NO EFCS in M6 II: a real shame

Here is some of what I don’t know (the complete list appears to be endless). I don’t know anything about the velocity profiles of mechanical shutter curtains. I don’t know the distance between the sensor and the individual curtains on any shutter on any camera. I don’t know how any of the existing EFCS cameras time the row resets on the sensor. I don’t know if they use dedicated timer circuitry (which could be either analog or digital) or the internal microprocessor with software based timers. I don’t know anything about the specifications of the internal microprocessor. Without knowing any of that, I also don’t know much about exposure consistency across the frame which always varies with shutter speed in an EFCS implementation. With what I know that I don’t know, plus a lot that I do actually know, I can see a number of potential reasons why Canon didn’t give us EFCS in the M6II. Given my lack of understanding of the system, I certainly wouldn’t assume that Canon was forgetful, stupid, nor somehow evil in that decision.

nnowak wrote:

Greg Zillgitt wrote:

I checked a number of manuals, including the M50, R, R6 and 90D. The only one with that verbiage was the 90D. Since it's a close cousin to the M6 II (same image processing electronics, and released at the same time) I'm not surprised.

What is interesting is that the 90D does have 3 shutter modes, including EFCS. I wonder why Canon chose not to implement that firmware code in the M6 II? Cost would have been negligible I would think. Were they afraid of the M6 II cannibalizing 90D sales?

It is more likely that the two cameras are just using different shutter mechanisms and the M6 II is physically incapable of implementing EFCS.

Indeed they must have different shutters, because the M6II shutter is capable of faster bursts.

MAC wrote:

wddxnyr wrote:

I turned off IS in all my tests.

ok, good to know

just for your info:

I tested my 100L that has 4 stop IS -- and there is no shutter shock on my M6Ii at ss 1/60 and 1/80 and above -- the better IS systems -- heavier and more robust like the 100L are not as impacted is my conclusion

It is the small stuff with IS and rubber bands...

It is these smaller IS system in the m zooms that can be impacted

My 55-250 stm I tested has shutter shock at 1/60 and 1/80 but is fine ss 1/100 and above

I'd just say -- know your gear --

I think that's too much to ask for for such a small less than 1000 euro camera. It even cannot be found in the manual. Canon produces only 2 ef-m lenses without IS. Should we adapt expensive BIG and FAT  EF  L  lenses to this compact little camera without internal viewfinder to keep it as compact as possible to get rid of e-shutter?  Common.....

It's a design flaw, and nothing else.

and switch to e-shutter when in the impacted range

generally, with motion I switch to mechanical and ss 1/180 and above

with static subjects -- e-shutter on m6II is a big benefit

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

wddxnyr wrote:

I turned off IS in all my tests.

ok, good to know

just for your info:

I tested my 100L that has 4 stop IS -- and there is no shutter shock on my M6Ii at ss 1/60 and 1/80 and above -- the better IS systems -- heavier and more robust like the 100L are not as impacted is my conclusion

It is the small stuff with IS and rubber bands...

It is these smaller IS system in the m zooms that can be impacted

My 55-250 stm I tested has shutter shock at 1/60 and 1/80 but is fine ss 1/100 and above

I'd just say -- know your gear --

I think that's too much to ask for for such a small less than 1000 euro camera.

I'm not making excuses for it

I wish I didn't have to know the gear for this issue

It even cannot be found in the manual.

true - it is a flaw that they have never admitted to -- therefore, we must know thy gear

Canon produces only 2 ef-m lenses without IS.

that is an interesting statistic -- but the other M's have EFCS -- maybe the M6II was just released as a one off flyer

Should we adapt expensive BIG and FAT EF L lenses to this compact little camera without internal viewfinder to keep it as compact as possible to get rid of e-shutter?

no, but since there is a design flaw, shouldn't we adapt to what we have?

Common.....

how many times did you tell me you'll just have to use e-shutter in the known trouble range

I'm not making excuses for them -- I'm just stating that since they did this, and don't at least give us firmware to shift between e-shutter and m-shutter in trouble zones, then we must adapt to what they gave us

It's a design flaw, and nothing else.

I guess it is, but at least they could give us firmware to make the design flaw easier to use.

I'm not defending them -- I'm saying know your gear so you can adjust

and switch to e-shutter when in the impacted range

generally, with motion I switch to mechanical and ss 1/180 and above

with static subjects -- e-shutter on m6II is a big benefit

Ok

MAC wrote:

wddxnyr wrote:

For this specific feature, I much prefer Sony's implementation. Their apsc sensors are also quite slow, but Sony still allows it. Having this option is certainly better than no option.

