Should I buy the M50 MKII?

I'm had entry level canon DSLRs for about 15 years now. Started with the XSI and then upgraded to the SL1. I have the 50mm prime EF lens for portraits, and the 18-400 Tamron EF-S lens as my walk around lens. (I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses that I don't really use after getting the Tamron).

My SL1 is getting long in the tooth and I'm noticing that while I have better range with the Tamron lens the picture quality is lacking especially compared to my smartphone.

I'm an amateur and mostly take pictures of my kids and vacation pics.

I'm thinking about upgrading. My gut reaction was to get the T8i since it seems like the step up to what I have now. I've been reading that Canon may get out of the DSLR game. Also it seems like it's hard to get the T8i

If I go mirrorless it seems like the price is right with the m50mkII although I'm reading that the M series may get discontinued and I should look to the R10 which is coming out in a month or so. It looks like the R10 would be pricier and there are only 2 lenses out right now.

My questions:

1 is there any reason to still use a DSLR vs mirrorless?

2 If I get the M50 MKII am I losing out by using my 50mm prime and Tamron vs the EF-M lenses (other than the size issue). Since I need the adapter anyway can I just continue to buy efs lenses if I want to get more glass?

2 is there a danger in buying into a "dying" format (M series)

3 what am I losing out on by getting the M50 mkii vs the Canon R10? Is it worth the upgrade?

UNCMo96 wrote:

I'm had entry level canon DSLRs for about 15 years now. Started with the XSI and then upgraded to the SL1. I have the 50mm prime EF lens for portraits, and the 18-400 Tamron EF-S lens as my walk around lens. (I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses that I don't really use after getting the Tamron).

My SL1 is getting long in the tooth and I'm noticing that while I have better range with the Tamron lens the picture quality is lacking especially compared to my smartphone.

I'm an amateur and mostly take pictures of my kids and vacation pics.

I'm thinking about upgrading. My gut reaction was to get the T8i since it seems like the step up to what I have now. I've been reading that Canon may get out of the DSLR game. Also it seems like it's hard to get the T8i

If I go mirrorless it seems like the price is right with the m50mkII although I'm reading that the M series may get discontinued and I should look to the R10 which is coming out in a month or so. It looks like the R10 would be pricier and there are only 2 lenses out right now.

My questions:

1 is there any reason to still use a DSLR vs mirrorless?

No, especially if we use an entry-level DSLR camera.

2 If I get the M50 MKII am I losing out by using my 50mm prime and Tamron vs the EF-M lenses (other than the size issue). Since I need the adapter anyway can I just continue to buy efs lenses if I want to get more glass?

There is a wonderful native lens called Sigma 56mm f/1.4 for the focal length of 50/56mm. Some used EFS lenses might be good options, if not the best.

2 is there a danger in buying into a "dying" format (M series)

3 what am I losing out on by getting the M50 mkii vs the Canon R10? Is it worth the upgrade?

If you want to use some wonderful lenses like EFM 22, 32, and 11-22 right now, you'd better go for M50 mk2. Otherwise, I would go for R10 at this moment. R10 is better than M50 mk2 in every aspect, except its incompatibility with EFM lenses.

UNCMo96 wrote:

I'm had entry level canon DSLRs for about 15 years now. Started with the XSI and then upgraded to the SL1. I have the 50mm prime EF lens for portraits, and the 18-400 Tamron EF-S lens as my walk around lens. (I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses that I don't really use after getting the Tamron).

My SL1 is getting long in the tooth and I'm noticing that while I have better range with the Tamron lens the picture quality is lacking especially compared to my smartphone.

The problem here isn't the camera only, a long range zoom like that 18-400mm isn't the best choice for getting great image quality.

I'm an amateur and mostly take pictures of my kids and vacation pics.

A prime like the ef-m 32mm f/1.4 stm is a wonderful option to shoot pictures of the kids. M50II ef-m 32mm f/1.4 stm might be buying into a sunsetting system, but you'll have to pay very big bucks to get that IQ in another mount.  If Canon discontinues this it's because you're getting to much for the price, so grab it before you can't anymore.

