6 II sensor makes the difference even though the M50 Mark II has newer software.

.

As an early critic of the software-only upgrade of the M50 Mark II, when you look at the landscape of other offerings out there, what Canon’s brought to the table, some extra polish to the wildly popular M50, makes sense. It fits the first-time interchangeable lens camera box / smartphone upgraders well for what you get and what you pay.

.

Additional Samples Here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWU3fBg

Nice review.  Right on the money.  Love your pics too!

R2

Great post with excellent images and a thoughtful review. You know I'm in full agreement about your opinion on the M50ii. In my case it's a 2nd body most of the time but it's a also great choice for a first body for many.

It's worth mentioning that the Canon M50 Mark ii with the EF-M 18-150mm IS STM is a killer combination for light weight, compact size, great super-zoom range with excellent image quality - at a great price for the power and flexibility that it gives you.

I'd have no problem taking just the M50ii, the EF-M 18-150, and a couple spare batteries on a daily outing or a vacation if I had to travel as light as possible. Even with lens hood it all fits into a very small camera shoulder/belt bag like the $15 LowePro Adventura SH100 II.

https://www.lowepro.com/us-en/adventura-sh-100-ii-lp36866-0ww/

Too many people count out the outstanding 'M' system --- but it's very much alive and an excellent performer at a competitive price, no less so than Canon's DSLR offerings.

Larry Rexley wrote:

Great post with excellent images and a thoughtful review. You know I'm in full agreement about your opinion on the M50ii. In my case it's a 2nd body most of the time but it's a also great choice for a first body for many.

It's worth mentioning that the Canon M50 Mark ii with the EF-M 18-150mm IS STM is a killer combination for light weight, compact size, great super-zoom range with excellent image quality - at a great price for the power and flexibility that it gives you.

I'd have no problem taking just the M50ii, the EF-M 18-150, and a couple spare batteries on a daily outing or a vacation if I had to travel as light as possible. Even with lens hood it all fits into a very small camera shoulder/belt bag like the $15 LowePro Adventura SH100 II.

https://www.lowepro.com/us-en/adventura-sh-100-ii-lp36866-0ww/

Too many people count out the outstanding 'M' system --- but it's very much alive and an excellent performer at a competitive price, no less so than Canon's DSLR offerings.

I’ve had both, and I do feel the 18-150 is more appropriate on the M6II. Why? Higher price point pairing; larger footprint pairing. Not to mention the available bundle discount schemes support those choices, too.

Its not that you can’t or shouldn’t, just in terms of pragmatism, the 18-50 sits better on the M6II. Now you probably already own both, from said bundle… Technically you’re are outlier having both the M6II and M50II. There’s days I think about it.

R2D2 wrote:

Nice review. Right on the money. Love your pics too!

R2

Appreciate it, just wish I’d cropped that last shot before punching post. No biggie. But it’s stuck on Amazon that way now. Unless the mod knows something we don’t about post-editing after a reply?

RLight wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

Great post with excellent images and a thoughtful review. You know I'm in full agreement about your opinion on the M50ii. In my case it's a 2nd body most of the time but it's a also great choice for a first body for many.

It's worth mentioning that the Canon M50 Mark ii with the EF-M 18-150mm IS STM is a killer combination for light weight, compact size, great super-zoom range with excellent image quality - at a great price for the power and flexibility that it gives you.

I'd have no problem taking just the M50ii, the EF-M 18-150, and a couple spare batteries on a daily outing or a vacation if I had to travel as light as possible. Even with lens hood it all fits into a very small camera shoulder/belt bag like the $15 LowePro Adventura SH100 II.

https://www.lowepro.com/us-en/adventura-sh-100-ii-lp36866-0ww/

Too many people count out the outstanding 'M' system --- but it's very much alive and an excellent performer at a competitive price, no less so than Canon's DSLR offerings.

I’ve had both, and I do feel the 18-150 is more appropriate on the M6II. Why? Higher price point pairing; larger footprint pairing. Not to mention the available bundle discount schemes support those choices, too.

Its not that you can’t or shouldn’t, just in terms of pragmatism, the 18-50 sits better on the M6II. Now you probably already own both, from said bundle… Technically you’re are outlier having both the M6II and M50II. There’s days I think about it.

I see - you're right, the M50ii isn't sold in a kit with the EF-M 18-150mm, so it's not an option for new buyers. What a shame, it's a great compact set-up with a great range in a single carry.

I've never owned the EF-M 55-200, but understand it's a very good lens, and you can get a kit with the EF-M 15-45 and the 55-200 at a very good price point ($929 at B&H) which is a great deal with an even bigger range (with lens changes) over the M50ii body + 18-150 lens separately ($1100).

At $1100 you're also right that the M6ii paired with the EF-M 18-150 becomes a very attractive, more powerful option at only $250 more ($1350 at B&H).

Thank you for this concise but thorough review.

For me the "M" cameras make for a great travel kit, or a grab and go kit just-in-case I want to take photos.  I have a Vanguard Havana 21 bag that holds my M6 and 3 "M" lenses, and that bag fits into a standard backpack for carry-on air travel.