Having e-shutter that goes up to 1/16,000 rocks

i don’t think the m50II is a good solution for 1.4 primes in direct sunlight where you would need an ND filter

my RP has the problem of cut off bokeh with F1.4/1.2 primes above ss of 1/1000 starts to become noticeable

so even though there are some considerations when using m6II - I’ll take it for the positives

The reason bokeh is cut off above 1/1000 is because of EFCS, not because of electronic shutter, isn't it?

lumenite wrote:

MAC wrote:

wddxnyr wrote:

For this specific feature, I much prefer Sony's implementation. Their apsc sensors are also quite slow, but Sony still allows it. Having this option is certainly better than no option.

Having e-shutter that goes up to 1/16,000 rocks

i don’t think the m50II is a good solution for 1.4 primes in direct sunlight where you would need an ND filter

my RP has the problem of cut off bokeh with F1.4/1.2 primes above ss of 1/1000 starts to become noticeable

so even though there are some considerations when using m6II - I’ll take it for the positives

The reason bokeh is cut off above 1/1000 is because of EFCS, not because of electronic shutter, isn't it?

yes, it is ridiculous Canon designed the RP this way

that said - I knew this going in and bought my RP mainly for the RF 24-105 F4L which issues are not seen since shutter speeds are slower

you could see some bokeh issues with f1.2/f1.4 lenses used wide open outdoors at high ss but I'm not buying those expensive puppies for the RP

Canon knows how to dumb down

Will they ever launch the camera I want - an m5II with IBIS and EFCS - probably not

MAC wrote:

lumenite wrote:

MAC wrote:

wddxnyr wrote:

For this specific feature, I much prefer Sony's implementation. Their apsc sensors are also quite slow, but Sony still allows it. Having this option is certainly better than no option.

Having e-shutter that goes up to 1/16,000 rocks

i don’t think the m50II is a good solution for 1.4 primes in direct sunlight where you would need an ND filter

my RP has the problem of cut off bokeh with F1.4/1.2 primes above ss of 1/1000 starts to become noticeable

so even though there are some considerations when using m6II - I’ll take it for the positives

The reason bokeh is cut off above 1/1000 is because of EFCS, not because of electronic shutter, isn't it?

yes, it is ridiculous Canon designed the RP this way

Makes more sense than the M6II without EFCS.

Cut off bokeh is only an issue with expensive large aperture primes, not with the RF 35&85mm IS stm lenses, only at faster shutter speeds. The RF f/1.2 primes are the only lenses being able to create cut off bokeh.

You can even work around it with ND-filters.

that said - I knew this going in and bought my RP mainly for the RF 24-105 F4L which issues are not seen since shutter speeds are slower

you could see some bokeh issues with f1.2/f1.4 lenses used wide open outdoors at high ss but I'm not buying those expensive puppies for the RP

Not a whole lot of customers would want to do that I guess.

Canon knows how to dumb down

Yeah, but the most important spec of the RP is price, and another one is size, so it's kind of justified in my opinion. To my eye no EFCS on the M6II is a bigger problem.

Will they ever launch the camera I want - an m5II with IBIS and EFCS - probably not

Not going to happen. It's R5 or only 20Mp or slow AF and no IBIS, or fast AF no IBIS no EFCS or no IBIS no full mechanical. Pick your poison.

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

lumenite wrote:

MAC wrote:

wddxnyr wrote:

For this specific feature, I much prefer Sony's implementation. Their apsc sensors are also quite slow, but Sony still allows it. Having this option is certainly better than no option.

Having e-shutter that goes up to 1/16,000 rocks

i don’t think the m50II is a good solution for 1.4 primes in direct sunlight where you would need an ND filter

my RP has the problem of cut off bokeh with F1.4/1.2 primes above ss of 1/1000 starts to become noticeable

so even though there are some considerations when using m6II - I’ll take it for the positives

The reason bokeh is cut off above 1/1000 is because of EFCS, not because of electronic shutter, isn't it?

yes, it is ridiculous Canon designed the RP this way

Makes more sense than the M6II without EFCS.

I hear you

but given the choice of m6II with e-shutter and no EFCS and M50II with EFCS and no useable e-shutter, and considering the great F1.4 primes, I'd choose M6II over M50II

Cut off bokeh is only an issue with expensive large aperture primes, not with the RF 35&85mm IS stm lenses, only at faster shutter speeds. The RF f/1.2 primes are the only lenses being able to create cut off bokeh.

I hear you

You can even work around it with ND-filters.

yep, but yuk

that said - I knew this going in and bought my RP mainly for the RF 24-105 F4L which issues are not seen since shutter speeds are slower

you could see some bokeh issues with f1.2/f1.4 lenses used wide open outdoors at high ss but I'm not buying those expensive puppies for the RP

Not a whole lot of customers would want to do that I guess.

I might have wanted to, but they threw cold water on it

Canon knows how to dumb down

Yeah, but the most important spec of the RP is price,

yep - I paid $850 for mine

and another one is size,

yep - I can take both m6II and RP in one of my bags when I need the combo

so it's kind of justified in my opinion.