I'm thinking about upgrading. My gut reaction was to get the T8i since it seems like the step up to what I have now. I've been reading that Canon may get out of the DSLR game. Also it seems like it's hard to get the T8i

If I go mirrorless it seems like the price is right with the m50mkII although I'm reading that the M series may get discontinued and I should look to the R10 which is coming out in a month or so. It looks like the R10 would be pricier and there are only 2 lenses out right now.

My questions:

1 is there any reason to still use a DSLR vs mirrorless?

Some prefer the look of the optical viewfinder. The battery life is better.

The benefits of mirrorless are generally more important though.

2 If I get the M50 MKII am I losing out by using my 50mm prime and Tamron vs the EF-M lenses (other than the size issue). Since I need the adapter anyway can I just continue to buy efs lenses if I want to get more glass?

That's possible, although Canon ef-s glass is discontinued (unlike ef-m glass). It won't be a problem to find stuff second hand though.

2 is there a danger in buying into a "dying" format (M series)

If you buy an ef-m lens, don't plan like it's an investment for a longer period than the life span of your camera. That's all.  You've used your current camera for 15 years.  I wouldn't hesitate to buy that 32mm for your next camera.

Ef-s lenses will be adaptable to cameras like the R10 and R7.

3 what am I losing out on by getting the M50 mkii vs the Canon R10? Is it worth the upgrade?

With expensive lenses having fast AF and bright apertures the R10 will be better, as it has the AF to do action. The M50II doesn't have slow AF, but the R10 will track better and faster. The M50II could be easily fast enough though, and the lenses you need to benefit from the AF capabilities of the R10 are pretty expensive.

If you're spending bigger bucks than the M50II + 32mm, I would go with the RP + 24-240mm, and add the RF 50mm f/1.8 for the portraits. At the end of the day R10 is just incremental upgrading, it will cost you more while you will get less.

I think you need to go back to your Canon lenses and then compare.  Don't expect high quality from an 18-400 mm lens.

Although the SL1 is superceded by newer cameras, it's still a fine camera in the right hands.  So is your phone -- maybe.  You need to decide where you think is wrong with the camera before we can advise you.  You should post a picture as an example.

If you're comparing 400 mm pictures with cell phone pictures, then think again.  The phone is worse than lousy at 400 mm.

If M50 is cheaper go for it. I own 2 of them and they are great for events. Mark 2 is not much different than Mark 1.

Yehuda

Any M body will be less bulky than a Rebel or SL body.

Last year, I thoroughly tested the Tamron 18-400 and had lots of fun with the extreme focal range. Especially at the tele end I took a lot of closeups and detail shots.

I made a benchmark test of all my lenses in comparison to a Sony RX 10  IV. After this test I sold the Tamron and the 18-50mm. Both were rather soft at the wide end.

I kept 18-150 which is pretty good, even at wide end. I love the wide angle of the 11-22 mm which I sometimes miss when I take the Sony out. On the other hand, it gives me 600mm reach in compact size.

The M50ii is a nice camera, but for some reason I like the foldable screen versions better.

UNCMo96 wrote:

what am I losing out on by getting the M50 mkii vs the Canon R10? Is it worth the upgrade?

Have you considered the M6 Mark II?

The R10 will have the latest in Eye AF, but I’d put my M6ii’s Spot AF up against it any day.  

Plus the M Series is still smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

R2

+1 for the M6 Mk 2.  I bought a new M6ii about 2 years ago and last fall, I bought a used M50 as a backup camera.  I had read that the M50 was a good camera so was surprised at how disappointed I was with the M50.  But I realized that it was only because, by that point, I was so used to the superior capabilities (in every way) of the M6ii, that I found the M50 to be limiting.  The M6ii is worth the extra bucks.  You won't regret it.

UNCMo96 wrote:

I'm had entry level canon DSLRs for about 15 years now. Started with the XSI and then upgraded to the SL1. I have the 50mm prime EF lens for portraits, and the 18-400 Tamron EF-S lens as my walk around lens. (I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses that I don't really use after getting the Tamron).

