M6 mk ii vs. R7 for the video

I understand this being a forum for the M line people want to justify staying with the M.  I have M lenses too.  However considering the switch and most people don't talk about video.  I want to use the camera for multiple things including video.  I don't know much about the specs other than they say the 30P and 24P is oversampled on the r7 and the only 4K mode on the M6 mk. ii is 30P.  I also notice almost no one posts examples of videos and it is hard to find any representations of quality video of M6 mk. ii on YouTube.

Are people staying with M6 and are happy with the quality of their 4k video?  Are others relying on video as the reason to leave the m6 mk. II?

I also want to know if the video on the R7 is really that good - I was not impressed with the ice rink examples they posted in the reviews.  I may have to wait to see people posting video with the R7 - is anyone vary familiar with video specs between different cameras able to weigh in on this?

Ill stick with my M6mii; considering the weight of the R7 and the lenses. Then considering the cost of the R7 and the cost of the R lenses; I will definitely stick with the M6mii. Some out there may have a suite of EF lenses they can adapt to the R, or have lenses they would trade to fill the money gaps. I purchased the M6mii within the last few years, and filled out the lens list, as I had been using long zoom point and shoots since film died out. I was not interested in going to a full frame or other camera because of the lenses and the weight. The point and shoot was fine for my needs. However, even the one inch sensor point and shoots were lacking in some areas thus the move to the M6mii

Tomsop wrote:

I understand this being a forum for the M line people want to justify staying with the M. I have M lenses too. However considering the switch and most people don't talk about video. I want to use the camera for multiple things including video. I don't know much about the specs other than they say the 30P and 24P is oversampled on the r7 and the only 4K mode on the M6 mk. ii is 30P. I also notice almost no one posts examples of videos and it is hard to find any representations of quality video of M6 mk. ii on YouTube.

Are people staying with M6 and are happy with the quality of their 4k video? Are others relying on video as the reason to leave the m6 mk. II?

I also want to know if the video on the R7 is really that good - I was not impressed with the ice rink examples they posted in the reviews. I may have to wait to see people posting video with the R7 - is anyone vary familiar with video specs between different cameras able to weigh in on this?

The R7 oversamples 4K, the M6 II does not, it bins pixels.

The R7 has multiple format and codec support, the M6 II does not.

The R7 has C-LOG, the M6 II does not.

The R7 has IBIS, which gives aided IS and corrects for tilt and rotation, the M6 II does not...

.

Not to mention the R7 has much longer video recording limits...

Now is the M6 II capable with video? Absolutely. It's got Canon's DPAF, Canon's colors and really good 1080P output not to mention the 4K even though binned, has fast readout which for 4K, is a big deal as rolling shutter can ruin that lovely 4K.

Put it this way, compared to Sony and Fuji the M6 II leaves em in the dust. Sony has poor SOOC colors and readout speeds. Fuji hunts in video AF, even the new X-H2 the early firmware still hunts, bad, per the Fuji forum, just as the X-T4 and others do. But as much as the M6 II leaves competition in the dust, the M6 II gets left in the dust by the R7. Much of your poor first impression is likely due to sample footage being compressed for web viewing. I have no doubt the R7 is a video powerhouse. Also, keep in mind that pre-release cameras like the R7, may have limited post-processing options until major vendors produce support. Any footage coming out of pre-prod cameras, may have limited or no grading performed. SOOC essentially which in the video world for best results, well, best results are graded ones.

Now the M6 II is no slouch, I'm very happy with it's output as a general consumer, it just "does it" vs other solutions like say the Sony you need to grade (and color match) your footage and be careful of rolling shutter or the Fuji you need to watch your AF / shoot MF. But yes, the R7 resolves the arguably intentional cripples Canon put in the M6 II as a consumer grade product. The R7 is more geared towards video pros, absolutely.

I'm staying with the M as the R7/10 are much larger, and their lenses footprint in native crop format is, ho hum. And given Canon's track record towards crop glass (EF-S anyone?), I wouldn't count on Canon giving the R7 or R10 the glass consumers want.