I dunno

To my eye no EFCS on the M6II is a bigger problem.

no useable e-shutter on RP is a bigger issue for me

Will they ever launch the camera I want - an m5II with IBIS and EFCS - probably not

Not going to happen. It's R5

too expensive

or only 20Mp

to few mpxl

or slow AF and no IBIS,

ridiculous in this day and age

or fast AF no IBIS

no excuse for no IBIS

no EFCS

crazy that they left out

or no IBIS no full mechanical.

crazy again

Pick your poison.

technically possible -- dumbing down -- crazy poison

but I've never bought a camera that didn't have compromises -- it is understanding them before you buy -- and they don't teach you these things -- I had to learn on he forums

no useable e-shutter on RP is a bigger issue for me

It’s not perfect, but a workaround is a two shot focus bracket.  Allows you to use any mode in a true silent shutter.  You end up with two of everything with slightly different focus, but if you have to be silent and have to use your settings and only have the RP - there you go.

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

that said - I knew this going in and bought my RP mainly for the RF 24-105 F4L which issues are not seen since shutter speeds are slower

you could see some bokeh issues with f1.2/f1.4 lenses used wide open outdoors at high ss but I'm not buying those expensive puppies for the RP

Not a whole lot of customers would want to do that I guess.

I might have wanted to, but they threw cold water on it

Sorry to hear that. Just get that RF 85mm f/1.2, use a filter, or upgrade to the R.  You won't need more than 4 stops from it to compensate for both cut off bokeh and  the max of 1/4000th. Used Rs aren't crazy expensive, that's another option. The Soft focus version is darker due to the soft focus feature, so that could be helpful too.

The filter is still the best option to my eye. Personally I like the drop in filter adapter with my EF glass. At the end of the day 1/8000th full mechanical isn't always gonna cut it either.

JustUs7 wrote:

no useable e-shutter on RP is a bigger issue for me

It’s not perfect, but a workaround is a two shot focus bracket. Allows you to use any mode in a true silent shutter. You end up with two of everything with slightly different focus, but if you have to be silent and have to use your settings and only have the RP - there you go.

I'm hearing you, may be worth a try when I have enough dof like using my RF 24-105L

not sure I'd do that with the thinner dof of my RF 85 f2 IS

thanks for the suggestion

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

that said - I knew this going in and bought my RP mainly for the RF 24-105 F4L which issues are not seen since shutter speeds are slower

you could see some bokeh issues with f1.2/f1.4 lenses used wide open outdoors at high ss but I'm not buying those expensive puppies for the RP

Not a whole lot of customers would want to do that I guess.

I might have wanted to, but they threw cold water on it

Sorry to hear that. Just get that RF 85mm f/1.2, use a filter, or upgrade to the R.

hmm, believe it or not, I like the RP's classic Canon colors and SOOC look

You won't need more than 4 stops from it to compensate for both cut off bokeh and the max of 1/4000th.

will not happen for me -- I hate filters

Used Rs aren't crazy expensive, that's another option.

I wouldn't buy an R now that I have my M6II

I changed my whole thinking since getting the m6II + M32 + DXO PL5

The Soft focus version is darker due to the soft focus feature, so that could be helpful too.

The filter is still the best option to my eye. Personally I like the drop in filter adapter with my EF glass. At the end of the day 1/8000th full mechanical isn't always gonna cut it either.

I have ss 1/16,000 with my M6II and m32 at f1.4 -- works for me

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

MAC wrote:

that said - I knew this going in and bought my RP mainly for the RF 24-105 F4L which issues are not seen since shutter speeds are slower

you could see some bokeh issues with f1.2/f1.4 lenses used wide open outdoors at high ss but I'm not buying those expensive puppies for the RP

Not a whole lot of customers would want to do that I guess.

I might have wanted to, but they threw cold water on it

Sorry to hear that. Just get that RF 85mm f/1.2, use a filter, or upgrade to the R.

hmm, believe it or not, I like the RP's classic Canon colors and SOOC look

Yeah, I get that. M50 had it too. R5 is also great. The R and M6II are not in the same league.

You won't need more than 4 stops from it to compensate for both cut off bokeh and the max of 1/4000th.

will not happen for me -- I hate filters

O.k.

Used Rs aren't crazy expensive, that's another option.

I wouldn't buy an R now that I have my M6II

I changed my whole thinking since getting the m6II + M32 + DXO PL5

O.k. Makes sense.

The Soft focus version is darker due to the soft focus feature, so that could be helpful too.

The filter is still the best option to my eye. Personally I like the drop in filter adapter with my EF glass. At the end of the day 1/8000th full mechanical isn't always gonna cut it either.

I have ss 1/16,000 with my M6II and m32 at f1.4 -- works for me

Problem solved.