My SL1 is getting long in the tooth and I'm noticing that while I have better range with the Tamron lens the picture quality is lacking especially compared to my smartphone.

I'm an amateur and mostly take pictures of my kids and vacation pics.

I'm thinking about upgrading. My gut reaction was to get the T8i since it seems like the step up to what I have now. I've been reading that Canon may get out of the DSLR game. Also it seems like it's hard to get the T8i

If I go mirrorless it seems like the price is right with the m50mkII although I'm reading that the M series may get discontinued and I should look to the R10 which is coming out in a month or so. It looks like the R10 would be pricier and there are only 2 lenses out right now.

My questions:

1 is there any reason to still use a DSLR vs mirrorless?

no reason to buy a new a DSLR today  ..i take my old 5D out the other day and think how the hell did i manage with this ...my R6 has spoilt me

2 If I get the M50 MKII am I losing out by using my 50mm prime and Tamron vs the EF-M lenses (other than the size issue). Since I need the adapter anyway can I just continue to buy efs lenses if I want to get more glass?

yes and no... there is not an M lens to replace the Tamron ..for the price there's nothing in M mount to match the EF50 .. there is a sigma 56F1,4 which is faster and probably sharper but more expensive

2 is there a danger in buying into a "dying" format (M series)

yes ..if you want a flagship body with an EVF it died some time ago

3 what am I losing out on by getting the M50 mkii vs the Canon R10? Is it worth the upgrade?

amazing AF eye AF animal and people ....blazing frame rates future lens development

4 what are you losing if you get the R10

the M has the best compact to IQ ratio available ...the 11-22 lens is unique, its the smallest and sharpest UWA available for APS-c ...ho and the cheapest   the 22f2 is amazing for its price as well the EF-m 32 F1.4 is excellent, and not too pricy...you may find with R mount it may end up like EF with a cheap 50mm lenses or costing an arm and a leg for a very good one  ..at the mo there is nothing to replace the 11-22 ..you would have to use the EF-s 10-18

Me the advantages of FF are a strong pull and would look at the RP for depth of field control and low light ability ...

UNCMo96 wrote:

I'm had entry level canon DSLRs for about 15 years now. Started with the XSI and then upgraded to the SL1. I have the 50mm prime EF lens for portraits, and the 18-400 Tamron EF-S lens as my walk around lens. (I also have the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses that I don't really use after getting the Tamron).

My SL1 is getting long in the tooth and I'm noticing that while I have better range with the Tamron lens the picture quality is lacking especially compared to my smartphone.

I'm an amateur and mostly take pictures of my kids and vacation pics.

I'm thinking about upgrading. My gut reaction was to get the T8i since it seems like the step up to what I have now. I've been reading that Canon may get out of the DSLR game. Also it seems like it's hard to get the T8i

If I go mirrorless it seems like the price is right with the m50mkII although I'm reading that the M series may get discontinued and I should look to the R10 which is coming out in a month or so. It looks like the R10 would be pricier and there are only 2 lenses out right now.

My questions:

1 is there any reason to still use a DSLR vs mirrorless?

Battery life, cost. In some cases DSLRs are cheaper. Battery life is almost always better on a DSLR. Now DSLRs can't do things like eye-AF, and are bigger, heavier, too.

2 If I get the M50 MKII am I losing out by using my 50mm prime and Tamron vs the EF-M lenses (other than the size issue). Since I need the adapter anyway can I just continue to buy efs lenses if I want to get more glass?

No.

2 is there a danger in buying into a "dying" format (M series)

Less danger than buying a T8i. M should still be produced for a few more years. That's a long time in many industries.

3 what am I losing out on by getting the M50 mkii vs the Canon R10? Is it worth the upgrade?

Uncropped 4K, access to crop + RF mount. The RF 100-400 + R10 or R7 are a fierce sports / birding combo.

.

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest you look at the SL2 and SL3. Nowhere have you said you want smaller, lighter or more powerful, just better image quality. The SL1 uses the ancient 60D sensor and DIGIC5 processor. The SL2 by contrast uses the less ancient 80D sensor and DIGIC7 processor. Huge steps up. SL3 uses the DIGIC8. I would do an SL2 or T7i. The T8i isn't a huge step up over the T7i, nor is the SL3 a huge step up over the SL2. VERY incremental. Like almost what's the point, no offense to the T8i/SL3.