I really want to upgrade to a M50 II or M6 II, primarily to get improved focus capabilities.  Currently the M6 II body is $150 US more + the EVF cost.  The extra performance of the M6 II may sway me in that direction.  Anyway, this review is helping me along with that decision.

By the way, those wondering about the attachable/detachable EVF for M6, I don't mind using it, except when I forget to put it on the cameral :-x...always in a hurry to get the shot.  I find I use the viewfinder 90% of the time, it just helps me stabilize the camera, and I can see the image in the EVF without reading glasses (yep, I'm over 50).

Fandor wrote:

Thank you for this concise but thorough review.

For me the "M" cameras make for a great travel kit, or a grab and go kit just-in-case I want to take photos. I have a Vanguard Havana 21 bag that holds my M6 and 3 "M" lenses, and that bag fits into a standard backpack for carry-on air travel.

I really want to upgrade to a M50 II or M6 II, primarily to get improved focus capabilities. Currently the M6 II body is $150 US more + the EVF cost. The extra performance of the M6 II may sway me in that direction. Anyway, this review is helping me along with that decision.

By the way, those wondering about the attachable/detachable EVF for M6, I don't mind using it, except when I forget to put it on the cameral :-x...always in a hurry to get the shot. I find I use the viewfinder 90% of the time, it just helps me stabilize the camera, and I can see the image in the EVF without reading glasses (yep, I'm over 50).

At this point it may be worth waiting for black Friday sales. Last year the M6ii kits went $200 off everywhere from Black Friday all the way through Cyber Monday. With any luck something similar may happen this year!

I picked up my M6 ii as an Open Box deal at Best Buy on Cyber Monday - a store 20 miles away had one for $730 which included Canon battery, charger, EF-M 15-45, and the EVF. The EVF was damaged (split open) so I talked them down another $50. When I got home I removed 4-6 screws from the EVF, taking it apart, then putting it back together 'correctly' --- it was 100% fine and the kit has worked perfectly ever since.

Larry Rexley wrote:

Fandor wrote:

Thank you for this concise but thorough review.

For me the "M" cameras make for a great travel kit, or a grab and go kit just-in-case I want to take photos. I have a Vanguard Havana 21 bag that holds my M6 and 3 "M" lenses, and that bag fits into a standard backpack for carry-on air travel.

I really want to upgrade to a M50 II or M6 II, primarily to get improved focus capabilities. Currently the M6 II body is $150 US more + the EVF cost. The extra performance of the M6 II may sway me in that direction. Anyway, this review is helping me along with that decision.

By the way, those wondering about the attachable/detachable EVF for M6, I don't mind using it, except when I forget to put it on the cameral :-x...always in a hurry to get the shot. I find I use the viewfinder 90% of the time, it just helps me stabilize the camera, and I can see the image in the EVF without reading glasses (yep, I'm over 50).

At this point it may be worth waiting for black Friday sales. Last year the M6ii kits went $200 off everywhere from Black Friday all the way through Cyber Monday. With any luck something similar may happen this year!

Good point, I was thinking similar.  Who knows what will happen in the unusual supply and demand situation we have this year, but I'm willing to wait.:-).

I picked up my M6 ii as an Open Box deal at Best Buy on Cyber Monday - a store 20 miles away had one for $730 which included Canon battery, charger, EF-M 15-45, and the EVF. The EVF was damaged (split open) so I talked them down another $50. When I got home I removed 4-6 screws from the EVF, taking it apart, then putting it back together 'correctly' --- it was 100% fine and the kit has worked perfectly ever since.

I love it when a little DYI pays off!

I see you have both M50 mk II and M6 mk II.  So, for travel, and if you can only take one camera, which do you choose?  Reasons? Thanks.

My favorite subject is landscapes. But when I travel, I find I need to do "everything", (portrait, architecture, wildlife, landscape, flowers, low light,...).

Fandor wrote:

Larry Rexley wrote:

Fandor wrote:

Thank you for this concise but thorough review.

For me the "M" cameras make for a great travel kit, or a grab and go kit just-in-case I want to take photos. I have a Vanguard Havana 21 bag that holds my M6 and 3 "M" lenses, and that bag fits into a standard backpack for carry-on air travel.

I really want to upgrade to a M50 II or M6 II, primarily to get improved focus capabilities. Currently the M6 II body is $150 US more + the EVF cost. The extra performance of the M6 II may sway me in that direction. Anyway, this review is helping me along with that decision.

By the way, those wondering about the attachable/detachable EVF for M6, I don't mind using it, except when I forget to put it on the cameral :-x...always in a hurry to get the shot. I find I use the viewfinder 90% of the time, it just helps me stabilize the camera, and I can see the image in the EVF without reading glasses (yep, I'm over 50).

At this point it may be worth waiting for black Friday sales. Last year the M6ii kits went $200 off everywhere from Black Friday all the way through Cyber Monday. With any luck something similar may happen this year!

Good point, I was thinking similar. Who knows what will happen in the unusual supply and demand situation we have this year, but I'm willing to wait.:-).