Now video and birding are huge reasons to go R7/R10. But as a general shooter? The M system is smaller, cheaper, and has access to more compact, powerful glass. So long as you don't want a fast zoom. Those do better on FF R's though in all honesty. I've adapted and also looked at similar offerings like the Sony 16-55 f/2.8G, there's only so much you can "cheat" physics. A faster zoom will be a larger one, there's just no way around it. Well, except for Canon's PowerShots where the optical formula is even more optimized for virtually zero flange distance and is self-collapsing. But that's not a MILC anymore, that's a point and shoot. And Canon will probably never make that aggressive of a point and shoot ever again.

mstMuc wrote:

R7 is the more capable camera because it’s using the latest digic chip and algorithms.
It’s just: do you really need the difference?
At least if social media is target then the differences are negligible …

Different CMOS chip I gather too, probably faster readout version of the 90D sensor with IBIS. That and DIGIC X.

There's a little more than compute alone going on here.

Haven't done any real comparision but 4K output from my EOS R and M6 mk II look really nice on my 13" MacBook Air screen

All in all, it comes down to what you are willing to spend, or what you can justify.

KoolKool wrote:

if you want APS-C camera that shoot sharp and vibrant 4K video, you better stay away from Canon in first place.

R7 is beg to different since it's oversampling from 7k so way theroratically it should be shaper than any other apsc with only 24mp.

Anyway I pre-ordered the R7 for video as the little brother to the R5c and C70 we got. M6ii 4k is really not usable if you want to punch in 150% in post, it just way too soft!

On the 5k iMac screen u can tell the difference between pixel binned vs supersampled 4k easily.

KEG wrote:

Haven't done any real comparision but 4K output from my EOS R and M6 mk II look really nice on my 13" MacBook Air screen

Did a quick comparision between R and M6ii, R thankfully wins due to ALL-I but the output from EOS M6 looks very good and is pretty sharp on my 65" 4K tv.

Day:

Night (spectacular):

I shoot Canon R5 8K RAW videos too.

nnowak wrote:

The M6 II uses line skipping and pixel binning when shooting 4k video. A bunch of the data is just thrown away. Both the R10 and R7 are reading out the entire sensor and then downscaling to 4k. Both the R10 and R7 are capable of capturing higher quality video than the M6 II. The difference comes down to the much faster sensor readout speeds of the R10 and R7.

Shouldn't people actually wait for production R10s and R7s before they get declared a winner in 4K, I have both EOS R and M6 mk II and the R is better due to ALL-I in my opinion.

Markr041 wrote:

Day:

Night (spectacular):

I shoot Canon R5 8K RAW videos too.

1440p at least looks pretty nice and sharp.

A Sharma wrote:

I own and enjoy both the M6 II and R7, but I've been using the R7 exclusively for stills (for birding mostly). Although I'm not much of a videographer, once a week I'm asked to shoot some training videos for a dog agility class, and I've generally used the M6 II mostly because of my greater familiarity with it. But today for the first time, I decided to shoot with the R7, using the same 18-150 mm kit I use for the M6 II. In addition to animal subject tracking, the oversampled image quality was distinctly better, which actually surprised me. Moreover, improved co-ordination between the lens IS and the R7 IBIS was noticeable. I didn't have much use for the 4k60p (vs 4k30p), but that might also be an advantage. That said, I'm pretty sure that no one in the class cares about the difference, since the videos are intended only for training purposes

Thanks for reactivating the thread and sharing your experiences. It's good to hear some real-world first impressions of the difference. Great to hear improvements with coordination of the 18-150 as well.

The M6ii is limited in 4k video by the speed (generation) of its processors, so it's not a big surprise the R7 would produce better oversampled video.

If they can put out more RF-S lenses for the R7, at least the counterpart to the EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM, the R7 would become much more tempting to some of us. The 11-22 is a popular vlogging lens for the M6ii and M50ii and kind of a staple zoom to go with the 18-150.