.

Where I'll say the M50 II makes sense, is with EF-M glass. EF-M glass makes the M50 package tiny, lightweight, and powerful. Some of the M glass is not available in the EF-S format, or is as good. The 11-22 for example is silly sharp for an inexpensive ultra wide zoom lens. The 22 and 32mm primes are f/2 and f/1.4 respectively; Canon never did a crop prime that fast for the EF-S mount. DIGIC8 although a powerful processor, it's largely wasted on the T8i; most of the benefits of improved processing are on mirrorless platforms, like the M50 II, M6 II or even original M50.

Adapting glass is fine and dandy, but if that's your intent, consider the SL2/SL3 and T7i, or T8i, if you can find one to your point. Once you add an adapter, permanently, to the M50 II, it's got more bulk than an SL2 or SL3...

UNCMo96 wrote:

My SL1 is getting long in the tooth and I'm noticing that while I have better range with the Tamron lens the picture quality is lacking especially compared to my smartphone.

I have to ask if you're certain that the camera body is the (only) limiting factor?  Would you want to also upgrade any lenses?

And how about your post-processing?  If you're looking for an IQ upgrade, then shooting RAW and processing with DxO's Photolab 5 will arguably provide an even greater benefit.  And the nice thing is, is that Photolab 5's Deep Prime noise reduction will benefit any platform you are shooting with (even your current camera).  Try it out free for a month!

R2

I forgot to mention that I got the DC2 EVF for free bundled with my M6ii.  I have since bought the DC1 EVF for under $100 used because I like the fact that it can rotate upward which is very useful when doing astrophotography.  That's another thing that the built-in EVFs can't do (as far as I know).

I find the ability to choose whether to use the DC1, DC2 or no EVF preferable to the built-in one on the M50.  The only drawback that I'm aware of wrt the detachable EVF is that you can't use the hot-shoe for anything else when the EVF is attached.  But that hasn't impacted me in the past 2 years.

B_Gardner wrote:

I forgot to mention that I got the DC2 EVF for free bundled with my M6ii. I have since bought the DC1 EVF for under $100 used because I like the fact that it can rotate upward which is very useful when doing astrophotography. That's another thing that the built-in EVFs can't do (as far as I know).

I find the ability to choose whether to use the DC1, DC2 or no EVF preferable to the built-in one on the M50. The only drawback that I'm aware of wrt the detachable EVF is that you can't use the hot-shoe for anything else when the EVF is attached.

That's not the only downside for me.  When you like to have your EVF attached permanently your camera is also bigger. That external EVF sticks out significantly further than an integrated EVF. Removing it when putting in the bag and attaching it before shooting all the time is cumbersome.

But that hasn't impacted me in the past 2 years.

thunder storm wrote:

B_Gardner wrote:

I forgot to mention that I got the DC2 EVF for free bundled with my M6ii. I have since bought the DC1 EVF for under $100 used because I like the fact that it can rotate upward which is very useful when doing astrophotography. That's another thing that the built-in EVFs can't do (as far as I know).

I find the ability to choose whether to use the DC1, DC2 or no EVF preferable to the built-in one on the M50. The only drawback that I'm aware of wrt the detachable EVF is that you can't use the hot-shoe for anything else when the EVF is attached.

That's not the only downside for me. When you like to have your EVF attached permanently your camera is also bigger. That external EVF sticks out significantly further than an integrated EVF. Removing it when putting in the bag and attaching it before shooting all the time is cumbersome.

Well there’s a pretty solid percentage of us who actually prefer to use the back LCD instead of an EVF (one of the reasons I so love the M6ii’s ultra-fast tilting screen   ).

Personally I believe that using the LCD promotes creative photography (or at least more creative angles).  It’s also a benefit with many other aspects of my own photography.

R2

Let me admit I've used the flippy screen with the Samyang fisheye. Fortunately there is forgiveness for sinners.