I picked up my M6 ii as an Open Box deal at Best Buy on Cyber Monday - a store 20 miles away had one for $730 which included Canon battery, charger, EF-M 15-45, and the EVF. The EVF was damaged (split open) so I talked them down another $50. When I got home I removed 4-6 screws from the EVF, taking it apart, then putting it back together 'correctly' --- it was 100% fine and the kit has worked perfectly ever since.

I love it when a little DYI pays off!

I see you have both M50 mk II and M6 mk II. So, for travel, and if you can only take one camera, which do you choose? Reasons? Thanks.

My favorite subject is landscapes. But when I travel, I find I need to do "everything", (portrait, architecture, wildlife, landscape, flowers, low light,...).

Good question. My daily 'bike ride' kit is a medium bag with both bodies and 5 lenses plus a 1.5x teleconverter and Canon EF - EOS M adapter --- not too big and heavy. it's the kit described in the following post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65656457

If I go on a day trip for fun with family (not too serious) I will take the small LowePro bag mentioned in earlier post with only the M50ii and EF-M 18-150 IS STM.

For a vacation if I had to choose one body and then some lenses --- it would be the more powerful higher res M6ii for the single body, no question, and priority of lenses in the following order: EF-M 18-150mm (sharp do-everything in daylight lens), EF-M 22mm f2 (most useful super sharp low-light and indoor lens), EF-S 55-250 IS STM + 1.5 Kenko teleconverter + Canon EF - EOS M adapter (sharp telephoto for birds and anything distant), EF-M 11-22mm (super-sharp and contrasty wider landscapes and scene lens), adapted Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (great, sharp longer low-light and portrait lens --- my 'on a budget' replacement for the superb EF-M 32mm f1.4 lens).

Last summer I tried to take a 'minimalist' kit on a plane from FL to New England for a week, and ended taking the M6 Mark ii (only body I had at the time), EF-M 15-45, EF-S 55-250 IS STM + 2x TC + Canon EF - EOS M adapter, and the EF-M 22mm f2.

It was fine but the 'lens changing point' of around 50mm became incredibly annoying, at times I was changing lenses every minute or two --- plus my copy of the EF-M 15-45 is just average and the corners are noticeably soft at 15mm. I would have been FAR happier taking the EF-M 18-150mm and will NEVER take a trip without it again. If I could fit it I would also taken the EF-M 11-22.

M50II was a good choice for you.

Good shots!

15 mm on your gear gets a lot of use

I'm intrigued by the 16 f1.4

Thank you for your input.  I agree with the 18 -150 lens as the "sharp, do-everything lens", it does remarkably well.  I just purchased a used 70-300 USM II to be my wildlife/birding lens, with the adapter of course, I also have the 1.4 III teleconverter for long reach, but I haven't tested that combination yet, but the lens by itself is good and sharp.

Hello...

Beautiful photographs - thank you for sharing. 

Thanks, you are right, I just tried it and there is a fixed glass on the camera mount end that does not move when zoomed that interferes with the rubber ring.

Thanks for the review.

Which lens do you think does eye focus the best ?

Hi, thanks for the review, comparison and shared images.

I have a question regarding Digital Lens Optimisation: you can only choose 3 lensprofiles in-camera to apply DLO direct to the JPEG's.

(In RAW you can switch it on and off in DPP for any lens that has a profile)

When shooting RAW+JPEG, which lenses benefit most from DLO: the zooms  (11-22, 15-45, 18-150 and 55-200) or the primes (22, 28 and 32)

Thanks in advance for your time,

kindest regards,

Max@Home

MAC wrote:

M50II was a good choice for you.

Good shots!

15 mm on your gear gets a lot of use

I'm intrigued by the 16 f1.4

It's a great lens, but my least used of my EF-M lenses. That's because it's large (for an EF-M lens). For outdoor landscapes I prefer the versatility of the 11-22. The 16 is a good lens for indoor events where you're a bit cramped. I took a bunch of backstage shots at a show I'm involved with (as actor and director) a couple of years ago, just after I got it. The results were very good. But if I'm taking my M6II and a lens or two (or three or four), I rarely take the 16, because of the size.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MAC wrote:

M50II was a good choice for you.

Good shots!

15 mm on your gear gets a lot of use

I'm intrigued by the 16 f1.4

It's a great lens, but my least used of my EF-M lenses. That's because it's large (for an EF-M lens). For outdoor landscapes I prefer the versatility of the 11-22. The 16 is a good lens for indoor events where you're a bit cramped.

as you describe uses, makes sense on the uses of the 16 and the 11-22

I took a bunch of backstage shots at a show I'm involved with (as actor and director) a couple of years ago, just after I got it. The results were very good. But if I'm taking my M6II and a lens or two (or three or four), I rarely take the 16, because of the size.

Got it, agree, thanks!

Alastair Norcross wrote:

MAC wrote:

I'm intrigued by the 16 f1.4

It's a great lens, but my least used of my EF-M lenses. That's because it's large (for an EF-M lens). For outdoor landscapes I prefer the versatility of the 11-22. The 16 is a good lens for indoor events where you're a bit cramped.

Yup, indoor events, outdoor events, great for environmental portraits too!  It hasn't let me down.

R2